By J. Depczyk
Nina Fedoroff begins as science and technology adviser to the US state
department.
Nina Fedoroff is a plant geneticist who has won many accolades for her
work in crop productivity and is a staunch proponent of sowing genetically
modified (GM) crops in Africa. She could now be facing her toughest
challenge yet. Fedoroff is the new science and technology adviser to US
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

The woman who was the first to clone transposons - segments of DNA
that can switch position on the genome, changing the expression of genes -
is now charged with briefing Rice and other officials on the scientific
aspects of foreign policy and improving science literacy in the department.
But some of her well known opinions could cause friction. She's opposed to
the push to produce ethanol from maize (corn), which the Bush administration
supports. And her stance on genetic engineering contrasts with those of many
African countries and of the Alliance for a Green Revolution for Africa, a
partnership founded by the Rockefeller Foundation and the Bill & Melinda
Gates Foundation.

Fedoroff, who recently won a National Medal of Science, is also an
author of Mendel in the Kitchen (National Academy Press, 2004), which argues
that GM crops are the most environmentally responsible way to feed the
world.

An interview by Emma Marris:

You use the phrase 'molecular modification' rather than 'genetic
engineering'. Why?

I think part of the reason that people go 'eew!' is because
engineering is something that we do to buildings, not to plants. All of
agriculture, all of modifying plants to suit people as opposed to their own
survival, is about molecular modification.

Are GM crops high on your agenda?

Yes. I will use as much influence as I have to promote that issue.
Africa was left behind by the green revolution. We are up against the limits
of what we can do on the planet. The amount of land under cultivation has,
to a first approximation, not changed in more than half a century. And we
are adding around 70 million people a year. Where do people think the food
will come from? My basic belief is that we can't solve the political
problems of the world as long as we have people that can't grow as much food
as they consume.

Will biotechnology help food crops adapt to climate change?

We don't know what is going to happen with climate change, but
stressing plants decreases their productivity. The plant hunkers down and
tries to survive. So understanding the relationship between stress and
depositing sugar as starch - which is what productivity is about - is really
important. How do you increase tolerance of stress, whether from drought or
extremes of temperature, without compromising productivity?

So how do you see that field developing?

It is a complicated issue and the funding is pathetic. It has now
moved into the private sector, and companies are in the business of making
money, not sharing science.

What's your stance on maize ethanol?

People need to understand that if you grow maize for ethanol, you
drive up the price of the maize. Brazil turns sugar into ethanol and it
drives up the price of sugar. Now the World Food Programme can buy less and
feed fewer people. Ethanol from maize is not going to solve the world's
energy problems, it is going to exacerbate them. And ethanol combustion
produces the same carbon dioxide emissions as gasoline. Besides, think about
the millions of years of photosynthesis that are deposited in oil that we
burned through in 100 years. You can't recreate that process from an annual
photosynthetic harvest.

Are you going to be able to voice your opinions publicly on matters
like this without checking with the administration first?

I don't know. Ask me in six months. But I am a person who tends to
work behind the scenes.

What will you focus on first?

There is a huge number of issues. On my first day of work I am going
to a briefing on the state of containment of polio. There's smallpox,
there's bird flu. Whether it is global climate change, agriculture,
disease - all these things are so intertwined...

Do you fear that you will be asked to politicize science?

I simply don't know what I'll be asked. I think the only sensible way
I can answer is that in politics short-term goals often win out over
long-term goals, and that is certainly the determining factor in many
decisions. I know that there are a lot of rumours about the politicization
of science, and I think I would not be responsible if I said I know what the
truth is.


[www.nature.com]