By Carrie Cantrell, May 2025.
The first thing I noticed when I joined Oregon State University's BioTech Insights project was the weight of contradictions. As a student content creator tasked with making biotechnology more accessible, I found myself standing at the intersection of scientific optimism and ecological caution—a space I've occupied most of my life growing up in the Appalachian Mountains, where reverence for forests and natural ecosystems coexists with modern demands for energy, manufacturing, and jobs.
Our team's recent interview with Mark Lynas left me with more questions than answers. "I was spreading misinformation as an anti-GMO activist," he admitted with surprising candor. His journey from sabotaging GMO crop trials to becoming one of biotechnology's most vocal defenders mirrors the complicated relationship many of us have with science and technology—a mixture of enthusiasm, skepticism, and the willingness to believe when the evidence supports it.
The Science at Stake
The stakes of this conversation extend far beyond messaging strategies. At Oregon State University, researchers led by Dr. Steven Strauss recently received $2.84 million from the National Science Foundation to study how natural variation in Agrobacterium can improve genetic modification of woody plants (NSF, 2024).
This bacterium, which naturally transfers DNA into plant cells, has become a fundamental tool in plant biotechnology. The research could yield insights into developing disease-resistant trees and more climate-resilient forests – outcomes with significant environmental implications in the face of climate change.
The Culture of Inquiry
This is where I come in. The work we're documenting isn't happening in a vacuum.
Strauss directs the Tree Genetic Engineering Research Cooperative (TGERC), which has long-standing partnerships with industry players like Boise Cascade and Weyerhaeuser. Their research includes developing non-flowering trees and studying gene flow from plantations—work with profound implications for forestry and climate resilience.
As I craft content about this research, and PlantTransformation in general, I can't help but question my role. When the culture of scientific inquiry intersects with commercial interests, where do educational outreach efforts like ours fit in? The 2015 New York Times investigation revealing how companies like Monsanto recruited academics to defend their products haunts me. Behind reassuring public statements about independent research, emails showed companies suggesting language for scientists' responses and paying for their travel to testify (Lipton, 2015).
"Nobody tells me what to say, and nobody tells me what to think," one professor insisted—yet later acknowledged that industry connections created the perception of bias. This tension exists at the heart of contemporary science communication: how do we foster genuine public conversations about science when commercial interests, activist groups, and academic researchers all have different stakes in the outcome?
When Dialogue Breaks Down
The space for evidence-based dialogue seems increasingly fragile. In 2001, the Center for Urban Horticulture at the University of Washington was firebombed by extremists targeting transgenic tree research, similar to what is being explored today at OSU. The poorly planned, openly political attack didn't destroy the targeted studies, but unrelated work on endangered plant restoration and wetland ecology (Wolfe, 2022).
"The question after Sept. 11," former FBI domestic terrorism chief James Jarboe explained, "was 'Who else wants body bags?'" (Terrorism in the United States, 1999). This fear-driven response led to a crackdown that labeled environmental activists as "terrorists," regardless of whether their actions targeted property or people.
Lynas points to how attitudes towards science have migrated politics today, remarking that anti-vaccine lifestyle’s “used to be a left-wing sort of phenomenon… And that sort of migrated, or morphed, really, along with the whole kind of ‘naturalist/wellness’ movement onto the far-right”.
When science becomes politicized, evidence-based decision-making suffers. Climate scientist Richard Lewontin has warned against biological reductionism, determinism, and essentialism – oversimplifications that can lead to misguided policies (Lewontin, 2003). These simplistic frameworks often flourish in spaces where scientific literacy is limited.
Wisdom to Move Forward
The BioTech Insights project represents one attempt to create a more nuanced conversation about biotechnology – one that acknowledges both scientific possibilities and legitimate public concerns. Through multimedia storytelling and educational content, the project aims to demystify biotechnology while respecting diverse sources of wisdom, both modern and traditional.
Indigenous understandings of ecology are not compartmentalized into discrete scientific disciplines but integrated into a holistic worldview where humans are participants in nature, not its masters. The Coast Salish peoples have lived in relationship with the forests and waters of the Pacific Northwest since time immemorial.
This perspective echoes the Ubuntu philosophy from African traditions, which sees human relationships "as a microcosm of the relationality within the universe" (Le Grange, 2012). When I consider biotechnology through these lenses, different questions emerge: How might these technologies affect not just individual species, but the complex web of relationships that sustain ecosystems?
The concept of reciprocity—giving back in proportion to what we take—feels absent from many technological narratives focused solely on efficiency and yield. Yet this principle seems essential if we're to create truly sustainable systems.
The Science of Now
Climate change isn't an abstraction anymore. Two summers ago, I watched smoke from wildfires turn the Oregon sky an apocalyptic orange. Last summer, friends in California evacuated their homes as flames approached. The urgency of our environmental crisis makes it tempting to reach for technological solutions.
"If we'd never adopted biotech solutions or any form of genetic engineering, we wouldn't have had a COVID vaccine," Lynas pointed out in our interview. "These are technologies which have incredible power and usefulness across numerous fields."
He's not wrong. But as climate activist Andreas Malm argues, the focus on technological innovation can sometimes distract from more fundamental changes needed in our economic and political systems (Wolfe, 2022). Is our work on the BioTech Insights project contributing to genuine solutions, or sophisticated forms of delay?
The statistics are sobering. In the 16 years since environmental activist Joseph Dibee was indicted for his role in eco-sabotage, "the world has collectively pumped about 500 billion more tons of carbon into the atmosphere" (Wolfe, 2022). This context makes both technological optimism and radical action more understandable, if not always more effective.
Finding My Optimistic Side
What gives me hope is the possibility of creating spaces for genuine dialogue. I'm learning to sit with the discomfort of contradictions—to acknowledge both the potential benefits of biotechnology and the legitimate concerns about its development and deployment.
As Lynas suggests in his interview, perhaps the most productive approach is one of intellectual humility: "If I had to communicate one key message about biotechnology to a skeptical audience, well, it's ... I was wrong. You might be wrong." In his interview with BioTech Talks, he relayed the comfortability this creates as a communicator with his audiences. "It's a very different way to approach people than saying, ‘Hey, I'm a scientist. I know everything’."
This openness to new evidence—combined with respect for traditional knowledge and transparent research practices—offers a path toward addressing our most pressing environmental challenges.
My status as a student—still learning, still questioning—might be my greatest asset. I don't have all the answers, and I don't have to pretend that I do. I will be wrong, and what a relief.
An Invitation to Community Action
This is where you should speak up. Our project's success depends not just on what we create, but on how you respond to it. What questions do you have about biotechnology? What concerns? What hopes? What perspectives might we be missing? Where are we wrong?
The path forward requires collective wisdom. It requires traditional knowledge and cutting-edge science, skepticism and openness, caution, and courage. It requires acknowledging that we are all embedded in systems that shape our thinking, while still believing in our capacity to think critically within those systems.
I believe we can create a better future together—one that harnesses human ingenuity while respecting ecological limits. But that future will not emerge from technological innovation alone. It will emerge from the conversations we have about what kind of world we want to create, and how science and technology might help us create it.
The culture of scientific inquiry itself depends on this dialogue—not just between experts, but between all of us who have a stake in its outcomes. As we navigate these crosscurrents of hope, skepticism, and urgent need, I invite you to join the conversation. Your voice matters.
You can find BioTech Insights all over the web, and sure to pop up in more places as our conversation grows. For now you can find our long-form podcasts over on Spotify and YouTube, and our short-form explainers and teasers TikTok and Instagram. Put your words in the comment sections to make your voices and opinions heard.
References
Le Grange, L. (2012). Ubuntu, ukama and the healing of nature, self, and society. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 44, 56-67.
Lewontin, Richard. (2003, November 12). The Organism as Subject and Object of Evolution (lecture).
Lipton, E. (2015, September 5). Food industry enlisted academics in G.M.O. lobbying war, emails show. The New York Times.
National Science Foundation. (2024). NSF Award Search: Award # 2424938 - PlantTransform: Leveraging diversity of wild Agrobacterium to enhance woody plant transformation and regeneration.
Terrorism in the United States. (1999). Counterterrorism Threat Assessment and Warning Unit, Counterterrorism Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Wolfe, M. (2022, May 26). The rise and fall of America's environmentalist underground. The New York Times.
Author's Disclosure and Perspective Statement
I am a student content creator participating in Oregon State University's BioTech Insights project, which receives funding to make biotechnology research more accessible to public audiences. This work brings me into regular contact with OSU researchers, including Dr. Steven Strauss and the Tree Genetic Engineering Research Cooperative, whose work is discussed in this article.
While I strive to present multiple perspectives fairly, readers should know that my role in promoting scientific literacy may predispose me toward viewing research and dialogue as pathways to solutions. I have made deliberate efforts to include critical voices, examine potential conflicts of interest in scientific research, and acknowledge the limitations of technological approaches to environmental challenges.
The interviews and research cited in this piece were conducted as part of my educational work at OSU. I have no financial relationships with biotechnology companies or environmental activist organizations beyond my student position. All sources are identified, and I encourage readers to examine primary materials and seek additional perspectives when forming their own conclusions about these complex issues.