GENETIC EROSION, HUMAN ENVIRONMENT AND ETHNOBIODIVERSITY STUDIES
Attila T. Szabó
University of Veszprém, Institute of Biology, Botanical Dept.,
Veszprém, Hungary

Previous Chapter Table Of Contents Next Chapter

 

"No perfect discovery can be made upon a flat or a level:
neither is it possible to discover
the more remote or deeper parts of any science,
if you stand but upon the level of the same science
and ascend not to a higher science"

F. Bacon (1605)
E. O. Wilson (1998)

Abstract

Szabó T.A., 1999, Genetic erosion, human environment and ethnobiodiversity studies. Preprint in: Bio Tár Electronic. Germoplasma BTN 766: 1-16. Bge766ba99050604 Praga, W: http://genetics.bdtf.hu and http://vebi.vein.hu (under construction)

Human diversity and human environment are in a complex cause and effect relationship termed agrobiodiversity, bio-cultural diversity or ethnobiodiversity. Ethnobiodiversity is coined for the study of complex interactions between the genetic diversity of wild and domesticated organisms and that of needs, tastes and preferences of domesticators/cultivators. Some components of this interaction are well studied and fairly well understood but others are sensitive and neglected.

Started from an ethnobotanical approach this paper focuses on new trends and possibilities for understanding the role of the human (biological) components in the evolution of biodiversity better.

Human populations are traditionally and commonly organised along ethnocultural lines. Without overlooking � but not dealing with � the differences between ethnicity (ethnographically defined) and nationality (politically defined and with no meaning in ethnobiodiversity studies) the paper reviews the present interdisciplinary trends in the study of human diversity in order to identify the components which are potentially significant for "in situ" and "on farm" preservation of genetic resources.

The theoretical approach is based mostly on views published in the last 2-3 years in world top science periodicals: Nature � London, and Science � Washington DC. Case studies (results not presented here) have been performed in the Alp � Balkan � Carpathian � Danube (ABCD) areas. These studies have been focused mostly on ethnobotany and aedobotany, ancient Einkorn wheat (Triticum monococcum), garden and forage legumes (Phaseolus spp., Trifolium spp.), environmentally significant non-industrial sunflower landraces (Helianthus annuus gr. ramosus), and fruits (Malus sp.). These studies revealed the importance of the ethnocultural component in genetic resource protection.

One main conclusion is that landrace conservation in the present and in the future is influenced by the loss of traditions, ethn(ograph)ic identity, as well as by drastic political interventions. There are "ethnically sensitive" and "ethnically non-sensitive" landraces in almost every taxonomical and geographical situation. As some highly vulnerable genetic resources and very sensitive ethnic groups seem to be interconnected, ancient crop genetic diversity may be worthy of study in a more general context � even that of the evolution of science.

Key words: genetic resources, germplasm conservation, sustainability, ethnobotany, ethnobiodiversity, evolution of science

Acknowledgements: The author wishes to acknowledge the generous help of Helen Macbeth (Oxford University Brooks) and Anna Szabó T. (ELTE, Budapest) in the grammatical revision of the text.

  1. Introduction

    2. The evolutionary dynamics and transformation of genetic information during historical times was considered before Darwin, i.e. about 150 years ago �the mystery of mysteries" (J. Herschel 1836 cf. Ruse 1999 ap. Hull 1999).

    Now the problem we face is, that the present day dynamics of genetic resources (genetic erosion, genetic conservation, etc.) are a dead end for evolution, or it really represent a new balance between the harsh selection pressure of socio-economical origin from one side, and a new creative force of social origin (scientific breeding) on the other side.

    Environmental protection, nature conservation and man directed evolution: all are centred in essence on the quantity and quality of the biological information. The matter and the energy available for life was practically the same for long geological periods. What changed continuously was the genetic information running the system.

    Scientists generally perform science without thinking too much about it. Sometimes it is good to step back and look what is going on: is science really progressive ? Perhaps it is. But scientists are strongly influenced by their cultures. The two extreme positions of constructivists (1) and positivists (2) are rather clear:

    1. Scientists are helpless victims in the maws of their societies: We all believe what our societies force us to believe and our scientific beliefs all have a social origin. If so: even the constructivist has no choice against his society !

    2. Science is completely devoid of all social considerations: Reason, argument and evidence are all that matter in science. If so, arguing for positivism is metaphysical � but metaphysics is nonsense (according to positivists themselves)!

    The war between constructivists and positivists is as old as science itself. Quite characteristically, but strangely enough, combatants on both sides generally insist that they never held views for which they are (ill)famous. In reality the difference between the sides is in the estimation of relative importance. But how do we decide the relative importance of biological and social (cultural, scientific) factors for example in the preservation of landraces?

    There is a danger of circularity. Looking at scientific progress with the methods of science is like a mirror facing a mirror. If we look at the progress of scientific paradigms in some other ways, for example ideologically determined, or with the eyes of politicians the outcome is even more dangerous. Biology (especially genetics and ethnicity) in Central- and Eastern-Europe has a very sad experience in this respect (Hitlerism, Stalinism/Lisenkoism, etc.). There are good reasons to believe that interdisciplinary scientific progress was badly affected in these fields.

    Science is a cultural construct. It may be regarded even as a communal belief system, sometimes with a dubious grip on reality (Dallas 1999). Science and scientists surely cannot be separated from the general cultural realities of the time and the special cultural position of the group which is working on a specific scientific topic (Gottfried and Wilson 1997). This is especially true in the case of such sensitive issues as ethnobiodiversity, which is interdisciplinary by definition.

    The term ethnobiodiversity was coined for the study of complex these interactions between the genetic diversity of wild and domesticated organisms and that of needs, tastes and preferences of domesticators and (traditional) breeders/users. Some components of this interactions are well studied and fairly well understood but others are sensitive and neglected. Ethnobiodiversity is just a small, but a fairly neglected component of bio-cultural diversity (agrobiodiversity).

    Interdisciplinarity frequently faces the problem of large gaps between the belief in and the reality of a given approach. The integration of research and acceptance of the research results (e.g. for education) is also difficult. We use here the ideas coming "bottom up" i.e. from the practical researchers, looking at people who, against substantial cultural and economic odds, have reached out to the other fields, merging different perspectives and creating new ideas, even new fields (Metzger et Zare 1999).

    In ethnobiodiversity studies a further special risk is a kind of "anthropological uncertainty principle": The subject of study is often the group to which the scientist belongs (Konner 1999).

    The lack of assimilation of science by the arts and humanities was stressed most expressively 40 years ago by Snow (1959). The reverse is also true: Nature (London) in his editorial states that it is absolutely necessary even for natural sciences "� to achieve more understanding � of cultural and societal realities � without which novel food technology � can not be intensively promoted or introduce and fail to be accepted � /and/ � naivity should be avoided where cultural antipathies are very much alive �".

    With the advance of the Human Genome Project scientists became increasingly aware that human phenetic and behavioural diversity is based mostly on genetic diversity: the diversity DNA sequences transcribed to structural and functional proteins. The allelic variability determines the variability of enzymes and receptors which may deeply affect food habits and preferences regarding food colour, taste, smell, etc. Such preferences, acting continuously for millenia during traditional ancestral selection practices, are largely unknown. There is a growing interest toward studies approaching such issues (e.g. studies of Caterina et al. 1999 for capsicin receptors, Leyman et al. 1999 for tobacco syntaxin, DeLyser 1994 for hop, Walter et al. 1999 for ancient makeup practices).

    Palaeo-anthropology is increasingly interested in food preferences, details regarding the genetic diversity and environment use of ancient human populations, character evaluation of Neolithic people (Culotta 1999). Balmford et Gaston (1999) found colours preferred by "stone-age" Melanesian ethnic groups were in categories quite different from those of Europoids. Pääbo (1999) or Wang et al. (1999) found unexpected selection criteria for Neolithic maize domesticators.

    Sokal et al. (1993) examining 420 records of ethnic locations and movements found that language family vectors and ethnohistorical affinities were correlated with genetic distances based on 26 genetic systems (behaviourally significant traits acting during the domestication were not tested). The group found that sequence of the movements does not seem to matter in Europe, but the geographic location of the group does.

    Cavalli-Sforza et al. (1994) in a by far the most complete synthesis ever attempted for current knowledge of geographical variation in human gene frequencies examined the distribution of allelic forms of 128 genes in 491 human populations and 166 population aggregates. They visualised on 518 maps the distribution of individual alleles in different human populations representing more or less each continent. In this encyclopaedia of world human population genetics and cultural anthropology (including even linguistics) not even one genetic system connected with animal and plant domestication was reviewed.

    The Hungarian case of late language steam-rollers (sensu Renfrew) has been proposed by Szabó (1998) as a documented model for testing the theory of curgan-invasions (sensu Gimbutas) in formation of Indo-Europeans. The study of the role of the presumed "Hun" and "Ougric" (i.e. horse-warrior, cultivator and hunter-gatherer) ethnic components of the Hungarian ethnogenesis in the behavioural ecology and traditional environmental practice of modern Hungarians is in its very beginnings. This can be also a valuable source of information about foraging practices, the use of local resources, differences in selection criteria and role of men, women and children in environmental practices, the importance of sex and age differences in the sustainable use of the environment and even landscape transformation. Comparative ethnomycological studies in different Hungarian ethnic groups still reveal significant differences after millennia (Zsigmond 1999). Parallelisms are expected with the behavioural ecology of modern hunter-gatherers, too (see also Hawkes et al. 1997).

    It is perhaps not a simple exaggeration if we look at the importance of human diversity as a component of general (agrobio)diversity. Even more: this approach may be considered as a component of general human consciousness (Cairns-Smith 1996), a new development in human evolution (Maynard Smith and Szathmáry 1998), in the evolution of the Noosphera.

    E. O. Wilson (1995) who coined the term "sociobiology" is quite categorical in genetic determinism of humans. But even he largely avoids any generalisation concerned with the genetic determination of ethnicity. He is fascinated by the genetic determinism of individual humans, and avoids the ethical, political and scientific dangers hidden in discussing human genetic determinism at ethnic group level.

    Wilson (1998) is convinced about the importance of integration of different scientific fields in order to deal successfully with problems of the coming century of the environment. He looks at science as an organised systematic enterprise that gathers and condenses knowledge into a new world-wide (traditional and/or electronic) web-work in searching for causes and effects. We can agree with his conclusion: "Growing evidence exists that the boundary [between social and natural sciences] is not a line at all, but a board, mostly unexplored domain of causally linked phenomena awaiting co-operative exploration from both sides".

    Natural sciences entered the borderland especially by:

    We are also convinced that Wilson is right saying: "that the social sciences and humanities will be strengthened by assimilation of the borderland disciplines � unfolding the causal links among genes, mind, and culture, and however sensitive they are to the caprice of historical circumstance, the links form an unbreakable web, and human understanding will be better of the extent that these links are explored".

    Evidences indicates that in natural sciences there is a shift from the search of elementary units and fundamental laws toward highly organised systems, including genes and mind, culture and environment. In these circumstances the central question is the nature of the linkage between different levels: in our case between genetic evolution and cultural evolution. This is one of the acute problems of both natural and social sciences. This is the very challenge.

    All cultures have been transmitted by learning, but how these cultures were "discovered" and learned was surely shaped also by human biology, by the ability to use the environment in a sustainable manner. Selection acted perhaps severely in this process. The natural, social and cultural environment may select (even at group level) for gene complexes supporting "ecologically correct" behaviour. This, conversely, may shape the natural and cultural environment of the group. We understand now some details regarding the biological evolution, cultural evolution and the evolution of the different environments and landscapes, but we are perhaps tragically backward in understanding the links between these separate evolutionary phenomena. One major trend in the evolution of science is acting exactly in this interdisciplinary direction (see Csányi 1989, 1999 for further references).

    Human nature is the result of many epigenetic rules of cognition. The inherited regularities of cognitive development predispose individuals to perceive reality in certain ways and to create and learn some cultural variants in preference to competing variants (Wilson 1998). Colour, odour and taste perception are among the most variable human characters. De gustibus non est disputandum (Borghi 1882). The same is true for mental abilities. Human genetic diversity is a biological fact, human equality is an ethical and moral value (Dobzhansky (1973).

    Beginning with the Neolithic Revolution a very effective co-evolutionary process started between groups of "domesticators" and domesticated organisms. Seemingly this co-evolution (including artistic and culinary value of the domesticated organisms in the eyes of the group which performed the process) reached its highest peaks in different periods for different cultures. In Central Europe ethnobiodiversity perhaps peaked in XVIIth and XIXth centuries. We can just meditate whether this peak influenced also the evolution of music, painting, architecture, mathematics and aesthetics of the area.

    Humanity (peaking in number of individuals expectedly around 2050) transformed and will further transform its biological and physical environment. There are growing and irreparable losses in the Biosphere not just at community and species level, but also in genetic (genomic, genic and allelic) diversity. These losses may be catastrophic.

    If the world�s humanity should rise to the living standard of the United States, using present technology, the natural resources of two more Earths would be required. No doubt: the time has come to look at ourselves closely as biological and cultural species, using all of the intellectual tools we can muster (Wilson 1998 l.c.).

    The problem is complex. Therefore we need complex approaches.

     

  2. Goals and limitations
    3.

    The main goal of this paper is to contribute to a complex approach in the study of relationships between biological (genetic) and cultural information, i.e. between the different ethn(ograph)ic groups and the genetic resources. It is important to stress here from the very beginning, that ethnicity does not match with the concept of nation. Nations are ethnically complex political products, with no meaning for ethnobiodiversity studies.

    We will not discuss here the geology and the landscape, the climate, the natural flora and vegetation, the fauna, the social and economic aspects, e.g. the problem of the rich and poor, contributing to genetic sedimentation and genetic erosion phenomena, even if we fully accept the role and importance of these (and other) factors. We just try to focus on a very sensitive component in the preservation of genetic diversity � the ethnic diversity or "ethnicity" � that causes a lot of problems even in the personal life of many east-European scientists.

    The recognition of the role and importance of the ethnocultural components in sustainable development is perhaps one of the main changes in global environmental policy. A new international "ethno-ethics" is hopefully emerging.

    Materials and methods

    Articles published in two leading scientific periodicals (Nature � London, and Science � Washington DC.) somewhat connected with (ethno)biodiversity research have been systematically collected and partly also reviewed in different series of Bio Tár Electronic (http://genetics.bdtf.hu Amplicon, Germoplasma, Haynaldia, etc.). These papers are quoted here in the light of the experience accumulated during field studies carried out by the author in the Alp-Carpathian-Balkan-Danube areas, especially in eastern Austria, western and central Hungary, western Romania (Transylvania) and in the Balkans. Experimental studies carried out with landraces in our Ethnobotanical Garden of the Berzsenyi College (Szombathely, Hungary) have been centred in the last decade on prebreeding and (re)introduction of new or traditional genetic resources especially belonging to Poaceae (Triticum sect. Monococcum, Haynaldia, etc.), Fabaceae (Phaseolus spp., Trifolium dif. sect.), Asteraceae (Helianthus annuus prl. ramosa, Telekia) and Rosaceae (Malus), etc. (data not presented here, just references on published results). These taxa have been used also as model organisms in teaching ethnobotany and genetic resource science for students of genetics and evolution, working in the Laboratory of Ecological Genetics and Evolution of Crop-plants (Berzsenyi College Szombathely) and for the students of environmental protection and environmental engineering (University of Veszprém).

     

  3. The ethnobotanical approach
    4.

    Human genetic and socio-cultural information developed in parallel with the evolution of genetic information accumulated in the different organisms of the Biosphere.

    In our days however the genetic information in the non-human component is going extinct at a rate 100 times the natural background rate (estimated on species level). If human activity will continue to modify the non-protected area of the Biosphere at the present level, only about 50% of the species will be able to survive in the long term (Pimm et Lawton 1998). Efforts of genetic conservation at species level are opportunistic and uncoordinated even in such a developed country as the United States (Ando et al. 1998). Efficient representation of all species in conservation planning is difficult, theoretical models and methods applied in conservation practice were not supported by results (van Jaarsveld et al. 1998). On lower (gene) and higher (community) levels the situation is even worse.

    We started the complex ethnobotanical approach of the sustainable use of plant genetic resources about three decades ago, in parallel with studies on degraded plant communities. The main scope of these studies were the quantitative and qualitative characterisation of the complex relations between plants and human groups belonging to different ethnocultural communities. In order to describe the joint study of cultivated, semidomesticated, escaped, and invasive plant species growing around human edifices (family and other houses, rural and urban settlements, cemeteries, etc.) the concept of aedobotany has been presented (Szabó 1997b).

    The field research started around 1962 in some traditional, multiethnic regions of Transylvania, Romania: in the Calata-Area (Kalotaszeg) inhabited chiefly by Hungarians and Romanians, and in Bistrita-Nasaud Area, especially around Arcalia (Árokalja � Kahlesdorf) inhabited chiefly by Romanians, Germans and Gypsies. During this work ethnobotanical guidebooks (Szabó and Péntek 1976, 1996), some early reports on genetic erosion (Szabó 1981, Péntek et Szabó 1981, etc.) and an ethnobotanical monograph emerged (Péntek et Szabó 1985). This research interest evolved later toward the concept of ethnobiodiversity (Szabó 1990/1992 cf. Vida in Polunin et Burnett 1992, Szabó 1996a, b, c, 1997, 1998, 1998/99).

    Around 1990 ethnobotanical approach gained a world-wide recognition. This trend has been marked among others by the works of Anderson (1993), Balik et Cox (1996), Martin (1995), Schultes et von Reis (1995). Ethnobotany became involved also in conservation biology, which is � by definition � a multidisciplinary and also interdisciplinary science (Anonymous 1998b, c, Primack 1995, Meffe et al. 1995, Caughley et al. 1995, William et al. 1995 cf. Ralls 1995). Ethnic orientation in biodiversity issues is reflected in modern biological monographs and journals as well (cf. Bagla 1999, Harlan 1992, Jayaraman 1993, 1995, Plotkin 1993, etc.).

    Ethnobotanical studies have been integrated repeatedly to evolutionary genetics (see Berry et al. 1992 for further details) and even to genecology (Langlet 1971). There is for example a striking variability in different landraces of the same species in adaptation for longevity, dormancy, germination, etc. (Baskin et al. 1998, Mazer cf. Baskin et al. 1999). These genecological phenomena are surely not directly dependent on the genetic variability of human populations, but may be dependent indirectly through ethnocultural traditions.

    According to Moritz (1994) we need to define the "Evolutionary Significant Units for Conservation" (ESUC). If so, genetic resource science needs a conservation unit defined in accordance with the ethnobiodiversity concept: the ESUC is the whole ethnocultural complex. This is perhaps worthy of attention even in a more general context of the evolutionary ecology (Thompson 1996) and environmental sustainability (Pearce et al. 1993, Simmons 1993).

    Ethnobiodiversity studies have been carried out under a variety of (informal) names. In Hungary for example the first book of such character was published by Beythe and Clusius (1583 cf. Szabó et al. 1992) under the title Stirpium Nomenclator Pannonicus.

    Through lack of a proper term Harrison (1995) for example circumscribed it as "the human biology of the English village" and the project started in 1965 and finished in 1995 was termed by Coleman (1996) "scientific ruralism". In French science the study of bio-cultural diversity became traditional (Bérard et Marchenay 1994). In Germany "Agrarbiodiversität" studies have been performed regularly all around the world (following the Vavilovian tradition) especially by a group headed by K. Hammer, P. Hanelt and H. Knüpffer (see Hammer 1998 and Hammer et al. 1992-1994 for references).

    A series of monographic surveys focused on indigenous environmental (mostly botanical) knowledge, its role in traditional and its possible importance in modern human life (Anderson 1993, deBoef et al. 1993, Prance 1991, 1995).

    The role of indigenous knowledge in economy has been recognised in various degrees during history. The human genetic and "ethnic" background of the Neolithic Revolution is highly dubious. Consequently, ethnicity was not considered in these issues (Appenzeller et al. 1998). What is really surprising: correlation between ethnic (tribal) and environmental issues was rarely examined at the right level in any later phase of cultural evolution. Specialists however are (and were) quite aware of the interrelation (e.g. Brown et al., 1996, Myers 1995) between indigenous knowledge, traditional management and resource utilisation, between the main components of historical ecology (cf. Ingrouille 1995).

    In 1999 a call was launched to set up a global fund to conserve and promote "indigenous and civilisational knowledge systems" (ICKS, Jayaraman 1999) as a complement to biodiversity projects, especially by the activity of the International Co-operative Biodiversity Group (ICBG) working for US Government, as well as for Climate Change Convention (CCC), Global Environmental Facility (GEF), etc. (cf. also Masod 1997, ICBG: Tickell 1994).

    In Hungary for example the erosion of traditional knowledge and indigenous management practices is (for example) one of the causes of genetic polution caused by plant invasions, especially by taxa belonging to Asteraceae (Solidago, Ambrosia). Such invasions are serious dangers for many protected plant species and even for genetic resources of some forage plants (Balogh et al. 1994, Bright 1998, Cronk et Fuller 1995, Mooney 1999 ).

     

  4. Genetic erosion
    5.

    Genetic erosion is a process acting on natural and domesticated species as well. In nature genetic theories predict that inbreeding between members of small populations will reveal deleterious recessive alleles especially dangerous in outbreeding animal populations. But loss of heterozygosity reduces the adaptive potential of every population. (Caro et Laurenson 1999)

    Genetic erosion, nature conservation and environment protection are interconnected. For example the genetic erosion of endemic Hungarian cattle and sheep (magyar szürkemarha, racka, cigája, cf. Bodó 1994, Fancsik 1995, Vajna 1994) was followed by an invasion of aggressive woody and herbaceous species (Robinia, Ailanthus, Ambrosia, Solidago, Asclepias, etc.). Traditionally grazed pastures have a higher biological diversity compared with the intensive ones. Convincing experimental results are available on a more economical and sustainable traditional management (Kareiva 1996). Conserving livestock biodiversity may contribute even to the value of the landscape (Hall et Bradley 1995, etc. ).

    Genetic diversity is frequently a key issue in sustainability. Human preferences acting in different evolutionary directions in different ethnic groups (groups living in similar geographic, climatic, economic and/or social conditions) are effective in canalisation of genetic variability and the emergence of landraces. The ethnocultural backgrounds of these evolutionary phenomena are generally neglected and/or poorly understood.

    One main problem with genetic resources is, that not the genes but the ecologically and/or economically successful gene complexes and combinations are really important. So a Specially Protected Plant Genetic Resource Protocol is needed in conservation, evaluation and (pre)breeding for the potentially useful germplasm preserved in different institutional, regional, national and international collections (Szabó 1993, 1997).

    World economy is shifting as biotech, chemical, pharmaceutical, and agrobusiness companies invest in genetic diversity research. New developments in genomics allow the study, design and building of new gene products. The flow of genomics information is massive and is gaining importance in the world research and development budgets (Enriquez 1998).

     

  5. Expected developments
    6.

    Ethnobiodiversity studies raise serious ethical (and even political) problems. These are very sensitive issues and were generally avoided until now. Human genetic diversity projects (e.g. that pioneered by Luca Cavalli-Sforza, cf. Roberts 1991) have many opponents. Some argue ethically ("The assumption that indigenous people will disappear and their cells will continue helping science for decades is very abhorrent �" a statement of the World Council on Indigenous Peoples, cf. Kahn 1999). The atmosphere has been changed even more after the Rio Convention (1992): many scientists and politicians simply consider such studies a form of "genetic exploitation". Science has been trapped by the ethnocultural heterogeneity of our time.

    On the other side it is suggested that the rate of patents based on new genetic diversity (plant, animal and human DNA) will rise rapidly over the next 10-15 years. Functional analysis of plant genomes will create unprecedented opportunities for crop improvement (Anonymous 1998). In an African context Makumbu (1998) made it clear, that "traditional bioprospecting is intertwined with socio-cultural and religious beliefs that must be understood by those engaged in modern conservation and protection of � biodiversity".

     

     

    6. Conclusion

    Genetic resource (germplasm, landrace, etc.) conservation in the present and in the future is influenced by the loss of traditions, ethn(ograph)ic identity, as well as by drastic political interventions. There are "ethnically sensitive" and "ethnically non-sensitive" landraces in almost every taxonomical and geographical situation. As some highly vulnerable genetic resources and very sensitive ethnic groups seem to be interconnected, ancient crop genetic diversity may be worthy of study in a more general context � even that of the evolution of science.

     

    7. References

Go Top Previous Chapter Table Of Contents Next Chapter