Using Plant Biotechnology to Save ʻŌhiʻa Lehua: Western and Indigenous Conservation Perspectives

Abstract

ABSTRACTThe ʻōhiʻa lehua is an ecologically and culturally important Hawaiian tree. It is currently threatened by two exotic fungal pathogens. One potential way to save the tree may be to genetically modify it. In this paper I consider two different metaphysical perspectives on ʻōhiʻa lehua – western conservation and Indigenous Hawaiian conservation. I will argue that a possible intervention using plant biotechnology appears value-supporting from each perspective. Hence, it is a morally permissible strategy to pursue. Finally, I argue that given the importance of the tree, multiple strategies ought to be pursued.KEYWORDS: Indigenous Hawaiian perspectivewestern conservationplant biotechnologyʻōhiʻa lehuafamily AcknowledgmentsI thank Bernice Bovenkerk, Keje Boersma, Ben Hale, Evelyn Brister, and two anonymous reviewers for detailed feedback and suggestions. I would also like to thank the participants of the International Society for Environmental Ethics 2022 meeting, where these ideas were first presented, for valuable feedback and discussion. A special thanks to everyone who took time out of their busy schedules so that I could interview them in Hawaii, and to the office of the Provost at Oregon Tech for helping fund this research. Lastly, I thank Jason Wong and his family for hosting me in Hawaii.Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1. By ‘value supporting’ I mean that the potential action will protect and preserve what is considered to be morally valuable concerning the environment within a particular metaphysical framework.2. The tree can also have yellow, salmon, pink, or orange blooms, but red blooms are the most common (Friday & Herbert, Citation2006).3. There are, of course, other environmental values—e.g. environmental autonomy or wildness and naturalness; however, I will focus on these two since biodiversity is clearly the most important value in conservation (e.g. Soulé, Citation1985) and integrity is often cited as being very important (e.g. CBD, Citation2022). See Rohwer (Citation2022) for reasons to think that genetic modification interventions can be value-supporting of environmental autonomy. Also, see Vogel (Citation2015) for reasons why naturalness is a very problematic value in environmental thought.4. See Rohwer and Marris (Citation2021) for arguments as to why, even if it does exist, it is not valuable.5. I am assuming a worst-case scenario in the above discussion concerning genetic integrity such that only a genetic intervention will prevent the genetic bottleneck or extinction. This, of course, may not be the case. But the point is to show that rejecting the transgenic strategy on the grounds that it necessarily compromises genetic integrity is too hasty. We don’t know which strategy will be the most effective. Hence, it is important to show that these kinds of interventions can be value-supporting when it comes to genetic integrity – especially if the worst-case scenario is realized. One might also worry about ‘natural’ diversity and that diversity saved via genetic interventions is artificial and so not valuable. I do not have the space to discuss this issue here but see Vogel (Citation2015) for reasons why thinking the touch of humans turns something that is natural into something that is artificial implies a problematic dualism.6. I carried out informal, unstructured interviews with eight people. One was an Indigenous Hawaiian educator who specializes in Indigenous knowledge (life way of Hawaiʻi) and conservation. Six people were western conservationists who worked on ROD in some capacity. And one individual was an Indigenous Hawaiian working in western conservation, who also worked on ROD. I promised all of them anonymity and have used gender-neutral pronouns for these sources to help keep them anonymous.Additional informationFundingThis work was supported by the Office of the Provost, Oregon Tech.