David Suzuki | |
|---|---|
 Suzuki in December 2009 | |
| Born | David Takayoshi Suzuki (1936-03-24)March 24, 1936 (age 89) Vancouver,British Columbia, Canada |
| Alma mater | Amherst College (BA) University of Chicago (PhD) |
| Awards |
|
| Scientific career | |
| Institutions | University of British Columbia |
| Thesis | Interchromosomal effects on crossing over in Drosophila melanogaster (1961) |
| Doctoral advisor | Bill Baker |
| Other academic advisors |
|
| Signature | |
 | |
David Takayoshi SuzukiCC OBC FRSC (born March 24, 1936) is a Canadian academic, sciencebroadcaster, andenvironmental activist. Suzuki earned aPhD inzoology from theUniversity of Chicago in 1961, and was a professor in thegenetics department at theUniversity of British Columbia from 1963 until his retirement in 2001. Since the mid-1970s, Suzuki has been known for his television and radio series, documentaries and books about nature and the environment. He is best known as host and narrator of the popular and long-runningCBC Television science programThe Nature of Things, seen in over 40 countries. He is also well known for criticizing governments for their lack of action to protect the environment.
A longtime activist to reverse globalclimate change, Suzuki co-founded theDavid Suzuki Foundation in 1990, to work "to find ways for society to live in balance with the natural world that does sustain us." The Foundation's priorities are:oceans andsustainable fishing, climate change andclean energy,sustainability, and Suzuki's Nature Challenge. The Foundation also works on ways to help protect the oceans from large oil spills such as theDeepwater Horizon oil spill.[1] Suzuki has also served as a director of theCanadian Civil Liberties Association from 1982 to 1987.
Suzuki was awarded theRight Livelihood Award in 2009. His 2011 book,The Legacy, won theNautilus Book Award. He is a Companion of the Order of Canada. In 2004, Suzuki ranked fifth on the list of final nominees in a CBC television series that asked viewers to selectThe Greatest Canadian of all time.
Suzuki has a twin sister named Marcia, as well as two other siblings, Geraldine (now known as Aiko) and Dawn. He was born in 1936 to Setsu Nakamura and Kaoru Carr Suzuki inVancouver,British Columbia, where his parents were also born.[2] Suzuki's maternal and paternal grandparents had immigrated to Canada at the beginning of the 20th century fromHiroshima Prefecture andAichi Prefecture respectively.[3][4]
A third-generationJapanese Canadian ("CanadianSansei"), Suzuki's family sufferedinternment inBritish Columbia early during theSecond World War until after the war ended in 1945. In June 1942, the government sold the Suzuki family'sdry cleaning business, then interned Suzuki, his mother, and two sisters in a camp atSlocan in theBritish Columbia Interior.[5] His father had been sent to a labour camp inSolsqua in theSouthern Interior region of BC two months earlier. His sister Dawn was born in the internment camp.[6]
After the war, Suzuki's family, like other Japanese Canadian families, were forced to move east of theRockies. They moved aroundOntario, fromEtobicoke,Leamington, and eventually toLondon. In interviews, Suzuki has consistently credited his father for having interested him in and sensitized him to nature.[7]
Suzuki attended Mill Street Elementary School and Grade 9 atLeamington District Secondary School before moving to London, Ontario, where he attendedLondon Central Secondary School.[8]
Suzuki received hisBachelor of Arts degree in biology in 1958 fromAmherst College inMassachusetts where he first developed an interest in genetics,[9] and hisDoctor of Philosophy degree in zoology from theUniversity of Chicago in 1961.[10] From 1961 to 1962, Suzuki worked atOak Ridge National Laboratory. From 1962 to 1963, he was an assistant professor at theUniversity of Alberta. He was aprofessor in the genetics department at theUniversity of British Columbia for almost forty years, from 1963 until his retirement in 2001, and has since been professor emeritus at a university research institute.[11]
Early in his research career he studied genetics using the popularmodel organismDrosophila melanogaster (fruit flies). To be able to use his initials in naming any new genes he found, he studied dominant temperature-sensitive (DTS) phenotypes. He jokingly noted at a lecture atJohns Hopkins University that the only alternative subject was "(damn) tough skin."
Suzuki began in television on January 10, 1971 with the weekly children's showSuzuki on Science. In 1974, he founded the radio programQuirks & Quarks, which he also hosted on CBC AM radio (the forerunner ofCBC Radio One) from 1975 to 1979. Throughout the 1970s, he also hostedScience Magazine, a weekly program geared towards an adult audience.
From 1979 to 2023, Suzuki hostedThe Nature of Things, a CBC television series that has aired in nearly fifty countries worldwide.[12] In this program, Suzuki's aim is to stimulate interest in the natural world, to point out threats to human well-being and wildlife habitat, and to present alternatives to humanity for achieving a moresustainable society. Suzuki has been a prominent proponent ofrenewable energy sources and thesoft energy path.
Suzuki was the host of the critically acclaimed 1993PBS seriesThe Secret of Life.[13] His 1985 hit series,A Planet for the Taking, averaged more than 1.8 million viewers per episode and earned him aUnited Nations Environment Programme Medal. His perspective in this series is summed up in his statement: "We have both a sense of the importance of thewilderness and space in our culture and an attitude that it is limitless and therefore we needn't worry." He concludes with a call for a major "perceptual shift" in our relationship with nature and the wild.
Suzuki'sThe Sacred Balance, a book first published in 1997 and later made into a five-hourmini-series on Canadian public television, was broadcast in 2002.[14][15] Suzuki is now taking part in an advertisement campaign with the tagline "You have the power", promotingenergy conservation through various household alternatives, such as the use ofcompact fluorescent lightbulbs.
For the Discovery Channel, Suzuki also produced "Yellowstone to Yukon: The Wildlands Project" in 1997. The conservation-biology based documentary focused onDave Foreman's Wildlands Project, which considers how to create corridors between and buffer zones around large wilderness reserves as a means to preserve biological diversity. Foreman developed this project after leaving Earth First! (which he co-founded) in 1990. The conservation biologistsMichael Soulé andReed Noss were also directly involved.
In October 2022, Suzuki announced his retirement fromThe Nature of Things series in spring 2023.[16][17]
In February 2008, he urgedMcGill University students to speak out against politicians who fail to act onclimate change, stating, "What I would challenge you to do is to put a lot of effort into trying to see whether there's a legal way of throwing our so-called leaders into jail because what they're doing is a criminal act."[18][19]
Suzuki is unequivocal that climate change is a very real and pressing problem and that an "overwhelming majority of scientists" now agree that human activity is responsible. TheDavid Suzuki Foundation website has a clear statement of this:
The debate is over about whether or not climate change is real. Irrefutable evidence from around the world – including extreme weather events, record temperatures, retreating glaciers, andrising sea levels – all point to the fact climate change is happening now and at rates much faster than previously thought.
The overwhelming majority of scientists who study climate change agree that human activity is responsible for changing the climate. The United NationsIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is one of the largest bodies of international scientists ever assembled to study a scientific issue, involving more than 2,500 scientists from more than 130 countries. The IPCC has concluded that most of the warming observed during the past 50 years is attributable to human activities. Its findings have been publicly endorsed by theNational Academies of Science of allG8 nations, as well as those ofChina,India andBrazil.[20]
Suzuki says that despite this growing consensus, many in the public and the media seemed doubtful about the science for many years. The reason for the confusion about climate change, in Suzuki's view, was due to a well organized campaign of disinformation about the science involved. "A very small number of critics" denies that climate change exists and that humans are the cause. Theseclimate change deniers, Suzuki says, tend not to be climate scientists and do not publish in peer-reviewed scientific journals but rather target the media, the general public, and policy makers. Their goal: "delaying action on climate change." According to Suzuki, deniers have received significant funding from coal and oil companies, includingExxonMobil. They are linked to "industry-funded lobby groups", such as theInformation Council on the Environment (ICE),[21] whose aim is to "reposition global warming as theory (not fact)."[20]
Suzuki is a "messenger" / ambassador for the environmental organization350.org advocating for cutting CO2 emissions and creating climate solutions.[22]
Suzuki has supportedecocide becoming a crime at theInternational Criminal Court stating"Ecocide is not only a crime against life, it is suicidal for us because we are theapex predator that is utterly dependent on nature's services."[23][24]
Suzuki has attracted criticism for maintaining a lifestyle with a substantialcarbon footprint while proselytizing against carbon emissions. Suzuki himself laments that in travelling constantly to spread his message of climate responsibility, he has ended up "over his [carbon] limit by hundreds of tonnes." He says that he has stopped vacationing overseas, and aims to "cluster" his speaking engagements together to reduce his carbon footprint. He would prefer, he says, to appear solely by video conference.[25]
Suzuki has criticized the discipline ofeconomics for not valuing the environment.[26]
In 2021, he said that pipelines would be "blown up" if climate action was not taken; he later apologized.[27]
.png)
Suzuki has been criticized[28] for hispseudoscientific[29][30][31][32] beliefs on GMOs. Suzuki has written that "products of biotechnology are being rammed into our food, onto our fields and into our medicines, without any public participation in discussions and with the complicity, indeed, the active support and funding of governments. But there are profound health, ecological and economic ramifications of this activity."[33] In a 1999 CP Wire article, Suzuki is quoted as saying: "Any politician or scientist who tells you these products are safe is either very stupid or lying."[34] In an interview with CBC TV, Suzuki argues that the science showing GMOs are safe is "very, very bad science" and that the commercialization of GMOs is "driven by money."[35] His foundation's website includes an "Understanding GMO" page which claims "the safety of GMO foods is unproven and a growing body of research connects these foods with health concerns."[36]
In a 2013 speech on water policy at the University of Alberta, Suzuki claimed that a second emergency at theFukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant would require the evacuation of the North American west coast. Three months later, he admitted that his comment was "off-the-cuff."[37] However, Suzuki still speculates that another earthquake could trigger a new nuclear disaster in Fukushima,[38] as theJapanese Atomic Energy Commission paper he cited in his aforementioned speech at the University of Alberta states that such a disaster could call for the evacuation of over 10 million Japanese residents.[37]
In 2013, in the French news magazineL'Express, Suzuki called Canada's immigration policy "disgusting" (We "plunder southern countries to deprive them of their future leaders, and wish to increase our population to support economic growth") and insisted that "Canada is full" ("Our useful area is reduced").[39]
While being interviewed byTony Jones on Australia's ABC TV network in September 2013, Suzuki repeated the claim from Canadian media that theHarper government was building prisons even thoughcrime rates were declining in Canada.[40][41][42]He suggested that the prisons might be being built so thatStephen Harper can incarcerate environmental activists.[40][43] Jean-Christophe De Le Rue, a spokesman for Public Safety MinisterSteven Blaney, denied the claims, emphasizing that the Canadian government is not building any prisons, nor do they have plans to build any.[43] However, in 2011, the Harper government did announce a 5-year, "$2-billion federal prison-building boom" to add "over 2,700 beds to men's and women's prisons across Canada" with $517-million already "spent on prison construction" in 2010–2011.[41][44][45]
According to Suzuki, Canadian Prime MinisterJustin Trudeau called Suzuki to ask for Suzuki's endorsement of the Liberal platform on climate change. Upon pointed questioning by Suzuki, the conversation turned "nasty", with Trudeau saying "I don't have to listen to this sanctimonious crap", at which time Suzuki "proceeded to call him a twerp"[46]
Suzuki was married to Setsuko Joane Sunahara[47] from 1958 to 1965; the couple had three children.[48] In 1973, Suzuki married a second time to Tara Elizabeth Cullis,[49] with whom he had two daughters:Severn Cullis-Suzuki and Sarika Cullis-Suzuki. As of 2022, he has ten grandchildren, including snowboarder and filmmakerTamo Campos.[50][51][52] His cousin’s grandchildren areMontreal Canadiens captainNick Suzuki, andCarolina Hurricanes playerRyan Suzuki.[53]
Suzuki was criticized by theNational Post for owning multiple homes "because he often preaches the virtues of minimalism".[55]
Suzuki has been awardedhonorary degrees from many universities.[63]
 |
Suzuki is the author of 52 books (nineteen for children), includingDavid Suzuki: The Autobiography,Tree: A Life Story,The Sacred Balance,Genethics,Wisdom of the Elders,Inventing the Future, and the best-sellingLooking At Senses a series of children's science books. This is a partial list of publications[89] by Suzuki:
There are David Suzukifonds at theUniversity of British Columbia.[94]
{{cite web}}:|last1= has generic name (help)We have reviewed the scientific literature on GE crop safety for the last 10 years that catches the scientific consensus matured since GE plants became widely cultivated worldwide, and we can conclude that the scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazard directly connected with the use of GM crops.
The literature about Biodiversity and the GE food/feed consumption has sometimes resulted in animated debate regarding the suitability of the experimental designs, the choice of the statistical methods or the public accessibility of data. Such debate, even if positive and part of the natural process of review by the scientific community, has frequently been distorted by the media and often used politically and inappropriately in anti-GE crops campaigns.
Currently available transgenic crops and foods derived from them have been judged safe to eat and the methods used to test their safety have been deemed appropriate. These conclusions represent the consensus of the scientific evidence surveyed by the ICSU (2003) and they are consistent with the views of the World Health Organization (WHO, 2002). These foods have been assessed for increased risks to human health by several national regulatory authorities (inter alia, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, the United Kingdom and the United States) using their national food safety procedures (ICSU). To date no verifiable untoward toxic or nutritionally deleterious effects resulting from the consumption of foods derived from genetically modified crops have been discovered anywhere in the world (GM Science Review Panel). Many millions of people have consumed foods derived from GM plants - mainly maize, soybean and oilseed rape - without any observed adverse effects (ICSU).
There is broad scientific consensus that genetically engineered crops currently on the market are safe to eat. After 14 years of cultivation and a cumulative total of 2 billion acres planted, no adverse health or environmental effects have resulted from commercialization of genetically engineered crops (Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources, Committee on Environmental Impacts Associated with Commercialization of Transgenic Plants, National Research Council and Division on Earth and Life Studies 2002). Both the U.S. National Research Council and the Joint Research Centre (the European Union's scientific and technical research laboratory and an integral part of the European Commission) have concluded that there is a comprehensive body of knowledge that adequately addresses the food safety issue of genetically engineered crops (Committee on Identifying and Assessing Unintended Effects of Genetically Engineered Foods on Human Health and National Research Council 2004; European Commission Joint Research Centre 2008). These and other recent reports conclude that the processes of genetic engineering and conventional breeding are no different in terms of unintended consequences to human health and the environment (European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 2010).
But see also:
Domingo, José L.; Bordonaba, Jordi Giné (2011)."A literature review on the safety assessment of genetically modified plants"(PDF).Environment International.37 (4):734–742.Bibcode:2011EnInt..37..734D.doi:10.1016/j.envint.2011.01.003.PMID 21296423.In spite of this, the number of studies specifically focused on safety assessment of GM plants is still limited. However, it is important to remark that for the first time, a certain equilibrium in the number of research groups suggesting, on the basis of their studies, that a number of varieties of GM products (mainly maize and soybeans) are as safe and nutritious as the respective conventional non-GM plant, and those raising still serious concerns, was observed. Moreover, it is worth mentioning that most of the studies demonstrating that GM foods are as nutritional and safe as those obtained by conventional breeding, have been performed by biotechnology companies or associates, which are also responsible of commercializing these GM plants. Anyhow, this represents a notable advance in comparison with the lack of studies published in recent years in scientific journals by those companies.
Krimsky, Sheldon (2015). "An Illusory Consensus behind GMO Health Assessment".Science, Technology, & Human Values.40 (6):883–914.doi:10.1177/0162243915598381.S2CID 40855100.I began this article with the testimonials from respected scientists that there is literally no scientific controversy over the health effects of GMOs. My investigation into the scientific literature tells another story.
And contrast:
Panchin, Alexander Y.; Tuzhikov, Alexander I. (January 14, 2016). "Published GMO studies find no evidence of harm when corrected for multiple comparisons".Critical Reviews in Biotechnology.37 (2):213–217.doi:10.3109/07388551.2015.1130684.ISSN 0738-8551.PMID 26767435.S2CID 11786594.Here, we show that a number of articles some of which have strongly and negatively influenced the public opinion on GM crops and even provoked political actions, such as GMO embargo, share common flaws in the statistical evaluation of the data. Having accounted for these flaws, we conclude that the data presented in these articles does not provide any substantial evidence of GMO harm.
The presented articles suggesting possible harm of GMOs received high public attention. However, despite their claims, they actually weaken the evidence for the harm and lack of substantial equivalency of studied GMOs. We emphasize that with over 1783 published articles on GMOs over the last 10 years it is expected that some of them should have reported undesired differences between GMOs and conventional crops even if no such differences exist in reality.
and
Yang, Y.T.; Chen, B. (2016). "Governing GMOs in the USA: science, law and public health".Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture.96 (4):1851–1855.Bibcode:2016JSFA...96.1851Y.doi:10.1002/jsfa.7523.PMID 26536836.It is therefore not surprising that efforts to require labeling and to ban GMOs have been a growing political issue in the USA(citing Domingo and Bordonaba, 2011). Overall, a broad scientific consensus holds that currently marketed GM food poses no greater risk than conventional food... Major national and international science and medical associations have stated that no adverse human health effects related to GMO food have been reported or substantiated in peer-reviewed literature to date.
Despite various concerns, today, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the World Health Organization, and many independent international science organizations agree that GMOs are just as safe as other foods. Compared with conventional breeding techniques, genetic engineering is far more precise and, in most cases, less likely to create an unexpected outcome.
As an atheist, Suzuki declares, he has no illusions about life and death, adding that the individual is insignificant in cosmic terms.Review of book "David Suzuki: The Autobiography", by David Suzuki (Greystone Books, 2006)
