Corporate monopoly of science
Prof. Peter Saunders
******-------
Corporations are aiming for an absolute
stranglehold on scientific research and the flow of scientific
information; that’s why patents on GM crops should be abolished.
*****------
As you may already know, you can’t just go into a store and buy
genetically modified (GM) seeds. You have to sign an agreement with the
company that produced them, and one of the conditions is that you may
not save the seeds from your harvest.
Anyone growing GM crops has to buy seeds from the company every year,
which is a problem for all farmers, but especially for those in the
Third World; as Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser’s epic battle with
Monsanto so clearly brings home to us.
Biotech companies
What is less well known is that the agreements also prohibit you from
using the seeds for research. That may not matter to most farmers, but
it is important because it means that research into GM crops can be done
only by the biotech companies or with their approval.
If they don’t want a particular piece of research carried out, they
can refuse permission to use their seeds. Even when they have given
permission, if they don’t like the way the research is turning out they
can stop it, or prevent the results from being published. Consequently,
important decisions on GM crops and all GM Organisms (GMOs) are
increasingly based on evidence selected by the companies to put them and
their products in the best possible light.
That’s why when the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) invited
comments from the public in advance of two meetings on GM crops it was
holding earlier this year, twenty six scientists submitted a statement
protesting the “technology/stewardship agreements” they have to sign,
which inhibit them from doing research for the public good. As a result,
“no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical
questions regarding the technology”.
All the scientists have been active researchers into corn insect
pests, and many of them are in favour of GM crops, but they are very
concerned about the restrictions placed on them by the industry that
effectively stop independent research and the resulting bias in the
evidence being presented to the EPA and other regulatory agencies. This
does not surprise those of us who have been complaining about the lack
of independent research and regulators that routinely ignore and dismiss
all evidence of hazards.
Identities
Significantly, the submission to the EPA was made anonymously. Andrew
Pollack, the New York Times journalist who broke the story to the public
in February 2009, interviewed many of the scientists and was allowed to
reveal some of their identities, but many of those who felt strongly
enough to want the comments made were not willing to put their careers
on the line by letting the biotech industry know who they were.
As Elson Shields, an entomologist from Cornell explained: “People are
afraid of being blacklisted. If your sole job is to work on corn insects
and you need the latest varieties and the companies decide not to give
it to you, you can’t do your job.”
Intellectual property
The three companies Pollack contacted, Monsanto, Syngenta and
Pioneer, told him that the restrictions were necessary to protect their
relationship with Government agencies. But when Pollack asked an EPA
spokesman about this, he was told that the Government only requires
management of the crops’ insect resistance. Any other conditions were
down to the companies; they have nothing to do with the Government.
The other excuse was that companies have to protect their
intellectual property. This is no more convincing than the first one,
because as the result of intensive lobbying by the biotech industry, GM
crops are protected by patents, rather than the less restrictive
breeders’ rights that apply to other crops.
The whole point of a patent is that the inventor makes the idea
public and in return is given an exclusive right to it for a period of
time, usually 20 years.
To take out a patent and also insist on keeping an invention secret
is to want to have it both ways, which is no more than what we have come
to expect from an industry that claims genetic engineering is so novel
that its products must be patentable and at the same time so
conventional that there is no need to test GM crops for safety.
What sort of research can it be that the companies are anxious to
prevent? There seem to be two kinds they could have in mind. On the one
hand, someone might want to modify an existing GM crop either by
conventional breeding or by more genetic engineering.
If they succeeded, however, they would not be able to grow the crop
commercially or market the seeds without negotiating a licence with the
owner of the patent and paying an agreed royalty. But this is precisely
how patenting is supposed to work, and it’s hard to see why the biotech
companies should object to it. In any case, if you hold a patent you are
able to licence someone else to use your innovation but you are not
obliged to.
Environmental impact
The other possibility is research designed specifically to learn more
about the crop. This includes testing for health and safety or
environmental impact, or to see if it really does what is claimed; for
instance, whether an insect-resistant corn actually reduces the amount
of pesticide that has to be applied.
Third World
Network Features
(The writer Prof.
Peter Saunders is Professor of Mathematics at King’s College, London and
co-founder of the Institute of Science in Society (ISIS). |