7.+corporate+monopoly+of+science
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/3/2019 7.+Corporate+Monopoly+of+Science
1/3
Monday, 27 April 2009 N E W S B A R News: UN, Sri Lanka to harness international support ... Political: Landslid
H O M E | SHARE MARKET | EXCHANGE RATE | TRADING | PICTURE GALLERY | ARCHIVES | Google
DAILYNEWSONLINE
News
Editorial
Business
Features
Political
Security
Sport
World
Letters
Obituaries
OTHERPUBLICATIONS
OTHER LINKS
Corporate monopoly of science
Prof . Peter Saunders
******-------
Corporations are aiming for an absolute stranglehold on scientific research and the
flow of scientific information; thats why patents on GM crops should be abolished.
*****------
As you may already know, you cant 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 Schmeisers epic battle with Monsanto so clearly bringshome 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 dont want a particular piece of research
carried out, they can refuse permission to use
their seeds. Even when they have givenpermission, if they dont 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.
Thats 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
Page 1 of 3Features | Online edition of Daily News - Lakehouse Newspapers
5/11/2009http://www.dailynews.lk/2009/04/27/fea04.asp
-
8/3/2019 7.+Corporate+Monopoly+of+Science
2/3
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 cant 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 its 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 actuallyreduces the amount of pesticide that has to be applied.
Th i rd Wo r l d Ne two rk Fe a tu re s
(The writer Prof. Peter Saunders is Professor of Mathematics at Kings College, London and co-
founder of the Institute of Science in Society (ISIS).
EMA I L | PR I NT ABLE V I EW | FEEDBACK
| News | Editorial | Business | Features | Political | Security | Sport | World | Letters | Obituaries |
Produced by Lake House Copyright 2009 The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd.
Page 2 of 3Features | Online edition of Daily News - Lakehouse Newspapers
5/11/2009http://www.dailynews.lk/2009/04/27/fea04.asp
-
8/3/2019 7.+Corporate+Monopoly+of+Science
3/3
Comments and suggestions to : Web Editor
Page 3 of 3Features | Online edition of Daily News - Lakehouse Newspapers
5/11/2009http://www dailynews lk/2009/04/27/fea04 asp