Download - 7.+Corporate+Monopoly+of+Science

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


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.


5/11/2009http://www.dailynews.lk/2009/04/27/fea04.asp


3/3

Comments and suggestions to : Web Editor


5/11/2009http://www dailynews lk/2009/04/27/fea04 asp

Download - 7.+Corporate+Monopoly+of+Science

Top Related