HOME
DV NEWS
SERVICE ARCHIVE SUBMISSIONS/CONTACT ABOUT DV
Nothing
Damages Science More than
Forcing
Researchers to Develop GM
by
George Monbiot
October
7, 2003
It
is curious that this government, which goes to such lengths to show that it
responds to market forces, appears to believe, when it comes to genetic
modification, that the customer is always wrong. Tony Blair might have spent
six years rolling back the nanny state, but he instructs us to shut up and eat
what we're given. The public has comprehensively rejected the technology; the
chief scientist has warned that pollen contamination may be impossible to
prevent; the field trials suggest that GM threatens our remaining wildlife. Yet
the government appears determined to force us to accept it.
The
best way of gauging its intentions is to examine the research it is funding, as
this reveals its long-term strategy for both farming and science. It seems that
the strategy is to destroy them both.
The
principal funding body for the life sciences in Britain is the Biotechnology
and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC). It is currently funding 255
food and farming research projects. Twenty-six of them are concerned with
growing GM crops; just one involves organic production. [1]
We're
not talking about blue-sky science here, but about research with likely
commercial applications. We should expect it to respond to what the market
wants. The demand for organic food in Britain has been growing by 30% a year.
We import 70% of it, partly because organic yields in Britain are low and
research is desperately needed to find ways of raising them. Genetically
modified food, by contrast, is about as popular with consumers as BSE or
salmonella.
This
misallocation of funds should surprise us only until we see who sits on the
committees which control the BBSRC. They are stuffed with executives from
Syngenta, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, Merck Sharp &
Dohme, Pfizer, Genetix plc, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Celltech and Unilever. [2] Even the council's new "advisory group on public
concerns" contains a representative of United Biscuits, but no one from a
consumer or environmental group. [3] What "the
market" (which means you and I) wants is very different from what those
who seek to control the market want.
All
the major government funding bodies appear to follow the same line. The
Homegrown Cereals Authority spends pounds10 million of our money every year to
"improve the production, wholesomeness and marketing of UK cereals and
oilseeds so as to increase their competitiveness". [4]
It lists 67 wholesome research projects on its website. Only one is designed to
increase the competitiveness of organic farming. [5] The
Meat and Livestock Commission funds no organic projects at all, but it is
paying for an investigation into the potential of the gene whose absence causes
"double muscling" in cattle. [6] Deletion of the
gene leaves the animal looking like Arnold Schwarzenegger, though with rather
more brains. When pictures of a double-muscled bullock were published recently,
the public responded with outrage, especially when the welfare implications
were explained. It is not easy to see how the results of this research could or
should ever be commercialised. But the commission regards the possibility of
genetically engineering cattle with a defective muscling gene as "an
exciting development". [7]
These
distortions are as bad for the scientific community as they are for farmers and
taxpayers. As consumers continue to insist that there is no future for these
crops in Britain, the heads of the research institutes are now warning that
British scientists will be forced to leave the country to find work.
Michael
Wilson, chief executive of the government-funded Horticulture Research
International recently told the Guardian that "Britain is lining itself up
to become an intellectual and technological backwater." [8]
If so, it will be partly as a result of his efforts. Wilson, who describes
himself as "evangelical" about GM, [9] has spent
the past three years switching his institute's research away from conventional
breeding. He can hardly complain about the brain drain when he has tied the
careers of his scientists to a technology nobody wants.
"The
way things are going," according to Christopher Leaver, head of the plant
science department at Oxford University, "plant biotechnology is going to
be stillborn here." [10] Well, the way things are
going is very much a result of the way he has directed them. Until this summer
he sat on the BBSRC's governing council. At the university, he has engineered a
brain drain of his own by closing the Oxford Forestry Institute (perhaps the
best of its kind in the world) and shifting the focus of his department away
from whole organisms and ecosystems towards molecular biology and genetic
engineering. The undergraduates want to study whole systems, so the few
remaining lecturers with this expertise are massively overworked, while the
jobs of the rest are now threatened by the lack of demand for the technology he
favours.
The
shift is not entirely the fault of men like Wilson and Leaver. The government's
research assessment exercise, which determines how much money academic departments
receive, grades them according to the numbers of papers they produce and the
profile of the journals in which they are published. You can spend 30 years
studying the ecology of coconut pests in the Trobriand Islands, only to
discover that you can't publish the results anywhere more prestigious than the
Journal of Trobriand Island Coconut Science. But a good genetic engineering
team can publish a paper in Nature or Science every few months, simply by
repeating a stereotyped series of tests.
Because
they cannot persuade us to eat what we are given, many of Britain's genetic
engineers are turning their attention to countries in which people have less
choice about what or even when they eat. The biotech companies and their tame
scientists are using other people's poverty to engineer their own enrichment.
The government is listening. Under Clare Short, Britain's department for
international development gave pounds13 million to researchers developing
genetically engineered crops for the poor nations, on the grounds that this
will feed the world. [11]
Earlier
this year, Aaron deGrassi, a researcher at the Institute of Development Studies
at Sussex University, published an analysis of the GM crops - cotton, maize and
sweet potato - the biotech companies are developing in Africa. [12]
He discovered that conventional breeding and better ecological management
produce far greater improvements in yields at a fraction of the cost. "The
sweet potato project", he reported, "is now nearing its twelfth year,
and involves over 19 scientists ... and an estimated $6 million. In contrast,
conventional sweet potato breeding in Uganda was able in just a few years to
develop with a small budget a well-liked virus-resistant variety with yield
gains of nearly 100%." [13] The best improvement the
GM sweet potato can produce - even if we believe the biotech companies' hype -
is 18%. But conventional techniques are of no interest to corporations, as they
cannot be monopolised. If the corporations aren't interested, nor is the
government.
Those
of us who oppose the commercialisation of GM crops have often been accused of
being anti-science, just as opponents of George Bush are labelled
anti-American, and critics of Ariel Sharon anti-semitic. But no one threatens
science more than the government departments which distort the research agenda
in order to develop something we have already rejected.
George Monbiot is Honorary Professor at
the Department of Politics in Keele and Visiting Professor at the Department of
Environmental Science at the University of East London. He writes a weekly
column for the Guardian newspaper of London. His recently released book, The
Age of Consent (Flamingo Press), puts forth proposals for global democratic
governance. His articles and contact info can be found at his website: www.monbiot.com.
* The
Philosophy of Cant: Part Three of Three-Part Series on Trade
* Whose Side
Are You On?: Part Two of a Three-Part Series on Trade
* The Worst of Times:
Part One of a Three-Part Series on Trade
* Beware the
Bluewash: The UN Should not Become the Dustbin for America's Failed Adventures
* Poisoned
Chalice: Wherever it is Prescribed, a Dose of IMF Medicine Only Compounds
Economic Crisis
* SleepWalking
to Extinction
* Driven
Out of Eden
* Shadow of
Extinction: Only Six Degrees Separate Our World from the Cataclysmic End of an
Ancient Era
* I Was
Wrong About Trade: “Localization” is Both Destructive and Unjust
* Seize the Day:
Using Globalization As Vehicle For the First Global Democratic Revolution
* Trashing
Africa: Blair Has Ensured that Europe and the US Will Continue to Promote
Famine
* War
Crimes Case in Belgium Illustrates Folly of Blair’s Belief That US is
Interested in Justice
References:
1. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences
Research Council. Current Grants awarded by Agri-Food Committee http://dataserv.bbsrc.ac.uk/cgi-bin/theson.cgi?*ID=1&*DB=WORK&WWW,CSG=Y&CONF=N&WEBY,WWEB=&WEBY,WWEB=af.area.+and+n.term.&FLAG,FRON,INSO=3&RONO,SRON,SUFF=&INAM,WINS=&TITL=&DESC=&LEAD,SUPV%5D%5BGRNT=&AREA=&FRON=&*SR=0&*ST=0
2. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research
Council. BBSRC's Governance Structure http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/about/gov/Welcome.html
3. Ibid.
4. Homegrown Cereals Authority. About
HGCA. http://www.hgca.com/default.asp?InitialPage=/abouthgca/default.asp
5. Homegrown Cereals Authority. Current
research. http://www.hgca.com
6. Meat and Livestock Commission.
Variations in the bovine double muscling gene and their effect on growth,
conformation and calving. http://www.mlc.org.uk/cattle/technical/research.html/?i=1016120505&action=view&s=Cattle|Technical%20advice|Current%20research
7. Duncan Pullar, Meat and Livestock
Commission, ibid.
8. Ian Sample and James Meikle, 25th
September 2003. Brain drain threatens GM crop research: Public antipathy
towards genetically modified crops is driving Britain's leading plant
scientists to seek greener pastures abroad. The Guardian.
9. Michael Wilson, 10th May 2000.
Evidence before the Parliamentary Select Committee on Agriculture. http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmagric/484/0051013.htm
10. Ian Sample and James Meikle, ibid.
11. Independent on Sunday, 15th September
2002. Britain funds pounds 13.4m GM programme in Third World.
12. Aaron diGrassi, June 2003.
Genetically Modified Crops and Sustainable Poverty Alleviation in Sub-Saharan
Africa. Third World Network, Africa. http://www.twnafrica.org/docs/GMCropsAfrica.pdf
13. Ibid.