Now on ScienceBlogs: Wuv, Twue Wuv

ScienceBlogs Book Club: Inside the Outbreaks
   

The Scientific Activist

Biotechs Actively Impeding Transgenic Crop Research

If I ran an agricultural biotech company and I wanted to go out of my way to alienate my supporters and lend credence to my conspiracy theory-peddling critics, I think that this is exactly how I would go about doing...

       

Search This Blog

This Blog and the Old Site



Pass It Along





submit to
reddit

The Scientific Activist

Profile

scientificactivistprofile.gif A postdoc by day and a scientific activist by night, Nick Anthis isn't letting his research in protein structure and function get in the way of defending scientific and social progress.

Subscribe via Email or RSS

Email Stay up to date on the latest from The Scientific Activist by email.

RSS See updates in real time with my RSS feed.

Recent Posts

Top Posts

Twitter

Other Stuff

Nick Anthis's Profile
Nick Anthis's Facebook profile



« "[She] treated her last flu with castoff amoxicillin." | Main | Metaphorical Smack Down of the "Cult of Darwinism" Argument »

Biotechs Actively Impeding Transgenic Crop Research

Category: academiatransgenic crops
Posted on: February 22, 2009 6:52 AM, by Nick Anthis

If I ran an agricultural biotech company and I wanted to go out of my way to alienate my supporters and lend credence to my conspiracy theory-peddling critics, I think that this is exactly how I would go about doing so. From The New York Times:

Biotechnology companies are keeping university scientists from fully researching the effectiveness and environmental impact of the industry's genetically modified crops, according to an unusual complaint issued by a group of those scientists.

"No truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions," the scientists wrote in a statement submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency. The E.P.A. is seeking public comments for scientific meetings it will hold next week on biotech crops.

...

The problem, the scientists say, is that farmers and other buyers of genetically engineered seeds have to sign an agreement meant to ensure that growers honor company patent rights and environmental regulations. But the agreements also prohibit growing the crops for research purposes.

So while university scientists can freely buy pesticides or conventional seeds for their research, they cannot do that with genetically engineered seeds. Instead, they must seek permission from the seed companies. And sometimes that permission is denied or the company insists on reviewing any findings before they can be published, they say.

Such agreements have long been a problem, the scientists said, but they are going public now because frustration has been building.

I don't think that this has as much to do with biotechs trying to hide anything as it does with the great lengths they'll go through to protect the bottom line. This is a chronic problem facing transgenic crop research and it illustrates once again why university-based research is so important. The fact of the matter is that the biotechs are always going to have their own profits in mind, so they're always going to maintain incredibly restrictive policies about how their crops are used by researchers and by farmers.

Also, they'll continue to focus on underwhelming avenues--particularly crops that are resistant to herbicides or produce their own insecticides--that may be profitable but will do little address the much larger problems of global hunger and malnutrition. This has been a running theme in my past coverage of transgenic crops. So, unfortunately, I think that the only long-term solution here is for researchers to ween themselves off of industry-funded and industry-focused research and instead concentrate on the areas where academia can really make an impact.

Sphere: Related Content

Share on Facebook
Share on StumbleUpon
Share on Facebook

Comments

1

I think that he has to have countries there which pass besides standards of 'Monsanto', and which are free to exploit seeds, to reappoint them and to sell them.
Everybody is free to examine has his way what check seems to him.

Traduction Reverso:(french) Je pense qu'il doit y avoir des pays qui passent outre des normes de 'Monsanto', et qui sont libres d'en exploiter les semences, de les renommer et de les vendre.
Tout le monde est libre d'examiner a sa guise ce qui bon lui semble.

Posted by: humorix | February 22, 2009 7:54 AM

2

It is understandable that companies with intellectual property in seeds would limit access to those that are contractually bound to pay royalties, not reverse engineer, sell for seed, etc.

Here in Canada, Monsanto v. Schmeiser went all the way to the Supreme Court. I'm not sure Wikipedia report things exactly the way they went down, my take is, Schmeiser probably knew exactly what he was doing, Monsanto was justified in their suit to protect their rights. The odd thing in my mind is that the court said in effect, 'yeah, he infringed on the property rights of Monsanto, but their was no economic benefit so there should be no costs awarded.' Could this be used to justify experimental use without paying royalty fees, sort of like 'fair use' for copyright?

And don't underestimate herbicide resistance or pest tolerance. I've been growing RR canola for a decade or so, and the decision to smile and pay Monsanto's fees is a no-brainer.

Without the reward, how do you get anyone to develop the technology? Canada had - still has, to some extent - a large public plant breeding program. Canola was developed into a major edible-oil crop by this system. Maybe we need to go back to go forward.

Posted by: Brad | February 22, 2009 10:15 AM

Post a Comment

(Email is required for authentication purposes only. On some blogs, comments are moderated for spam, so your comment may not appear immediately.)





ScienceBlogs

Search ScienceBlogs:

Go to:

Advertisement
Follow ScienceBlogs on Twitter

© 2006-2011 ScienceBlogs LLC. ScienceBlogs is a registered trademark of ScienceBlogs LLC. All rights reserved.