|
Advisory /
BIOTECHNOLOGY
Home Biotechnology
A new social contract on biotechnology
By Louise O.
Fresco
The "molecular divide" between
developed and developing countries threatens to aggravate
current inequalities...
 Biotechnology
provokes profound public mistrust. Governments, consumers,
farmers and, to a lesser extent, scientists disagree
fundamentally on its risks and benefits. The classical
humanistic vision that science will naturally lead to social
progress has been severely eroded, and scientists bear much of
the responsibility. Rather than expanding the theoretical
possibilities of biotechnology, they need to discuss more, and
more concretely, "where we want to go" and what roads we
should take.
FAO studies show that the pace of advance in biotechnology in
developing countries varies considerably, and that many
countries are not exploring the full range of biotechnology
tools. Globally, 85% of plantings of transgenic crops are
herbicide-resistant soybean, insect-resistant maize and
genetically improved cotton. These crops are designed to
reduce input and labour costs in large scale production
systems, not to feed the developing world or increase food
quality. There are no serious investments in sorghum, pearl
millet, pigeon pea, chickpea and groundnut, the five most
important crops in the semi-arid tropics. This is largely
because 70% of investment in agricultural biotechnology comes
from the multinational private sector, with a focus on
genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and biotic stresses.
There are virtually no major public sector programmes that
tackle the critical problems of the poor and the environment,
or that target small ruminants or crops such as cassava.
What we are witnessing is a molecular divide between developed
and developing countries, between rich and poor farmers,
between research priorities and needs, between technology
development and technology transfer - in short, between the
promise of biotechnology and its real impact. As the gaps
widen, will biotechnology aggravate current inequalities in
the world?
Three principles:
There is no shortcut to building the credibility and public
acceptance of agricultural biotechnology, or to ensuring that
it contributes to pressing social needs. A new contract is
needed between all stakeholders - between North and South,
between public and private research, between scientists and
citizens. Such a contract would be based on three principles:
 Open
dialogue on biotechnology's benefits and risks
The borderlines between research, marketing, public relations
and activism are increasingly hazy. In order to arbitrate
between risks and opportunities, we need a wide-ranging
dialogue guided by objective information, with multilateral
organizations such as FAO playing a key role as honest
brokers. Because scientific knowledge of possible risks lags
behind technological capacities, FAO supports science-based
evaluation procedures that objectively determine the benefits
and risks of each individual GMO on a case-by-case basis,
prior to its release. Well-functioning regulatory systems are
the only way to regain public confidence in food safety, and
regional and global harmonization of environmental risk
analysis will be crucial.
Public and private research to respond to key challenges :
Biotechnology must be redirected to address the pressing needs
of the poor and new demands for food quality and quantity and
new agricultural products. It can do that by complementing
existing techniques and holistic agronomic approaches in order
to sustain production and manage risks. Biotechnology is just
one of many roads to sustainable intensification - which
options are best suited to specific production bottlenecks in
developing countries needs to be determined case-by-case,
taking into account economic, technical, social, trade and
safety considerations. Perhaps the greatest short-term
potential of biotechnology lies not in GMOs but in genetic
markers, genomics and proteomics that complement conventional
breeding strategies and enhance their efficiency.
Research priorities should also put emphasis on key challenges
facing developing countries, such as abiotic stresses (e.g.
drought, soil erosion and salinity). The point is harnessing
genetic resources through biotechnology, not just manipulating
them. For example, biotechnology tools can contribute to the
conservation, characterization and utilization of
biodiversity, through in vitro culture and maintenance of ex
situ germplasm collections, and to embryo rescue and
artificial insemination for breeding and preserving rare
animal breeds.
Moving beyond biotechnology, the entire discipline of life
sciences needs to be harnessed for natural resources
management and for designing sustainable agricultural
production systems. Agronomic research is becoming
increasingly specialized and exclusively focused on the plant
or cellular levels. In pest management, for example, the
perceived profit potential of GMOs has moved investment away
from systems-based approaches and towards a greater reliance
on monocultures. The long-term environmental and economic
costs of such strategies should not be overlooked.
 The
key to reorienting research for the benefit of developing
countries is funding. We need to better exploit the
comparative advantages of public and private research,
recognizing that research in this field is an international
public good. This means reversing the decline in funding for
public research, and creating incentives to harness
private/public sector partnerships while protecting the public
interest.
Access and benefit-sharing :
The fact that many new technologies are held by the private
sector raises concern over fair and equitable access, benefit
sharing and the impact of current intellectual property rights
(IPR) regimes. As the frontiers between discovery and
invention become blurred, this issue has become particularly
critical in the use of plant and animal genetic resources. The
case of "Golden Rice" - which saw various industries claim
some 40 different patented steps at the time of release - is a
clear example of barriers to access. On the other hand, we
have to recognize that IPRs are crucial to the growth of the
biotechnology industry, and that lack of patent protection in
a country can limit access to the results of biotechnology
originating elsewhere. IPRs are not a good in themselves, but
a tool that society uses to achieve certain objectives, such
as placing information in the public sector and promoting
innovation. Noteworthy steps towards the development of
innovative IPRs have already been taken with the Uruguay
Roudagreements, the Convention on Biological Diversity and
FAO's International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food
and Agriculture, which recognized Farmers' Rights as a
complement to the Plant Breeder's Rights.
The way forward:
Achieving a new social contract requires, first, effective
procedures - where possible, regionally or internationally
agreed - in order to monitor where, how and when GMO products
and processes have been introduced, as well as their
post-release effects. Support should be given to developing
countries in defining and implementing effective national
policies on agricultural biotechnology.
Developing countries also need, urgently, to establish a
capacity to assess and manage all aspects of risk throughout
their food chain. A global research network is needed to
broaden the use of biotechnologies for sustainable
agriculture, matching the needs and demands from any part of
the world with the vast expertise, technology and financial
resources available. Such a network of knowledge and expertise
could create a fair platform for developing countries to
tackle crops of global significance.
Even in these times of financial stringency, resources must be
directed towards public research producing public goods. FAO
calls on private sector companies to share their technologies
and information with developing countries free of charge or at
minimal cost, particularly when no important market is lost by
facilitating such access. We need to consider partnerships to
constitute a public technology bank, which would put key
technologies and products at the disposal of poor farmers in
the developing world.
To begin, we must rise above prejudice and inertia.
Biotechnology holds great promise, but involves new risks. In
most countries, the scientific, political, economic or
institutional basis is not yet in place to provide adequate
safeguards for biotechnology development and application, and
to reap all the potential benefits. Clearly the question is
not what is technically possible, but where and how life
sciences and biotechnology can contribute to meeting the
challenges of sustainable agriculture and development in the
21st century. It is up to us to decide "the roads we take",
and mobilize the political will to bridge the molecular
divide.
FAO |
Pakissan.com;
|
