SD Main Page ~ Download PDF ~ Download Text ~ Back INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON BIOTECHNOLOGY IN THE
GLOBAL ECONOMY 2-3 SEPTEMBER 1999 The International Conference on Biotechnology in the
Global Economy took place in Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, from 2-3
September 1999. Organized and hosted by the Center for International
Development (CID) and the Belfer Center for Science and International
Affairs, Harvard University, the conference attracted over 200
participants from academic institutions, civil society, industry,
government departments and international organizations, including the UN
Commission on Science and Technology for Development, UN Conference on
Trade and Development (UNCTAD), UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO),
the World Bank and the Global Environment Facility Secretariat(GEF). The
conference aimed to broaden the debate on biotechnology beyond the narrow
confines of the biosafety question and to foster dialogue between
researchers, entrepreneurs, political leaders, policy makers and
practitioners. Participants met in four plenary sessions to hear
keynote speeches on science and economy in the new millennium; science,
technology and international development; biotechnology in the global
economy; and the way ahead. They also met in nine break-out sessions to
discuss: the evolution of the biotechnology industry; biotechnology in
international trade; intellectual property rights (IPRs) in biotechnology;
biotechnology and international relations; bioprospecting; biotechnology
in developing countries; environmental aspects of biotechnology;
biotechnology and human health; and ethics, social values and
biotechnology. The output of the conference will be a brief summary
of the discussions which Calestous Juma will prepare, focusing on
solutions rather than on concerns. This conference material is expected to
feed into research agendas, policy discussions, and training and
educational material on biotechnology and public policy. The Harvard CID
will set up a task force to keep open the emerging dialogue among
participants on the continually evolving issues in the biotechnology
field. BACKGROUND Although humans have cross-pollinated plants and
cross-bred animals for centuries to suit their own needs, recent
technological advances that permit manipulation to extend to the genetic
level have provoked differing reactions from different sectors of the
society, ranging from optimism to cautiousness to moral outrage. While
Europe has witnessed a strong public outcry against genetically modified
foods, elsewhere in the developed world concern has been centered on the
possible trade restrictions on agricultural exports and consequent loss of
profits. While some have focused on the possible negative health, safety
and socio-economic repercussions of biotechnology, others have stressed
its enormous potential to feed the burgeoning populations of the
developing world with pest-free and nutrient-enriched food. Consensus on this controversial issue has thus far
eluded policy makers, resulting in conflict and dissension in the various
international fora that are currently considering differing aspects of
biotechnology – the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD), the FAO Commission on Access to Genetic Resources,
Codex Alimentarius, the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the Convention
on Biological Diversity (CBD). Earlier this year an Extraordinary Meeting
of the CBD Conference of the Parties failed to reach agreement on the
biosafety protocol as scheduled, and informal consultations of the CBD’s
Ad Hoc Working Group on Biosafety to resume the extraordinary meeting of
the COP are scheduled for mid-September. It is against this background of
controversy that Harvard’s International Conference on Biotechnology is
set. REPORT OF THE CONFERENCE OPENING SESSION: SCIENCE AND ECONOMY IN THE NEW
MILLENIUM Jeffrey Sachs, CID, opened the conference, noting
intense controversy over biotechnology in the last few months. He
contrasted the remarkable potential of biotechnology in areas such as
health and agriculture with the great challenge of making it safe and
publicly acceptable. David Sandalow, White House Council on Environmental
Quality/National Security Council, highlighted seven questions the
Conference should aim to address:
Peter Raven, Missouri Botanical Garden, began his
presentation by discussing the global transformations within which
biotechnology has emerged in this century, notably: the advent of crop and
animal domestication; agricultural expansion into wilderness areas;
increasing human population densities; rising disparities in wealth and
consumption patterns; global climate change; and the rapid loss of
stratospheric ozone and biodiversity. He asserted that the CBD ought to
focus on biodiversity conservation, biospheric sustainability and wealth
sharing rather than on trade battles over genetically modified crops. He
stated that sustainability implies living on the earth’s interest rather
than its capital and that biodiversity, as an intrinsically regional and
national good, requires local actions and initiatives. On the organization of the biotechnology industry,
Raven emphasized the importance of scientific knowledge networks. He
traced the history of research on DNA and genetic transfers, contending
that 1990s “hype” regarding genetic modification and transgenics has
not recognized that genetically modified crops are biologically similar to
other kinds of crops. However, Raven expressed support for: sustainable
agriculture; the labeling of bio-engineered foods; and the examination of
their properties and potential environmental impacts through publicly
trusted institutions. He recommended making the 21st Century an "age
of biology", with more transparent and frequent consultations between
the stakeholders involved in biotechnology, and establishing new
socially-oriented institutions able to handle the rapid advances and
impacts of biotechnology. DINNER ADDRESS: SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT In his dinner address, Mohamed Hassan, Third World
Academy of Sciences, highlighted growing disparities in scientific
development between developed and developing nations as one of the major
challenges currently being faced by the global scientific community. He
said that while 90% of research on science and technology is based in
developed countries, only a few developing countries have experienced
significant scientific or technological progress in recent years. He
asserted that efforts by international organizations to overcome these
disparities have not been successful and emphasized the importance of
scientific knowledge and research and development (R&D) as a means to
bridge the gap between developed and developing countries. Hassan
underscored the need to enhance developing countries’ research
capacities in areas of concern to them, including information technology
and biotechnology. He called for the creation of centers of excellence in
developing countries and establishment of information-sharing networks on
the internet that link scientists, academies, centers of excellence and
R&D institutions throughout the world. KEYNOTE ADDRESSES: BIOTECHNOLOGY IN THE GLOBAL
ECONOMY Jeffrey Sachs, CID, asked participants to consider
how biotechnology and global science might be mobilized for economic
development in poor countries and whether institutions that reflect the
health and food system needs of developing countries can be established
which also reflect global market realities. In describing the “ecology of economic
development,” Sachs suggested that two ecological gradients determine
the geographic distribution of poverty and wealth: latitudinal climate and
access to sea navigability. Sachs also claimed that economic models of
convergence, which assume that open trade flows and markets narrow the gap
between rich and poor, operate within rather than across regional
ecological zones. Hence, biotechnology sciences are both ecologically
specific and driven by market forces. Sachs recommended:
Stefan Moraveck, United Nations Commission on Science
and Technology for Development, described the Commission as an advisory
body to the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) which
examines and makes recommendations to the UN regarding science and
technological matters. He expressed the Commission’s interest in
interacting with academia, the private sector and R&D institutions. Moraveck noted frequent political friction within the
Commission on the relationship between R&D and market forces. He
stated that the Commission had recently concluded that partnerships and
networks are a means to achieve national and regional capacity-building
for biotechnology. He said the Commission had also addressed critical
issues on biotechnology for food production not currently addressed in
other fora. He recommended:
EVOLUTION OF THE BIOTECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY Fernando Quezada, Biotechnology Center of Excellence
Corporation, facilitated this session that traced the evolution and
structure of the biotechnology industry in relation to national
competitiveness and globalization. Quezada proposed that a distinction be
made between the geographic distribution of biotechnology companies and
their numbers, as well as between cyclical changes and changes that
present completely novel and hence risky transformations. He asserted that
globalization has led to the establishment of a few, large global
biotechnology companies that maintain entry thresholds too high for
smaller, later arriving competitors. Quezada recommended consideration of
how to balance public and private sector involvement and better understand
recent reconfigurations of relationships between government, industry,
academic and public actors. Panelists: Richard Lewontin, Museum of
Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, focused on the key problems and
gradual evolutionary changes in the agro-biotechnology industry. He
emphasized the dominance of rich country innovations and their increasing
protection and control through intellectual property rights. He
highlighted the shift from hybrid crops, identifiable through gene markers
for the purpose of detecting replanting of seeds without contractual
permission, to the new terminator technology, which produces plants with
infertile seeds, that he considered useless to farmers and consumers. Lewontin further highlighted recent agribusiness
activities, particularly the genetic domestication of tropical specialty
crop traits (caffeine and palmytic oils) into temperate crops such as soy
beans and rape, which may harm unique agro-ecological systems and export
economies in the developing world. He encouraged reflection on the
implications of public sector involvement in the creation of terminator
technology and its protection through property rights, referring
specifically to contributions by the United States Department of
Agriculture. Lynn Mytelka, UNCTAD, discussed a number of ruptures
associated with the evolution of the biotechnology and life sciences
industry, which she said was not restricted to agrotechnology and
pharmaceuticals. She particularly highlighted the roles of new genetic
technology, market saturation, patent expiration and ecological impacts as
driving the changes in this dynamic industry, characterized by inter-firm
alliances, mergers and acquisitions and rapid R&D investments. She
said that new dedicated biotechnology oligopolies are increasingly
knowledge-based, global and dependent on patents and licensing. Michael Malinowski, Center for the Study of Law,
Science and Technology, Arizona State University, highlighted US
accomplishments in promoting biotechnology applications, especially new
pharmaceuticals. He noted the rapid transformation of life science
research platforms into biotechnology tools and commercial products since
1988. He attributed this “success story” of drug discovery to: the
recognition of industry-academic alliances; regulatory responsiveness
regarding the patentability of living matter; the US product- rather than
process-oriented approach; the creation of incentives for small business;
state agency reform; and the initiation of the Human Genome Project.
Malinowski also pointed to emerging needs, including standards of care,
funding for clinical research, and the harmonization and removal of
impediments to global market access. Discussion: In ensuing discussion, numerous
participants questioned whether and how to balance public and private
sector involvement in biotechnology R&D. One participant suggested
that the private-public boundary has become blurred. Another participant
asked if the emergence of knowledge-based oligopolies was different from
international biotechnology research networks such as the Consultative
Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) system. Lewontin argued that public investments in science
ultimately serve to subsidize private interests and outcomes. Mytelka
stressed that the public and private sectors are distinct, adding that
oligopolies are closed structures motivated to acquire private gain and
exclude others. Although the CGIAR system, like earlier public sector
biotechnology, was not designed to be a closed system, its need for
economic survival makes patents and closer collaboration with industry
increasingly attractive. Malinowski said that increasing the number and
diversity of biotechnology transfer agreements would be beneficial, as
would centralizing standardized reporting through technology transfer
institutions open to public scrutiny and full disclosure. During remaining
deliberations, panelists and participants offered a number of possible
solutions to current dilemmas, such as:
BIOTECHNOLOGY IN INTERNATIONAL TRADE Scott Stern, Sloan School of Management,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, facilitated debate on the linkages
between the health and environmental risks of biotechnology and
international trade relations between nations and economic blocs. Panelists: Per Pinstrup-Andersen,
International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington D.C., predicted
biotechnology would be an important aspect of the next trade round at the
WTO, particularly on labeling and the precautionary principle. He added
that the Codex Alimentarius Committee would likely be drawn into the WTO. Pinstrup-Andersen attributed opposition to GMOs in
Europe to the fact that Europeans generally do not perceive a need for
GMOs. He highlighted the issue of trade restrictions on seed, referring to
India’s recent ban on terminator technology. He stressed the
significance of biotechnology to developing countries, stating that
developing countries, slated to double their net import of grain by 2020,
will have difficulty reducing their imports without increasing food
productivity through GMOs. Les Levidow, Center for Technology Strategy, Open
University, posed a series of strategic questions: How can the dichotomy
between science and politics created by terms such as “science-based
regulation” be breached? What is the relevance of market stage
precautions and criteria, such as those associated with the WTO-Sanitary
and Phyto-Sanitary agreement, to potential trade barriers and disputes? Since the precautionary approach involves taking
political responsibility for scientific and normative uncertainties
regarding possible undesirable effects of biotechnology, how can it be
refined in practice on a case-by-case basis? How might international trade
be linked to precautionary practices devised by regulators to ensure the
safe use of genetically-modified crops with respect to their
non-genetically-modified counterparts? Peter Pauker, Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs
and International Trade, categorized concerns about GMOs as related to
socio-ethical and religious factors, safety, and environmental damage. He
said that socio-ethical and religious concerns were driving the debate and
needed to be addressed. In identifying the reasons for vehement opposition
to GMOs, he said that GMOs had become a lightening rod for past and
present regulatory failures. Pauker called for the establishment of
credible, balanced and transparent processes to deal with the issues
raised by biotechnology. He stressed that the WTO, Codex Alimentarius and
CBD should each focus on their respective areas of competence. He
highlighted the need for the WTO to determine whether existing trade
provisions apply to biotechnology and whether new provisions are required.
Parker recommended public engagement in a dialogue to enable people to
determine the real risks and benefits of biotechnology. Discussion: The ensuing discussion focused on
the precautionary principle, the role the WTO with respect to
biotechnology, and the anatomy of current public opposition to GMOs. One
participant, identifying reasons for such opposition to GMOs in the UK,
said GMOs are believed to be unnatural, unnecessary and without benefit.
Another participant responded that all agricultural modifications are
unnatural, and today agricultural innovations are tested with
unprecedented levels of precision, predictability and safety. While one
participant said that people make irrational choices and need more
information on biotechnology, another said that the public today is more
scientifically literate than ever before and stressed the need to examine
why the public is opposed to the idea of GMOs. Several participants highlighted the important role
of improving dissemination of biotechnology-related information to the
public. Noting that food security problems in Africa were not due to
production shortfalls but, rather, to mismanagement and corruption, one
participant questioned the use of biotechnology to solve hunger and food
production problems. He critiqued the discussion of the biotechnology
issue in the WTO, which is perceived by developing countries to be lacking
in transparency. Pinstrup-Andersen responded that since the genetically
modified nature of a product can be used to create a non-tariff barrier to
trade this issue belongs within the WTO forum. He claimed that
biotechnology does not belong within Codex Alimentarius discussions or
ongoing negotiations of the CBD. One participant underscored the role of risk
assessment and management in determining the dimensions of doubt. He said
the debate on biotechnology is not an ideological one but one on the
strategic use of doubt. Stern concluded the session by identifying one
area requiring further discussion: the diffusion patterns of biotechnology
products. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS IN BIOTECHNOLOGY Deborah Hurley, Harvard Information Infrastructure
Project, facilitated the session on Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs).
She introduced the members of the panel and said they would present
perspectives on IPR regulation in the US, Europe and other countries. Panelists: Terry Fisher, Harvard Law School, outlined
the intellectual property protection system in the US and referred to the
requirements for patent protection under it. In comparing US patent
requirements to those established in international agreements such as the
Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) agreement and European
directives, he described patent protection in the US as being
“generous” in allowing patents on genetically altered microorganisms,
multicellular plants, animals and certain types of single genes. He
pointed to disadvantages of patent protection, including: rent
dissipation; impediment of secondary innovations; concentration of
ownership of genetic information in developed countries; and exacerbation
of inequalities in wealth distribution. Among advantages he noted
incentives for innovation and acceleration of the pace of biotechnology
applications. Fisher recommended requiring stricter construction of patent
claims, allowing compulsory licenses, permitting price discrimination and
regulating the uses of “patent substitutes” such as contracts and
technological protections, as possible ways of retaining the advantages
while mitigating the disadvantages of patent protection. John Barton, School of Law, Stanford University,
referred to the pharmaceutical sector in the US as the “child” of
patent protection. He noted that technological innovations in the
pharmaceutical sector can be easily replicated, and without adequate
patent protection companies would be unwilling to invest in R&D. He
indicated that in recent years disputes over patent rights have driven
pharmaceutical companies to merge instead of litigating against each
other. He expressed concern that, as a consequence of this, control of the
world’s pharmaceutical markets is in the hands of 5 or 6 multinational
companies. He predicted the continuation of this trend thanks to the TRIPs
agreement extending IPR protection to the rest of the world. He said that
within five years 75% of the pharmaceutical companies in the world will be
owned by bigger companies from developed nations. Barton therefore
suggested balancing patent protection regulations with new laws and
regulations on anti-trust and competition. Johnson Ekpere, Scientific, Technical and Research
Commission, of the Organization of African Unity, called for enhanced
scientific knowledge tailored to the specific circumstances of African
countries. He noted that while biotechnology has been promoted as a
panacea for African food security, the skill and capacity related to this
new technology resides in industrialized nations. Ekpere drew attention to
the potential risks posed by biotechnology and recommended
capacity-building in the areas of assessment, management and monitoring of
risks before biotechnology is commercially introduced into Africa. Discussion: Several participants referred to the
differences between patent protection laws and regulations in the US and
other parts of the world. One participant noted that in many countries
plant and animal varieties are not subject to patents. Another participant
indicated the EU requirement to disclose patents within a certain period
of time to make them part of the public domain is not present in US patent
law. Other participants highlighted their lack of understanding on how
patents would act as an incentive for inventions and development of
technological innovations in developing countries. Some participants
referred to the benefits associated with investment by multinational
companies in developing countries. Others argued that investment by
multinational companies is not necessarily geared towards creating
benefits for developing countries. One participant cautioned that
biotechnology might be used to create food supply monopolies. Several
participants questioned the relationship between the CBD and the TRIPs
agreement, particularly with respect to the protection of traditional
knowledge through sui generis systems. Another participant cautioned
against the potential creation of monopolies in food supplies through the
use of biotechnology. BIOTECHNOLOGY AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Cristián Samper, Chair of the CBD Subsidiary Body
for Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA), facilitated
the session on biotechnology in international relations. He spoke of the
links between biological research and international processes such as FAO
and the CBD and noted the increasing tension between environmental regimes
and the international trade system. He invited panelists and participants
to think about the impact of biotechnology on international relations and
vice versa. Panelists: Patrice Laget, European Commission,
outlined the complex institutional scheme for R&D for biotechnology
development in Europe. He explained the role of the European Commission
within the European Union. He noted a recent increase in resources
allocated to R&D in the life sciences, including research on food,
nutrition health and the environment. He stressed the Commission’s
interest in seeking the involvement of scientists from developing
countries through, inter alia, fellowship programmes. Michael Oborne, OECD, highlighted the contributions
of the OECD to the harmonization of international regulations on
biotechnology, including the elaboration of common scientific concepts,
principles and data requirements to underpin regulation. He gave a brief
overview of the work of the OECD Group on Harmonization and Regulatory
Oversight, the Committee for Scientific Work on recombinant DNA Safety and
the Group of National Experts on Biotechnology and GMOs. He recalled the
recent G-8 (Group of Seven highly industrialized nations plus Russia)
mandate on the need to undertake further research on the implications of
biotechnology for food safety. Edward Hammond, Consultant in Genetic Resources,
presented a brief overview of how indigenous peoples’ rights are being
addressed in international fora, including the CBD, World Intellectual
Property Organisation (WIPO) and the FAO Commission on Genetic Resources.
He expressed concern over the lack of an international system to protect
communities’ traditional knowledge and said that IPRs pose an additional
threat. He stated that IPRs prey on traditional knowledge and said that
attempts to protect traditional knowledge through sui generis systems
would improve indigenous peoples’ situation. He recalled WIPO’s work
in this regard but noted that it has come under increasing pressure from
the WTO. He said that the FAO Commission on Genetic Resources work on
farmers’ rights over seeds used in their own land is a ray of hope
against the use of “terminator technology” which renders seeds
sterile. Discussion: On terminator technology, one
participant questioned why society would want to deprive companies of the
necessary incentives to develop new technologies through R&D that may
benefit many people. Hammonds responded that sufficient incentives exist
for profit generation and added that terminator technology does not render agronomic nor socio-economic benefits. Another participant suggested broadening the scope of
the discussion and called for consideration of how technology is affecting
international relations and why people are reacting so strongly to
biotechnology. On the first question, one participant noted the
difficulties countries face in trying to adapt to provisions under
international agreements. On the second question, many participants
referred to the uneasiness caused by the uncertainties inherent in the use
of biotechnology and stressed the need for scientific, social, cultural
and ethical input. Others countered that scientific knowledge is the only
way to resolve uncertainties and reach consensus. Samper concluded the session by drawing attention to
the fragmented state of the debate and suggested that increased
transparency, dissemination of information and participation in
decision-making processes would be useful for bridging differences of
opinion among peoples, countries and sectors regarding biotechnology and
its use. BIOPROSPECTING This session was facilitated by Theadore Panayotou,
Environment and Natural Resources, CID. Panayotou opened the discussion by
emphasizing that while bioprospecting represents a direct link between
biodiversity and technology, benefit sharing is not a simple exchange of
technology for biological resources between developed and developing
countries. He highlighted the North’s patented technology and capacity
to produce chemical synthetics in contradistinction to the unprotected
status of Southern and tropical biodiversity. He added that fair benefit
sharing depends on how biodiversity is valued and what is being valued -
an entire ecosystem habitat, a protected area or species, genetic material
or associated patented properties or products. Panelists: Timothy Swanson, School of Public
Policy, University College, London, spoke on estimating the informational
and use value of genetic resources. He emphasized that such biological
resources are not without economic value and described three approaches to
economic valuation of biodiversity: the factorial approach that allocates
shares of total revenues at the end of pharmaceutical production to
numerous factors such as royalties for biological specimens and the value
of land allocated for plant collection and screening; the search approach
to valuation that estimates the marginal value of probability of genetic
resources providing a medical solution; and the production function
approach that enables measurement of the contribution of genetic resources
to the production of final outputs in agricultural contexts. Anil Gupta, Indian Institute of Management, spoke on
biopiracy, bio-partnership and bio-grassroots ventures. He said that the
burden of fairness should not only be placed on biotechnology producers
but also on all pertinent social institutions, and that sustainable
extraction should not be isolated from in situ biodiversity conservation.
He noted that: two-thirds of plant-derived human drugs are used for the
same purposes for which native peoples discovered and used them;
innovation, investment and enterprise need to be linked in bioprospecting
and such linkages cannot emerge from the state alone; indigenous peoples
and their knowledge systems and experts cannot be simply seen as
“traditional” or “communal”; and bioprospecting can be pursued by
local as well as global industries. In conclusion he called for:
Katy Moran, Healing Forest Conservancy, spoke about
sharing benefits arising from plant-based drug discovery and
commercialization. She described her institution’s strategy and
experience in returning long-term benefits to all countries and culture
groups that choose to contribute plants and knowledge to Shaman
Pharmaceuticals. No matter where a plant sample or knowledge originates,
she emphasized that benefit sharing requires: diverse models; different
time frames; prior informed consent; the recognition of local knowledge
and experimentation; long-term profit; and risk sharing. Benefit-sharing
activities supported by Healing Forest Conservancy include: community
development projects such as water irrigation and airfield construction
during drug development; training in plant collection and the preparation
of herbaria specimens; and, in the case of drug commercialization, trust
funds and legal constitutions for allocating financial resources equitably
for the purposes of integrated rural development and traditional medicine.
Discussion: In ensuing discussion, facilitator
Panayotou asked participants to reflect upon shifting biodiversity values
and the interdependence that may exist between biotechnology, patents and
biodiversity knowledge. Many participants noted the challenge of
developing national policies for access to genetic resources to ensure
biodiversity conservation and the partitioning of benefits. One participant noted that pharmaceutical companies
place economic value on phytochemical extracts rather than on genetic or
living material, adding that attaching dollar values to a hectare of
forest may ignore the existence values not captured by quantifying genetic
material. Another participant questioned the distinction being made
between contemporary and traditional knowledge, while yet another noted
that biodiversity is treated economically as an open access resource but
legally as patentable private property. A few participants highlighted the
issue of academic, research or botanical institutions acting as
intermediary spokespersons for diverse local communities and disadvantaged
groups, while other participants called for increasing collaboration with
commercial actors. Also mentioned was the need to obtain prior informed
consent, recognize the heterogeneity of local communities, and bring
together diverse stakeholders to discuss ways to resolve bioprospecting
conflicts and devise alternative strategies. BIOTECHNOLOGY IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES As facilitator, Sudha Nair, M.S. Swaminathan Research
Foundation, requested participants to examine the institutional factors
affecting the ability of developing countries to use biotechnology to meet
their needs, and to focus on devising strategies to optimize the benefits
of the biotechnology revolution. Panelists: Manfred Kern, Biological Research,
AgroEvo GmbH, Germany, characterized biotechnology as a tool to deal with
food insecurity in sub-Saharan Africa which is due, inter alia, to: poor
marketing and processing systems; low investment capacity; poor
administration; lack of funding for research; and poor management of
natural resources. He stressed the need for developing countries to draw
up a catalogue of unsolved technical problems for presentation to big
companies. He affirmed that although AgroEvo GmbH would not expect to make
a profit when approached by developing countries for assistance, it would
not expect to lose money in the endeavor. In addition to biotechnology,
Kern identified several potential measures for feeding the world,
including: facilitating access to developed country technology;
cooperation/partnerships/pilot projects in R&D; enhancing R&D on
neglected crops; support for safety research; promotion of private local
seed companies; and promotion of patents in developing countries. Hans Herren, International Center of Insect
Physiology and Ecology, Kenya, asked whether developing country farmers
needed GMOs. He said biotechnology could do little to address the problems
of soil infertility, difficult credit and market access, lack of storage
facilities and inadequate infrastructure that plague developing country
agriculture. Herren highlighted issues such as gene flow and genetic
pollution risks in the deployment of new GM varieties. He recommended
training to enable people to understand what happens when GMOs are
deployed. He cautioned that GMOs are not a “silver bullet” solution
and concluded that there is a need for a comprehensive strategy to address
food insecurity in the developing world. Robert Herdt, Rockefeller Foundation, said that
solving Africa’s food problems necessitates addressing food
productivity. He stressed the need for better education for women,
well-functioning markets and higher farm productivity. He said higher farm
productivity would depend on broader use of currently available improved
technology, the importation of well-adapted technology and local adaptive
research. He identified a potential role for biotechnology but cautioned
that because farmers reuse seed the market is very small. On the situation
of developing countries vis-à-vis biotechnology, Herren stressed that
multinational seed companies are not focused on their needs; the CBD and
TRIPs are forcing the pace of change; and there is little biotechnology
that merits IPR protection. He said developing countries get very little
help from the US to address their needs in agriculture. Major companies
focus on profitable hybrid maizes and hybrid cottons rather than on the
rice, yam and cassava that are staple foods in the developing world. He
called for strategies to harness biotechnology to improve living
conditions in the developing world. Discussion: Several participants expressed
concern for the recent decrease in agricultural development assistance.
Some identified a need for political will at the national and
international level. One participant asked how to initiate a dialogue with
political leaders in developing countries to get them to take the lead.
Another participant stressed that the focus be on helping developing
countries develop local capacity to address their problems. Herren cautioned those seeking a “quick fix” that
the potential of biotechnology should be used “in harmony” with other
social, cultural, economic and ethical aspects. One participant
highlighted the need for institutions and processes to include women’s
views, considering women’s significant involvement in farming. One
participant queried the value added by biotechnology. In response, Kern
said biotechnology could contribute higher yields and lower pesticide use.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS OF BIOTECHNOLOGY Facilitator Victor Buxton, Environment Canada,
introduced the topic by saying that countries now face the challenging
prospect of developing institutional arrangements to identify and manage
the risks associated with biotechnology. He queried whether biotechnology
is likely to offer the next generation of environmental remediation
technology. Panelists: William Clark, Belfer Center for
Science and International Affairs, Harvard University, identified
structural questions to help provide a framework for analysis:
He proposed that: the imbalance of benefit takers and
risk takers be addressed, especially for the developing world;
collaborative networks for research, monitoring and assessment be
developed; adaptive management strategies with provision for outside
evaluation be designed; and precautionary values be taken seriously. René von Schomberg, European Commission, sought to
focus discussions on three questions:
He asserted that the precautionary principle is
neither designed to restrict trade nor to conflict with risk assessment.
He referred to the European Directive 90/220/EC concerning the deliberate
release of GMOs into the environment. This Directive translates the
precautionary principle into precautionary regulation that incorporates
flexible regulatory standards and proportionate regulatory requirements. Luther Val Giddings, Biotechnology Industry
Organization, said that biotechnology applied to agriculture is critical
to meet the challenges of food production. He added that many aspects of
biotechnology are fundamentally “green” in their application. He
stressed that biotechnology could alleviate pressures on wild lands and
biodiversity and suggested applying the standard of “relative risk”
rather than absolute risk to biotechnology. He stressed that transgenic
food crops have been subjected to more safety reviews and a priori
scrutiny than any other crop in history. He lamented the fact that
biotechnology had become a lightening rod for many issues with the ironic
consequence of delaying the influx of more environmentally safe
technologies. On information dissemination, Giddings said that while there
were several facts that would be “nice to know,” there are only some
facts that regulators “need to know.” Discussion: One participant termed the efforts
to justify biotechnology on grounds of food insecurity as
“disingenuous”, since current efforts at biotechnology have not been
targeted towards the South, and recommended examination of the consumption
patterns of the North. Val Giddings responded that biotechnology is not
the sole solution to food insecurity in the developing world, but pointed
out that a few companies have targeted research and technology towards
developing countries. BIOTECHNOLOGY AND HUMAN HEALTH The session on biotechnology and human health was
facilitated by Alexander Golikov, Inter-Agency Commission on Genetic
Engineering Activity, Russian Academy of Sciences. Panelists: Sheldon Krimsky, Department of
Urban and Environmental Policy, Tufts University, said there had never
been such a global debate over an issue about which so little is known. He
noted that there were no standard tests for health hazards in crops as
there are for chemicals. He said there are two prevalent views on testing
for health risks associated with genetically modified food. According to
the first, food is considered to be safe when it does not cause or
contribute to disease. The second view is broader and more complex because
it involves the nutritional components of food to determine food safety.
He noted the US Food and Drug Administration’s voluntary consultative
process to test transgenic food products for safety. Elettra Ronchi, OECD, referred to her institution’s
contribution to science-based approaches to risk regulation, referring to
the “Blue Book” of principles and guidelines developed in 1982 by a
group of OECD national experts. Work on food safety was later undertaken
and the principle of “substantial equivalence” was developed. The
science-based approach to risk regulation refers to the fact that
guidelines, rules and regulations are to be based on the best available
scientific knowledge and should be sufficiently flexible to adapt to new
technology. According to the principle of “substantial equivalence,”
the most practical approach to the determination of safety is to consider
whether food components from organisms developed by the application of
modern biotechnology are substantially equivalent to analogous
conventional food. Julian Kinderlerer, Department of Molecular Biology
and Biotechnology, Sheffield University, elaborated on the effects of
information on public opinion and consumer behavior. He recounted that
until 1991 the only genetically modified food on the market in the UK was
a certain brand of tomato paste. Once the highest-selling brand in the
market, it was ultimately removed from counters due to adverse publicity
about genetically modified foods. He noted, however, that in many
instances public opinions are shaped by misconceptions due to inadequate
information, citing reports that the vast majority of Europeans believe
only transgenic foods contain genes. Discussion: Referring to the impact of GMOs on
human health, one participant questioned why public perception of
genetically modified crops as an alternative to use of hazardous
pesticides has recently shifted to a view that they represent a threat.
Krimsky pointed to the role played by NGOs and other segments of civil
society regarding biotechnology. One participant noted that sometimes
activism discredits the veracity of scientifically-based facts. Other
participants argued that NGOs play an important role in asserting the
right of consumers to know whether they are purchasing a genetically
modified good or not. Most participants agreed that better public
understanding of GMOs is important and called for better communication
strategies and dissemination of information about genetically modified
organisms, goods and products by the companies or institutions that
research and produce them. ETHICS, SOCIAL VALUES AND BIOTECHNOLOGY Facilitator Timothy Weiskel, Environmental Ethics and
Public Policy Program, Harvard University, introduced the session on the
ethical dimensions and social values attached to biotechnology. Panelists: Sheila Jasanoff, Belfer Center for Science
and International Affairs, Harvard University, began by noting how a sense
of crisis permeates many presentations. She suggested seeing such
perspectives as an outcome of the success of reason and values of the 18th
Century Enlightenment, particularly: the wide diffusion and accessibility
of technical knowledge; the institutionalization of complex governance
structures; and the enhanced capacities of people to be reflective and
critical about the technologies we produce. Jasanoff proposed that biotechnology debates take
into consideration three well-established critiques of technology: the
notion that technologies lead to unintended consequences; an understanding
of technology systems as political, rather than value-free, channels for
reaffirming inequalities and structural problems out of which technologies
emerge; and, finally, recognition that rationality and progress must be
seen differently by different social and cultural actors. She concluded by
asking whether biotechnology rests on competing visions of progress and
what institutional mechanisms can assist in resolving and negotiating
around these differences. Harriet Strimpel, Bromberg and Sunstein Attorneys at
Law, discussed the role of patents in biotechnology. She said that the
value of a patent depends on the “terrain of patentability,” that is,
the actual use of patents, the national jurisdiction and legal
infrastructure within which they are legalized, and whether mechanisms for
effective exclusion of others exist. She pointed out differences between
the US, where no moral legal provision exists in the patent system, and
Europe, where moral concerns for not disrupting l’ordre public (the
public order) can justify non-patentability. She concluded by asking
participants to reflect upon whether there is a distinction to be made
between real property and intellectual property or between human organs
and plant materials. Tony La Viña, Biological Resources Programme, World
Resources Institute, linked the issues of ethics and social values to the
current paralysis of negotiations associated with the CBD and its pending
biosafety protocol. He portended a crisis of failure given the ease with
which ethical and social issues are recognized but not seriously
addressed. He noted three factors that make current biotechnology
especially difficult to grapple with: its rapid pace of development; its
pervasiveness; and its profound implications for equity and the basic
human concerns of life, food security, livelihoods, and human and
ecosystem health. La Viña called for adoption of a precautionary
approach to the potential unintended consequences of the terminator
technology and other biotechnologies; participatory social and ethical
debates on the issue; risk assessments and implementation of labeling
schemes; and adherence to the principle of prior informed consent. Discussion: As facilitator, Weiskel
questioned: how scientific agendas are being set in relation to social
agendas; whether ethics concerned with the “oughtness of things” and
self-restraint are related to the power relations involved in politics;
and whether ethical concerns need to go beyond generational human matters
to include interspecies, ecosystemic and intergenerational ethical
concerns. Given that genetic material is both a real sequence and
informational, he noted the challenges posed by making a distinction
between real versus intellectual property. He also noted that urgent
issues, such as biosafety, may not yet be the most important ones for
current policy-making. Participants debated whether the wealth of a society
and disadvantaged groups afford different ethical sensibilities; what
constitutes precaution if risks are not clear in the case of new
biotechnologies; and to what extent social values, ethics and institutions
get transferred with particular technological systems. Participants generally agreed that cultural and
social structures cannot be separated from technical and scientific
developments. La Viña objected to the idea of terminator technology given
the risks associated with farmer inability to plant future crops and
potential impacts on the environment. One participant wondered if new biotechnologies are
exporting Western ethics like no other technology before them,
particularly the ethics of exclusive ownership and control of nature
through patents and acceptability of recombinant DNA practices. Another
participant said that if the manipulative nature of biotechnology was the
main concern it should have been raised 10,000 years ago when the first
crops and animals were domesticated. CLOSING SESSION In his concluding remarks, Calestous Juma, provided
an initial outline of his forthcoming summary, which will include a
section on the background to the biotechnology debates, an insight into
key issues and suggestions on ways to move forward. He said he will avoid
focusing on concerns in order to shift focus onto plausible solutions.
Juma drew attention to the tensions between globalization and
biotechnology, and to linkages between discussions on biotechnology and
discussions on trade. He highlighted the differing uses of the term
“biotechnology,” ranging from clusters of techniques to products
resulting from the application of such techniques or, in some cases, even
the biotechnology industry itself. He asserted that the question of what
national governments should regulate would depend on cultural values. Juma elaborated on possible next steps. On research,
he said various theoretical issues needed to be sorted out such as the
precautionary principle and substantial equivalences between organisms. He
recommended training policy makers and fostering consultation between
people with different views. He advocated more communication with the
public regarding governance systems and questions of transparency. On
conference follow-up, he said a biotechnology task force would be set up
by the CID, in consultation with conference participants and other
interested parties in order to address issues such as institutions,
research and training pertinent to biotechnology and the global economy. Jeffrey Sachs closed the conference at 5 p.m. on
September 3. THINGS TO LOOK FOR BIOTECHNOLOGY 2000-11TH INTERNATIONAL
BIOTECHNOLOGY SYMPOSIUM: 3-8 September 1999, Berlin, Germany. Contact:
USDA; Internet: http://www.agnic.org/mtg/2000.html. 3RD TRONDHEIM CONFERENCE ON THE ECOSYSTEM
APPROACH: 6–10 September 1999 Trondheim, Norway. Contact: NINA NIKU,
Odd Terja Sansdlund; Tel: +47-73-80-15-48; Fax: +47-73-80-14-01; E-mail:
odd.t.sanslund@ninatrd.ninaniku.no; Internet: http://www.ninaniku.no. GLOBAL CHANGE AND PROTECTED AREAS: 8-16
September 1999, L'Aquila, Italy. Contact: Guido Visconti, Dipartimento di
Fisica, Universita degli Studi di L'Aquila, Via Vetoio, Coppito, 67010
L'Aguila, Italy; E-mail: guido.visconti@aquila.infn.it; Internet:http://www.aquila.infn.it/glbch DISPLACEMENT, FORCED SETTLEMENT AND CONSERVATION:
9-11 September 1999, Oxford, UK. Contact: Dominique Attala, Refugee
Studies Programme, Queen Elizabeth House, 21 St Giles, Oxford, OX1 3LA,
UK; Tel: +44-1865-270-722; Fax: +44-1865-270-721; Email: rspedu@ermine.ox.ac.uk. INFORMAL CONSULTATION ON THE PROCESS TO RESUME THE
EXTRAORDINARY MEETING OF THE COP TO ADOPT THE PROTOCOL ON BIOSAFETY: 15-19
September 1999, Vienna, Austria. Contact: CBD Secretariat; World Trade
Center, 393 St. Jacques Street, Suite 300, Montréal, Québec, Canada H2Y
1N9; Tel: +1-514-288-2220; Fax: +1-514-288-6588; E-mail: chm@biodiv.org;
Internet: http://www.biodiv.org. COLLOQUIUM ON THE RISKS AND REGULATIONS ON GMO
FOOD PRODUCTS: 1-2 October 1999, New York University School of Law,
New York, NY, USA. Contact: Bobbie Glover, NY School of Law; Tel:
1-212-998-6415, 998-6417; Fax: 1-212-995-4037. REGIONAL SESSION OF THE GLOBAL BIODIVERSITY FORUM
(SOUTH AND SOUTHEAST ASIA): 24-26 October 1999, Colombo, Sir Lanka.
Contact: P. Balakrishna, IUCN - The World Conservation Union, 48, Vajira
Road, Colombo 5, Sri Lanka; Tel: + 94-74-510-517; Fax: +94-1-580-202;
E-mail: pbala@sltnet.lk. CGIAR INTERNATIONAL CENTERS WEEK 1999: 25-29
October 1999, Washington, DC. Contact: CGIAR Secretariat; Tel:
+1-202-473-8951; Fax: +1-202-473-8110. WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION MEETING
ON BIODIVERSITY AND THE CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY: 8-10
November 1999, Geneva, Switzerland. Contact: Internet: http://www.wipo.org. 3RD ANNUAL EUROPEAN BIOTECHNOLOGY BUSINESS
CONGRESS-BIOTECHNOLOGY FOR ECONOMIC GROWTH AND IMPROVED QUALITY OF LIFE: 16-19
November 1999, Munich, Germany. Contact: EuropaBio '99; Tel:
+32-2-735-0313; Fax: RECOMBINANT GENE PRODUCTS: EXPRESSION
TECHNOLOGIES: New Delhi, India, 22 November-3 December 1999. Contact:
ICGEB; Tel: +91-11-616-7356; Fax: +91-11-616-2316; E-mail:chatterj@icgeb.res.in. FIFTH MEETING OF THE CBD COP: 15-26 May 2000,
Nairobi, Kenya. Contact: CBD Secretariat; World Trade Center, 393 St.
Jacques Street, Suite 300, Montréal, Québec, Canada H2Y 1N9; Tel:
+1-514-288-2220; Fax: +1-514-288-6588; E-mail: chm@biodiv.org; Internet:
http://www.biodiv.org.
Sustainable Developments is a publication of the
International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) info@iisd.ca,
publishers of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin ©. This issue is written
and edited by Paola Bettelli pbettelli@iisd.org,
Nabiha Megateli nmegateli@igc.apc.org
and Lavanya Rajamani lavanya.rajamani@hertford.ox.ac.uk
(Team Leader). The Editor for this issue is Deborah Davenport ddavenp@emory.edu.
Digital content by Leila Mead leila@interport.net.
The Managing Editor of Sustainable Developments is Langston James "Kimo"
Goree VI kimo@iisd.org. Funding for
coverage of this meeting has been provided by the Center for International
Development at Harvard University. The authors can be contacted at their
electronic mail addresses and at tel: +1-212-644-0204 and by fax:
+1-212-644-0206. IISD can be contacted at 161 Portage Avenue East, 6th
Floor, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 0Y4, Canada; tel: +1-204-958-7700. The
opinions expressed in the Sustainable Developments are those of the
authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of IISD and other funders.
Excerpts from Sustainable Developments may be used in other publications with appropriate academic
citation. Electronic versions of Sustainable Developments are sent to
e-mail distribution lists (ASCII and PDF format) and can be found on the
Linkages WWW-server at http://enb.iisd.org/.
For further information on Sustainable Developments, including requests to
provide reporting services, contact the Managing Editor at kimo@iisd.org. |
