Longer version of articles – to appear in Reader
Seeds And The Knowledge They Embodyi
Hugh Lacey
Abstract: Science is often appealed to in order to legitimate giving priority in agricultural
research to developments of transgenic seeds, and granting privileged protections of intellectual
property rights to these seeds. It is claimed (1) that transgenic seeds but not traditional farmerselected seeds embody scientific knowledge, and (2) that current scientific knowledge supports
that, apart from agriculture that makes substantial use of transgenics, there is no alternative way
to feed the world. I question both of these claims with an argument that recognizes agroecology
as a serious alternative (at least partially) to the predominance of biotechnology in agriculture, an
alternative that is not only strongly grounded in empirical evidence but also responsive to the
values of ecological sustainability and social justice.
In modern consciousness the achievements and promise of science loom large. So too do the
expanded human powers to exercise control (in technology) that have been unleashed by
scientific developments. While for some science and new technologies induce fear and
apprehension, for the most part in the contemporary world their value has been deeply
internalized. Thus widespread legitimacy has been accorded to research and developments into
novel technological possibilities, and it tends to be taken for granted — though not without
opposition — that the future will, even must, be shaped largely in response to them. Transgenic
(TG) seeds and other biotechnological "breakthroughs" are among the latest and most visible of
these developments.
The principal proponents of the prompt implementation of transgenics are multinational
agribusiness, governments that endorse neoliberal policies and see transgenics as providing the
key to export-oriented agricultural policies (Leite, 2000), NGOs that sponsor research intended
to inform agriculture in ways that are in continuity with the "Green Revolution", and a
considerable body of molecular biologists. To them transgenics clearly are the way of the future
in agriculture and they also testify to the remarkable ingenuity and providence of science. A
widely used textbook is entitled: "DNA Technology: The Awesome Skill" (Alcamo 1996). That
sums it up nicely. To criticize biotechnology seems to be on the verge of blasphemy, to be posed
against the unfolding future and against science itself. The legitimation of the development and
deployment of transgenics is often sought in the authority and prestige of science; and this is
supposed to silence all critics. Against this, I will argue that science authorizes no such
legitimation, and poses no barrier to exploring alternative forms of agriculture that may better
accord with the struggle for social justice.
TG seeds contain genes, taken from organisms of different species, that have been directly
inserted into their own genetic materials in order to grow plants having specified "desired"
qualities, such as insecticide resistance capabilities. To their developers TG seeds embody
scientific knowledge; they bear the imprint of science. They also bear the imprint of the political
economy of "globalization," since developing them has been seen as both an objective of the
neoliberal global economy and a means towards entrenching its structures. The twin imprints
lend an aura of inevitability to the agricultural "revolution" promised with the advent of TG
seeds: science has set the course, the global economy provides the structures for its effective
implementation. Little wonder, then, that plantings of TG seeds (corn, soybean and other crops)
have exploded in the past few years. There is no other way to go, the proponents insist, no other
way to provide the food that will be needed to feed the world's expanding population over
coming decades. Ought the critics be silenced?
The critics are a various lot. Some reject outright or harbor apprehensions towards the
"intrusion into nature" that producing transgenics exemplifies (Prince of Wales, 1998; Görgen,
2000). Others (Risler & Mellon, 1996; Lappé & Bailey, 1998; Nodari & Guerra, 2000) urge
special precautionary measures in the light of:
• potential environmental and health risks from the planting, production,
processing and consumption of transgenics
• alleged inadequacy of current risk-assessment procedures
• issues of consumer choice and labelling of transgenics' products
• threats to biodiversity
• dangers of corporate control of the food supply
• potential undermining of the conditions for organic farming.
Some criticize current deployments of transgenics, seeing them as mainly for corporate profit,
aimed at (e.g.) increasing sales of particular pesticides or gaining greater control of the seed
market, while at the same time they support research and development that they consider to serve
the peoples of impoverished countries, that (e.g.) aimed at increased yields especially in nonoptimal soils or of health-enhancing foods (Nuffield Foundation, 1999; Serageldin, 1999).ii
Others think that the risks involved add up to a case for dropping the whole approach. Still others
challenge the project of globalization, and are engaged in both research and political struggle to
render alternative methods of agriculture viable (Altieri & Rosset, 2000; Kloppenburg, 1991;
Shiva, 1993; 1999).
The proponents concede little. They acknowledge risks, of course, while maintaining that
demonstrated risks can be managed and regulated. Backed by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration, they also claim that there is no actual scientific evidence that TG products
currently on the market pose risks that cannot be managed under existing regulations, or that
pose greater risks than products of conventional agriculture. Confident in the products and
promise of science and emboldened by its past successes, they are unmoved by the appeals to
proceed with special caution. Moreover, they do not concede the moral high ground to the critics.
Quite the contrary, they counter that using TG seeds permits high productivity combined with
friendliness towards the environment and, as already mentioned, they insist that it is necessary to
feed the world (Specter, 2000). From this perspective any risks occasioned by the use of TG
seeds fade into insignificance compared with the consequences of not using them. In reality, they
insist, it is their critics who lack proper moral concern (McGloughlin, 2000).
Much rests on the claim that there is no other way to feed the world. The legitimacy of
going ahead rapidly with extensive deployments of transgenics, without taking special
precautionary measures, presupposes that it is true. Is it true? If not, what are the alternatives? Is
it supported by scientific evidence? Is it just a reflex of those securely in the grip of the modern
consciousness about science, who have faith in science and advanced technology to resolve all
problems? Or, perhaps, is it code for "this is the way to go within the structures of globalization"
whose further consolidation is regarded as inevitable and all-encompassing (see Lacey, 1997),
and a covert recognition that these structures, through mechanisms such as selectively
apportioning intellectual property rights (IPR), tend to undermine alternatives (Lewontin, 1998)?
TG seeds cannot be produced without modifying farmer-selected (FS) seeds or seeds, originally
derived from FS seeds, that have been selected for use in conventional farming. Their very
existence requires the prior development of the latter (Kloppenburg, 1988). Yet IPR protections
may be granted to TG seeds but not to FS seeds. Lacking these protections, FS seeds are
considered to be part of the common patrimony of humankind, and they may legally (under
influential prevailing laws and international agreements) be appropriated at will without
consultation with or compensation for the farmers who selected them (Kloppenburg, 1987).
When FS seeds are so appropriated, critics speak of "biopiracy" and diagnose inequity: The
developer of TG seeds freely appropriates FS seeds but the farmer does not have free access to
TG seeds. Not only agribusiness (through its research scientists) but also generations of farmers
contribute to the production of TG seeds but, thanks to IPR, mainly agribusiness and its clients
profit. Any such profits presuppose the free appropriation of FS seeds. Moreover, the conditions
in which they are gained tend to facilitate the displacement of FS by TG seeds.iii Biopiracy
involves not only exploitation of the farmers who produce the seeds without which TG seeds
could not exist (and their communities and descendants) but also, in the end, taking away from
them the very use of these seeds (Shiva, 1997; 2000). Biopiracy and the regime of IPR are
deeply interconnected. The development and deployment of TG seeds has depended on them
both.
What are the differences between TG and FS seeds that can make sense of the fact that
the former, but not the latter, can be granted the protections of IPR? One alleged difference is
that TG but not FS seeds embody scientific knowledge. In virtue of this they may satisfy the
standard criteria for gaining a patent — novelty, inventiveness, utility/industrial application, and
provision of sufficient instructions to meet the "sufficiency of disclosure" condition — and thus
become intellectual property. From this perspective it is sheer demagoguery and sentimentalism
to call the free appropriation and eventual displacement of FS seeds "biopiracy." The prestige of
science is thus cast against using such a morally loaded term. Only property may be pirated, and
FS seeds are not intellectual property. Moreover, according to its proponents, the development of
TG seeds is for the good of all — for "there is no other way to feed the world."
Is it true, first, that TG but not FS seeds embody scientific knowledge; and, second, that
FS seeds cannot provide the basis (or an important part of it) for providing the food needed to
feed the world? Affirmative answers to both questions would go a long way towards
legitimating not only the transformation of farming so as to become transgenics-intensive, but
also "biopiracy" and the privileged IPR protection granted to TG seeds.
What constitutes science will be at issue in addressing these questions. I take science to include
any systematic, empirical form of inquiry that aims to understand phenomena of the world, that
is, that aims to grasp the causes and possibilities of things and phenomena (Lacey, 1999: ch. 5).
What forms of scientific inquiry must be engaged in if we are to address systematically and
empirically the possibilities of feeding the world's population in the future, and to test the claim
that TG crops are necessary and largely sufficient, and FS crops insufficient (and not even
necessary in selected locales), to achieve this (Lacey, 2001)? Keep in mind the persistence of
hunger today; that producing food sufficient to feed everyone does not mean that everyone will
be fed. Everyone's being fed depends not only on the production of sufficient food but also on
people being able to gain access to it; and, for people who are not participants in productive
farming communities, that means being able to buy it (Altieri & Rosset, 2000). Keep in mind
also that continuing to gain high crop yields over the long term depends on maintaining
biodiversity, environmental and human health, and lack of violent social conflict (Altieri, 1995).
Keeping these in mind, skepticism is reinforced that developments of TG crops will lead to the
world's population being fed. After all these developments are inserted into the same structures
and represent the same interests that have permitted hunger and malnutrition to persist despite
sufficient food being produced to feed everyone (Altieri & Rosset, 2000).
Certainly there is nothing about the way biotechnological science is conducted today to
allay such skepticism, for it attends primarily to the molecular structures of genes, the chemistry
of their expressions, and how these may be modified to produce "desired" traits in plants, with
little attention to the long-term ecological impact of the crops (Risler & Mellon, 1996) and (as
conducted under the auspices of agribusiness) virtually none to the general social impact. But,
without inquiring into long-term ecological and social impact in a systematic and empirical way,
and into what the possibilities of alternatives may be, how could scientific inquiry support that
developing TG crops is the only way to go, or even that it is itself a viable way to go? Of course
this question would have little bite if in fact there were no alternatives.
In order to get at what is involved, consider two more questions:
(Maximizing) How can we maximize production of a crop under conditions — use
of fertilizers, pest and weed management, water, machinery, strains of seeds, etc
— that can be widely replicated?
(Local enhancement) How can we produce crops so that all the people in the
region of production will gain access to a well balanced diet in a context that
enhances local agency and well-being, nourishes biodiversity, sustains the
environment, and supports social justice?
Both are scientific questions; both are open to investigation in systematic, empirical ways; both
are concerned with the causes and possibilities of crop production. They are different questions,
and reflect different moral and social concerns. The first highlights the quantities of food
produced, the second who is actually fed and under what conditions. Answering one, and
adopting the methods needed for answering it, does not suffice to answer the other.
The biological methods used to investigate what can be produced with TG seeds may be
appropriate for addressing maximizing. They deploy strategies that permit the identification of
possibilities (of the seeds) in terms of their being able to be generated from underlying molecular
structures and engineered modifications of them, and lawful biochemical processes. In large
measure they abstract the realization of such possibilities from their relations with social
arrangements, human lives and experience, the social and material conditions of the research,
and extensive and long-term ecological impact — thus, from any link with value. I call these
strategies "materialist" (Lacey, 1999). Materialist strategies separate the biology from the
sociology, the economics and the ecology, so that local enhancement is not considered properly
as belonging to the same domain of inquiry as maximizing. If addressed at all, it is in the social
sciences, after questions like maximizing have been answered.
There are, however, other approaches to scientific inquiry, whose results may inform
alternative agricultural practices. I have in mind specifically those of agroecology. Research in
agroecology — while drawing in countless ways upon knowledge of the underlying structures
and chemistry of plants, soils and inputs into agricultural production — locates farming
integrally within its specific ecological and social situation, and poses questions that do not
involve abstractions from it (Altieri, 1995). According to Miguel Altieri, one of its foremost
proponents, it treats things in relationship to the whole agroecosystem (agricultural-ecological
system) of which they are constituents, and it addresses simultaneously: "Maintenance of the
productive capacity of the [agro]ecosystem, preservation of the natural resource base and
functional biodiversity, social organization and reduction of poverty, [and] empowerment of
local communities, maintenance of tradition, and popular participation in the development
process" (Altieri et al., 1996: 367-368). It does not, in any principled way, separate the biology
from the sociology. Its primary focus turns it towards questions like local enhancement; and so
its results vary with the variety of locales, (in many cases) it draws upon and develops the
traditional knowledge that informs the practices of a culture, and it does not restrict roles in the
generation of knowledge to "experts," but includes roles for the farmers themselves (Lacey,
1998: ch. 6; 1999: ch. 8; 2001). FS seeds embody varieties of agroecological knowledge (Shiva,
1991; 1997; Lacey & Barbosa de Oliveira, 2001).
Since local enhancement lies beyond the purview of those who restrict inquiry to
deploying only materialist strategies, their research cannot tell us that agricultural alternatives
informed by research conducted under agroecological strategies are unable to provide an
important part of the necessary basis for feeding the world. So, when they claim: "there is no
other way," they are not reporting a result of their scientific research, or even stating a hypothesis
that they have the means to investigate seriously. Apparently their claim derives either from the
hold of the promise of science conducted under materialist strategies, or from the interests of the
agents and projects of the global economy.
Proponents of TG crops will not be swayed by this argument. Like many others who
share the modern consciousness about science, they tend to identify science with the virtual
exclusive deployment of materialist strategies. At one level, this is just a matter of terminology.
The word "science" is, in fact, widely used to refer to "systematic empirical inquiry conducted
with materialist strategies," the kind of inquiry that readily leads to the expansion of our
capabilities to exercise control over natural objects. I have no dispute at this level. Everything I
have said can be re-phrased without loss by using "systematic empirical inquiry" in place of
"science" (Lacey, 1999, ch. 5).
At another level, however, the common terminology is often held to reflect that
knowledge gained with materialist strategies is (in principle) more solidly grounded in empirical
and experimental evidence, that it has superior epistemic credentials. This I dispute.
Agroecological research builds upon knowledge that has been soundly tested in practice in
traditional cultures, for example, the knowledge that is embodied in FS seeds, that which has
provided the "raw material" for developments of TG seeds. That it lacks the "universality" of the
knowledge gained under materialist strategies and (often) its neatly integrated theoretical form
indicates not that it is empirically less well-grounded (Altieri, 1995), but that it is the kind of
knowledge that is largely specific to locale and available to provide answers to questions like
local enhancement. Restricting the use of "science" to inquiry conducted with materialist
strategies, thus, represents granting privilege to this form of inquiry — but it is a privilege not
earned on epistemic grounds (Kloppenburg, 1991; Shiva, 1991).
Granting privilege to scientific knowledge gained with materialist strategies diverts
attention away from considering whether there are alternative modes of agriculture, informed by
sound scientific (systematic empirical) knowledge, that in principle may permit local
enhancement to be answered in positive and effective ways for many locales, and that even may
generate locally increased yields, consistent with ecological and social sustainability, from
improving the methods with which FS seeds are collected (Lewontin & Berlan, 1990). It also
insinuates that we have only opinion, not sound knowledge, when we deal with the full and
temporally extended array of ecological, human and social variables and effects of farming
practices. It, thus, illegitimately undercuts the force of critique made with roots in agroecological
inquiry. On the other hand, materialist strategies may be adequate by and large for addressing
maximizing and they do enable the identification of genuine possibilities of transgenics. But they
cannot identify the possibilities necessary for addressing local enhancement, and we cannot
address the big question of the necessity of developments of TG seeds if we abstain from using
strategies that can address local empowerment. The big question can be addressed scientifically,
in the course of systematic empirical inquiry, but only if we permit that scientific inquiry include
a multiplicity of strategies, of which materialist strategies are just one (albeit very important)
kind. The products of materialist and agroecological strategies of inquiry are in principle
epistemically on a par. Others, influenced by "social constructionism," have drawn similar
conclusions by casting doubt on the "objectivity" of well established "scientific" knowledge; I
draw it by pointing to the "objectivity" of agroecological knowledge.
Both FS and TG seeds can be informed by scientific knowledge, whether it be knowledge gained
under agroecological or materialist strategies. Thus, according the protections of IPR to TG but
not FS seeds cannot be properly grounded on the claim that the former embody knowledge with
superior epistemic credentials. More plausible, I suggest, is the converse: knowledge gained
under materialist strategies is privileged (taken to have greater social value and perhaps,
mistakenly, greater epistemic value) because on application it can be readily embodied in
products with market value, including some that may gain the protections of IPR; so that the
prestige of materialist strategies and the commonplace narrowing of the meaning of "science"
reflect not superior epistemic credentials, but the greater social value of their applications among
those for whom relations of control over natural objects or the economic value of things are
prioritized.iv
Granting the protections of IPR to TG seeds and the "pirating" of FS seeds are different
moments of the same process. In the absence of science providing a ground that legitimates
according the two kinds of seeds different legal status another ground might be appealed to:
Without the protections of IPR the development and deployment of TG seeds would meet
probably insuperable obstacles. Within the logic of the neoliberal global economy this may be
quite compelling, especially since research linked with maximizing may well support that, within
this logic, only the new methods can provide adequate food. But to gain legitimation beyond the
bounds of this logic it needs also to appeal to the presupposition : "TG seeds are needed to feed
the world." Here, again, science provides no support at the present time.v
The court of science remains open on the possibilities for producing food so that
everyone can be fed in coming decades. The issue may be submitted to scientific exploration but
only, we have seen, if we recognize that science can contain a multiplicity of different kinds of
strategies, including agroecological as well as materialist ones. That exploration has not been
seriously attempted and, if it were, it might vindicate the presupposition of the proponents of TG
seeds — and it might not; and it might lead to the conclusion that there are important roles for
both FS and TG seeds in agricultural practices that not only produce sufficient quantity of food
to feed everyone, but produce food in ways that ensure that everyone is actually fed and that
local empowerment is answered quite generally. Prior to the exploration the critics are entitled to
no greater certitude than the proponents.
There may be room here for constructive dialogue between agroecology and CGIAR-linked
research (Note 2) on transgenics (McGloughlin, 2000). Both approaches are intended to be
responsive to the needs and problems of poor farmers. Rather than local empowerment, however,
CGIAR-research tends to address a somewhat different question:
(Biotechnology for the poor): In what ways can the methods of agrobiotechnology be developed so that they can contribute to meeting (e.g.) foodproduction needs and to addressing chronic malnutrition in poor farming
communities.
It presupposes that materialist approaches to science are a major part of the solution to problems
confronting poor communities but, while it recognizes the "reality" of the regime of IPR, it
accepts neither agribusiness dominance of research in biotechnology nor that the only access to
seeds for farmers be through the market. Thus, CGIAR conducts research aiming to develop TG
seeds that (e.g.) can produce vitamin-enhanced rice, or that can grow in salinated or waterdepleted soils, thus aiming to provide technical solutions to major problems of poor and
marginalized farmers. Agroecology, in contrast, insists that such proposed technical solutions not
be abstracted from the ecological and social contexts of their implementations, or from the
historical context which created the problem to which biotechnology for the poor wishes to
respond (Shiva, 1991), and offers alternative solutions that are likely to be available especially in
tropical countries (such as Brazil) that are rich in biodiversity (Guerra, et al., 1998).vi
Whatever the possibilities of constructive dialogue between agroecology and some uses of
transgenics may be, the empirical record currently supports that answering maximizing is not
sufficient for answering local enhancement; and that in numerous locales throughout the third
world local enhancement has been effectively answered, using agroecological strategies with
little input from attempts to answer maximizing (Altieri, 1995). Creditable investigation of the
presupposition: "there is no other way to feed the world," must take this record seriously. It thus
requires that investigations using agroecological strategies be developed much more fully and
with provision of appropriate resources, and they can only be developed if actual agroecological
farming practices are intensified and expanded. The provision of these resources, however, runs
into conflict with the thrust of the global economy itself, whose logic favors the rapid and
immediate introduction of transgenics-intensive farming. This thrust thus serves to undermine
the conditions (the availability of productive and sustainable agroecosystems) needed for the
scientific investigation of a presupposition of its own legitimation.
Any authority that science may properly exercise derives from the results of systematic
empirical investigation. That authority supports neither the legal distinctions made between TG
and FS seeds, nor that farming methods that use FS seeds should not have an integral role in
producing food in coming decades. Perhaps the appeal to science made by the advocates of TG
seeds masks the lack of a generally convincing moral foundation for globalization, or an effort to
unnerve their critics, or a boundless faith in the powers of materialist strategies. Whatever it may
be, the critics who draw from agroecology are not running against established science. On the
contrary the strengthening of agroecology is necessary so that there can be scientific
investigation of the possibilities for feeding everyone in the immediate and foreseeable future.
The legitimacy of the rapid introduction of transgenics-intensive agriculture depends upon two
claims: that they are needed to feed the world and that they occasion no significant risks for
health and the environment. I have concentrated on the first claim, making an argument that,
while transgenics are a product of scientific research, it is not scientific research that tells us that
they are needed to feed the world.
The public controversy, however, has tended to deal with largely the second claim — as
if it were presupposed that scientific evidence coming to show that the properly regulated use of
transgenics is sufficiently risk-free would resolve the matter of its legitimacy. But that ignores
the more fundamental first claim, and the further claim that agroecology and other forms of
organic agriculture hold out the promise not only to produce crops of adequate quantity to feed
everyone, but also — unlike transgenics-intensive agriculture — to do so in a context that makes
it more likely that everyone (especially in rural communities) will in fact be well fed and
nourished. The greatest risk occasioned by the introduction of transgenics-intensive agriculture
on a large scale is that these alternatives will be destroyed. Focussing on risks to health and
environment that may be directly caused by using transgenics, as serious as they may be
considered to be, obscures this essential point.
Why then do so many of the critics of transgenics focus principally upon risks to health
and environment? It is probably because of the urgency brought about by the decision of
agribusiness to go ahead rapidly with the introduction of transgenics, the perceived inadequacy
of governmental regulation and oversight, and the sense that irreversible harm may be caused by
the widespread use of transgenics. Moreover, tactically it may appear to be effective. No doubt
bringing the matter of risks to public attention has led to much of the very recent and much
publicized consumer resistance to transgenics. In the long run, however, an agenda that focuses
almost exclusively on risks to health and environment (especially if it is not discriminating and
not always soundly based in empirical evidence and theoretical argument) is congenial to
agribusiness and its allies, for they probably have little to fear from the kind of risk-analysis that
checks the risks out, one by one, using appropriate empirical protocols, taking into account
possibilities for their management and regulation, but keeping the question of alternative forms
of agriculture (other than chemical-intensive "conventional" agriculture) off the agenda.
Collaborating with this agenda of risk-analysis may delay some of the projects of agribusiness
and some of them may have to be abandoned, but so long as this kind of risk-analysis is taken to
define the limits of social responsibility, they can expect to gain general legitimation soon
enough.
This is not to deny that there are serious even irreversible risks that may be occasioned by
the large-scale use of transgenics (Lappé & Bailey, 1998), that these risks have nor been
adequately investigated empirically (Risler & Mellon, 1996), and that it is wise to adopt the
"Precautionary Principle" in the research and development of transgenics. It is intended to
suggest, however, that it is likely that a significant number of transgenics' innovations will clear
the barrier of risk-analysis — especially if the point of comparison is chemical-intensive
"conventional" farming and not well developed agroecological alternatives. Nevertheless,
granted this, the questions of the range of viable agricultural forms and of which among them
better addresses local empowerment remain open. While they remain open the matter of
legitimation is not settled. That is my principal point.
Scientific interests, and not just moral interests, should be concerned with addressing
these questions in systematic empirical ways. This is especially important in countries like
Brazil, where richness of biodiversity is the greatest available asset for agricultural production
(Guerra, et al., 1998).
In the conflict over seeds two fundamentally incompatible ways of life are in conflict: one
emphasizing sustainable agroecosystems, the other the primacy of the market. Science
(systematic empirical inquiry), given its multiplicity of strategies, can inform both of them but it
serves to legitimate neither one nor the other. Opposition to the development and deployment of
transgenics can be most solidly rooted in the alternative practices of agroecology. That is where
the energies of critics need to be put — that is a matter of solidarity, agricultural practice,
political economy, life style, and the gaining of knowledge.
Bibliography
ALIER, J.M. "International biopiracy versus the value of local knowledge". Capitalism, Nature, Socialism: A Jo
ALTIERI, M. Agroecology: the science of sustainable agriculture. 2nd ed. Boulder
(Colorado),Westview, 1995.
ALTIERI, M. & ROSSET, P. "Ten reasons why biotechnology will not help the developing
world" and "W
ALTIERI, M., YURJEVIC, A., VON DER WELD, J.M., & SANCHEZ, J. "Applying
agroecology to improve peasant farming systems in Latin America". In CONSTANZA,
R.,
SEGURA, O. & MARTINEZ-ALIER, J. (eds). Getting down to earth: practical
applications of ecological economics. Washington, Island Press, 1996.
BRUSCH, S.B. & STABINSKY, D. Valuing local knowledge: indigenous people and
intellectual
property rights. Washington, Island Press, 1996.
GARCIA DOS SANTOS, L. (with Muzio, G.) "Collective intellectual rights and control of
access to biological resources". In TILAHUN, S. & EDWARDS, S. (eds). The movement for
collective intell
GÖRGEN, S.A. "Transgênicos — Os riscos, o debate, a cautela necessária," in GÖRGEN, S.A. (ed.) Riscos dos
GUERRA, M.P., NODARI, R.O., DOS REIS, M.S. & SCHMIDT, W. "Agriculture,
biodiversity and 'appropriate technologies' in Brazil." Ciência e Culture, v. 50, 1998, p.
408-416.
KLOPPENBURG, J., JR. "The plant germplasm controversy". Bioscience, v.37, 1987, p.190-
198.
KLOPPENBURG, J., JR. First the seed: the political economy of plant biology 1492-2000.
Cambridge, Ca
KLOPPENBURG, J., JR. "Social theory and the de/reconstruction of agricultural science: local knowledge for
LACEY, H. “Neutrality in the social sciences.” Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, v. 27,
1997, p. 213-241.
LACEY, H. Valores e atividade cientítica. São Paulo, Discurso Editorial, 1998.
LACEY, H. Is Science Value Free: Values and scientific understanding. London, Routledge,
1999.
LACEY, H. "Incommensurability and 'multicultural science'". In HOYNINGNEN-HUENE, P. &
SANKEY, H. (eds), Incommensurability and related matters. Dordrecht, Kluwer, 2001.
LACEY, H. & BARBOSA DE OLIVEIRA, M. "Prefácio", to Portuguese translation of Shiva
(1997), Petrópo
LAPPÉ, M & BAILEY, B. Against the grain: biotechnology and the corporate takeover of your food. Monroe (
LEITE, M. Os alimentos transgênicos. São Paulo: PubliFolha, 2000.
LEWONTIN, R.C. "The maturing of capitalist agriculture: farmer as proletarian". Monthly
Review, v. 50, n
LEWONTIN, R.C. & BERLAN, J.-P. "The political economy of agricultural research: the case
of
hybrid corn". In CARROLL, C.R., VANDEMEER, J.H. & ROSSET, P.M. (eds).
Agroecology. New York, McGraw-Hill, 1990.
McGLOUGHLIN, M. "Ten reasons why biotechnology will be important to the developing
world". AgBioF
NODARI, R.O. & GUERRA, M.P. "Biossegurança de plantas transgênicas," in GÖRGEN, S.A. (ed.) Riscos dos
NUFFIELD COUNCIL ON BIOETHICS. Genetically modified crops: the social and ethical
issues. London,
PERSEY, G.J. & LANTIN, M.M. Agricultural biotechnology and the poor. Washington,
CGIAR and US National Academy of Science, 2000.
PRINCE OF WALES. "Seeds of disaster". The Ecologist, v. 28, n. 5, 1998, p. 252-253.
RISLER, J. & MELLON, M. The ecological risks of engineered crops. Cambridge, MIT Press, 1996.
SERAGELDIN, I. "Biotechnology and food security in the 21st century". Science, v. 285, July 16
1999, p. 387-389.
SHIVA, V. The Violence of the Green Revolution. London, Zed Books, 1991.
SHIVA, V. Monocultures of the mind: perspectives on biodiversity and biotechnology. London, Zed Books, 199
SHIVA, V. Biopiracy: the plunder of nature and knowledge. Boston, South End Press, 1997.
SHIVA, V. Betting on biodiversity: why genetic engineering will not feed the hungry or save the planet. New De
SHIVA, V. Stolen harvest: the hijacking of the global food supply. Boston, South End Press,
SPECTER, M. "The pharmageddon riddle". The New Yorker , April 10, 2000, p. 58-71.
Notes
i.
This article is based on "As sementes e o conhecimento que elas incorporam" in São Paulo em
Perspectiva, 14, Nº 3, 2000 (in press), and "Biotecnologia ou agroecologia: valores sociais e
morais em competição" in A Pesquisa e Novas Paradigmas da Sociedade (II Conferência
Científica da Universidade Federal de Rio Grande do Sul), Porto Alegre: Editora da UFRGS (in
press). A shorter version, with the present title, was published in Peace Review, 12, nº 4, 2000 (in
press). The article is part of a larger project, supported in part by NSF (SES-9905945) addressing
philosophical, ethical, and scientific issues connected with agro-biotechnology and agroecology.
Prominent spokepersons of agribusiness, such as Robert Shapiro, CEO of Monsanto
Corporation, tend to urge the rapid deployment of transgenics-intensive agriculture (see
Shapiro's remarks in Specter, 2000). Others, including those linked with the organizations
affiliated with CGIAR (Consultive Group on International Agricultural Research), make the
more modest claim that transgenics have an important role to play in the agriculture of the future
(Serageldin, 1999; Persey & Lantin, 2000; Nuffield Foundation, 1999; McGloughlin, 2000).
Ironically, agribusiness spokespersons often refer to CGIAR-sponsored research, that has little
potential for short-term profit, to support that developments of transgenics (including those that
they sponsor) serve humanitarian goals.
iii. The extreme case of biopiracy occurs when a foreign agency gains patents on minor variants
of products that have been available for centuries in "underdeveloped" countries and that are well
ii.
2000.
understood within local knowledge systems — e.g., products of the neem tree in India (Shiva,
1997, 69-72) and basmati rice (Shiva, 2000, 84-86). A recent court decision revoked the patent
that had been granted to the US Department of Agriculture and W. R. Grace Corporation for a
neem product on the ground that no inventive step was involved (The Times of India News
Service, May 12, 2000). (On the role of biopiracy in certain areas of medical research and the
pharmaceutical business, see Alier, 2000.)
iv. I have argued elsewhere (Lacey, 1998: ch. 5; 1999: ch. 6) that there are complex mutually
reinforcing relations between scientific inquiry conducted virtually exclusively with materialist
strategies and characteristic modern ways of valuing control over natural objects. Note that I
question neither the epistemic credentials of knowledge that is soundly grounded by research
conducted under materialist strategies nor the social value of many of its applications. I question
only the privilege accorded to it relative to knowledge soundly gained under alternative
strategies.
v. Outside the logic of the neoliberal global economy, I have suggested, there is no ground for
assigning different status (epistemic or legal) to FS and TG seeds. There is, however, a serious
need for third world countries to protect their indigenous genetic resources. How this can be
done is a matter of considerable controversy (Brusch & Stabinsky, 1996; Alier, 2000; Lacey
1998: ch. 6). Some have suggested extending IPR to cover indigenous genetic resources, some
have proposed that patents not be granted to any living materials including TG seeds, and others
have proposed various forms of compensation for the use of indigenous resources. A promising
idea, that has only recently begun to be explored, is to develop a legal framework for "collective
intellectual rights", under which communities of farmers (and indigenous peoples) would be able
to protect, improve and control the use of the genetic resources that fall within the compass of
their local knowledge (Shiva, 1997: 80; Garcia dos Santos, 1996).
vi. It should be noted that there are agronomists who think that agroecology is necessary for the
small producer, and therefore indispensable for feeding everyone, but who doubt the capacity of
agroecological methods to produce sufficient food to feed large concentrated urban populations,
and to address adequately certain problems (e.g., of fungi in permanently humid climates)
confronted in agricultural production. There is plenty of room for constructive dialogue and
comparative empirical investigation here. Under current conditions, however, it cannot be
expected that there will be any uses of transgenics that will be free from constraints imposed by
the regime of IPR.