Another Knowledge, Another World

[Guest guest]

ISIS PRESS RELEASE <press-release wrote:BODY { MARGIN: 20px 0px

0px}LI { LIST-STYLE-POSITION: outside; FONT: 10pt/12pt

verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif}UL { LIST-STYLE-POSITION: outside; FONT:

10pt/12pt verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif}OL { FONT: 10pt/12pt

verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif}P { FONT: 10pt/12pt

verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif}B { FONT: bold 10pt/12pt

verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif}H1 { FONT: 16pt/18pt

verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif}H2 { FONT: 16pt/18pt

verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif}H3 { PADDING-RIGHT: 1px; PADDING-LEFT: 1px;

BACKGROUND: #ccffcc; PADDING-BOTTOM: 1px; FONT: 12pt/14pt

verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif; PADDING-TOP: 1px}H4 { FONT: bold 11pt/11pt

verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif}HR { COLOR: green}TH { BACKGROUND: #ccffcc;

FONT: bold 11pt/11pt verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif}TD { FONT: 10pt/10pt

verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif}.small { FONT: 8pt/10pt

verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif}.smallbold { FONT: bold 8pt/10pt

verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif}.smallboldwhite { FONT: bold 8pt/10pt

verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif; COLOR: #ffffff}The Institute of Science in

SocietyScience Society Sustainability http://www.i-sis.org.uk General Enquiries

sam Website/Mailing List press-release ISIS Director

m.w.ho

UNSUBSCRIPTION INSTRUCTIONS ARE AT THE FOOT OF THIS MESSAGE

Another Knowledge, Another World

Dr. Mae-Wan Ho reveals the origins of the discussion paper " Towards a Convention

on Knowledge " , and her hopes that " another science " may offer the key to

" another possible world " .

 

(This article is based on talk given to SGR UNESCO-sponsored conference,

Knowledge – Common Heritage, Not Private Property, University of London Union,

Malet St., London, 10 November 2002.)

 

The complete document with references, is available in the ISIS members site.

Full details here

Why ‘Knowledge’?

I am a scientist, and have been for nearly 40 years. For me as for most

scientists, science is my first love, and I never thought I’d be doing many of

the things I am doing to-day, least of all, promoting a Convention on Knowledge.

So, what happened, and why ‘knowledge’?

 

The proximate cause for my downfall was getting invited to a conference,

" Redefining the life sciences " in 1994, organised by my friends Martin Khor,

Vandana Shiva, Tewolde Egziabhar and others. Instead of the usual academic

talkshop, it became clear that redefining the life sciences was a matter of life

and death for family farmers, especially those practising small-scale

sustainable farming dependent on natural and agricultural biodiversity. Scarcely

had they got over the devastation caused by the monoculture crops of the green

revolution than the genetically engineered crops of the biotech revolution were

staring them in the face and promising far worse.

 

I had left molecular genetics behind five years earlier in 1989, when all the

scientific findings already indicated that genetic engineering was unlikely to

work and could be dangerous.

 

The old picture of genetic determinism - with genes remaining almost constant in

a static genome, determining the characteristics of the organism in linear

chains of command - has had to be overwritten many times. Geneticists discovered

huge complexities leading from the genes to perhaps a thousand times as many

proteins as there are genes. Different combinations of proteins are active in

individual cells at different times, depending on multiple levels of feedback

from the environment. This feedback changes not just the function of genes, but

the genes and genomes themselves. The genetic material of one species can be

taken up and incorporated into the genome of totally unrelated species. Genetic

engineering simply does not make sense given the ‘fluidity’ of genes and genomes

in both structure and function.

 

Naively, I thought that if I told the world what I knew, forces of reason, if

not of good, would be set in motion, at least to prevent genetically engineered

crops from being widely released into the environment.

 

Contrary to what’s generally assumed, technology does not standalone. It is

inspired by the science, and in turn reinforces the science. Genetic engineering

only makes sense if genetic determinism is true. They go together like hand in

glove, which is why the pro-biotech establishment is clinging onto genetic

determinism.

 

The forces of reason are also being obscured and held back by many other

constraints.

 

There are serious conflicts of interests, both financial and non-financial such

as prestige and career, and strong peer-pressure, to go along with the powers

that be.

 

There’s love of science for its own sake, however misguided that science may be.

But most of all, I believe, it is the way we know nature and the world when we

are not trying to save the world. It is the knowledge system as a whole.

 

At a very early stage, I became aware that the debate on genetic engineering was

no less than a global struggle to reinstate holistic knowledge systems and

sustainable ways of life that have been marginalized and destroyed by the

dominant, unsustainable monetary culture.

 

This task has become all the more urgent as the earth has been brought to the

brink of extinction by the excessive uses of fossil fuels, and ‘weapons of mass

destruction’ - nuclear, chemical, biological, and the latest, robotic and

starwars - are back on the global agenda in the so-called ‘war on terrorism’.

 

Wars and conflicts have the same source, ultimately the failure to see nature

whole; seeing the world as separate from us, individuals as isolated and

constantly competing, one against all, all against nature. It comes from seeing

organisms, including human beings, as machines, and the wonderful diversity of

animals and plants as so many different instruments for the survival of the

meanest and the richest. Living organisms including human genes and cell lines

are to be patented for commercial exploitation.

 

The monetary culture is profoundly pathetic. It threatens to obliterate all the

qualities of life by reducing them to euros or dollars. The means of exchange

has become the ultimate end that subverts and flattens all human relationships

and social values.

 

When Thatcher, and now Lord Sainsbury, gauges scientific output in ‘spin-off’

companies and their market value, that’s when we should worry about the quality

of science.

 

Bad science endangers lives, and the more profit to be made, the more dangerous

it is. Biomedical researchers have been caught peddling fraudulent cures and

killing patients while profiting from stock-market hype of spin-off companies

created at public expense.

Knowledge itself under threat

Knowledge itself is under threat in many ways. Proprietary databases and

archives are being established to restrict access to genome sequences and other

information on genes and proteins, and to published scientific papers, all of

which severely hindering scientific research.

 

Globally, the new Trade-Related Intellectual Properties (TRIPS) regime of

industrialised nations, which includes patents of organisms, human genes and

cell lines, is being imposed on the rest of the world through the World Trade

Organisation (WTO), as part of a relentless drive towards economic

globalisation. The TRIPS regime is an unprecedented privatisation of knowledge.

It has also led to widespread biopiracy of indigenous knowledge and resources,

threatening local biodiversity and the livelihoods of indigenous communities.

 

Farmers in Canada and the United States who found their fields contaminated by

patented crop genes have been ordered by the courts to pay compensation to

Monsanto. This is a foretaste of the corporate serfdom that will be imposed on

all of us if we don’t fight it now. It is crafted through the economic

globalisation of the WTO, World Bank and International Monetary Fund, which is

widely acknowledged to be the major cause of poverty, social disintegration and

environmental degradation over the past decades. It is obstructing real attempts

to reverse the trends, and to implement a global agenda for sustainability.

The ‘academic-industrial-military complex’ engineering life and mind

The threat to knowledge is much deeper than the enclosure of the intellectual

commons, and all the other consequences that follow.

 

Successive governments have sold science and scientists to the corporations in

the misguided quest to exploit science for wealth creation. Science and

scientists are being subverted to a corporate agenda that ensures the survival

of the meanest and fattest corporations, so they can become ever better at

exploiting the masses for further gain.

 

Under the banner of the ‘free market’ and ‘free choice’, we are losing our right

to self-determination and self-sufficiency in every way: our food, health,

social mores, the way we choose to live and most seriously of all, our right to

think differently from the corporate establishment. An emerging

‘academic-industrial-military complex’ is threatening to engineer both life and

mind.

 

Corporations have taken over the public funding agencies, to determine which

kinds of scientific research get funded. Independent science and scientists are

fast becoming extinct. The government and the Royal Society – the society of top

scientists in the UK if not the world – got together with a transmogrified PR

company funded by the food industry to produce guidelines to determine which

scientific findings get reported, and what scientists can say to the media. The

Science Media Centre, set up to feed the media with the ‘correct’ scientific

information, was caught trying to suppress a BBC drama that attempted to draw

attention to horizontal gene transfer, the most insidious danger of genetic

engineering.

 

The UK national debate on GM is turning into a farce, with the head of the Food

Standards Agency openly supporting GM and attacking organic agriculture based on

prejudice and hearsay, completely ignoring the wealth of scientific evidence on

the success of organic, sustainable agriculture around the world.

 

There is still no open scientific debate on the hazards of genetic engineering

within the UK.

" Another world is possible "

" Another world is possible " was the rallying cry of the fifty thousand who

gathered in Porto Alegre in February for the Second World Social Forum (WSF), to

voice unanimous opposition to the present economic globalisation and to call for

alternative models of world governance and finance.

 

But almost no one targeted the predominant, reductionist knowledge system that

has provided the intellectual impetus for this globalisation as well as the

instruments of destruction and oppression.

 

At a workshop during the WSF, I happened to be sitting next to Paul Hawken, who

wrote The Ecology of Commerce and other books, in which he proposed a new form

of business that places primary emphasis on regenerating nature, for nature is

the ultimate capital of commerce. He told me he had discussed the idea of a

" Convention on Corporate Responsibility " , which he confessed, could be an

oxymoron.

 

But it occurred to me there and then, why not a Convention on Knowledge?

I discussed it briefly with Martin Khor, Director of the Third World Network,

and soon after returning home, typed the first draft into my laptop. And, the

rest, as they say, is history.

 

I was overjoyed and surprised by the enthusiastic response, first from fellow

scientists and then, most importantly, from third world and indigenous peoples’

representatives.

 

Let me take the opportunity to thank all those who have responded to improve the

draft, and to add substantial texts and comments that I have tried to

accommodate, if not incorporate. In particular, I want to thank SGR for playing

such a major role in publicising the paper, collating the comments and

organising this first conference to discuss the draft.

 

Phil Webber has kindly given me a preview of the comments, so I could at least

explain, if not defend myself, as I do feel responsible for all the defects in

the document.

 

First of all, it was never my intention to produce a legally binding

international Convention, as that’s the surest way to kill it. Look what’s

happening to the Kyoto Protocol, the Cartagena Biosafety Protocol, the

Bioweapons Convention, and every other international agreement.

 

This Convention on Knowledge belongs to the global civil society. It is meant to

bring together all the seemingly disparate issues that concern knowledge or

which arise from knowledge, to serve as the focus of a concerted global campaign

to reclaim all knowledge systems to the service of public good, and to create

another possible world.

 

I also believe that another science is possible, that it may be the key to

another possible world.

 

Much of the inspiration for the Convention came from knowing that there are so

many people, like Paul Hawken and Martin Khor, at opposite ends of civil

society, all deeply committed to " another possible world " that’s more equitable,

sustainable, peaceful and just; and have already contributed so much in that

direction.

 

As a scientist, I also know that we have all the means at our disposal to help

build that possible world, and we can make major contributions as scientists.

 

More importantly, there is another science on the horizon, emerging from within

the tradition of western science, which could offer a radically different vision

of life.

 

I mentioned the fluid genome. That is part and parcel of the shift in scientific

vision, from the mechanistic towards the organic, from reductionist to holistic,

that has been happening across the disciplines: the mathematics of chaos and the

science of complexity, non-equilibrium thermodynamics, quantum physics of

coherent states, to name but a few.

 

Would a different science transform the meaning and texture of our life? I think

so. I started doing science as a typical biologist and biochemist, schooled to

fixing, pinning, pulping and homogenising until no trace is left of the

biological organisation that I was supposed to be looking for. We end up with a

graveyard of information on the molecular nuts and bolts, but nothing to enable

us to understand what makes the organism whole.

 

It was dissatisfaction with this approach that started my scientific odyssey of

30 years, falling in and falling out of many disciplines until I found what I

call, the physics of organisms [9]. It is, in many ways, an extension of the

work and vision of British mathematician-philosopher Alfred North Whitehead,

biochemist and later scholar of Chinese science, Joseph Needham and others who

were to form the Theoretical Biology Club in Cambridge inthe first half of the

last century.

 

There are many colleagues who share in this new vision to varying degrees. Some

of us recently met at a conference organised by my long time collaborator,

Franco Musumeci, ex-nuclear physicist turned biophysicist and associate

professor in the engineering faculty of Catania University, Sicily. The

conference received enthusiastic support from many Departments within Catania

University and its administration, and from all levels of the Italian

government, the local municipal to provincial, right up to the national. We were

showered with gifts, as local businesses also donated generously in kind.

 

Afterwards, a number of us proposed a M. Sc. programme on " Organic Physics " : how

the physical sciences and engineering can contribute to understanding life,

rather than the other way around: how life can be understood in terms of physics

and chemistry. I invite anyone interested to get involved in such a programme.

It will be earth shaking; scarcely a month after our conference, Mount Etna

erupted again.

 

A few days ago, I attended a workshop organised by The Living Rainforest, a

beautiful mini-Eden project in Hampstead Norreys near Newbury. I spoke about my

personal quest for another science that brings back all the hallmarks of life –

spontaneity, freedom, consciousness and love – that have had no place within the

mechanistic paradigm.

 

Our magazine, Science in Society, is dedicated to developing the new

perspectives in earnest while challenging the old. Please and write

for us. The current issue 16 covers a lot of what I have been talking about,

including an article on how our Convention paper was launched at the Earth

Summit, appropriately, at a session linking traditional knowledge and science.

 

The highlight of the session was a talk by a remarkable Maori healer, Kereopa,

who is working with a scientist " to bring Maori medicine to the modern world " .

When asked how western scientists and indigenous healers like himself could work

together, he said,

 

" You cannot stay in your university and keep on sciencing and sciencing. The

future is up to you. "

 

I have indeed found it impossible to stay in my university, or to keep on

sciencing and sciencing within the mechanistic paradigm. For me, it has always

been, and will always be, sciencing with love.

 

The complete document with references, is available in the ISIS members site.

Full details here

 

 

 

This article can be found on the I-SIS website at

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/anotherknowledge.php

If you would prefer to receive future mailings as plain text please let us

know.

If you would like to be removed from our mailing list - please reply to

press-release with the word in the subject field

 

The Institute of Science in Society, PO Box 32097, London NW1 OXR

telephone: [44 20 8731 7714] [44 20 7383 3376] [44 20 7272 5636]

 

General Enquiries sam - Website/Mailing List

press-release - ISIS Director m.w.ho

MATERIAL IN THIS EMAIL MAY BE REPRODUCED IN ANY FORM WITHOUT PERMISSION, ON

CONDITION THAT IT IS ACCREDITED ACCORDINGLY AND CONTAINS A LINK TO

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/

 

Gettingwell- / Vitamins, Herbs, Aminos, etc.

 

To , e-mail to: Gettingwell-

Or, go to our group site: Gettingwell

 

 

 

 

Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site