Public Research & Regulation Fraud!

[Guest guest]

ubject: GMW: Public Research & Regulation Fraud!

" GM WATCH " <info

Thu, 3 Mar 2005 14:38:23 GMT

 

 

 

Public Research & Regulation Fraud!

GM WATCH daily

http://www.gmwatch.org

------

1.Public Research & Regulation Fraud - GM Watch

2.Biotechnolgy meeting convenes here - press article

3.Public Research & Regulation Foundation

*Steering Commitee.

*Organisation, coordination and further contacts

------

1.Public Research & Regulation Fraud - GM Watch

 

The article below describes a new initiative - The Public Research

Sector Initiative executed by a foundation called " Public Research and

Regulation " . The initiative is based on deceit.

 

The biotech scientists involved, who are meeting today anjd tomorrow,

are saying that they represent a third non-aligned group between civil

society and industry who should " weigh in " at meetings of the Cartagena

Protocol that help determine biosafety rules. They claim " the public

research sector has been not able to provide scientific input for the

benefit of the negotiations nor to express its views about the

effectiveness and workability of the provisions of the Protocol. "

 

Their call for increased leverage for " nonprofit " " public sector "

players belies the heavy industrial-alignment of most public sector

agricultural biotechnology where there is a long history of

involvement with

intensive agricultural R & D and of collaboration with agribusiness

multinationals, not to mention dependence on industry funding. The

effect of

this is to generate convergence between private sector and public sector

operators.

 

This convergence means that the " third " group would not be non-aligned

but would have interests and an agenda that would all too often be

indistinguisgable from that of the industry - in other words biotech

proponents would get two bites of the cherry to the rest of society's one.

 

The problem is apparent as soon as one looks at the detail of this

initiative and those that are driving it forward. Although the biotech

scientists claim it is a " misconception that modern biotechnology, and in

particular its agricultural application, is the exclusive domain of a

handful of big, western multinationals " , they are actually holding their

meeting today at the Donald Danforth Plant Sciences Center in St Louis,

Missouri – the home town of Monsanto.

 

This is no coincidence. The Danforth Center was established by Monsanto

Corporation " and academic partners " with a $70-million pledge from

Monsanto. The company also donated the 40-acre tract of land, valued at

$11.4 million, on which the Center is built.

http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=200

 

And don't be fooled when a scientist turned political lobbyist is

quoted at the end of the article as saying, " My career would be much

better

served if I wasn't doing this, " and " My dream is to win this battle and

go back to the lab full time " . For many of the scientists involved in

this initiative, their labs, their research and their current careers

would simply not exist if it were not for the largesse of the biotech

industry.

 

Take, for instance, Roger Beachy, the Danforth Center President, who is

helping to drive forward this initiative and who is quoted in the

article. Monsanto and other biotech companies have helped to fund

Beachy's

research, quite apart from the massive corporate support underlying the

Center he heads.

 

One of the 2 key contacts for the group, and a member of the Steering

Committee, is Willy de Greef of the Institute for Plant Biotechnology

for Developing Countries (IPBO). Prior to that de Greef was a leading

light of Syngenta – the world's biggest biotech corporation. And Beachy

and de Greef are very far from alone - see the list below.

 

And when the article asks, " Can public-sector scientists become better

salesmen? " , it misses the point that many of those involved are

" salesmman " and often their lobbying is underwritten directly or

indirectly by

the biotech industry.

 

Here are more of those who " support the initiative and wish to be

actively involved in its activities " :

 

Prof. Klaus Ammann, Botanical Garden, University of Bern, Switzerland

-ardent supporter and lobbyist for GM crops and co-editor of the

Bio-Scope, supported by GM industry lobby group Europabio.

http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=8

Dr. Gerard Barry, The International Rice Research Institute,

Philippines

-former Director of Research, Production and Technical Cooperation at

Monsanto

http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=294

Dr. Andrew Bennett, Syngenta Foundation for Sustainable Agriculture,

Switzerland

-Syngenta directors occupy 3 of the 5 seats on the Syngenta

Foundation's board.

http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=175

Dr. Joel Cohen, International Food Policy Research Institute,

Washington, United States

-when at USAID Cohen worked with Monsanto to establish the notorious GM

sweet potato project

http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=131

Prof. Philip J. Dale, Genetic Modification and Biosafety Research

Group, John Innes Centre, United Kingdom

-Dale is on the advisory council of the controversial lobby group Sense

About Science which the John Innes Centre also helps to fund. JIC has

been involved in multi-million pound research alliances with Syngenta,

Dupont and others.

http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=34

Dr Roger Kalla, Primary Industries Research Victoria, Australia

-active in lobby group AusBiotech

Prof. Drew L. Kershen, University of Oklahoma College of Law, United

States

-Well known Prakash supporter

Dr. Muffy Koch, AgBios, Canada

-highly controversial lobbyist. Part of biotech industry-funded

AfricaBio lobby group

http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=271

Piet van der Meer, HORIZONS sprl, Belgium

-regarded as " having let the industry in " to biosafety development in

the developing world

Dr. James Peacock, Commonwealth Science and Industrial Research

Organisation, Australia

-collaboration between the CSIRO and Monsanto generated Australia's

first major GM commercial crop. According to John Stocker, CSIRO's former

chief executive, " Working with the transnationals makes a lot of sense,

in the context of market access… Yes, we do find that it is often the

best strategy to get into bed with these companies. "

http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=187

Prof. Ingo Potrykus, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH),

Institute of Plant Science, Switzerland

-golden rice originator who has happily used it for PR purposes for

genetic engineering. Accuses Greenpeace of 'crimes against humanity'

http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=105

Prof. Jennifer Thompson, Department of Microbiology University of Cape

Town, South-Africa

-board member of the biotech industry-funded lobby groups AfricaBio and

ISAAA

http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=170

Dr. Florence Wambugu, A Harvest Biotech Foundation International, Kenya

-notorious GM propagandist, trained by Monsanto. A Harvest is backed by

CropLife International.

http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=131

------

2.Biotechnolgy meeting convenes here

By Eric Hand

St Louis Post-Dispatch, 03/02/2005

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/sciencemedicine/story/9C9EEC40\

1D3450EA86256FB9001A6BF2?OpenDocument

 

Can public-sector scientists become better salesmen?

 

Nearly 50 university, nonprofit and government biotechnologists from

around the globe will try at a two-day conference beginning today at the

Donald Danforth Plant Sciences Center in Creve Coeur.

 

Center president Roger Beachy wants them to talk up the benefits of

public research into genetically modified foods and crops, an industry

where debate so far has largely been between for-profit companies like

St.

Louis-based Monsanto and environmental activists.

 

" We think the absence of the voice of public-sector scientists skews

the discussion, " he said.

 

Beachy hopes to encourage public-sector scientists to weigh in by

attending a meeting in June for the Cartagena Protocol, a treaty that

governs biosafety rules.

 

With Washington University researchers advocating on the stem cell

research issue before the Missouri Legislature, some scientists are

finding

themselves in an unusual position: To get public money or permission,

they have to join the political fray.

 

The Cartagena Protocol took effect Sept. 11, 2003, after 50 nations

ratified the treaty. It was named for the Colombian city in which it was

primarily negotiated in 1999. The treaty contains safety rules for

genetically modified organisms, specifying, for example, that food

products

must be labeled and that the international transport of any modified

organisms must be declared.

 

To date, 114 nations have ratified the treaty. The United States has

not.

 

The treaty is mute about the benefits of biotechnology, said Joel

Cohen, a researcher with the International Food Policy Research

Institute,

which is based in Washington. He says that's because treaty negotiations

included for-profit scientists, representatives from the environmental

ministries and non-governmental organization activists, but didn't

include public-sector scientists.

 

" Nobody has mobilized these scientists before, & quot; he said. & quot;The

meeting in St. Louis is intended to address that void "

 

Public-sector scientists in 15 countries have genetically engineered 45

crops, according to a paper Cohen published January in the journal

Nature Biotechnology.

 

All but one of the crops - an insect-resistant cotton in China - are

stuck in a regulatory pipeline and have not been released commercially.

For-profit companies are good at navigating regulatory agencies, but the

public researchers need more money for that, Cohen said.

 

Cohen, who will present his work at the Danforth Center today, says

that some environmental organizations have unjustly ignored the potential

benefits of public-sector engineered products, which would be freely

available.

 

" They prefer this black-and-white split between right and wrong " he

said.

 

That's not true, said Kristin Dawkins, vice president of the Institute

for Agriculture and Trade Policy, a nonprofit group in Minneapolis that

opposes genetically engineered foods. She says the goals of

public-sector biotechnologists are well-intentioned and sincere, but

perhaps too

hurried.

 

Dawkins calls for more research into the health and ecological effects

of genetically modified organisms before they are released

commercially.

 

Two conference attendees, a regulator from Tanzania and a researcher

from Colombia, said that farmers in their countries were less concerned

with possible hazards of modified products and more concerned with their

potential price tags.

 

Beachy said that this is where the scientists need to be better

salesmen and let people know about products that would eventually be free

 

He understands the risks of scientists venturing into a political

arena.

 

" There will be accusations, that public scientists are dupes of the big

companies and pushing a profit motive " he said.

 

Washington University professor Steve Teitelbaum knows about becoming

an advocate. The bone doctor became the university spokesman on the

issue of stem cell research. He has spent many nights dining with state

legislators and debating opponents

 

" My career would be much better served if I wasn't doing this " he said.

" My dream is to win this battle and go back to the lab full time. "

 

The Cartagena Protocol

 

Sets up a biosafety clearinghouse where information about genetically

modified organisms is filed and shared after commercial approval.

 

Requires products to be accompanied by labels and documents that

identify the scientific name and characteristics of genetically modified

ingredients

 

Operates under the " precautionary principle " meaning that worst-case

scenarios for a genetically modified product can justify banning it, even

if no scientific evidence exists of it causing harm

 

Source: United Nations Environment Programme Convention on Biological

Diversity

Reporter Eric Hand

E-mail: ehand

Phone: 314-340-8250

------

3.Public Research & Regulation Foundation

www.pubresreg.org

 

Countries and organisations throughout the world have invested

considerably in public sector research, and are continuing to do, so

in order

to develop biotechnological applications that meet a variety of crucial

needs...

 

The extent to which modern biotechnology will be able to achieve these

goals will depend to a large extent on the regulatory regimes that

apply to biotechnology and on the way in which they are implemented.

These

national regulations in turn are strongly influenced by international

agreements, particularly the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.

 

This Protocol was negotiated between 1995 and 2000, adopted in January

2000, and came into force in September 2003. The first Meeting of the

Parties (MOP1) took place in February 2004 in Kuala Lumpur and MOP2 is

scheduled for May - June 2005.

A central aim of the negotiations was to involve all stakeholders.

Records of the negotiations show that NGOs and the private sector were

indeed well represented.

 

However, the public research sector involved in developing

biotechnological applications, which includes over a hundred thousand

researchers

of thousands governmental, academic and international research

institutions in developing and developed countries, was not

represented in any

significant or organised way during the negotiations or during MOP1.

 

As a result, the public research sector has been not able to provide

scientific input for the benefit of the negotiations nor to express its

views about the effectiveness and workability of the provisions of the

Protocol. Another consequence of the absence of the public research

sector during the negotiations is the persistence of the misconception

that

modern biotechnology, and in particular its agricultural application,

is the exclusive domain of a handful of big, western multinationals.

 

The initiative described below proposes to offer a forum for the public

research sector to be involved in the forthcoming Meetings of the

Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety in May 2005 and related

meetings.

 

Approach of the initiative.

 

The initiative consists of three phases:

Phase 1: Raising awareness among the public research community about

the issue.

Phase 2: Involvement of the public research sector in MOP2 ( 31 May – 3

June 2005)

Phase 3: Organised involvement of the public research sector in

subsequent MOPs.

 

*Organisation, coordination and further contacts

 

This initiative is coordinated by a Steering Committee, of which

currently the members are:

- Prof. Philip J Dale, former Leader of the Genetic Modification and

Biosafety Research

Group, John Innes Centre, United Kingdom (chairman of the Steering

Committee)

- Prof. Atanas Atanassov, Director of the AgriBiotech Institute of

Bulgaria.

- Dr. Roger Beachy, Donald Danforth Plant Science Center, St-Louis, USA

- Willy de Greef, Institute for Plant Biotechnology for Developing

Countries (IPBO) and International Biotech Regulatory Services (IBRS),

Belgium (vice-chair)

- Prof. Calestous Juma, Kennedy School of Government at Harvard

University, USA

- Drs. Piet van der Meer, esq., Horizons sprl, Belgium (vice-chair)

- Prof. Marc van Montagu, Institute for Plant Biotechnology for

Developing Countries

(IPBO), Belgium.

- Prof. Paul S. Teng, Nanyang Technological University, National

Institute of Education,

Singapore.

 

The Steering Committee will be further expanded to include public

research sector scientists from all regions of the world.

 

Contact persons for the Steering Committee are Willy de Greef

(ibsr) and Piet van der Meer (pietvandermeer).

 

For the execution of this initiative, a foundation has been established

in the Netherlands with the name Public Research and Regulation, and

with the objective to involve the public research sector in regulations

relevant to the development and application of biotechnology.

 

Administrative and logistical support for this initiative is provided,

through Delft University of Technology, by Dr. David Bennett and Mrs.

Kim Meulenbroeks. Contact references: kim.meulenbroeks,

Phone: +31-15-212-7800, Fax:+31-15-212-7111.

 

Updates of this initiative, including the list of people who endorse

it, will be made available on www.pubresreg.org.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

----------