Outsourcing Ecological and Health Risks & Reducing Scientists to Bio-coolies for

[Guest guest]

23 Sep 2005 15:10:41 -0000

Outsourcing Ecological and Health Risks & Reducing Scientists

to Bio-coolies for Industry

press-release

 

 

The Institute of Science in Society Science Society

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

 

General Enquiries sam Website/Mailing List

press-release ISIS Director m.w.ho

 

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

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

========================================================

 

 

ISIS Press Release 23/09/05

 

Outsourcing Ecological and Health Risks & Reducing

Scientists to Bio-coolies for Industry

***************************************

 

 

Dr. Vandana Shiva condemns India's New Biotechnology

Development Strategy

 

 

 

India has emerged as a major global player in the

outsourcing of information technology (IT) related

activities from the developed world. Now, its New

Biotechnology Development Strategy ( " India's biotech

future " , accompanying article) is proposing an outsourcing

of biotechnology related activities. It states in no

uncertain terms: " Biotech can deliver the next wave of

technological change that can be as radical and even more

pervasive than that brought about by IT. "

 

 

 

There is however a major difference between IT and

biotechnology. The latter deals with the manipulation of

life forms at the genetic level through genetic engineering

(and at the atomic level when combined with nanotechnology).

The engineering of life is inherently linked to ecological

and health risks. Outsourcing biotechnology is therefore

the outsourcing of risk; and this is clearly admitted in the

introduction:

 

 

 

" The Indian Biotechnology sector is gaining global

visibility and is being tracked for emerging investment

opportunities. Human capital is perceived to be the key

driver for global competitiveness. Added to this is a

decreasing appetite for risk capital in developed countries,

which has led to a decline in the biotechnology sector in

these regions where survival lifelines are being provided by

the lower cost research environs of the developing world

such as India. "

 

 

GMOs: hope vs hype

 

 

Biotechnology is defined as a " technology of hope " , despite

the repeated failure of the only commercialized product of

agricultural biotechnology, Bt-cotton:

 

 

 

" Biotechnology, globally recognized as a rapidly emerging

and far-reaching technology, is aptly described as the

" technology of hope " for its promising of food, health and

environmental sustainability. "

 

 

 

Bt-cotton is genetically engineered cotton, which contains

genes taken from a soil bacterium (Bacillus thuringiensis)

to produce toxins in the plant to reduce infestation by

American bollworm. It has promoter genes to create high-

doses of the toxin, which are released in all parts of the

plant during the entire life span of the crop.

 

 

 

The history of Bt-cotton in India is a story of lies, legal

violations and connivance between multinational corporations

and governmental authorities. It began in March 1995, with

MAHYCO, a collaborator with Monsanto, importing 100 grams of

Bt cottonseed after obtaining permission from Review

Committee of Genetic Manipulation (RCGM) in the Department

of Biotechnology, and not from the Genetic Engineering

Advisory Committee (GEAC). Under the Environment

(Protection) Act 1986, the GEAC is the only body that can

grant permission for importing genetically engineered

substances (seeds in the present case). Therefore the import

of Bt gene into India was illegal (For details of the

illegal import, trials and seed multiplication, see the

publication by Vandana Shiva, Seeds of Suicide, Navdanya,

New Delhi, 2000)

 

 

 

In 1998, Monsanto-MAHYCO started large-scale multi-centric,

open field trials in 40 acres at 40 locations spread over

nine states; also without the permission from GEAC even

though it is the sole agency to grant permission for large-

scale open field trials of GMOs under the 1989 Rules.

 

 

 

The Bt-cotton failure forced the government to not renew

permission for planting in the Southern states where it had

been planted for the past 5 years. Instead the government

has cleared Bt-cotton for Northern states.

 

 

 

The Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology

was forced to initiate a case against Monsanto-Mahyco and

the government because the trails and clearances have

violated all Biosafety Laws and Rules framed under the

Environmental Protection Act (1986) for the Manufacture,

Use, Import, Export and Storage of Hazardous Microorganisms

and Genetically Engineered Organisms or Cells, 1989.

 

 

 

The failure of Bt. Cotton has pushed farmers into debt, and

in some cases to suicide. For small farmers, biotechnology

is clearly not a technology of hope.

 

 

 

Besides the social costs, there are serious ecological risks

associated with GM crops.

 

 

Deregulating Risks

 

 

At a time when the negative experience with genetically

engineered crops should be leading to a strengthening of

biosafety regulation, the strategy is calling for a total

deregulation of biotechnology. The deregulation is proposed

through two processes.

 

 

 

First, the current multi-tiered biosafety regulation in

which the Ministry of Environmental has final authority for

clearance is to be replaced by a single window clearance

under the Department of Biotechnology.

 

 

 

A new National Biotechnology Authority has been proposed to

cover agricultural products and GMOs, pharmaceuticals and

drugs, transgenic food and feed and transgenic

animal/aquaculture. This effectively marginalises health and

environmental risk assessment.

 

 

 

Second, the case-by-case approach in risk assessment is to

be replaced effectively by reinventing the discredited

principle of substantial equivalence. The Strategy states:

 

 

 

" It is recommended that an event that has already undergone

extensive biosafety tests should not be treated as a new

event if it is in a changed background containing the tested

and biosafety evaluated " event " . "

 

 

 

The " event " referred to is the genetically modified (GM)

insert containing the transgene that has landed in a

particular location of a given plant genome. The assumption

that the transgene will behave in the same manner when

introduced into a different plant genome is scientifically

flawed. Natural Bt, a soil bacterium is not the same as the

Bt Cotton, and the Bt protein in one cotton variety will

have different implications for health and environmental

safety than the same Bt in another cotton variety; and all

the more so, in Bt mustard or potato.

 

 

 

This is a strategy to avoid risk assessment; and hence a

strategy for deregulation of the biotechnology industry in

India and outsourcing genetic pollution and health risks to

India's ecosystem and the Indian public.

 

 

A future of genetically engineered plants, animals and

humans

 

 

The Strategy proposes to genetic engineer rice, wheat,

maize, sorghum, pigeon pea, chick pea, moong bean, ground

nut, mustard, soy bean, cotton, sugarcane, potato, tomato,

cole crop, banana, papaya, and citrus; in other words, the

entire food basket. And the untested genetically engineered

foods are to be promoted for consumption by Indians. In

addition, the Strategy also proposes to genetic engineer

animals, especially buffalo, cattle, sheep and goat.

Genetically engineered fish are also a priority, with a

focus on carps, tiger shrimp and fresh water prawns.

 

 

 

Not only that. The Strategy also aims to promote human

genetic engineering with promise that,

 

 

 

" We will be able to repair some of the damage caused by

aging, organ by organ…….. The application of nanotechnology

in bioengineering together with biotechnology offers a great

new range of advanced biomaterials with enhanced

functionality; and intertwined with tissue engineering, it

has the potential to provide true organ replacement

technology of the coming decade. "

 

 

 

The nanotechnology applications to be promoted are carbon

nanotubes for biosensors, DNA nanowire, bio-molecular chips.

 

 

 

The new biotechnology strategy is rushing headlong to

include new technology areas for which independent risk

assessment needs to be evolved. As Vicki Colvin, Director of

the Centre for Biological and Environmental Nanotechology,

Prince University observes:

 

 

 

" In a field with more than 12 000 citations a year, we were

stunned to discover no prior research in developing

nanomaterials risk assessment models and no toxicology

studies devoted to synthetic nanomaterials. " (Quoted in The

Big Down: From Genome to Atom, ETC group, Jan 2003)

 

 

 

Under a single window clearance, no new assessments for

nanotech will be evolved. The technology will thus evolve in

a regulatory vacuum. Further, with an " event " treated as

equal in all contexts, carbon nanoparticles will be treated

as safe because carbon in its naturally occurring forms is

safe. However, research at Rice University showed that

nanoparticles were accumulating in the livers of lab animals

(ETC Report P 24).

 

 

 

As nanoparticles can be taken up by cells, they can enter

the food chain. And what makes nanoparticles efficient as

drug delivery systems viz., their ability to easily enter

the blood strain and even target individual cells due to

their small size can also become the reason for the risk of

a new form of " nanopollution " .

 

 

 

Nanoparticles could reach organs they were not intended to

be in, and have impacts that were never assessed. The health

and environmental risks need to be assessed before the

technology is developed. Instead the new Biotechnology

Strategy is planning to introduce nanotechnology below the

regulatory radar.

 

 

Privatisation of knowledge

 

 

Simultaneously with outsourcing risk, the Strategy rests on

privatizing India's intellectual and biodiversity wealth.

The 500 000 students trained annually in biological

sciences, 17 000 medical practitioners graduating annually

from India's Medical Colleges, and 300 000 postgraduates and

1 500 Ph.D.s qualifying in biosciences and engineering each

year are the human raw material for the new vision. India's

rich biodiversity of agricultural crops and medicinal plants

is the biological raw material.

 

 

 

Mobilising India's scientific talent for the Biotechnology

industry is the main objective of " human resource

development " in the Strategy. Proposals include

 

 

Visiting professorship and creation of industry-sponsored

chairs in partnership with the Department of Biotechnology

 

Industry research laboratories to be introduced at the

school level to create interest in the fields of

biotechnology and biology

 

Public-private partnerships to be encouraged in Ph.D.

programmes through creation of the " Bio-Edu-Grid " – a

network of universities and industries facilitating pooling

of resources

 

Scientists working at universities and research institutions

to be allowed to work in industries for commercialization of

their research efforts

 

Dual/adjunct faculty positions: researchers working in

university/research institutions to be allowed to hold

positions in the industry and vice-versa

 

Joint salary support: faculty in academic institutions to be

paid salaries by industry;

 

Rapid travel grants to scientists to be approved within two

weeks to meet industry collaborators

 

 

To facilitate these partnerships with industry, contract

research organisations (CROs) and Contract Manufacturing

Organisations (CMOs) are being set up. Gene banks and

animal testing labs will be set up in partnership with

industry. While the Indian public and parliament are

working to change TRIPS and amend India's patent laws to

exclude patents on life, the Biotechnology Strategy proposes

to lobby WTO and the Government of India to include patents

on life and patents related to biotechnology.

 

 

 

The biotechnology policy is therefore a radical

reorientation of our public education and public research

systems to serve the narrow needs of industry, not the broad

and diverse needs of society.

 

 

 

In effect, the strategy envisions reducing our biological

scientists into " bio-coolies " for the global biotech

industry.

 

 

 

 

========================================================

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

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

 

If you like this original article from the Institute of

Science in Society, and would like to continue receiving

articles of this calibre, please consider making a donation

or purchase on our website

 

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

 

ISIS is an independent, not-for-profit organisation

dedicated to providing critical public information on

cutting edge science, and to promoting social accountability

and ecological sustainability in science.

 

If you would prefer to receive future mailings as HTML

please let us know. If you would like to be removed from our

mailing list at

 

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

========================================================

CONTACT DETAILS

 

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

NW1 OXR

 

telephone: [44 1994 231623] [44 20 8452 2729] [44 20

7272 5636]

 

General Enquiries sam Website/Mailing List

press-release ISIS Director m.w.ho

 

MATERIAL ON THIS SITE MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED IN ANY FORM

WITHOUT EXPLICIT PERMISSION.

FOR PERMISSION, PLEASE CONTACT enquiries