[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[SANET-MG] outsourcing risks
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/OEHR.phpISIS 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.
The Institute of Science in Society, PO Box 32097, London NW1 OXR
telephone: [44 20 8452 2729] [44 20 7272 5636]
General Enquiries sam@i-sis.org.uk - Website/Mailing List
press-release@i-sis.org.uk - ISIS Director m.w.ho@i-sis.org.uk
MATERIAL ON THIS SITE 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/
********************************************************
To unsubscribe from SANET-MG:
1- Visit http://lists.sare.org/archives/sanet-mg.html to unsubscribe or;
2- Send a message to <listserv@sare.org> from the address subscribed to the list. Type "unsubscribe sanet-mg" in the body of the message.
Visit the SANET-MG archives at: http://lists.sare.org/archives/sanet-mg.html
For more information on grants and other resources available through the SARE program, please visit http://www.sare.org.