Plant genetic resources

My first proposition is that we must separate out what has to be separated, and we must discuss issues under the appropriate heading.

As discussions about ethics ought to strive for consistency and coherence, certain rules for discussing the ethical challenges are pertinent. First of all, we must separate the ethical challenges of biotechnology and genetic engineering in the context of human beings from those of animals and of plants. I am referring here to the plant context only, to what is commonly called green biotechnology.

Second, we ought to respect the professional ethics of different disciplines. This means that we need to have biologists assess the biological implications, legal experts assess the legal implications, and so on and so on for economists, sociologists, political scientists, and others. Once professional experts have established the facts, we can call upon the ethicist to do the ethical assessment. What should not happen - but what happens all the time - is that ethicists or theologians discuss plant biological specificities and second-guess the judgment of the professional experts from other disciplines. If theologians would be astonished to hear a biologist discuss the hermeneutics of Matthew 7:1-2 with them, they should be equally constrained from discussing horizontal gene transfer with biologists. Is it asking too much that people who do not have an in depth understanding of molecular biology refrain from making judgments on issues that require an in depth understanding of molecular biology?

At the end of the 20^th century, we ought to see people who have different convictions and opinions as fellow human beings with a diverging view of the world and not despise them for stupidity or accuse them of ideological fundamentalism or outright immorality. A more humanist attitude toward others will also affect the language we use: Wherever managers of multinational corporations or bureaucrats at research institutes dismiss calls for caution as stupidity or old-style communist rhetoric, they lack not only style but also wisdom. And on the other side of the coin, with due respect for the need for campaign topics and for bogeymen to secure public attention, the buck must stop where preoccupations, prejudice, and distortions become an end in themselves. The result of such marketing aimed to spur donations in the North might well be the end of support for public research whose results are likely to be needed in 10 to 15 years in the South. Many eminent observers, such as Norman Borlaug, fear that today a small minority of radical environmentalists are manipulating a scientifically uneducated public politically in a way that denies poorer nations access to a technology that could help them produce more and better food. Who would be accountable for such a lack of scientific results?

Whenever in the context of biotechnology a term is used that associates the risks of field trials of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) with the impact of nuclear disasters such as Hiroshima or Chernobyl, the victims of Hiroshima and Chernobyl are derided and ridiculed. A new Web site shows the ugly face of Adolf Hitler to associate biotechnology with the eugenics of the Nazis.¹ What a slap in the face of the victims of Auschwitz! Whenever risks with extremely low likelihood are blown up through worst case scenarios to become monstrous Bio-twisters, something has gone terribly wrong. Web sites that call for vandalism and destruction as well as attacks on research facilities and corporate headquarters² are not likely to promote societal learning, nor are professors from Institutes for World Religion who call genetic engineering an unprecedented lethal threat to life on the planet.³

In some European countries, the debate has become one among people whose minds are already made up and who do not want to be "bothered" by facts, but only need a scapegoat from a multinational corporation to publicly let off steam at. You cannot have responsible discourse under such conditions. Very personal convictions about right and wrong form the basis of protests or cause the people involved to totally discount others with different points of view. The moralization of rational issues and the retreat to basic personal convictions are explosive, because the people involved usually cannot retreat to the fair compromises that are indispensable for professional decisions.

A kind of bio-McCarthyism is taking place, leading to slandering and vilification of anybody who sees genetic engineering and green biotechnology as anything but a nail in the coffin of modern society. But I also want to go on record as noting that those who argue that these technologies are the silver bullets to save the world from starvation should also restrain themselves. Complex problems have no simple solutions. The discussion about the contribution of green biotechnology to food security would gain in quality and power of conviction if all who participated would call a spade a spade rather than a nuclear hand grenade or a deus ex machina.

My second proposition is that we need to make our valuations explicit and give transparency to our interests.

Assessing the contribution of genetic engineering to fighting hunger in developing countries is not "simply" an academic task involving facts and figures and rational evaluation. The interpretation of data is subject to the interests and value judgments of a variety of stakeholders. Because we live in a world of heterogeneous social systems, with a multitude of value judgments and pluralism of interest, identical information leads to very different verdicts.

Whereas some people consider genetic engineering something unnatural and so inherently nasty⁴ and a threat to development in poor countries, others see a compelling moral imperative to develop genetically modified crops to combat poverty and ensure food security.⁵ The notion that there is no such thing as one objective reality but a multitude of subjective realities seems prevalent in discussions of biotechnology, as it does in discussions of all major social issues.

As Paul Streeten once pointed out, no one can be objective, pragmatic, and idealistic all at the same time.⁶ Individual values and interests always exert an enormous influence on the assessment of facts. There is an assumption that science is neutral and objective. What objectivity means here is that the scientist should provide disinterested information about facts and not permit an intrusion of his or her subjective values. However, disinterested sciences have never existed and never will.

As it is impossible to avoid having personal valuations affect our judgment, we should at least make them explicit and hence give transparency to what we define as desirable and undesirable.⁷

The discussion also gains in clarity if the interests behind arguments are revealed and made transparent. In most instances today, the private sector is accused of having profit interests. Yes, it is true, if you invest billions of dollars to research, you hope you find something that is attractive enough that clients will buy it for a good price. But is that a reason for blame in democratic and market-oriented societies, as long as the pursuit of commercial interests is based on the law and enlightened self-interest?

And what are the interests of those opposing biotechnology? For many observers, groups like Greenpeace or other self-styled Robin Hoods are exclusively interested in saving the world from the sinister Sheriffs of Sherwood Forest. Now this may be so, or it may not be so simple. In the latter case, it would certainly be interesting to shed more light on the necessity of opinion marketing for the generation of funds. Robin Hood may be powerless in money terms, he is certainly not in media and voter terms. As the media are more likely to take up wild stories about the creation of monsters than stories about slow but steady progress toward better crop varieties for resource-poor farmers, a certain kind of semantics and argumentation has direct relevance for the acquisition of funds. Could it be that in some instances scientific purity in the argumentation is sacrificed for a place in the market of worries?

The issue with underlying values and interests starts early on: In order to assess the actual or potential influence of biotechnology on development or poverty eradication in a country, definitional and value problems must be resolved, since the concept of development is ambiguous and has an evaluative dimension. As the Brandt Commission noted: Development will never be, and never can be, defined to universal satisfaction. It refers, broadly speaking, to desirable social and economic progress, and people will always have different views about what is desirable.⁸

While any set of personal values can be legitimate from the perspective of its holders, personal values should not necessarily be imposed on others in the sense of prescriptive ethics. This holds especially true for the competition of anthropocentric and biocentric values.

Differences of values and convictions start at a very fundamental level: There are people who oppose genetic engineering for the fundamental reason that human beings should not do what they perceive as play God. Others give the biosphere as such specific rights - that is, that species boundaries are not to be violated. I will not deal with this argument other than on the same fundamental level: If God created humans as intelligent creatures, it should be compatible with God's intentions that they use their intelligence to improve living conditions. The ambivalence of technological progress and the fact that a technological innovation can be used for good as well as for ill is neither new nor confined to genetic engineering and biotechnology.

Whether you see biotechnology as a threat or as a blessing depends in part on where you position human beings in the biosphere. If you consider them as the crown of the creation in the spirit of Genesis 1:28, you will argue differently than if you see human beings as brothers and sisters of animals and plants. Again, while I have high personal regard for those who think in the tradition of Saint Francis of Assisi or Albert Schweitzer, I do not share their convictions. To put it bluntly: If I would have to sacrifice larvae of the monarch butterfly in order to save children from blindness or women from anemia, I would regret the sacrifice and do as much as I can to minimize the damage, but in the end I would not hesitate to do it.

Why do I mention this example? Because the Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich informed the world in March 1999 of a sensational achievement: It became possible to genetically modify rice so that it contains vitamin A and iron. This, of course, is of immense benefit to about 250 million poor, malnourished people who are forced to subsist on rice. The consequences of this restricted diet are well known: 180 million people are Vitamin A-deficient, each year 2 million of them die, hundreds of thousands of children turn blind, and millions of women suffer from anemia, which is one of the main killers of women of childbearing age. In my judgment, this achievement makes the researchers around Ingo Potrykus of the Federal Institute potential candidates for the Nobel Prize for Peace. But did the Swiss, German, or any other European media react? Not until at least four months later, and then in a rather low-key manner.

The media treatment and hence public perception was very different when news broke in July 1999 that larvae of the Monarch butterfly were damaged in a genetically modified crop trial that was not representative of natural conditions. This time the story was picked up immediately and taken as clear evidence that genetic engineering causes incalculable harm to biodiversity and God knows what else. One consequence of this biased reporting was a selective public perception of genetic engineering and a de facto moratorium regarding field trials.

One last point I want to go on record about: If we refer to ethics in the discussion about biotechnology, I expect consistency and coherence of values. I have tremendous difficulties with the credibility of critics who worry about the dignity of the Harvard Mouse and want to assure the health of butterfly larvae while at the same time - though in another socio-political context - advocate free abortion.

My third proposition regarding ethical challenges in discussions is that we need to disentangle risks.

The current public debate about the "gene revolution" often suffers from the same fate as discussions on the Green Revolution - not differentiating between risks inherent in a technology and those that transcend it. This distinction is of utmost importance in any attempt to reason out the risks arising from biotechnology. Whether this new technology promises to be the key technological paradigm in the fight for food security depends on how its risks are perceived, disentangled, and accordingly addressed.

For GMOs, the risks classified as inherent in the technology are frequently summarized as biosafety risks. There is a wealth of scientific literature on the deliberate release of living modified organisms into either new environments or areas where they could prove particularly harmful. Until today, no severe biosafety risks have become known. The same is true for genetically altered food: Thousands of papers have demonstrated the safety of the technology and no scientifically reputable test has produced so far any hint that genetically modified food could be in any way toxic.

There is a broad consensus amongst scientists that serious concerns about the release of living modified organisms are unwarranted.⁹ This judgment supports the early principle of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences that the safety assessment of a recombinant DNA-modified organism should be based on the nature of the organism and the environment into which it will be introduced, not on the method by which it was modified.¹⁰ In 1999, nearly 100 million acres around the world were planted with transgenic crops.¹¹ And no serious issue - forget about uncontrollable risks - came up. It is particularly cynical that field trials that could prove the ongoing validity of the scientific consensus are being vandalized all over Europe and also now also in the United States.

Most countries with biotechnological industries have sophisticated legislation in place intended to ensure the safe transfer, handling, use, and disposal of such organisms and their products. But even with the best procedures and regulations in place, some risks, of course, will remain. Risks - calculable risks - must be taken, otherwise technological progress becomes impossible. There is always the possibility, no matter how slim, that something could go wrong. But science deals in probabilities, while the public has little appreciation for P values, so the few studies purporting specific risks have received disproportionate media play.

If biotechnological procedures are used in developing countries, state-of-the-art quality management that takes local ecological conditions into account must be put into effect along with the well-documented principles and best practices of proper risk assessment. These assessments allow governments, communities, and business to make informed decisions about the benefits and risks inherent in using a particular technology to solve a specific problem. No matter the outcome, however, risks disallowed in industrial countries should not be exported to developing countries.

Technology-transcending risks, as opposed to technology-inherent risks, emanate from the political and social context in which a technology is used. In developing countries, these risks spring from both the course the global economy takes and country-specific political and social circumstances. The most critical risks have to do with three issues: aggravation of the prosperity gap between North and South, growth in the disparity in income and wealth distribution within poor societies, and loss of biodiversity. This is not the place to go into a detailed discussion of these issues. What has to be stressed again, however, is the need to disentangle risks. Technology-transcending risks mostly materialize because a gap opens between human scientific - technical ability and human willingness to shoulder moral and political responsibility. Today, the risks most likely to inhibit development lie in the political, economic, and social milieu in which technology is applied. If and when poor, small farmers have access to land, to agricultural extension services, to marketing opportunities, to working equipment, and to fair terms of credit, then higher-yielding seeds adapted to the biotope and resistant to pests can be developed with the use of genetic engineering and biotechnology and bring noteworthy advantages and more food in better quality to the mass of small farmers.

In his masterpiece on Politics as Profession, Max Weber reminds us that we have to be clear in our mind that every ethically oriented course of action can rest on two altogether different and opposing maxims: it can be oriented to either an "ethic of conviction" or an "ethic of accountability." Not that the ethic of conviction is synonymous with irresponsibility or the ethic of accountability with lack of conviction. But there is a profound difference between acting in accordance with the ethic of conviction and acting according to ethics of accountability, and hence feeling responsible for the (foreseeable) consequences of what you have done or omitted to do.

The two types of ethical-mindedness that Weber contrasts so absolutely obviously correspond at best to an ideal construct. In actuality, people live in both force-fields and have to make decisions with both points of reference. Yet the extent of the ethics practiced by anyone dealing with genetic engineering and biotechnology is measured not only by the quality of the moral will behind it, but by the practical results of what they have decided to do.

This much, however, can be said: The decision for or against genetic engineering and biotechnology cannot be based solely on the ethics of conviction. It cannot be genetic engineering for the sake of genetic engineering - there is more to it. All technological decisions must be the result of a scientific weighing of arguments and be based on a sober and disinterested benefit - risk analysis in a specific situation and within a wider technological portfolio - that is, they have to be decisions based on the ethic of accountability.

Using one of the many methodological approaches for reaching an ethical decision, or at least a "moral determination," we can ask the following questions:

• What is the perception of the problem?
• How do we analyze the situation?
• What are the practical options?
• What norms, qualities, and perspectives should we use?
• Can we verify a binding applicability of our judgment or norms?
• What is the result of our evaluation?

At the moment there are more than 800 million people - mostly women and children - living with chronic malnutrition. In addition, an uncounted, anonymous mass of hundreds of millions more face food shortages during some part of the year. World population will grow by at least another 3 billion over the next 50 years, with virtually all of the increase in developing countries. Researchers at IFPRI say that food production in developing countries will have to be doubled in the next 30 or 40 years if a major food security crisis is to be prevented.

During that same 50 years, water will become increasingly scarce and what is left will be more polluted. Arable land is shrinking and what is left will be less productive. In addition, Earth is getting warmer, and no one knows what this is going to mean for the ability of poor countries to produce sufficient food. And a last scary development: Over the past decades, cereal yields per hectare have deteriorated by a third. Many food experts expect that this downward trend will continue and that conventional breeding might not be able to reverse it.

In this situation, I consider it not only a question of international responsibility and political wisdom to look for new economic, social, political, and technical possibilities for food production, but also an ethical imperative. To turn a blind eye at a problem that currently claims the lives of 40,000 children every day is cause for moral outrage.

Sustainable solutions are extremely complex: Food insecurity is one of the most terrible manifestations of human deprivation and is inextricably linked to every other facet of the development predicament.¹² Poverty is one of the major causes of food insecurity, and sustainable progress in poverty alleviation is critical to improved access to food.¹³ Poverty is linked not only to poor national economic performance but also to a political structure that renders the poor people powerless. So policy matters of a general nature, and in particular good governance,¹⁴ are of overriding importance for food security.

The main precondition for food security is a constructive political leadership that is responsive and responsible to the people and that uses peaceful means in dealing with both internal conflicts and other governments. Second, progress for food security requires a proper macro-economic framework. The elements that have been most important for successes on the poverty front are known today.¹⁵ It is obvious that any and all efforts to reduce population growth in an ethically acceptable way constitute a critical pillar of future food security.¹⁶

Technological innovation is no panacea to all problems of sustainable development - it is just one part of the solution, albeit a very important part. Within the full technological portfolio, biotechnology in its comprehensive sense and genetic engineering as its most powerful tool are of specific importance.

The spectrum of potential benefits from the application of genetic engineering and biotechnology to food crops in developing countries ranges from diagnostic aids, for example in plant diseases, to gene mapping, which allows speedier identification of interesting genetic material for every kind of plant usable in agriculture. The main objective of R&D for food security is to find improved seed varieties that enable reliable high yields at the same or lower tillage costs through qualities such as resistance to or tolerance of diseases and pests as well as to stress factors. Equally important objectives are the transfer of genes with nitrogen-fixing capacity onto grains and the improvement of food quality by overcoming vitamin or mineral deficiencies.

There is a wealth of peer-reviewed serious analyses that see a great potential for genetically modified crops to contribute to human well-being, particularly in developing countries.¹⁷ The possibilities of higher yields of GMOs plus their capability to cope with soil toxicity will also help prevent the farming of ecologically fragile areas or the clearing of tropical forests for agricultural purposes. As natural biodiversity in such areas is particularly high, tremendous positive effects for biodiversity are expected.

Case studies show that over the past years biotechnology and - so far to a lesser extent - genetic engineering have allowed marked concrete advances in the direction of higher food security, be it through resistance to fungal and viral diseases in major food crops or through improved plant properties. Of course, new agricultural technologies can only contribute one stone to the complex mosaic of agricultural development. Policies must ensure that a development-friendly environment exists and that technological progress is oriented toward the needs of the poor, particularly smallholders.

All serious analyses admit concerns with regard to human health, environmental safety, and intellectual property rights, but the overwhelming majority of experts conclude that - with a proper regulatory regimen enforced - benefits are likely to greatly outstrip concerns, so that ethically there should be every effort to realize these benefits. Continued research on all aspects of genetic engineering and biotechnology is necessary to maximize benefits and minimize risks. Whatever helps to address public concerns and regain public confidence for genetic engineering and biotechnology must be done, because in the end, in pluralistic democratic societies, it is social acceptance that makes success feasible.

Ethical dilemmas are predicaments that force us to decide between two or more alternative courses of action, each of which is more or less fraught with guilt. Very tragic situations illustrative of this quandary abound - situations involving life-and-death decisions and, with them, inevitable suffering and grief. Ethical dilemmas, then, are not situations that confront us with a choice between an ethically enjoined or a forbidden course of action, but rather ones where we are offered a choice between two or more evils. Not doing anything or putting up with a problematic situation can also be a choice, though not an ethically admissible one because it side-steps the real point at issue: having to decide on which is the lesser evil.

Solutions to ethical dilemmas often demand compromises. A lot of people feel vaguely uncomfortable with this because of the negative connotations attached to the word - as in an uneasy or a shoddy compromise. But qualms bring us no closer to a solution. In pluralistic societies, it is virtually impossible not to enter into compromises - the fact that fundamentalists are not able to compromise makes them unfit for dialogues. A few pointers to working toward "good" compromises may be in order. First, it is important to affirm with all due care a scale of values so as to be clear about which values rank highest. With a scale of priorities to go by, a lesser good can be waived for the sake of a greater one. Compromises done in this vein are unproblematic. To sacrifice higher values to a lower one, in contrast, is ethically not acceptable.¹⁸

Legal entitlements have certain limits; ethical claims do not. The law defines merely the ethical minimum. How minimal this is can be seen in the manifest inadequacy of the legal framework in many developing countries, for example, where as a result of institutional deficiencies or the paramount presence of political violence, the law is overridden. So even if the law does not expressly compel it, knowing better imposes the obligation to accept responsibility beyond the letter of the law. Concretely, if a developing country has no biosafety regulation or has one but does not enforce it, it might be legal to introduce genetically modified crops, because it is not forbidden. It cannot be legitimate, however, as it would not happen with the informed consent of the authorities and farmers in the countries concerned.

Over and above innumerable examples of the ineffectiveness of laws, there also exists a clear difference between juridical and ethical accountability. Whereas the juridical is contained within precisely defined bounds, a concern for the whole enjoins that ethical responsibility should not be equally confined. In ethical perspective, not everything that is legal is desirable, and not everything that is desirable is a legal obligation.

What does this mean for our subject? With the transfer of biotechnology to developing countries we must apply the Golden Rule - let us not do unto others what we do not want to be done unto us - and hence use the best technical practices and highest safety standards no matter what local laws or regulations demand.

Yes, it is true that in the past 50 years poverty has fallen more than in the previous 500. For the first time, long cherished hopes of eradicating poverty seem attainable, provided that concerted political will is brought to bear. Since 1980 there has been a dramatic surge in economic growth in many developing countries, bringing rapidly rising incomes to more than 1.5 billion people. But these economic improvements came at a price.

The world has become more economically polarized both between and within countries: The richest 20 percent of the world saw its share of global income rise from 70 to 85 percent, while the share belonging to the poorest 20 dropped from 2.3 to a mere 1.4 percent. The gap in per capita income between industrial and developing countries more than tripled between 1960 and 1995, from USD 5,700 to USD 16,168.

Will the new technologies deepen these monstrous inequalities or will they help to reduce them? Looking back at the lessons of the Green Revolution, it seems that the rich got richer, but the poor got less poor. A new analysis points to the employment and hence income effects of the Green Revolution varieties that eventually raised family income.¹⁹ As there are social differences, such as land ownership and access to credit as well as to irrigation, seed varieties with a higher productivity are likely to increase the income of those who have earlier and better access to the modern inputs. This is why green biotechnology also can only yield social results in line with the social conditions of those who use it. This is regrettable from an equity point of view - but it is a good governance issue, not a biological one.

Agricultural development that raises productivity and incomes either directly or indirectly also for the poor is still an eminent precondition for other development processes to be initiated - it is certainly a precondition to alleviate absolute poverty. To initiate such a development in a sustainable way also necessitates many political and social changes. But modern inputs such as genetically modified seeds that bring good yields on marginal land, are tolerant to pests as well as other stress factors, and deliver food in good quality can be an important help for resource-poor small farmers.

An improvement of today's poverty situation in the South requires not only good governance but also more solidarity from the North with poor people in poor nations. Through appropriate allocation of resources, international development assistance can help civil society in developing countries to do better. In addition, new and more effective technologies are needed along with research that helps develop such technologies in the South. One of the most effective ways of furthering agricultural and hence rural development was and will continue to be bringing cutting-edge research to resource-poor farmers.

Genetic engineering and biotechnology are cutting-edge technologies, and where they are appropriate, they can be of great benefit to resource-poor farmers. There is, however, a problem. Many concerned citizens worry that more and more biotechnological research is concentrated in the private sector, and that its results are patented and hence may prove to be too sophisticated or expensive for resource-poor farmers. The worry is justified: When research priorities are determined by the financial return on investment, the needs of those who have the purchasing power are likely to have higher priority than the poverty eradication needs of small farmers. For this reason public research must be strengthened, because its fruits can be passed on to small farmers at cost or, via government channels, even free of charge. This cannot be done with the results of research sponsored by private enterprise.

CGIAR, with its focus on the needs of the developing countries, has to continue to play a conspicuous role in such an effort - and international financial support for the CGIAR therefore ought to remain high. But there must also be more and more intensive co-operation between the private and public sectors. The special knowledge and know-how and the different experience - and patented intellectual property - at the disposal of the private sector but used only selectively for lucrative markets in industrial countries could be passed on via donated transfers or very favorable licensing terms to public research institutes in developing countries. The feasibility of this has already been demonstrated by a number of concrete examples.

As far as the compensation issue for the use of genetic material from developing countries is concerned, solutions are also within reach. Fair arrangements here are not so much a matter of solidarity but justice. Suppose, for example, that a private seeds company discovered a property in an Ethiopian barley strain that made it resistant to certain plant diseases, and then genetically transferred this property to a wheat variety that would afterwards be commercialized in Ethiopia. Obviously, the farmers in Ethiopia have contributed something by selecting and preserving this variety over a long period of time. It is also obvious that without the R&D work of the seeds company, the "something" would not have been used outside Ethiopia or in food grains other than the native barley. So both parties - the farmers of Ethiopia and the seeds company - have contributed to the new wheat variety, and therefore both have some kind of an intellectual property right and a right to compensation.

The basic question of whether remuneration is due was clearly answered in Article 19 of the Convention on Biological Diversity and is the consensus of the agencies engaged in development. Yet the technical details of how it should be handled in specific nations are still unclear. As a rough first approach to the much needed regulation in this area, I would recommend the following:

WHO shall compensate?
          Those who benefit from access to the genes and from the transfer!

WHAT should be compensated?
          Genetic material of varieties and species that have been cultivated and preserved by active agriculture;
          the unimproved genetic wealth of the world's Vavilov centers are the common heritage of humankind.²⁰

HOW MUCH?
          Let us look at this issue in terms of license agreements and leave the price to the market mechanism.

From a development policy point of view, funds that result from compensation of genetic material should support the people who over centuries helped preserve the varieties in question. Money resulting from a fair compensation arrangement should not land in the private pockets of a corrupt upper-class.

As I noted earlier, we face the challenge of meeting the needs of another 3 billion people by 2050 with a shrinking agricultural base and increasingly scarce fresh water. We have an ethical imperative not only to keep the technological portfolio open to biotechnology and genetic engineering, but also not to lose time: Let us not forget, as the Club of Rome pointed out in 1991, that "every minute lost, every decision delayed, means more deaths from starvation and malnutrition, and means the evolution to irreversibility of phenomena in the environment. No one will ever know for sure the human and financial cost of lost time."²¹ Or, as Clausewitz once said: Lost land can be regained, lost time cannot.

In closing, I think you will not be surprised to learn that my answer to the question Ensuring Food Security, Protecting the Environment, and Reducing Poverty in Developing Countries: Can Biotechnology Help? is: Yes, it can.

¹See Through a Glass Darkly: The Genetic Future of Eden.
²See, e.g., Action Reports
³See R. Epstein, "Redesigning the World: Ethical Questions about Genetic Engineering".
⁴"Food for Thought," The Economist, 19 June 1999.
⁵See the statement of Clive Cookson in the Financial Times of 28 May 1999; see also Michael Lipton, Crawford Lecture, Washington, DC, 28 October 1999.
⁶Paul Streeten, "Foreword," in Gunnar Myrdal, Das Wertproblem in der Sozialwissenschaft, 2nd ed. (Bonn, Bad Godesberg: Verlag Neue Gesellschaft, 1975), p. 13.
⁷See G. Myrdal, Asian Drama. An Inquiry into the Poverty of Nations (Harmondsworth, UK: Pelican Books, 1968), Vol. 1 Chapter 2.
⁸Independent Commission on International Development Issues, North-South: A Program for Survival (London: Pan Books, 1980), p. 48.
⁹St.M. Gendel, "Biotechnology and Bioethics," in St.M. Gendel, A.D. Kline, D.M. Warren, and F. Yates (eds), Agricultural Bioethics. Implications of Agricultural Biotechnology (Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1990), p. 341.
¹⁰See G.J. Persley, Beyond Mendel´s Garden: Biotechnology in the Service of World Agriculture (Washington DC: World Bank, 1990), Chapter 7, p. 67ff.
¹¹ISAAA, ISAAA Briefs. Global Review of Commercialized Transgenic Crops (forthcoming).
¹²For a comprehensive analysis, see J. Drèze and A. Sen, The Political Economy of Hunger. Vol.1: Entitlement and Well-Being, Vol.2: Famine Prevention, and Vol.3.: Endemic Hunger (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990).
¹³See U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, "World Food Summit: Draft Rome Declaration on World Food Security", Rome, 2 August 1996, para 3.
¹⁴See Commission on Global Governance, Our Global Neighborhood (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995); also World Bank, Governance and Development (Washington, DC: 1992) and World Bank, Governance: The World Bank's Experience (Washington, DC: November 1993).
¹⁵N. Birdsall, "Macroeconomic Reforms: Its Impact on Poverty and Hunger," in I. Serageldin and P. Landell-Mills (eds.), Overcoming Global Hunger (Washington, DC: World Bank, 1993), pp. 21-27.
¹⁶For discussion of the issue and of a population policy with a human face, see K.M. Leisinger and K. Schmitt, All Our People (with a Foreword by Robert S. McNamara) (Washington, DC: Island Press, 1994).
¹⁷See, e.g., Institute of Biology, "Genetically modified crops: The social and ethical issues," International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 6 (1999) pp. 79-88.
¹⁸M. Honecker, Einführung in die theologische Ethik (Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Lehrbuch, 1990), p. 241.
¹⁹M. Lipton with Richard Longhurst, New Seeds and Poor People (London: Unwin Hyman,1999), p. 338ff.
²⁰This does not, however, exclude commercial enterprises with an interest in the biological inventory of a specific biotope from paying a negotiated amount of money for the right of prospecting. See in this context the contract between Costa Rica´s Conservation Program, National Biodiversity Institute (INBio) and Merck & Co., Ltd. in W.V. Reid et al., Biodiversity Prospecting: Using Genetic Resources for Sustainable Development (Washington DC: World Resources Institute, 1993), pp. 255ff.
²¹A. King and B. Schneider, The First Global Revolution. A Report by the Council of the Club of Rome. The World Twenty Years after 'The Limits to Growth' (London: Simon & Schuster, 1991), p. 181.