|
|
Plant genetic resources
By Klaus M. Leisinger
1 Introduction
Genetic engineering and biotechnology1 are considered to be amongst the most powerful
and economically promising technological means for use in many areas.
To discuss "Ethical and Ecological Aspects of Intellectual Property
Rights in the Context of Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology" in a
meaningful way is as impossible as to analyze the benefits and risks
of genetic engineering and biotechnology in general. One would have
to make reference to health, agricultural and industrial as well as
environmental problems, look at things from a biological, economic and
social as well as cultural point of view and, last but not least, discuss
every issue involved in the context of industrialized and developing
countries and against background of disparate value premises. Each one
of these different aspects raises highly controversial issues for the
discussion of which one would have to organize whole seminars - and
still depart with divergent views.
Even a discussion limited to one particular aspect, e.g. the ethical
aspects of intellectual2 property rights in the context of genetic
engineering and biotechnology for developing countries, touches
on too many highly complex issues to allow a meaningful conclusion in
today's lecture. The collective term "developing countries" is itself
already too sweeping: It takes in countries so different in economic
and social terms and neglects such important specific political and
cultural circumstances as to preclude generalizations.
Hence, focusing becomes an absolute necessity for any fruitful discussion.
1.1 Circumscribing our focus
We will focus our discussion on the ethical aspects of intellectual
property rights in the context of genetic engineering and biotechnology
in food crops of developing countries.
This focus is warranted by the fact, that after 40 years of national
and international development endeavors, hunger is still
a reality for over 800 million poor people and food
security still remains one of the most desirable objectives
of sustainable development.3
The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization
(FAO) has estimated that it will be necessary to double
overall agricultural production (i.e. not only food
output) by the year 2000 in order to meet the needs
of growing populations. According to FAO, this will
require a virtual "agricultural revolution" through
massive investments in new technologies and inputs as
well as an increased awareness of the need to preserve
resources.4 The coming World Food Summit (Rome, November
1996) will conclude, that sustained improvements in
the area of food security will necessitate poverty-oriented
development policy, social reforms - and appropriate
technological innovation. Of course, appropriate
technological innovation comprises much more than
just genetic engineering and biotechnology, but in the
opinion of an international conference of experts convened
by the World Bank, UNDP and FAO, a solution to the problem
of securing world food supplies while preserving the
environment is today inconceivable without recombinant
genetics and biotechnology.5
Before we start our discussion, one principal question has to be answered:
Are intellectual property rights in the context of genetic engineering
and biotechnology in food crops of developing countries so unique and
distinctive as to necessitate an ethical analysis which is different
from one of other technologies?
1.2 Intellectual property rights in the context of
genetic engineering and biotechnology: a unique subject for moral reasoning?
If one excludes human genes and human gene therapy, there are - at
least in my judgment - no distinctive and unique ethical
aspects of intellectual property rights in the context
of genetic engineering and biotechnology and their application
on food crops in developing countries.
With regard to technical safety issues as well as to the impact on
the common good, the ethical analysis of genetic engineering and biotechnology
is comparable to that applicable to other potent technologies and their
transfer to developing countries. The questions that must be asked are
therefore the same as with other technologies and their implementation
in poor societies.
What are the risks and what the benefits of genetic engineering and
biotechnology in food crops of developing countries, and what is the
role and weight of intellectual property rights in this context? Who
can derive advantage from the benefits and who bear the risks? What
are the moral responsibilities accruing to the different stakeholders?
Having identified the issues and the prospective controversies, we
will suggest ways and means to minimize ethical conflicts and maximize
social compatibility and recommend models for cooperation between the
different stakeholders.
2 Benefits and risks
of genetic engineering and biotechnology in the agriculture of poor
countries
Neither intellectual property rights nor genetic engineering and biotechnology
are ends in themselves - they are tools to accomplish particular economic
and social ends. Ethics in the sense of moral philosophy analyses practices
and activities with a view to their morality. Questions raised in the
moral context concern the consequences for the common good as well as
for the duties and obligations incumbent on the different stakeholders.
The precepts deriving from moral reasoning differ between ethical schools.
However, there is a broad common denominator, namely of doing things
in ways that neither intend nor do direct or indirect harm to others.
In order to form an opinion on whether a technology promises on balance
to contribute to the common good or whether it may inflict significant
harm on society and its members, one must first analyze that technology's
potential and real benefits and risks.
Where do intellectual property rights come in? Intellectual property
rights such as patents are statutory rights which prevent imitation
for a limited time. They are thus a legal instrument to protect an inventor's
investments in his or her innovation. One of the requirements for patenting
is public disclosure of the invention - a procedure which serves to
increase the availability of scientific and technical knowledge. Such
information may also be used by others for further inventions.
The protection of an inventor's investment in innovation promotes
scientific progress and innovation by abetting the quest for better
answers to given problems in the health, agricultural and industrial
sectors. Comparing nations with and without intellectual property rights,
there is no doubt that not only the inventor but also society at large
benefits from patents. In the long run consumers tend to be the major
beneficiaries. Intellectual property rights in the context of genetic
engineering and biotechnology for food crops in developing countries
do not differ basically from patents in other areas.6
So if the issue of compensatory justice can be decided affirmatively,
the outcome of an ethical analysis of intellectual property rights will
mainly depend on a benefit-risk-analysis of genetic engineering and
biotechnology.
Not surprisingly in light of the issue's complexity, our benefit-risk-analysis
will not provide simplistic black-and-white answers. We shall discover
that there are benefits and risks and these have to be weighed against
each other in order to determine whether the positive or the negative
impact is more pronounced. If the benefits accrue to different societal
groups than to the risks, we will have to make explicit whose benefits
and whose risks carry what weight for the ethical analysis. This cannot
be done without explicit individual valuations. As Willy Brandt once
said, "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".7
The social and economic progress that I consider desirable has the
following characteristics:
- It contributes to the satisfaction of basic needs and increases
the economic productivity of all members of a society.
- In pursuing economic efficiency and growth, the preservation of
natural resources (land, air, water, raw materials, species) remains
an explicit and valuable policy objective.
- It - at least in the long run - helps to reduce social inequalities
with respect to income, property, and opportunities. In the short
run, the minimum condition is that if the "rich" get richer, the "poor"
get less poor.8
It is against this background that the risks and benefits of genetic
engineering and biotechnology in food crops of developing countries
as well as the role of intellectual property rights will be weighed.
2.1 Benefits
2.1.1 The theory
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, through
to gene mapping, where the genetic characteristics of plants are visibly
cartographed, enabling speedier identification of interesting genetic
material for every kind of plant usable in agriculture.9
The main objective is to find improved seed varieties, i.e. varieties
with properties such as resistance to or tolerance of plant diseases
(fungi, bacteria, viruses) and animal pests (insects, mites, nematodes)
as well as to so-called stress factors such as climatic variation or
aridity, poor soil quality, crop rotation practices, and others. The
idea of genetic engineering, then, is not to invent freakish hybrids
but rather to improve certain properties of important cultivated plants.
An equally important goal of research is the transfer of genes with
nitrogen-fixing capacity onto grain. Ideally, seed varieties
which result from such research endeavors should lead
to the cultivation of plants which fit into the concept
of "sustainable" agriculture, i.e. they should not abet
erosion or leaching of the soil. To complete the packet
of desiderata, a variety should afford dependable or
even high yields at low production costs.
The big edge that recombinant genetics has over conventional breeding
is that the desired properties can be systematically sought, identified,
extracted ("snipped") from a plant or almost any other organism, and
within a relatively short time transferred ("spliced") to another plant.
The result is the same as that achieved with conventional methods, but
without the costly and time-consuming cross-breeding they involve.
In addition, gene technology has the capability to provide growers
with a greater diversity of hardy plant varieties by transposing properties
from one species to another - a further advantage it has over conventional
methods. For example, the resistance to such and such a pest possessed
by a variety of bean can be built into maize. To a substantial number
of researchers, biotechnology - especially agricultural biotechnology
- presents huge opportunities for international development.10 It is obvious that the realization of these
possibilities is expected to be of substantial advantage to the farmers
and hence to the rural communities as a whole.11
2.1.2 The reality
Today a significant part of this theoretical potential is on its way
to practical realization. Some potentialities have already been realized:
Several case studies show that over the past years biotechnology and
- so far only to a lesser extent - genetic engineering have made possible
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.12
The development of new plant protection techniques with the aid of genetic
engineering and biotechnology (primarily transposing selected traits
of Bacillus thuringiensis into crops) has already led to noteworthy
progress in respect of the environment and lessened dependence on chemical
weapons.13
Especially where arable land is getting to be scarce and the use of
fertilizers and plant protection agents is nearing the ecologically
tolerable limit, genetic engineering and biotechnology, by providing
novel products and mechanisms of action, can indeed bring farmers closer
to solving some of the present agricultural problems14
- problems either not solvable with traditional technologies or else
only with a far greater expenditure of time.15 No one can add to the area of arable land
available on earth. But with the aid of new plants "made to measure"
using gene technology and with biotechnological methods it is possible
to wrest more food from the land we have with less energy input (fertilizers)
and less problematic plant protection.
Based on the empirical evidence already compiled by
the International Labor Organization (ILO) on the effects
of biotechnological and gene-technological interventions
in Third World agriculture, the ILO draws the conclusion
that the positive impact could prove more far-reaching
than that resulting from the application of present-day
mechanical and chemical technologies.16
In spite of the widely uncontested favorable potential of genetic
engineering and biotechnology, the climate of opinion
in the industrial countries remains sceptical, even
to the point of rejection. This has to do with the following
perceived social and ecological/biological risks:
- dangers to public health and environmental safety;
- aggravation of the prosperity gap between North and South, and
- growing disparities in the distribution of income and wealth within
poor societies, as well as
- loss of biological diversity.
All of these risks have ethical relevance.
2.2 The risks
There is a wealth of scientific and popular discussion concerning
the risks of genetic engineering and biotechnology.17 To a great extent, it can be compared to
the earlier discussion about the "green revolution", an agricultural
technology consisting of high yielding varieties, fertilizers, irrigation,
pest control and mechanization.18 The improved seeds of the green revolution
of the 1950s and 1960s were developed through systematic selection and
crossing (hybridization) with the objective of increasing the production
volume and avert famines, particularly in Asia.19
Despite undisputed successes in achieving a much higher volume of food
production and the overall positive employment effect,20 there was (and sometimes still is) vociferous
criticism making the green revolution responsible for growing disparities
in poor societies and for the loss of biological diversity.21
The current public debate on the "gene revolution" often suffers -
like that centered on the "green revolution" - from
a failure to differentiate between the risks inherent
in a technology and those that transcend it.
This differentiation is of utmost importance in any
attempt to reason out the matter on moral grounds.
Technology-inherent risks arise when a technical
action plan is designed to improve an existing situation, but then during
the research or implementation phase unforeseeable problems and unwanted
"side effects" crop up. Technology-inherent risks related to genetic
engineering and biotechnology in food crops of developing countries
would arise if genetically engineered organisms interacted differently
than expected in the new environment and caused biological damage or
put human life or health in jeopardy. The extend of such risks would
be incalculable, were the interactions to prove irreversible and cumulative.
Specialists refer to this category of risk as the risks to biosafety.22
Technology-transcending risks are of an altogether different nature:
Technology-transcending risks emanate from the application
of a technology in certain political and social circumstances. In developing
countries these risks spring from both the course the global economy
is taking and country-specific political and social configurations.
The most critical fears in this connection have to do with three socio-political
and ecological concerns:
- Aggravation of the prosperity gap between North and South,
e.g. through possible substitution of tropical agricultural exports
with genetically engineered products, as well as the exploitation
of indigenous genetic resources of the South without appropriate compensation
by the North.
- Growing disparities in the distribution of income and wealth
within poor societies because the privileged classes (by dint
of better education or stronger financial position) profit earlier
and more from the introduction of powerful technologies than do the
socially disadvantaged. This problem accompanies every innovation,
of course, but the high potency of genetic engineering and biotechnology
stirs fears that the negative effects on development may prove specially
severe.
- Loss of biodiversity, as farmers will increasingly
use the small number more productive genetically engineered
varieties instead of the many thousands of traditional local
varieties they have previously used.
In light of the growing disparities within specific poor societies
or between developed and developing countries,23 the dwindling competitiveness of a great
many poor countries and the ongoing loss of biological diversity,24
very serious heed must be paid to these concerns. Global sustainable
development cannot be achieved with growing social disparities and a
shrinking ecological Foundation.
2.2.1 Technology-inherent risks: Dangers to public health and
environmental safety
A number of scientists and laymen perceive the risk that genetically
engineered organisms could interact in the foreign environment into
which they are released (by accident, for field-testing or production)
other than theoretically expected by mainstream scientists and cause
incalculable biological damage, including harm to human life or health.
This perception depends on the hypothesis that genetically engineered
organisms entail problems that are structurally different from conventionally
altered organisms, a difference that could lead to an irreversible vicious
circle. This issue of biosafety is a biological sub-issue of
the common good discussion, as ecological and health harm of such magnitude
would undoubtedly have negative economic and social consequences.
The evaluation of biosafety risks is normally done by science specialists
and controlled by good scientific practices and an appropriate regulatory
framework. There is a wealth of scientific literature on the deliberate
release of plant pathogens, soil microbes and plant and animal symbionts
into either new habitats or into areas where the potential for significant
harm exists. Yet no major disasters have occurred, and today there is
a broad consensus amongst scientists that much of the concern about
the release of recombinant organisms is unwarranted.25
Their judgment supports the early principle of the
US National Academy of Science 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.26 As a social scientist, I am not competent
to pass judgment on matters of biosafety. But I do have
confidence in substantial majority opinion of natural
scientists and therefore refrain from any further comment.
From an ethical point of view there is, however, one demand to be
made. In as much as risk assessments of the technology-inherent kind
can be controversial, it must be insisted that research and experimentation
involving potential technology-inherent risks be carried out under the
best biosafety conditions possible and the most stringent regulatory
framework available. Although there has been significant progress with
regard to the state of the art of biosafety in a number of countries,
poor developing countries should not become the testing ground for potential
technology-inherent risks.27 The export
of risks from technologically highly developed countries into poor countries
is illegitimate, even were local law to permit it.
2.2.2 Technology-transcending risks
The technology-transcending risks that need to be discussed in the
context of genetic engineering, biotechnology and intellectual property
rights in food crops of developing countries are as noted below:
- aggravation of the prosperity gap between North and South
- growing disparities in the distribution of income and wealth within
poor societies, and
- loss of biodiversity.
A. Aggravation of the prosperity gap between north and south
What is usually discussed under this heading is an international trade
issue of a very general nature, i.e. economic risks for (some!28)
developing countries due to a loss of export opportunities. With genetic
engineering and biotechnology it will become possible to produce in
the laboratory or in temperate zones goods that have hitherto been grown
exclusively in the tropics. This prospect gives rise to concerns that
the resultant competitive edge could drive a number of tropical products
off the market. The example commonly used to shed light on this issue
is the production of vanilla aroma in the laboratory using biotechnological
techniques, with existence-threatening effects on several tens of thousands
of vanilla-producing small farmers in poor African countries.
Similar but even more far-reaching consequences could materialize
in connection with cocoa. Genetically improved cocoa varieties could
not only result in higher yields and a concomitant drop in prices. They
could also lead to the dislodging of smallhold production in the poor
West African countries by plantation-scale farming in the newly industrialized
economies of Asia. A comparable outcome might happen with vegetable
oils.
Furthermore, countries like Cuba or Mauritius, which depend on sugarcane
for a decisive share of their export earnings, could find themselves
extremely hard-pressed should industrial manufacture of the low-calorie
protein sweetener thaumatin or similar substances come broadly to supplant
sugarcane.29 The story of thaumatin is one that fits
very much into the context discussed here. Some 10 years ago. Nigerian
researchers at the University of Ife identified the sweetener thaumatin
in the berries of Thaumatococcus danielli, which is common
in the forests of that part of Nigeria. At that time, no industry was
interested in using the fruit as a sweetener. With the advent of biotechnological
possibilities, the gene for thaumatin - which is a protein weight-for-weight
some 1,600 times sweeter than sugar - has been cloned and is now being
used for the industrial production of sweetener in the confectionary
industry. Patents on the process have been registered, but the people
from whose lands the gene was obtained never received any compensation.
Where genetic engineering and biotechnology in food crops of developing
countries is concerned this category of risks is not of importance,
as the farmers who grow food crops are not in danger of being threatened
by genetically engineered substitutes for their crops.30
Nevertheless the risk of aggravation of the prosperity gap between North
and South must be addressed because of its tremendous importance: From
a holistic political perspective it cannot make sense to uncouple
the North from the agricultural raw materials of the South, for this
would plunge a large part of humanity into dire misery. It is incompatible
with sustainable development and hence a peaceful future for all the
inhabitants of our planet if life goes on getting better for a relatively
small segment of the world's already affluent population, while for
billions of others their already skimpy living standard stagnates or
even shrivels.
In the perspective of economic rationality, however, it has
to be expected that superior goods will conquer the market. Copper can
serve as an example. Its price is determined by the metal's electrical
conductivity. Once electric current can be conducted cheaper and better
by glass or carbon fibre, for instance, copper will in due course no
longer be used for this purpose - with corresponding consequences for
demand and thus price. The substitution will take place even though
crumbling prices may lead in countries like Zambia or Chile to mass
unemployment, with all the human distress it brings.
The same market "logic" tells us to expect that if "lab vanilla" or
"lab sugar" should prove cheaper or exhibit some other edge - healthier
than the real thing, for example - over products previously imported
from the South, then substitution will follow. Ultimately this process
cannot be forestalled, not even by sizeable government intervention,
which is not desirable anyway.
The solution to the product substitution problem must therefore lie
in a concerted international endeavor to diversify the
production structure in vulnerable countries and not
in counter-market intervention. Here, better governance31 and more appropriate long-term structural
planning from the governments of the countries in danger
as well as a bigger allocation of funds from the international
development establishment to the support of diversification
efforts are urgently required. A comprehensive risk/benefit
analysis of the substitution of agricultural export
commodities from the tropics would also have to examine
the alternative use of the land left fallow by substitution
for increasing local food production, and perhaps ecologically
opportune changes in how it is used as well - for afforestation
in the framework of the "joint implementation" of the
Climate Convention, for example.
In the context of the aggravation of the prosperity gap between North
and South there is one further important issue that has to be examined:
Who shall compensate whom for the use of genetic material from developing
countries and how much shall the compensation amount to?
There is widespread fear that private enterprises and research institutes
could gain control of the genes of plants native to the developing world
free of charge, as it were, and use them for developing and producing
superior varieties that would then be sold back to developing countries
at high prices. Suppose a private seeds company discovered a property
in an Ethiopian barley strain making it resistant to certain plant diseases
and genetically transferred this property to a wheat variety that would
afterwards be commercialized in Ethiopia. Obviously, the farmers of
Ethiopia, male and female, have contributed something by selecting and
preserving this variety over a long period of time. It is also obvious
that without the research and development work of the seeds company
the "something" would not have been turned to use 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 thus a right to compensation.
The basic question of whether remuneration is due has been clearly
and positively answered by Article 19 of the Rio Convention
on Biological Diversity (UNCED 1992) and the virtually
unanimous consensus of the agencies engaged in development.
While the general political decision in favor of compensation
has been taken, the technical details of how it should
be handled in specific nations are still unclear. What
especially needs unequivocal regulation is who should
compensate whom for what, and how much this compensation
should be. As a rough first approach I would recommend
the following:
WHO? Those who benefit
FOR WHAT? For 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.32
HOW MUCH? Let`s look at this in terms of a licence agreement and leave
the price to the mechanism of supply and demand.
A step in the direction of satisfying both sides' claims to fair compensation
would be to work out binding national and international regulations.
Urgently needed, they should be designed to keep open access to the
genetic riches of the developing countries and at the same time enable
the people who have helped to build and conserve this wealth through
decades of indigenous selection and traditional agriculture to profit
equitably from the commercial returns on gene exports. From a development
policy point of view it is desirable that funds that result from compensation
of such genetic material support those who over centuries through their
hard agricultural work helped to preserve the varieties in question.
Money resulting from a fair compensation arrangement should not land
in the private pockets of a corrupt upperclass which, because its members
are politically powerful, has ready access to the pot.
It should not be difficult to find a simple and effective way to establish
fair compensation. The INBio-Merck contract has pilot character, other
mechanisms could deal with the matter by looking at the issue in the
way of a licensing agreement, whereby those who use the genetic material
from a traditional agricultural society pay a licence fee into a fund
for the support of the national agricultural research of the gene- exporting
country. As the Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research
(CGIAR) already exists and does excellent work for the poor farmers
of the world, one would not have to create a new institution instead
CGIAR or its subsidiary, the International Service for National Agricultural
Research (ISNAR) could
be requested to draft a proposal outlining how to deal with such compensation
fees in a fair and constructive way.
From a business ethics point of view I would recommend that as long
as there are no binding national regulations, seed corporations should
not take a free ride but look at the issue in the way of a tacit licensing
agreement and set aside the usual percentage of sales for the support
of agricultural research in developing countries. It is a demonstrated
fact that research supported by the development assistance efforts of
a private enterprise can be successful.33
B. Risks rooted in growing disparities in the distribution
of income and wealth in poor societies
The use of genetically modified seeds adapted to the specific conditions
of difficult biotopes can no doubt provide most desirable impulses to
national agricultural development and tremendously benefit the farmers
who use them. In a socially and politically deficient setting it can
hardly bring about improvements in the condition of those who are not
able to use the new varieties. Wherever unjust social and political
power structures determine the distribution of wealth, income and access
to the means of production, the lower social strata face great obstacles
to economic and social progress. Perpetuated poverty is the result:
Where land ownership and tenancy systems, access to extension services,
credit and marketing channels, as well as to new technologies,
are governed by a socio-political power structure that
favors only a small minority, technological progress
cannot possibly be neutral in impact. The answer to
the question who benefits and how much from the advent
of new technologies and to what extent economic and
social progress can be achieved depends decisively on
the social and political configuration in place. Disease-resistant
cassava, millet richer in protein or rice tolerant to
stress can contribute to prosperity and thus enhanced
food security only if the new varieties and other social
advances come within the reach of the broad mass of
the population, male and female. Whether this is possible
and within what time depends on the political will to
create the necessary national development framework.
As poor farmers tend to be risk-minimizing and not output-maximizing
even under the best social circumstances early adopters
stand to gain more.
Today`s perspective on the "green revolution" shows, that in countries
where small farmers were supported by agricultural extension
services, where they had access to land, inputs and
credit - in other words, where the agricultural development
framework assisted the endeavors of the small farmers
- they were able to benefit much and early. Even where
the "green revolution" made the "rich" richer, because
they could use the new technologies earlier, on better
land, with better inputs and less expensive credits
- the poor also benefited over time becoming less poor
as agricultural modernization proceeded. This may not
be the best of all social results one can imagine, but
in a world where more than 1.3 billion people live in
absolute poverty such achievements should not go unappreciated.
Like the "green revolution", genetically engineered varieties for
food crops are a land-saving technology, and as such can be of particular
importance for those who have little or only marginal land. Whether
or not the potential benefits become economic and social reality for
the small farmers is not a question of the technology but of the social
quality of the development policy. If land and tenure reforms are implemented,
if there is support for the small farmers and other elements of a development-friendly
environment, the benefits of a new technology can be scale-neutral.
Where 90 percent of the land belongs to three percent of the population
and where the agricultural extension and credit services are only available
to the big landholders, the introduction of a new technology will lead
to a deterioration of income distribution. The economic and social impact
of genetic engineering and biotechnology can only be as good as the
socio-political soil in which the resulting new varieties are planted.
Any technical advance, progress in genetics included, can only benefit
those who have access to and understand the technology well enough to
apply it properly. Every restriction on access, be it lack of schooling
or feudal power-structures, has the effect of aggravating income discrepancies
- pronouncedly so when the technology is very potent.
These facts and causal connections are very important in any train
of moral reasoning about intellectual property rights, genetic engineering
and biotechnology. While the technology-transcending social risks of
new technologies do exist - they are not caused by the technology as
such and therefore cannot be prevented by that technology. The ethical
"blame" and the need for reforms rest with the socio-economic framework
within which these risks become reality. Today`s state of the art in
development policy points clearly to the reforms and institutional changes
that have to be initiated in order to get at the roots of socio-economic
problems.34 The fact that the appropriate political
will is the exception to an often deplorable rule ought to be scrutinized
in the context of development ethics.
C. Loss of biological diversity
A last technology-transcending risk that calls for discussion is the
highly complex ethical and ecological problem of loss of biological
diversity.35 The total number of species
on earth is not known. Various estimates range as high as 111 million,
cautious estimates put the number close to 14 million, of which only
about 1.7 million have been scientifically described.36
Biodiversity provides the raw materials - combinations of genes - which
are the essential building blocks of plant varieties upon which sustainable
agriculture depends.
Today, the speed of the loss of biodiversity is perceived to be faster
than ever in human history. Various projections suggest that during
each decade from 1975 to 2015 between 1 and 11 percent of the world`s
species will have been committed to extinction.37
While most laymen perceive the extinction problem in the context of
animals like the African elephant, the rhino, the Asian tiger or the
spotted owl, the real problem is not with species you can stir up emotions
about: 95 percent of lost species are very small insects, plants, microbes,
fungi, algae, viruses or bacteria.
The extent of biological impoverishment all over the globe has been
a source of great concern for many years.38 More recently, the issue has been taken
up again in the context of genetic engineering and biotechnology. To
address so critical an issue in every conceivable context may be legitimate
from a political point of view with the aim of generating more public
- and hence political-awareness. To put the blame for the loss of biodiversity
on genetic engineering and biotechnology may be a sexy tactic for advocacy
groups, because "big business" is involved. Factually, however, it is
wrong and therefore detrimental to conservation policies.
To avoid any misunderstanding: Undoubtedly greater public and political
awareness is necessary, because the loss of biological diversity is
immensely regrettable for esthetic, ethical, philosophical, ecological
and economic reasons: With each species lost, the natural economy of
individual nations and the world as a whole is diminished forever.39
Because biological diversity and ecological stability are interconnected,
biological systems become more vulnerable (less robust) as they become
less diverse.40 As cultural diversity is closely intertwined
with biological diversity, further losses occur through depletion of
the world`s cultural heritage.
The loss of biodiversity is uniquely deplorable, since extinction
of a species involves the irrecoverable loss of genetic resources whose
value for man and nature has never even been determined. Genetic engineering
and biotechnology can make use of biodiversity in ways that were not
possible before by identifying, isolating and using genes for purposes
that are basically outside the original species. One can only speculate
whether tropical rain forests, wetlands or reefs contain basic materials
for decisive breakthroughs in the treatment of diseases which today
are still regarded as incurable. One simply does not know whether an
endangered plant contains a gene that might be of vital importance for
a major food crop. As, to date, less than a tenth of one percent of
naturally occurring species have been used, we don`t know what`s at
stake with the ongoing loss of genetic resources.41
For every complex problem there is one simple solution and
it is wrong. The main responsibility for the loss of biological diversity
lies definitely not with genetic engineering and biotechnology. The
paramount reasons for the reduction of biological diversity are human
activities and, as a result of population growth, the spread of human
beings into hitherto untouched ecosystems. In particular the destruction
of tropical forests is one of the tragic results of this development.42 According to various estimates, as much
as 50 to 75 percent, perhaps even 90 percent, of all species are native
to the tropical rain forests. Since these forests are currently being
destroyed more rapidly than all other habitats on earth, the extinction
of species is today more massive than ever before in the history of
mankind - presumably one species every hour since the mid-eighties.43
What stepped up global warming will do to biodiversity can only be guessed.
The potential impact of genetic engineering and biotechnology on the
number of species available to mankind is minimal. Farmers who gain
access to varieties that are resistant to or tolerant of plant diseases
and animal pests as well as to stress factors such as poor soil quality
will not continue to cultivate inferior varieties. If traditional varieties
are not preferable in taste or attractive for cultural reasons, it will
simply not be in the farmer`s interest to use them if they are vulnerable
to fungi or fall easy prey to insect pests. Precisely because farmers
find new varieties advantageous, the number of food crop varieties has
diminished throughout the world over the last 100 years; farmers discontinue
cultivating of traditional varieties because modern varieties are more
remunerative.
To fight against genetic engineering and biotechnology because they
make available superior varieties to the small farmer in developing
countries is the wrong way to join battle against the continuing loss
of biodiversity. If one shares the conviction that a loss of biodiversity
is regrettable for many reasons - and I do share this conviction - then
the main battlefield must be national conservation strategies for tropical
forests, mangroves and other wetlands, rivers, lakes and coral reefs.
For the safeguarding of traditional food crop varieties which are
under substitution pressure from improved varieties two synergistically
applied strategies will bring success: in vivo and in vitro
conservation. Both strategies need a strong national commitment and
reliable international support.
If one wants preservation of biodiversity in vivo, one has
to give financial or other incentives to the small farmers of both sexes
in developing countries to continue to cultivate varieties which they
otherwise would not cultivate. It would be politically unrealistic and
economically unfair to the small farmer community to expect them to
forego an available benefit here and how for the sake of the long-term
global availability of a genetic resource. The need for capacity building,
engaging local residents and other stakeholders as well as for promoting
cooperation between organizations and institutions has been established.
As the protection of genetic crop resources in their natural agro-ecosystems
seems to be advantageous, in vivo / in situ strategies need specific
strong support. At present the small farmers in developing countries
have no incentive to conserve - another "tragedy of the commons".
If one wants conservation in vitro, one must make sure that international
agricultural research institutes all over the world have adequate resources
for their gene banks. Here fair compensation for genetic material comes
in again: if the preservation of certain varieties becomes economically
interesting because they contain genes which are valuable for other
purposes, new motivations for the continued cultivation of traditional
crops develop.
The benefits of genetic conservation are long term and rarely predictable,
whereas commercial profit expectations are rather short term and depend
to a large degree on predictability.45 Hence the motivation behind patenting and
other forms of intellectual property rights will in most cases not be
conservation as such. Nevertheless, granting intellectual property rights
to scarce genetic information could become part of a successful conservation
strategy, as it would assign value to resources that are otherwise considered
to be "free".46
Traditional plants and their genetic information have long been important
to agriculture and medicine; genetic engineering and biotechnology are
opening up new frontiers. As matters now stand those small and big,
private and state, male and female farmers who conserve traditional
varieties and with them genetic information have today no financial
incentive for conservation and would become only residual claimants
to the royalties paid by those who use that preserved information.47 Ultimately someone will have to pay for
conservation: it should be those who benefit!
3 The ethical analysis: Ambivalence of technological
progress
Coming to a
conclusion about the ethical aspects of intellectual property rights
in the context of genetic engineering and biotechnology in food crops
of developing countries is like discussing technical progress in general:
we must live with ambivalence:
On the one hand, there are clear benefits from genetic engineering
and biotechnology. They have the potential to increase production
and productivity, enhance the environment, and improve food safety
and quality.48 As intellectual property
rights - regardless of who owns them - demonstrably trigger further
research and innovation, they also constitute a positive element
in the context of innovation in the field of genetic engineering
and biotechnology.
These desirable contributions to the common good have to be set
against a number of economic, social and ecological
risks, most of which are of a technology-transcending
nature, i.e. neither caused nor preventable by the
technology as such. In this respect, progress with
genetic engineering and biotechnology is no different
from any other form of technological and societal
progress, which, as the German theologian Helmut Gollwitzer
said, is " . . nothing other than the unremitting
struggle to secure its positive aspects, learning
to live with the dangers that come with it and surmounting
the impairments it causes."49
Exactly what constitutes the "positive aspects", "dangers"
and "impairments" in a given case is the stuff of
dispute. The valence of a certain effect of technological
progress is very much a function of individual value
judgments. Solutions in the sense of a definitive
decision on the ethical dilemma thus conjured up are
not possible. Depending on how someone judges the
worth of a good gained or lost through the march of
technology, either the gain or the loss will bulk
larger.
Technological innovation is no panacea - it is just one stone in
a large and complex socio-economic mosaic. Whether the economic
blessing becomes a social curse depends on the political and the
broad social ramifications. A technology can only be as good as
the warp and woof of a society permits.
Social and ecological risks materialize because a gap opens between
human scientific technical prowess and human willingness to shoulder
moral and political responsibility. The risks 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 to the mass of small farmers.
As far as the biosafety issue is concerned, risks that are not
allowed to be taken in industrial countries with their stringent
regulatory framework should not be exported to developing countries.
If genetically engineered organisms and biotechnological procedures
are used in developing countries, state of the art quality management
must be applied, taking into consideration the specific conditions
of the countries concerned.50 But even
then leftover risks will remain. Risks - calculable risks - must
be taken, otherwise technological progress becomes impossible. Such
risks should not be insouciantly accepted - but the worst possible
problem-solver in this case would be technophobia.
As Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker has put it, you don't make
a bicycle safer to ride by wedging the handlebars fast. In 1957
he pointed out that if humankind today wished to do without technology
and the planning that goes with it, then it would have to be prepared
and able to decimate the number of people in the world.51
He was referring to the world population at the time, two and a
half billion people, who owed their very lives to industry, transportation
and intensive agriculture - in short, to technology. Despite its
perils, wherever technological progress has taken place - in the
past mainly in the industrial West - it has created the material
foundations of prosperity and security for broad classes of society.
The developing world will not be able to develop economically and
socially without it either.
There is no way of getting around the ambivalence that is intrinsic
to every technical advance. In the context of the application of
genetic engineering and biotechnology in food crops of developing
countries, the dilemma posed by technical change can be between
the political objective of national food security and the interests
of poorer farmers: Without a change in technology there may be an
imbalance between supply of and demand for basic food commodities
while a changing technology could make it more difficult for smaller
farmers forcing them to spend more time and resources to adjust
to the new production conditions.52
But the knowledge that ambivalence and ethical dilemmas exist should
also not paralyze us. On the contrary, it must serve to clarify
the course of action and expand our horizon of responsibility. Only
action that is informed by an awareness of the ambivalence makes
the socially meaningful deployment of top-class technology possible.
Participative technology assessments and cooperation between different
stakeholders will enhance the positive impact of technological change.53
The developing countries are faced with the formidable task of
doubling their food output over the next 25 years, and this - in
contrast to how it has so often been done in the industrial countries
- in ways sparing of the environment and resources. Population pressure
has already begun to affect the environment in large parts of the
developing world. Because of intensive land use and widespread biomass
shortage, cultivated soils are being depleted of essential nutrients
and organic matter. Fisheries, livestock and forestry resources
are also under increasing strain. Unless countries with high population
growth achieve a social transformation that results in a substantially
lower birth rate and unless they start regenerating their resource
base, they will continue to move towards a major social and ecological
disaster.54
In order to secure positive economic and social development possibilities
in the South and the North, what is needed are political and social
national as well as international reforms.55
At the same time, along with its utilitarian alignment it would
be desirable that technological progress take on a socio-ethical
orientation.56 If genetic engineering
and biotechnology were oriented to a greater extent on the needs
of the poor people in the developing countries, particularly on
those of smallhold farmers, they could become indispensable to the
whole development effort.
More publicly financed research North and South is summoned to
make a bigger contribution to finding expedient solutions. The emphasis
is on public research, because the fruits of public research
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. When the research priorities are
determined by the financial return on investment, the needs of those
who have the purchasing power are likely to have high priority,
whereas the needs of the poor small farmers (if and where they are
different) are likely to receive a low priority. For this reason
public research must be strengthened. The Consultative Group on
International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) with its focus on the
needs of the developing countries could play a conspicuous role
in such an effort. In a number of countries, agricultural biotechnology
seminars are already under way to assess research priorities and
turn them into feasible programs.57
More ought to be done in this respect. And there must be more and
more intensive cooperation between the private and
the public sector. Were the private sector to become
more receptive to the needs of the international development
effort and the international research community, funds
already in short supply and valuable time could be
saved. The special knowledge and know-how and the
different experience - and patented intellectual property
as well - that are at the disposal of the private
sector but are used only selectively for lucrative
markets in the industrial countries could be passed
on via donated transfers or very favorable licensing
terms to public research institutes in developing
countries. This can be done, as a concrete example
shows: Ciba (now Novartis)
has made available a gene of Bacillus thuringiensis
to IRRI, the International Rice Research Institute.
Cooperation with the private sector and other "coalitions
against famine" could be an important unconventional
way to make progress faster and less expensive.
In many respects the conclusions set forth by the Club of Rome
in one of its reports apply to our discussion: "Living as we do
at the onset of the first global revolution, on a small planet which
we seem hell-bent to destroy, beset with conflicts, in an ideological
and political vacuum, faced with problems of global dimensions which
the fading nation states are impotent to solve, with immense scientific
and technological possibilities for the improvement of the human
condition, rich in knowledge but poor in wisdom, we search for the
keys to survival and sustainability."58
Sustainable development - and sustainable food security - will
not be achievable without better governance and a new dimension
of solidarity between the "rich" and the "poor" of this world -
but also not without new technologies such as genetic engineering
and biotechnology.
Prof.
Dr. Klaus M. Leisinger's lecture given at the 1st Forum of the
AIPPI - Foundation for the Promotion of Intellectual Property Protection,
Interlaken, 10 -14 September 1996
4 Additional
information
references
1In
this paper genetic engineering (recombinant DNA technology) means
"the calculated modification of hereditary genetic material
in living organisms by the addition, removal or exchange of one
or more genes, resulting in the passing on of this altered genetic
information to descendants".Cf. Dohmen K. (Ed.): Gentechnologie
- die andere Schöpfung? Metzler, Stuttgart 1988, p. 5. Biotechnology
is "the integrated application of biochemistry, microbiology
and process technology with the objective of turning to technical
use the potential of micro-organisms and cell and tissue cultures
as well as parts thereof". Cf. Dellweg H.: Biotechnologie,
Grundlagen und Verfahren. VCH, Weinheim 1987, p. 1.
Biotechnology therefore deals with the utilization of biological
processes in technical operations and industrial production. Genetic
engineering is a means to an end, inasmuch as it allows the properties
of micro-organisms to be modified in such a way that a desired effect
is brought about in biological processes, among others. Three different
generations of biotechnology can be distinguished. In the first,
bacteria or yeast, for example, were used in making cheese or beer.
In the second, micro-organisms were used to produce antibiotics
and molecular biology was further developed. In the third generation,
finally, it has become possible to alter the genetic material of
an individual cell directly.
The term "agricultural biotechnology" encompasses well-established
techniques, such as those used in biological pest control and the
production of vaccines and biofertilizers, but also recombinant
DNA technology, monoclonal antibodies, and new cell and tissue culture
techniques.
2To give the discussion a wider scope,
we will argue for "intellectual" rather than "industrial"
property rights.
3FAO: Food Security Assessment. (WFS
96/Tech/7), Rome January 1996.
4FAO: Agriculture: Toward 2000, Rome
1981, p. 57.
5See CGIAR Highlights: Feeding the World
- Protecting the Environment. UN Briefing Co-sponsored by World
Bank, UNDP and FAO. Washington, D.C., May 1992; also Moffat A.S.:
Improving Plant Disease Resistance. In: Science, Vol. 257, July
24, 1992.
6There are a few exceptions: see Van
Wijk J./ Cohen J.I./Komen J.: Intellectual Property Rights for Agricultural
Biotechnology. ISNAR, The Hague 1993.
7Independent Commission
on International Development Issues (Ed.): North-South:
A Program for Survival. Pan Books, London 1980, p.
48.
8There are other desirable
and indispensable characteristics such as peace, respect
for human rights, and the preservation of human dignity.
These, in turn, make a reduction of the prosperity
gap between the world`s rich and the poor countries
necessary, as well as a peaceful resolution of diverse
political, economic, religious, ethnic, and other
competing interests. In the present context, these
"macro-level goals" will be neglected, as
they depend on different variables than a successful
implementation of genetic engineering and biotechnology
in the agriculture of poor countries.
9See OECD: Biotechnology, Agriculture
and Food. Paris 1992; also De Groot C.: Forestry Biotechnology.
In: Biotechnology and Development Monitor, No. 5, December 1990,
p. 20 ff.
10See e.g. Persley G.J. (Ed.): Agricultural
Biotechnology: Opportunities for International Development.CAB International
/ World Bank, Oxon, 1990; also Toenniessen G.H.: Plant biotechnology
and developing countries. In: TIBTECH, Vol.13, September 1995, pp.404-409.
11See e.g. Bunders J.F.G. (Ed.): Biotechnology
for small-scale farmers in developing countries. Analysis and assessment
procedures. VU University Press, Amsterdam 1990, Miflin B.J.: Plant
biotechnology: Aspects of its application to industry. In: Proceedings
of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, Vol. 99b, No. 3/4, 1992, pp.
153-163.
12See Potrykus I. (Ed.): New Horizons
in Swiss Plant Biotechnology-from the Laboratory to the Field. Proceedings
of a Symposium organized at the ETH Zürich on the occasion of the
125th anniversary of the Department of Agronomy and Food Sciences,
Zürich 1996; see also Krattiger A.F./ Rosemarin A. (Eds.): Biosafety
for Sustainable Agriculture. Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm
1994, section 1.
13See Commandeur P./Komen J.: Biopesticides:
Options for biological pest control increase. In: Biotechnology
and Development Monitor, No. 14, March 1993, p. 3 ff.
14See Bunders J.F.G. (Publ.): Biotechnology
for small-scale farmers in developing countries. Analysis and assessment
procedures. VU University Press, Amsterdam 1990. Miflin, B.J.: Plant
biotechnology: aspects of its application in industry. In: Proceedings
of the Royal Society of Edinburgh Vol. 99b, Nr.3//4, 1992,S. 153-163;
also Walker J.M./Gingold, E.B.: Molecular Biology and Biotechnology.
The Royal Society of Chemistry. Reprint, 2nd edition, Cambridge
1992.
15See e.g. for China Chen Z./Gu, H.:
Plant Biotechnology in China. In: Science, Vol. 262, October 15,
1993, p. 377 ff.
16See ILO (Technology
and Employment Program) - e.g. Bifani P.: New Biotechnologies
for Rural Development, Geneva 1989; see also International
Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR)
- e.g. Komen J./Persley G.: Agricultural Biotechnology
in Developing Countries, Isnar Research Report 2,
The Hague, Sept. 1993, as well as International Rice
Research Institute (IRRI): Sharing Responsibilities:
Irri 1991-1992, Los Baños 1992 and IRRI: Rice Research
in a Time of Change, Los Baños 1993.
17For critical views of gene technology
and biotechnology in relation to the Third World see: Altner G./Krauth
W./Lünzer I./Vogtmann, H. (Eds.): Gentechnik und Landwirtschaft.
2nd edition, C.F. Müller, Karlsruhe 1990. Studier A. (Eds.): Biotechnologie:
Mittel gegen den Welthunger? Schriften des Deutschen übersee-Instituts,
No. 8, Hamburg 1991. Walgate R.: Miracle or Menace - Biotechnology
and the Third World. Panos Dossier, London 1990. Hobbelink H.: Biotechnology
and the Future of World Agriculture. Zed Books, London 1991, Fowler
C./Mooney P.: Shattering - Food, Politics, and the Loss of Genetic
Diversity. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson 1990.
18For a short overview see Leisinger
K.M.: Toward a Green Evolution. United Nations Development Forum,
New York March 1987, p.8f. There is, however, one major difference
between the old fashioned "green" and the incoming "gene"
revolution: whereas the former had its origins in publicly funded
plant-breeding institutions, the biotechnological advances are firmly
in the hands of the private sector.
19Brown L.: Seeds of Change. The Green
Revolution and Development in the 1970s. London 1970. Sen S.: Reaping
the Green Revolution. New Delhi 1975.
20See Barker R./Herdt R.W./Rose B.:
The Rice Economy of Asia. Resources for the Future, Washington D.C.
1985; also Hazell P.B.R./Ramasamy C.: The Green Revolution Reconsidered.
Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore 1991.
21E.G. Mooney P.R.: Seeds of The Earth,
Ottawa 1980; also Wolf E.C.: Beyond the Green Revolution. New Approaches
for Third World Agriculture. In: Worldwatch Paper No. 73. Washington,
D.C., Oct. 1986.
22See Krattiger A.F./ Rosemarin A. (Eds.):
Biosafety for Sustainable Agriculture. Stockholm Environment Institute,
Stockholm 1994. See also Persley G.J./Giddings L.V. / Juma C.: Biosafety.
The Safe Application of Biotechnology in Agriculture and the Environment.
ISNAR
Research Report No.5, The Hague 1993.
23See for these issues UNDP: Human Development
Report 1996, 1994 and 1992, Oxford University Press, New York 1996,
1994 and 1992.
24For an introduction to this complicated
problem area, see Ehrlich P.R.: The Loss of Biodiversity. Causes
and Consequences. In: Wilson, E.O. (Publ.): Biodiversity. National
Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 1988, p. 21 ff. Also the special
edition of Ambio (Journal of the Human Environment): Economics of
Biodiversity Loss. Vol. XXI, No. 3, May 1992.
25Gendel S.M.: Biotechnology and Bioethics.
In: Gendel St.M./Kline A.D./Warren D.M./ Yates F.(Eds): Agricultural
Bioethics. Implications of Agricultural Biotechnology. Iowa State
University Press, Ames 1990, p.341.
26See Persley G.J.: Beyond Mendel`s
Garden: Biotechnology in the Service of World Agriculture. The World
Bank, Washington D.C. 1990, Chapter 7, p.67ff.
27See Wambugu F./Zandvoort E./Raman
K.V. (Eds.): Biotechnology and Risk Assessment in an African Perspective.
(Special Issue of the African Crop Science Journal on Biotechnology
/ Biosafety) Vol.3 1995 (September).
28Here again it is not admissible to
pronounce on the "developing countries" lumped together,
as this impact differs very much between countries which are net
agricultural exporters, for example and those which must import
much of their food. See Commandeur P./von Roozendaal G.: The Impact
of Biotechnology on Developing Countries. Opportunities for Technology-Assessment
Research and Development Cooperation. A Study Commissioned by the
Büro für Technikfolgen-Abschätzung (TAB) in the German parliament,
Bonn 1993, Chap. 3.
29Cf. Sasson A.: Biotechnologies and
Development. UNESCO, Paris 1988, pp. 269-276; also Jacobson S./Jamison
A./Rothman H. (Eds.): The Biotechnological Challenge. Cambridge
1986, p. 96 ff. Hobbelink H.: Bioindustrie gegen die Hungernden.
Rororo, Reinbek 1989, p. 46 ff. According to Robert Walgate in:
Walgate R.: Miracle or Menace. Biotechnology and the Third World.
(PANOS DOSSIER), The Panis Institute, London 1990, p.161.
30There are, however, other technology-transcending
risks coming from the "North" such as inappropriate food
aid and subsidized export of surplus grain to developing countries,
having both a deflating effect on food prices and creating a taste
for foreign foods. Both effects work to the economic disadvantage
of food crop producers in the South.
31World Bank: Governance and Development.
Washington, D.C. 1992.
32This does, however, not exclude that
commercial enterprises which have an interest in the biological
inventory of a specific biotope must pay 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: Reid W.V. et alia:
Biodiversity Prospecting: Using Genetic Resources for Sustainable
Development. (World Resources Institute), Washington D.C. 1993,
pp.255ff.
33See Leisinger
K.M./ Schmitt
K.M. / ISNAR
(Eds.): Survival
In the Sahel. An Ecological and Developmental Challenge. (ISNAR)
The Hague / Basel 1995.
34Serageldin I.: Nurturing Development.
Aid and Cooperation in Today`s Changing World. The World Bank 1995.
35For an introduction to this complicated
problem area, see Ehrlich P.R.: The Loss of Biodiversity. Causes
and Consequences. In: Wilson E.O. (Publ.): Biodiversity. National
Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 1988, p. 21 ff. Also Myers N.: The
Sinking Ark: A New Look at the Problem of Disappearing Species.
Pergamin, New York 1979; as well as the special edition of Ambio
(Journal of the Human Environment): Economics of Biodiversity Loss.
Vol. XXI, No. 3, May 1992.
36See The World Resources Institute
/ UNEP / UNDP / Word Bank: World Resources. A Guide to the Global
Environment 1996 - 97. Oxford University Press, New York 1996, p.247.
37Ibid.
38See Vogel J.H.: Genes for Sale. Privatization
as a Conservation Policy. Oxford University Press, New York 1994,
Chapter 2; also Raven P.H.: Disappearing Species: A Global Tragedy.
In: The Futurist, Vol. 19, No. 5, 1985, pp. 8-14.
39Cf. Ehrlich P.R./Ehrlich A.: The Value
of Biodiversity. In: Ambio, Vol. 21, No. 3, 1992, pp. 219-226.
40See Edwards R.: Tomorrow`s bitter
harvest. In: New Scientist 17.8.1996, p.17ff.
41Perrings C./Folke C./Müller K.G.:
The Ecology and Economics of Biodiversity Loss: The Research Agenda.
In: Ambio, Vol. 21, No. 3, 1992, p. 205.
42For details see: Enquete Commission
»Vorsorge zum Schutz der Erdatmosphäre« of the German Bundestag
(Eds.): Schutz der Tropenwälder. Eine internationale Schwerpunktaufgabe.
Op. cit. p. 495 ff. The dying-out of species has always been a concomitant
of evolution but the speed and extent of this process have increased
dramatically as a result of the destruction of forests, growing
pollution, and other changes in the habitats of threatened species.
43Enquete Commission »Vorsorge zum Schutz
der Erdatmosphäre« of the German Bundestag (Eds.): Schutz der Tropenwälder.
Eine internationale Schwerpunktaufgabe. Bonn 1990, p. 495.
44Miller K.R.: Balancing The Scales:
Guidelines for Increasing Biodiversity`s Chances Through Bioregional
Management. Washington D.C. (World Resources Institute) 1996.
45The Crucible Group: People, Plants
and Patents. The Impact of Intellectual Property on Biodiversity,
Conservation, Trade and Rural Society. (IDRC), Ottawa 1994, p.5.
46Not for wild species, see Gollin M.A.:
An Intellectual Property Rights Framework for Biodiversity Prospecting.
In: Reid W.V. et alia: Biodiversity Prospecting: Using Genetic Resources
for Sustainable Development. (World Resources Institute), Washington
D.C. 1993, pp. 159-198. See also The Crucible Group: People, Plants
and Patents. The Impact of Intellectual Property on Biodiversity,
Conservation, Trade and Rural Society. (IDRC), Ottawa 1994; For
a critical point of view see Marques M.B.: Patenting Life. Foundations
of the Brazil-United States Controversy, Fundaçåo Oswaldo Cruz,
Rio de Janeiro 1993.
47See Vogel J.H.: Genes for Sale. Privatization
as a Conservation Policy. Oxford University Press, New York 1994
48See Krattiger A. In: Wambugu F./Zandvoort
E./Raman K.V. (Eds.): Biotechnology and Risk Assessment in an African
Perspective. (Special Issue of the African Crop Science Journal
on Biotechnology / Biosafety) Vol.3 1995 (September), p.i.
49Gollwitzer H.: Krummes Holz - Aufrechter
Gang: Zur Frage nach dem Sinn des Lebens. 10. Auflage, Christian
Kaier Verlag, München 1985, p.142.
50See e.g. Frederikson R./Shantaram
S./Raman K.V.(Eds.): Environmental Impact and Biosafety: Issues
of Genetically Engineered Sorghum (Special Issues of African Crop
Science Journal, Vol.3, No.2, 1995.
51Von Weizsäcker C.F.: Die Verantwortung
der Wissenschaft im Atomzeitalter. 7. Auflage, Kleine Vandenhoeck-Reihe,
Göttingen 1986, p.67
52See Persley G.J.: Beyond Mendel`s
Garden: Biotechnology in the Service of World Agriculture. The World
Bank, Washington D.C. 1990, chapter 4, p.40ff.
53See Van den Daele W./Pühler A./Sukopp
H.: Grüne Gentechnik im Widerstreit. Modell einer partizipativen
Technikfolgenabschätzung zum Einsatz transgener herbizidresistenter
Pflanzen.VCH-Verlag, Weinheim /Basel, 1996.
54For a comprehensive analysis of the
global population problem and solutions see: Leisinger Klaus M./
Schmitt K.: All Our People. Population
Policy with A Human Face. Island Press, Washington D.C. 1994.
55For details see Serageldin I.: Nurturing
Development. Aid and Cooperation in Today`s Changing World. The
World bank, Washington D.C. 1994.
56For an introduction see Qizilbash
M.: Ethical Development. In: World Development. Vol.24. No.7, pp.1209-1221
and the references.
57See Komen J./Cohen J.I. /Ofir Z. (Eds.):
Turning Priorities into Feasible Programs (ISNAR),
The Hague 1996. See also Komen J./Cohen J./Sing-Kong Lee. (Eds.):
Turning Priorities into Feasible Programs. (ISNAR), The Hague 1995.
For lessons from the country studies see Brenner C.: Integrating
Biotechnology in Agriculture. Incentives, Constraints and Country
Experiences. Paris (OECD Development Center) 1996.
58King A./Schneider B.: The First Global
Revolution. A Report by the Council of the Club of Rome. Simon &
Schuster London 1991, p.193.
|
|
