Five Easy Pieces ...Or, Four Weddings and a Funeral

Pat Roy Mooney Five Easy Pieces... Or, Four Weddings and a Funeral

Roy Pat Mooney

word on the optimism gene: In mid-2001, 277 of the few, and sometimes of the many, who have ame- so-called “disease” genes have been identified as liorated the damage, ended it sooner, and led us into Ascientists page through the Book of Life made times of peace and opportunity. Dag Hammarskjold, possible earlier in the year with the completion of the who was shot down in a plane over the Congo 40 years first draft map of the human genome. Disease genes ago, once said that no one would ever see or acknowl- are genetically inheritable diseases that with the right edge the wars that did not happen because good circumstances are passed from generation to genera- people worked effectively and quietly to prevent them. tion. Once found, some researchers hope that they will That we are here proves that history is a succession either be eradicated through genetic screening and of small victories, not of defeats. What has carried consultation, or wiped away with gene therapy that humanity through in the past must carry us onward in could forever erase the disputed gene from the human the future. Never underestimate the power of the germline. The problem for families and for society is to optimism gene. determine—and to decide who is to determine—when a gene is a “disease” and when it simply makes some- one “different”. When a difference is to be celebrated 1. Food Security-The final link in the and when it is a problem to be medicated. Were there food chain a gay gene, would we erase it? Were there a black Farmers’ rights and the conservation and gene, would it be abandoned? Is the solution to our enhancement of agricultural biodiversity ills genetic cleansing or a better society? Background This issue and its answers are the subject of the Civil society organizations launched the political fifth and final piece of this essay. However, in struggle to conserve and utilize plant genetic resources addressing each of these “five easy pieces”, we come in 1979 when the first efforts were made to have the up against the same need. Civil society organizations threat of crop erosion debated at the biennial confer- (CSOs) must retain the optimism gene. When all else ence of the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) fails—when logic says otherwise, we must continue to in Rome. At that time, even the most basic political be optimistic. Though Monsanto or Merck may offer us realities were not known. The genetic diversity within gene therapy, we must continue to resist. It is possible the world’s food supply was eroding at about two per to look upon history as a series of human and natural cent per annum. By the end of the 1970s, it was esti- disasters that have merely run their course. It is also mated that the world had already wiped away three- possible to see within each event the heroic struggles quarters of its crop breeding options. The culprits were

54 FIVE EASY PIECES...OR, FOUR WEDDINGS AND A FUNERAL

newly introduced plant varieties through the Green Battleground Revolution and industrial agriculture intended to meet Nevertheless, the achievements of the early and mid- the needs of machine harvesting, processor preferences 1980s were a useful building block for other national or chemical inputs such as herbicides and fertilizers. It and international actions. At the urging of govern- was also not well understood that the North depended ments and industry, CSOs joined in a three-year off- heavily on the crop genetic diversity of the South and the-record negotiation on the outstanding issues— that the centres of origin and of diversity for the including intellectual property and corporate concen- world’s most vital crops were all in the Andes, the tration issues. If nothing else, the dialogue process Horn of Africa, the Fertile Crescent of the Middle East, stirred additional government interest and support Southeast Asia and China. Industrial agriculture was for germplasm conservation. The South especially wiping out its own base, building the roof with stones began to realize the important role it plays with from the foundation. respect to the North’s food security. Between 1993 and 1996, the FAO undertook a unique consultative CSOs were concerned about food security, especially process—proposed and led by CSOs and individuals the security of the poor in the South. We were also from CSOs—that culminated in a 150 government alarmed because the limited scientific efforts underway conference on and commitment to a global plan of to collect and preserve the endangered seeds meant a action to conserve and develop crop genetic resources. siphoning of the South’s botanical heritage into Governments agreed that their undertaking should be genebanks located in the North or controlled by the converted into a legally binding treaty and that a North at international agricultural research centres. funding mechanism should be established that would Compounding this flow, the North was in the process be mandatory and permanent. In addition, govern- of adopting a form of patent legislation that would ments accepted CSO demands for Farmers’ Rights—a allow breeders an exclusive monopoly over their bred legal concept first proposed in 1985 that was intended varieties. With the market opportunities created by to protect farmers from abusive plant “patent” monop- monopoly, CSOs feared that multinational pesticide olies and guarantee their historic right to save and manufacturers would take over the seed industry to exchange seeds and to benefit from innovations they breed varieties that were compatible with their propri- wanted. etary chemicals. At five o’clock in the morning of July 1, 2001, the The struggle against crop genetic erosion and member governments of the FAO Commission adopted monopoly began with the need to find a global forum the legally binding treaty text. Though far from for debate. Working closely with Mexico and a handful perfect, the text establishes a mandatory funding of other countries such as Nicaragua and Ethiopia, mechanism that directly taxes the global seed indus- CSOs campaigned for the FAO to establish a high-level try. The national and international recognition of permanent commission on genetic resources. We also Farmers’ Rights—though not good enough—is part of wanted a treaty to govern the flow of and access to the treaty. Adjacent to the treaty, governments and genetic resources between public sector scientists foundations are establishing an endowment fund to around the world. Thirdly, we wanted a fund to be guarantee the security of the world’s most important established that would guarantee the long-term securi- in situ and ex situ genebanks. Most importantly, per- ty of the world’s genebanks. haps, governments have agreed that 50 of the world’s most important food crops—accounting for more than In a battle that will be long remembered at the 95 per cent of global per capita food consumption— FAO, governments in 1983 did agree to the intergov- must remain in the public domain. Companies are not ernmental commission as a political forum for perma- allowed to patent the original material. A future meet- nent debate. The treaty proposal however, was reduced ing of the treaty’s governing body will determine to a voluntary “undertaking” and the proposed fund whether or not varieties bred from public materials can was also made voluntary. be patented.

55 CANADIAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2001/02

Grounds for optimism around the developing world. During the 1970s and 1980s, the network grew rapidly from two to eight to Melaku Worede, the head of Ethiopia’s highly 18 centres in the early 1990s. In the mid-1990s, how- acclaimed national genebank during the famines of ever, the CGIAR was forced to pull back and consoli- the 1970s and 1980s once told the FAO date into 16 research institutes. It now Commission that farmers’ crop varieties are functions with about 8,000 personnel and the part of biodiversity that we eat. In Perhaps the CGIAR’s an annual budget of US$340 million and is the quarter-century ahead, optimists can greatest treasure, the largest agricultural research system in lead the world to not only conserve but the world dedicated to crop and livestock to continue the diversification of crops however, is the half improvement in the South. By some and varieties. In the last quarter centu- reckoning, between two-thirds and three- ry, we have moved from seeing farmers million samples of quarters of the South’s cereal production as the passive recipients of the genius of farmers’ traditional is based upon CGIAR-funded research or scientists to seeing them as innovative CGIAR-bred varieties. Perhaps the plant breeders themselves. Through Farmers’ seeds that it holds CGIAR’s greatest treasure, however, Rights, our appreciation of the essential role is the half million samples of farmers’ farmers play in ecosystem conservation, and in its genebanks. traditional seeds that it holds in the utilization of new communications technolo- These seeds are both its genebanks. These seeds are gies, it is possible for us to launch a new era of both the scientific basis for, and agricultural discovery. We can move from high- the scientific basis insurance policy of, world food tech to wide-tech. for, and insurance security.

policy of, world 2. Global Governance—Taking the Battleground Cigar from CGIAR food security. Civil society organizations have The restructuring of international long been concerned that the Green agricultural research as a lesson in Revolution launched by the CGIAR a half-century ago global governance created monocultures and undermined local plant Background breeding. The monocultures, in turn, depended upon increased irrigation and herbicides for their yield The Consultative Group on International Agricultural improvements. Not that increased yields were not Research (CGIAR) is a unique creature in the intergov- needed—nor that science couldn’t play a role—but ernmental world. Its origins trace back to World War II that biodiversity and local innovation systems were and the establishment of a maize and wheat research uprooted. The struggle to negotiate with the CGIAR program outside of Mexico City by the Rockefeller over these issues—and to influence its governance— Foundation. Following the war, the Ford Foundation has not been easy. joined with Rockefeller in expanding the crop research initiative and in creating a parallel program for rice in In essence, the CGIAR does not exist. It has no the Philippines. Together, CIMMYT (the International legal identity. When it meets (twice yearly until now), Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre) in Mexico and it has no rules of procedure and voting is unheard of. IRRI (International Rice Research Institute) in the Each of the 16 centres has its own separate legal Philippines developed the semi-dwarf cereals that status imbedded in its national headquarters agree- became the Green Revolution. By 1971, the two foun- ment with its host country. The unofficial members of dations felt that the potential of their revolution the CGIAR are the 50 plus government aid agencies exceeded their capacity to finance it. Robert and foundations that fund the system together, with McNamara, then President of the World Bank and its co-sponsors: the World Bank, the FAO and the former President of the Ford Foundation was asked to United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). The create a donor consortium that could construct a net- regional development banks are also members. The work of international agricultural research centres secretariat is at the World Bank in Washington, DC.

56 FIVE EASY PIECES...OR, FOUR WEDDINGS AND A FUNERAL

Given there are no rules, CSOs decided to join in as well as national governments. The funding currently the twice-yearly meetings. Beginning in 1991, CSOs available for each region would remain but the money documented the system’s decision-making structures could be made available to any group or consortium showing that—contrary to CGIAR rhetoric—an ever- chosen to undertake research deemed important in increasing majority of the trustees of the 16 centres the region. The 16 centres would—over a ten-year were coming from the North and that the key posts of period—cease to exist and become small teams of centre director-generals, centre chairs, and system science-animateurs whose task would be to provide a committee chairs were overwhelmingly controlled by multi-disciplinary and catalytic approach to regional the North. Identifying 74 key posts within the system, programs. The research agenda would swing sharply CSOs showed that three-quarters were held by the from single crop foci to agro-ecological and natural North and that an “agree-culture” of nationals from resource management programs. four countries, Australia, Canada, the UK and the US, accounted for at least one-third of all important posts Grounds for optimism in any given year. The CGIAR responded immediately, though sluggishly, to redress these imbalances so that Ten years ago, CSOs began their challenge of the by 1999, more than half of all trustee posts were in CGIAR, confident that the system had to be placed the South and half of all government donors (though under the flag of the United Nations. Many CSOs also hardly two per cent of the funding) were in the South. believed that science had little place in food security. Today, few CSOs familiar with the system would want In 1994, civil society groups expressed alarm that to see it locked inside a UN bureaucracy. Most would the system’s priceless genebanks were being seen by agree that science could and should play a support the World Bank as a bargaining chip with which public role in improving food security. There is also today an science could negotiate patent licenses with private appreciation of the commitment and concern of the biotech companies. Faced with intense pub- scientists engaged in the CGIAR System. lic pressure, the system hurriedly accepted The adversarial relationship has somewhat a “trust agreement” with the FAO that Twenty-five years eased on both sides. placed responsibility for the genebanks from now, it is under the auspices of the FAO Twenty-five years from now, it is realistic Commission (discussed above). In 2000, to envision a regionalized science research realistic to envision when the 16 centres attempted to structure focused on sustainable food security adopt a policy that would have allowed a regionalized science and responsible ecosystem stewardship. It is them to claim intellectual property also realistic to work toward the merging of rights over germplasm bred from material research structure customary community innovation strate- held in-trust with the FAO, CSOs were effec- gies with those of lab scientists. In tive in forcing the policy to be withdrawn focused on essence, community innovators pro- and in winning CGIAR adoption of a text duce wide-tech solutions for specific written by CSOs that surrendered intellectual sustainable food environments while lab science pro- property and other germplasm policies directly duces narrow-tech options for wider to the FAO Commission. security and environments. responsible ecosystem While these initiatives have effectively But a decade of engagement constrained the CGIAR in important areas, an with the CGIAR also points to the stewardship. intense debate is now underway regarding the role civil society could play in the full restructuring of the system. CSOs are restructuring of governance within the collectively proposing that the CGIAR create UN system itself. As much as the CGIAR regional boards in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the was an enigma to most just a few short years ago, the Near East. The boards would be composed half from omnipotent governance of a UN agency is also mislead- the region and half from other regions. Members would ing. Concerted CSO efforts to monitor decision-making, have to include civil society and farmers’ organizations document governance practices and democratize

57 CANADIAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2001/02

election processes could have a profound impact on UN Battleground management and leadership with very little effort. Any dispassionate review (or taped replay) of the Some elements of the CGIAR could and should be debates of the late 1970s or early 1980s would applied to the UN system it has tried for 30 years to conclude that CSOs were deadly accurate avoid. Twenty-five years from now, there in their assessment. From the patenting of will be a New Roman Forum of UN agen- Patents have flowers and ornamentals in the 1930s, the cies, industry, civil society and farmers United States moved to food crops in the working collaboratively to debate and been granted on 1970s and to microorganisms in 1980 and develop a global approach to agricultural discovered gene animals in 1987. Human cell lines of foreign and rural development—including the nationals were permitted in the 1990s toll of scientific research. sequences in the along with the patenting of specific genes and DNA fragments. There is now human brain found 3. The right to development? no part or particle of living material that is not eligible for patent protec- New enclosures of the mind by computer search tion in the US. Rules in Europe and The changing role of intellectual techniques where the Japan are bending gradually to US property and other monopolies on the interpretations. development process utility has been Likewise, the monopoly right Background identified as being has also been stretched in terms The French wanted to patent their roses in the proven by the fact of years of exclusivity and the 1920s and the Americans were keen on fruits and “rules of the game” requiring flowers in 1930, but it took Adolph Hitler in 1933 that the genes relate inventiveness, non-obviousness to impose the world’s first formal patent regime for and utility have been brushed to the brain. food crops. The war years saw similar legislation aside. Patents have been granted on adopted in Austria and the Netherlands. Once discovered gene sequences in the accepted, patent monopolies are not easily repealed. human brain found by computer search techniques Forty years ago in 1961 the first International where the utility has been identified as being proven Convention for Plant Breeders’ Rights was adopted in by the fact that the genes relate to the brain. This has Paris. Four revisions later, Plant Breeders’ Rights (the inspired drift net patenting of both rainforests and euphanism for plant patenting) has spread from Chile animal genomes. to Canada and from South Africa to Finland. Patent regimes have also preyed upon the poor. Opposition to “life patenting” first arose among Farmers’ traditional crop varieties and the medicinal CSOs in Canada in the late 1970s propelled by a speech plants of indigenous healers have been routinely by then Agriculture Minister Eugene Whelan who patented in several countries. Since patents are a proposed Canadian legislation on the grounds that it matter of national civil law, the poor must defend would both make Canada more beautiful and feed the their rights in American courts where the average cost hungry. Among the major concerns: once monopoly is per litigant is now US$1.5 million. Although laws are granted it is always expanded; once any life form is national, the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) TRIPS patented, all life forms are vulnerable; once exclusive (Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights) chapter rights are given to some, traditional rights are denied and the US trade representative are being used to to others. coerce compliance in countries where the corporation has not even applied for a patent or where national rules would make such a patent unacceptable.

58 FIVE EASY PIECES...OR, FOUR WEDDINGS AND A FUNERAL

Tragically, public sector researchers in agriculture and governments and indigenous peoples. The treaty is health have often acted as Trojan trade representatives being inserted into the Rio+10 process and is likely to for multinational enterprises by accepting US patents be a major topic in South Africa in September 2002. and rules when they work in countries where the patents are non-applicable. The treaty initiative rides upon a growing feeling among many CSOs and some governments that intellec- Since the adoption of the TRIPS chapter at the tual property regimes are the soft underbelly of global WTO, CSOs have renewed their fight against life capitalism. The system is so far out of control that patenting with some success. African governments even major corporations are losing confidence in its have joined together to publicly condemn the patent long-term utility. If the changes that have taken place system. France, the Netherlands, Denmark and Italy in patent law in the past 25 years are shocking to have challenged the European Commission directive those who have fought through them, the potential widening the scope of life patenting in the European for change in the coming 25 years—for good or ill— Union (EU). In Sweden, the Ministers of Trade, Justice cannot be underestimated. and Environment have jointly challenged the appropri- ateness of life patenting. Last year, the FAO Panel of This optimistic note, however, comes with a strong Eminent Ethicists accused the patent system of being cautionary warning. Patents have been described as out of control and biased against the poor and in “enclosures of the mind”. As surely as the enclosure favour of biopiracy. The CGIAR called for the inter- system in Europe usurped the common lands of the vention of the International Court of Justice and the peasants on the eve of the industrial revolution, UN Human Rights Commission to clear the chaos. The patents have enclosed the intellectual commons of Human Rights Commission itself has three times in the today. New enclosures are also on the horizon that past two years attacked life patenting as a could update and replace patents. As the threat to the Right to Develop and to The one-page recent debate over the biosafety protocol food security. Mounting public debate is shows, some new technologies are advancing forcing some rethinking of the patent treaty effectively that pose unprecedented risks for the envi- system, even within the United States. ronment and for human well-being. From this bans life patenting By campaigning against specific perspective, government safety regulations patents such as neem in India or and requires that could be used to enforce technological quinoa in the Andes—and winning— monopolies at public expense and under CSOs have repeatedly exposed the governments and criminal law. In addition, a combination usurious nature of the system and caused of contract law and new satellite and peoples accept that enormous embarrassment in countries such biosensor technologies are already as the US and Australia. all forms of genetic making it possible to minutely monitor farm fields in Spain, Argentina material must be and Australia from satellites. Grounds for optimism Inexpensive handheld devices have In mid-2001, a civil society initiative led by the safeguarded but been patented recently that allow DNA identification within minutes US-based Foundation for Economic Trends won freely exchanged immediate CSO support in over 70 countries with from field to fridge or from parent a proposal for a Treaty to Share the Genetic for the benefit of to offspring. In a world of thou- Commons. The one-page treaty effectively bans life sands of commercial competitors, patenting and requires that governments and humanity. patents play a role as a barrier to peoples accept that all forms of genetic material entry. In a world of five gene giants, must be safeguarded but freely exchanged for the for example, patents are less and less benefit of humanity. The sweeping initiative—which relevant and other tools of monopoly are cheaper and could easily have been dismissed as Pollyannaish—has more far-reaching. CSOs must be vigilant to ensure gained remarkable support in the South among both that new enclosures do not replace the old enclosures of the mind.

59 CANADIAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2001/02

4. Underlying causes—from the whole, number of scientific citations that appear in the litera- to parts to particles ture. In the case of nanotech, from virtually none in The prospects for the poor in the next the late 1980s, there are thousands today and the industrial revolution (nanotechnologies) trend line is starting to curve straight up. Second, consider the number of patents. Unlike biotech, nano- Background tech had no patent rules to cross. From the first patent around 1989, a half-dozen or more are now The quest for the Philosopher’s Stone—or the alchemy being granted every single day. Third, look at public that can turn common metals into gold—is common to sector investment in nanotech research. Since 1998, many cultures. The search for Eldorado devastated US government investment in the technology has risen Latin America and led to the hemorrhaging of wealth from barely US$100 million to US$500 million per and blood from the mines of Potosi to the banks of annum this year. Japanese investment in the public London. The new alchemy is now at hand and how we arena is matching US investment dollar for dollar. handle it over the next 25 years will set the course of European Union investment is at about half US and the world ever afterward. In 1900, science remembered Japanese levels but is now expected to leap forward. the laws of genetic inheritance and, with them, revo- Vastly more money is going into nanotech research lutionized agriculture. A half-century later, science today than into biotech research in the early 1980s or discovered the properties of DNA and learned that all into the Human Genome Project in the 1990s. The life forms could be genetically manipulated. In 2000, fourth criteria, scope of activities, is perhaps the most the mappers of the human genome told us that remarkable. Twelve different US government depart- humans share half their DNA with a roundworm and ments and agencies have active nanotech research half with a banana—that the Book of Life has many programs underway. Corporate involvement includes common chapters regardless of the species involved. In both the “nano-nichers” (start-up companies with one 2001, science may have uncovered the distinction foot in academia and the other in venture capital) and between living and non-living matter. “nano-nabobs” (giant multinationals). But the scope of In a sense, the massive drive toward nanotech- industrial R&D is staggering ( Boeing, Exxon, BASF, nology (material manufacture at the atomic scale of Toyota, Toshiba, Xerox, IBM), covering every segment one-billionth of a metre) is just a logical step “down” of the industrial landscape; nanotech will change from gene manipulation to the manipulation of the everything. carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and other atoms that build Nanotech’s promise of course, is the elimination of genes. As strange as it seemed a quarter century ago want and the eradication of waste. Everyone will be to contemplate the mixing and matching of genes of able to afford to have everything and everything we different species, 25 years from now it will be com- have will be phenomenally strong and durable. Nano- monplace to extract atomic elements from garbage scale construction massively increases the strength of heaps or thin air to build a Big Mac or a Mac materials. Since it builds from the atom up, there is no computer. As surely as Canadians ate genetically waste material. Since it can restructure atoms from modified foods for dinner last night, nanotechnology garbage, it will help to remove waste. The core (and (nanotech) will surpass biotechnology in manipulating still elusive) technology, molecular self-assembly, the material world within ten to 25 years. No aspect could mean the use of solar energy to manufacture of economic life will be left untouched anywhere on complex materials. All that will be needed is a trash the planet as raw materials become universally can and a template. accessible and energy and production costs become inconsequential. The downside of nanotechnology is equally obvi- ous. Self-replicating matter conjures the legend of the Battleground sorcerer’s apprentice where an uncontrollable succession of mops and buckets washed away the cottage. There are four indicators that a new technology is The potential for a profound technological error on the marching remorselessly on the horizon. The first is the level of atoms is truly alarming. Alarming, too, is the

60 FIVE EASY PIECES...OR, FOUR WEDDINGS AND A FUNERAL

potential for bionic materials where the carbon atoms other tools before the risks become too great. Twenty- of living material are fused into the carbon steel of a five years from now, nanotechnology will be a viable, machine. Beyond the environmental concerns, the operational technology. Whether it is used in society— sudden development of a manufacturing process that and how—will depend upon the actions of CSOs in the requires almost no raw materials for either agriculture intervening years. The potential for utility should not or household goods spells the end of employment as be ignored but the potential for tyranny and destruc- we understand it. Because of the risks involved with tion should not be underestimated. The optimism gene nanotech (the peaceful use of the atom once more still dominates—but it is not naïve! with feeling?) and—more—because of the need to control the benefits it could create—new forms of government regulation will be necessary (see the previous 5. Human rights and the Genome Genie section). Nano-scale production is already developing The challenge to the right to dissent grapefruit-size satellites and spider-size robots and air- in a world of genomic controls and neuro- craft that are incredibly inexpensive to operate. science manipulation Nanotechnology poses worrisome challenges to the right to dissent and the future of democracy. Background From the 1930s to the 1970s, the public and private To date, the “battle” over the use and abuse of this sector pharmaceutical establishment largely sought to technology has not been joined. The first ever global develop drugs that would cure or prevent illness. meeting of CSOs on nanotechnology was held in Though heavy-handed and insensitive to traditional Sweden at the end of June 2001. Three regional meet- systems, some great successes were achieved. ings on nanotech and related developments will be Beginning in the late 1970s, however, the held in Africa, Asia,and Latin America private sector began to turn its attention within the year. Society too, after to a more lucrative market—making well people better. The sick, after all, make poor Mad Cow disease, Grounds for optimism customers. They might be unemployable and unable to afford expensive treatments. They tainted blood scandals It took international civil society might die and cease being clients altogether. organizations almost 15 years—from and genetically They might even get better and stop needing the late 1970s to the early 1990s—to medication. Well patients come with no convince the public that biotechnology modified seed such limitations. They are employed and posed real concerns to health and the healthy and they will always want to get environment. Most of those years were management better still. There is no upper limit to devoted to extending the awareness of CSOs “betterness”. The one possible limita- themselves. When nanotech is introduced into debacles, has a tion is common sense and the fear any CSO conversation today, the awareness is that our sometimes seemingly insa- immediate. Our sense of science and our willing- healthy distrust tiable self-indulgence might be ness to perceive that the move downwards from constrained by logic or legislation. genes to atoms is logical and possible means that of government and we will not easily make the same errors we made Research into human genomics of scientific in the past. Society too, after Mad Cow disease, is mapping a route around this tainted blood scandals and genetically modified independence. problem by allowing companies to seed management debacles, has a healthy distrust turn governments and other employ- of government and of scientific independence. ers into proponents of Human Nanotechnology will become a significant topic at the Performance Enhancement (HyPE) drugs and therapies. RIO+10 summit next year and it may be possible to Today, a huge portion of the pharmaceutical industry’s establish an International Convention on the research is devoted to HyPE developments that citizens Evaluation of New Technologies that will make it pos- will find it difficult or impossible to refuse. The sible for science and society to analyze nanotech and advances are based upon our new knowledge of the

61 CANADIAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2001/02

human genome combined with the equally stunning The use of HyPEs in the years ahead is no less advances in neurosciences that allow researchers to unrealistic than the use of rum in the navy a century pinpoint specific genes and techniques that can alter ago or the use of gin in the factory about the same our physical, social and intellectual performance. time. Unlike alcohol however, HyPEs have an insidious capacity to appeal to almost every segment of society and to surrender power to those who design the neural Battleground drugs. HyPEs have important industrial and military benefits. Early in 2001, industry studies in the US warned that Grounds for optimism about one-fifth of all workers in that country are “actively disengaged” from their work place and are The optimism gene could and should over the next costing industry almost US$300 billion in lost produc- 25 years, turn the four issues discussed earlier from tivity and sabotage. In June 2001, the US National funerals into weddings. Within civil society, we should Science Foundation (NSF) publicly endorsed the use of have the ability to understand and overcome the HyPEs for the military—emphasizing the physical obstacles in our path. This fifth challenge—because it attributes that could be achieved, as well as the strikes at the very meaning of being human and our potential to overcome exhaustion, stress or fear. The right to decide and dissent, is the most threatening. If NSF study urged close military-industry collaboration in Canada we worry about a two-tiered health system, on the further development of the neurosciences. we must be aware of the possibility of a two-tiered species—those medically or genetically modified to The use of HyPEs to counter obesity (or to restruc- meet certain conditions—and those who are not. Civil ture a more desirable body shape) is easily understood society’s responses to health issues have always been and the market is huge. But HyPEs also include gene sloppy. Our analysis has never been sharp and our therapies that can “correct” skin colour and racial fea- actions have always been muted. Unless we are pre- tures or create blonde hair and blue eyes. HyPEs can pared to apply the same tools of analysis to human increase (or decrease) the capacities of any and all of genomics as we have to understanding agricultural our senses. If sensitivity to smell is contraindicated in research or multinational corporations or globalization, a chemicals plant, HyPEs can make the problem go we will fail. And the first important HyPE will be a away. If visual or hearing precision is important, it can therapy for the optimism gene. be enhanced. Biological clocks can be adjusted to man- age shift changes or to allow people to work longer hours. Job satisfaction can be improved through pills Pat Roy Mooney, lives in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada where rather than labour negotiations. The cost of HyPEs can he is the Executive Director of the Action Group on Erosion, remain with the employee, merely by raising the bar Technology and Concentration (ETC Group), formerly knows as for employment to a level where HyPEs are essential. RAFI. For more than 30 years, he has worked with civil society The ability to use HyPEs (or reverse HyPEs) or neu- organisations (CSOs) on international trade and development rosciences to exercise social control is also enormous. issues related to agriculture and biodiversity. The author or Biosensors can now identify testosterone levels (mak- co-author of several books on the politics of biotechnology ing it possible to seek out gender and age group), as and biodiversity, Mooney received The Right Livelihood Award well as specific genetic trait coding for ethnicity. (the “Alternative Nobel Prize”) in the Swedish Parliament and Weapons-grade chemicals can then be designed to tar- the American “Giraffe Award” given to people “who stick their get specific population groups while leaving others necks out”. Together with Cary Fowler and Hope Shand, unaffected. In these instances, military applications Pat Mooney began working on the “seeds” issue in 1977. In are less significant than civil uses to control crowds 1984, the three co-founded RAFI (Rural Advancement and monitor dissent. However, the cost-efficient use of Foundation International). such weapons in the South should also not be underestimated.