Seeds, Scientists & Genetically Modified Organisms: Genetic

Seeds, Scientists & Genetically Modified Organisms: Genetic Engineering Practices and Global Connections

Christina Holmes

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Dalhousie University Halifax, Nova Scotia April 2008

395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington Ottawa ON K1A0N4 Ottawa ON K1A0N4 Canada Canada

Your file Votre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-39087-0 Our file Notre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-39087-0

NOTICE: AVIS: The author has granted a non L'auteur a accorde une licence non exclusive exclusive license allowing Library permettant a la Bibliotheque et Archives and Archives Canada to reproduce, Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver, publish, archive, preserve, conserve, sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public communicate to the public by par telecommunication ou par Plntemet, prefer, telecommunication or on the Internet, distribuer et vendre des theses partout dans loan, distribute and sell theses le monde, a des fins commerciales ou autres, worldwide, for commercial or non sur support microforme, papier, electronique commercial purposes, in microform, et/ou autres formats. paper, electronic and/or any other formats.

The author retains copyright L'auteur conserve la propriete du droit d'auteur ownership and moral rights in et des droits moraux qui protege cette these. this thesis. Neither the thesis Ni la these ni des extraits substantiels de nor substantial extracts from it celle-ci ne doivent etre imprimes ou autrement may be printed or otherwise reproduits sans son autorisation. reproduced without the author's permission.

In compliance with the Canadian Conformement a la loi canadienne Privacy Act some supporting sur la protection de la vie privee, forms may have been removed quelques formulaires secondaires from this thesis. ont ete enleves de cette these.

While these forms may be included Bien que ces formulaires in the document page count, aient inclus dans la pagination, their removal does not represent il n'y aura aucun contenu manquant. any loss of content from the thesis. Canada DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY

To comply with the Canadian Privacy Act the National Library of Canada has requested that the following pages be removed from this copy of the thesis:

Preliminary Pages Examiners Signature Page (pii) Dalhousie Library Copyright Agreement (piii)

Appendices Copyright Releases (if applicable) Table of Contents

List of Tables viii

List of Figures ix

Abstract x

List of Abbreviations Used xi

Acknowledgements xii

Chapter 1 Introduction 1 Why Look at GMOs? 1 What Are GMOs?: Definition 4 Global GMO Use 4 Why Has the Issue Been Contentious? 7 Conceptual Influences 9 Situating the Research 13 Overview of Chapters 15

Chapter 2 Bringing GMOs Into Being: An Archaeology of Plant Breeding Practices 18 Introduction 18 Historical Ontology and GMOs 20 Plant Breeding Practices: From the Field to the Laboratory 23 In Situ Farmer Plant Breeding 25 Plant Breeding Beginnings and the Archaeological Record 25 Contemporary Ethnographic Accounts of Farmer In Situ Plant Breeding 32 Precursors of Scientific Plant Breeding: Botanical Investigation in the Renaissance and Colonial Period 42 The Establishment of Scientific Plant Breeding 48 The Rise of New Botany: Experimentation and Laboratory Work 50 Professionalization Among Plant Breeders 52 Combining Selection with a Greater Knowledge of Genetic Factors: The Influence of Darwin and Mendel 53 High Yield Varieties and Agricultural Changes 61 Biotechnology 63

IV Development of Molecular Biology and Biotechnological Tools 63 Tissue Culture 65 Marker Assisted Breeding 66 Genetic Engineering 67 Genetic Engineering, 'Newness', and Substantial Equivalence 69 Conclusion 71

Chapter 3 Methodology 74 Introduction 74 Methodological Framework 75 Participant Observation 77 Fieldsite 1: A Government Laboratory in Canada 79 Fieldsite 2: An International Laboratory in Colombia 81 Short Term Participant Observation and Temporary Fieldsites: 84 Colombian Laboratory Tours and Visits 84 Biotechnology Conference, September 2004, Bogota, Colombia 84 Canadian Laboratory Visits 85 GE3LS Conference February, 2003, Montreal, QC, Canada 85 Qualitative Interviews 86 Documents Examined for Ethnography 91 Data Analysis 92 Considerations of Power 94 Ethical Considerations 96 Harm 97 Privacy and Anonymity 98 Informed Consent 100 Summary 103

Chapter 4 GMOs in Laboratories 104 Introduction 104 Looking at the Local and the Global 107 Looking at Laboratories 108 Describing the Two Laboratories 116 Ottawa Government Laboratory 117

v Canada 117 A Day in the Laboratory 118 Roles in the Laboratory 122 How Do GMOs Fit? 126 Centro International de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT) 132 Colombia 132 A Day in the Laboratory 134 Roles in the Biotecnologia Unit 137 How Do GMOs Fit? 141 Comparing Sites of GMO Construction 148 Conclusion 155

Chapter 5 Debating GMOs: From Objects of Contention to Boundary Objects 157 Introduction 157 GMOs as Boundary Objects 159 GMOs in the Social Science Literature 161 Public Opinion & Public Debate on GMOs 161 Connecting Political and Economic Issues to GMOs: Local and International Governance & Trade 165 Social Science and Science: Homogeneity Versus Heterogeneity in Viewing GMOs 170 GMOs and the Metaphor of the Tool 172 Classifying GMOs 174 Methods for Creating GMOs: Transformation, Plant Tissue, & DNA Source 176 General Purpose of GMO Research 178 Difference in Breeding Goals 181 Intended Use (Or Who Is It For?) 182 Yield Enhancement (Or Increasing a Farmer's Harvest) 184 Enhancement of Plant Qualities (Or Making Plants Better for You) 188 Molecular (Ph)Farming 189 Differences in Plant Species and Variety Used 191 Differences in Disciplinary Settings 195 Summary 196

VI Internal Heterogeneity and the Implication for GMOs as Boundary Objects: Into the Regulatory Realm 199 Conclusion 203

Chapter 6 GMOs in the Global: Snapshots from a Science-scape 205 Landscape: Looking at GMOs from Outside Genetic Engineering... 214 Landscape Snapshot #1: Are GMOs Useful and Where Does the Corporation Fit In? 214 Landscape Snapshot #2: GMOs and Biotechnology as Knowledge Building Tools 217 Landscape Snapshot #3: Too Much Emphasis on Science in Plant Breeding? 219 Connections: GMOs and Scientific Exchange 223 Connections Snapshot #1: Connections Through Students 225 Connections Snapshot #2: Connections Through Collaboration 226 Connections Snapshot #3: Connections to Funding & Farmers 229 Disconnections: GMOs and Inequalities 233 Disconnections Snapshot #1: Plant Scientific Capital 233 Disconnections Snapshot #2: Disconnections in Resources and Language 237 Disconnections Snapshot #3: Disconnections Though Intellectual Property 240 Why Are GMOs Important Anyway?: Scientific Motivations and Social Action 242 Motivations Snapshot #1: Genetic Engineering for the Future 243 Motivations Snapshot # 2: Neglected Crops and Searching for Solutions 245 Motivations Snapshot #3: Biodiversity in the Context of International Competition 250 Conclusion: Knowledge Building & Inequalities 252

Chapter 7 Conclusion 256 Review of Research Results 256 Implications for Understanding GMOs 257 Conceptual Implications 265 Future Research Questions and Final Comments 267

Reference List 271

vu List of Tables

Table 1: Key Features of Darwinian or Population Breeding versus Mendelian or Pedigree Breeding 55

Table 2: Interviews Completed in Canada and Colombia 87

vin List of Figures

Figure 1: Typology of GMO Heterogeneity as Seen by Scientists 175

Figure 2: Socio-Technical Choices in GMO Creation 198

IX Abstract

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) are created within a global assemblage of practices that incorporate complex, and sometimes conflicting, scientific, economic, technological, political, and cultural elements. Not all GMOs are the same; they differ depending on, for example, the plants used or the social and scientific goals for their creation. I suggest that scientists using genetic engineering see 'GMO' as a heterogeneous category in which GMOs can take very different forms in different locations. These differences are not widely recognized outside of science by either social scientists or the media in reporting on GMOs. This tension between viewing GMOs as a homogeneous category with firm boundaries versus a heterogeneous category with many different forms makes them boundary objects. As boundary objects, GMOs must be negotiated by regulators who have to choose whether to categorize them by the suite of processes known as genetic engineering or by the differences between the products and associated risks that result from this process. Furthermore, there is a disjuncture that exists between i) the claims that GMOs will provide widespread societal benefits in the future and ii) the orientation of currently commercialized GMO products towards profitable markets, rather than humanitarian goals. Adopting a multi-sited ethnographic approach to examine plant biotechnology in the public sphere, I engaged in participant observation and qualitative interviews with scientists, regulators, and members of non-governmental organizations in both Canada and Colombia. Participant observation was based in a government laboratory in Canada and at an international research centre in Colombia. My findings suggest that the 'technology transfer' of genetic engineering for development or humanitarian purposes requires critical attention, as claims for future public benefits of GMOs are speculative and highly uncertain. Scientific research is an international enterprise featuring many layered connections between scientists and can therefore be considered an example of the global interconnections with which globalization is associated. However, institutional goals, available resources, and interests of the scientists create different opportunities for those in Colombia compared to those in Canada, showing the sometimes contradictory combination of connections and disconnections found in other studies of the contemporary global system.

x List of Abbreviations Used Bt - Bacillus thuringiensis C (in interview quotations) - Christina (the interviewer) CFIA - Canadian Food Inspection Agency CGIAR - Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (sometimes referred to within interview excerpts as 'CG') CIAT - Centro International de Agricultura Tropical (International Centre on Tropical Agriculture) EU - European Union FAO - Food and Agricultural Organization (part of the United Nations organizational structure) GDP - Gross Domestic Product GE - Genetic engineering GE Scientist - A scientist who uses genetic engineering (not a genetically engineered scientist) GM - Genetically modified or genetic modification GMO - Genetically modified organism US/USA - United States of America WTO - World Trade Organization

XI Acknowledgements I wish to acknowledge the support of four sources that funded this research: • Social Science and Humanities Rearch Council of Canada: Doctoral Fellowship. • Canadian Institute of Health Research: Risk and regulation of novel therapeutic products: A case study of biologies and emerging genetic technologies. (CIHR MOP 74473). Principal Investigator: Janice Graham. • Canadian Institute of Health Research, Institute of Genetics Short Term Research Visit Grant. Science, Controversy, and Genetically Modified Plants: Participant Observation of the Creation of New Genetic Knowledge and Edible Vaccines. Principal Investigator: Christina Holmes • International Development Research Centre: Canadian Window on Development Award. Seeds, scientists, and sustenance: engineering value-added crops in Colombia and Canada. (No. 102667-99906075-010). Recipient: Christina Holmes My first and greatest thanks go to those who allowed me to watch them work, to help with that work, to talk to me about their work, and to discuss mine; despite project deadlines, busy schedules, and any of the numerous other reasons why they should not have had time. Their generosity, both in Canada and in Colombia, never failed to amaze me and is remembered thankfully, particularly the patience of those who had me tagging along in the laboratory. If there are any insights in this work, it is due to them and what they tried to teach me. There were many others who helped make this research work easier: Dr. Brian Ellis and Dr. Andrew Riseman, who made space for me in their Plant Breeding and Biotechnology course at the University of British Colombia, which allowed me to begin to appreciate plant breeding. Many researchers at Friday Harbor Laboratories, including Dr. Billie Swalla, Dr. Shaun Cain, and Dr. Peter Wimberger allowed me to sit in while they were teaching students many of the technical aspects I would need to know for fieldwork, such as how to make solutions, pipette, extract DNA, and do PCR. I am likewise indebted to several members of Dalhousie University's Biology department for

xii such practical skills, including Dr.Tom MacRae and Michelle Euloth, with whom I learned aseptic technique. My research assistants, Angela Sardi, Claudia Campos, Diana Marcela Cordoba, and Carlos Leiva were invaluable in interviews in helping me to navigate the Spanish language to try to ensure that I arrived at the correct meaning. Dr. Elizabeth Brusco, Dr. Joanne Rappaport, Dr. Margarita Chaves, Dr. Astrid Ulloa, and Federico Prado all helped with the logistics of research and life in Colombia, as did the support staff at CIAT. I received support from many other individuals. The members of Green College and the Department of Anthropology at the University of British Colombia provided a stimulating and academically expanding first year of doctoral studies. Later, the departments and staff of Sociology and Social Anthropology, Bioethics and the Interdisciplinary Program at Dalhousie provided welcoming new academic homes and strong mentorship. The friendship of Jennie Hoffman, Molly Jacobs, Jen Burnaford, Scottie Henderson, Kristen Ackerson, Melissa Curry, and Joanne Cumberland helped me get through some difficult parts of this particular voyage. Joyce Giles, and her family Hugh and Aiden, provided an orientation and a home from which to start fieldwork in Ottawa and allowed me to trespass on their hospitality shamelessly for several return visits. Molly den Heyer, Lilith Finkler, Sharon Batt, Mikiko Terashima, Scott McDougal, Liz Toller, Liz Fitting, and Brenda Grzetic all provided interesting conversations about research and writing which are important for sparking those connections between ideas that are so important in research. Thanks are also due to the women of the Belindance dance troupe, for reminding me that there were other things in life as important as writing a dissertation and thus providing me with ballast for my journey. Fiona McDonald and Mavis Jones were tireless in reading drafts, helping me figure out what it was I wanted to say and pushing me to get just a little more done. Without them the writing simply may not have gotten done. I was blessed with a fabulous committee, who were both supportive and constructive, and who worked so well together that their diverse disciplinary backgrounds truly became an asset. Thanks are therefore due to Dr. Pauline Gardiner-Barber, Dr. Karen Beazley, Dr. David Patriquin, and Dr. Robert Boardman. Dr. Janice Graham, my supervisor, I need to thank for too many reasons to list here but among them: for

xiu suggesting that my best could always be a bit better; for understanding the research need for activities such as taking genetics and plant breeding courses, which others might have thought were tangents; for never once complaining when I was asking for yet another letter of reference for another funding application; and for always providing a torrent of new ideas and directions of thought and forgiving me (mostly) when I didn't use them all or only used them three years later, when I discovered she had been right after all. Finally, I need to thank my family, my parents Wayne and Grace Holmes and my sisters Debbie and Barbara, for their unfailing support, lack of judgement, and pride. It has taken me years to understand that not everyone is kept as effortless afloat as I am in the water in which I swim. I thank them also, for having done something slightly crazy in their youth, such as having their eldest born in Thailand, and allowing me to throw that back in their faces with no additional questions after expressing initial reservations about my doing part of this research in a country listed as one to avoid on Canada's Department of Foreign Affairs advisory list. The Wyeth clan have been part of my life for so long that they, too, are family and have been equally unflagging in their support and good suggestions. For Russell Wyeth, my husband, there is simply not enough space to write thanks for everything your love and support have done throughout this process and no recompense for the distance survived, extra work caused, and anxiety suffered that I can make. I can only say thank you for all the technological help received, for taking three months of your life to come to Colombia and to enjoy it almost as much as I did, and for trying never to put your dreams above mine.

xiv Chapter 1 Introduction

Why Look at GMOs? "God bless all the hands that helped to prepare this food, starting from seed". This is the grace that my maternal grandmother will say before meals and is one of the starting places for this dissertation. She was a farmer1 for much of her life outside of a small town north of Edmonton, Canada and she would often have had a pretty good idea to whom such 'hands' belonged. This grace always made me think of the myriad people that I could only dimly conjure up and the hazy chain that linked me to them through the food that we ate. The second starting place for this work was an overheard conversation on a public transit bus ride in Victoria, British Columbia in 2000. Two women were having a spirited discussion on the topic of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). One was commenting on how terribly dangerous they were. 'But no', replied the second woman, 'they are going to help us feed the developing world'. I was intrigued with something that could hold such different meanings simultaneously and began to wonder what the scientists who made them thought about them. I will provide an overview in greater detail below on the debate surrounding GMOs, but its essence can be seen in this conversation: concern about health risks, concern about environmental risks, and the contested potential of the technology to reduce world hunger (Bauer & Gaskell, 2002; Gaskell & Bauer, 2001; Pretty, 2002). Within protests over GMOs we also see a questioning of the relationships between new technologies and regulatory regimes and between consumers and the food and agriculture industry, which is concentrated into fewer and fewer hands (Doyle, 1985; Wynne, 2001). Both of these experiences impressed upon me the distance that we have from the processes that produce our food, including the selection of plants, and the concomitant lack of knowledge about how those processes take place, 'starting from seed'. While the

11 say 'farmer' rather than 'farmer's wife' deliberately partially to avoid the assumption of a division of labour by gender that was not present in this case between inside and outside the home. For instance, my grandfather, who was born in Norway in 1899 and then immigrated to Canada in 1930, never really liked machinery and therefore never learnt to drive, either cars or tractors. My grandmother did both of those things.

1 majority of plant domestication and breeding throughout human history occurred in the hands of farmers who would chose which seeds they would save from the previous year's harvest, plant breeding has become an increasingly specialized occupation, particularly since the beginning of the 1700s. What do we know about this world and how does the new technology of genetic engineering (GE), otherwise known as genetic modification (GM), fit into it? I focus in this dissertation on the technological development of GMOs (i.e. GMO design), rather than their impacts. Hess calls design "the other side of the coin to technological impact" (2001b: 1) and suggests that moving back and forth between the two is important. Looking at technological design allows us to look at the impact of society and the environment on technology, as well as the impact of technology on society and the environment (Hess, 2001b). "Because the broader perspective generally does not inform most discussions of technology in the globalization literature2, it provides a valuable starting point for the study of science, technology, and globalization" (Hess, 2001b: 1). It allows one to raise questions about what science or technological development is done or left undone (Hess, 2007). Winner (1986) has documented how the design of a technology can be important in influencing the later uses of that technology. In other words, restricted options for GMO technological design now will result in a lack of choice in GMO technology use later. Technological design could be said to occur only at the location of 'ground breaking' initial innovation. However, if technological design is considered to be an ongoing process in collaboration with its users, then design evolves across multiple locations where emerging technologies are being developed and implemented. There is value in looking at GMOs at sites beyond their initial genesis. Different locations will produce different debates over technological transfer (from developed to developing countries and vice versa). In addition, while initial sites of innovation, such as that of PCR creation (Rabinow, 1996) are sometimes documented, there has been less written about 'peripheral' sites that are trying to apply biotechnology initially developed elsewhere. Furthermore, my intention to examine technological development and design is supported by Wynne's (2001) call to examine

2 For instance, technological impacts, such as the impact of communication and transportation technologies on global interactions are the focus within globalization literature.

2 the purposes, driving forces, and conditions of research on GM crops. In order to critically examine the potential uses and risks of GMOs, we need to look at where GMOs come from and how they are designed. Knowing where GMOs arise gives us (partial) information to link where our food comes from and ourselves. This contextualizes the 'public' face of GMOs, such as brief newspaper articles about new technologies (be they positive or negative) or public demonstrations. The public understanding of GMOs, one area of research on the societal impact of the technology, has already been the focus of much scholarship. Public understanding of science research may help to understand what the public wants out of technological developments, but it alone does not help us to understand why GMOs have developed the way they have. In order to look at the design of GMOs, we also need to look at the scientists whose research creates GMOs and the social aspects of that science. The focal point of this research, therefore, is scientists' views of GMOs, in an attempt to understand what they work on and why they choose to use this technology. Contextualising GMOs in this way enables us to better understand the relationships between GMOs and those who create them, both locally and globally. The research questions that drive this dissertation are: 1. How do GMOs fit into the historical trajectory of plant breeding? 2. What is the relationship between GMOs and the locations in which they are developed? 3. How are GMOs seen by scientists and what implications does this have for understanding the GMO debate? 4. How does the intersection of local practices and wider, global patterns impact how GMOs are created? In the following sections, I will provide a working definition of GMOs, and a brief overview of the different ways in which they captured the attention of activists, media, and the public. I will proceed to discuss the combination of influences from anthropology and science studies that have been important in framing this work and driving my research questions. I will then give a brief overview of the way in which the research was conducted and my approach to the ethnographic encounter. Finally, I will present an overview of the chapters in this dissertation.

3 What Are GMOs?: Definition Genetically modified organisms (GMOs), including genetically modified (GM) plants can have varying definitions. For the purposes of this dissertation, I will interchange 'genetic modification' with 'genetic engineering' and use both to refer only to "the direct transfer of genetic material using recombinant DNA techniques" (Brunk et al., 2001): 11). The phrases "genetically modified plant" or "genetically modified organism" will refer to an organism into whose genome one or more pieces of DNA have been deliberately inserted. This definition focuses on the novel characteristics of this practice, how GMOs are 'genetically modified' in a way that was different from past plant breeding practices.

Global GMO Use

Initial interest in transferring DNA into plants began in 1967 and continued until evidence for stable plant transformation was published in 1984 (Lurquin, 2001). From 1984 until 1987, all the major methods of genetic engineering in use today (this includes nine methods of direct gene transfer, plus the popular Agrobacterium tumefaciens mediated method3) were developed (Lurquin, 2001). In 1980 the United States (US) Supreme Court Ruling {Diamond v Chakrabarty) ruled that a genetically engineered life form (bacteria) was patentable. This expanded the legal definition of intellectual property (Brunk et al., 2001) and made intellectual property an important ideological (and now legal) construct supporting the creation of GMOs. The ruling, and subsequent ability to patent products created through genetic engineering, meant that it became possible to profit from the costly research4 required to genetically modify organisms. For instance, previous intellectual protections on plant varieties were weaker, allowing a rival plant breeder to take a variety developed by a competitor and develop it further as soon as it was on the market, without waiting for a patent life to end (Doyle, 1985; Kloppenburg, 1988). It was during the period of the 1980s that genetic

3 Chapter two provides a description of some of these processes. 4 Some argue that patents themselves created much of the cost associated with genetically modifying an organism. While intellectual property associated costs certainly augmented the cost of creating a GMO (as did the requirement for regulatory tests), the initial research is still expensive: it requires institutional space, specialized scientific equipment (laminar flow hoods, per machines, reagents, etc.) and skilled scientific

4 engineering and molecular biological research, in all organisms, became heavily supported and controlled by multinational corporations (Wright, 1994). In 2003, when I began this research, the estimated global area of commercial GM crops was 67.7 million hectares (or 167 million acres) according to James (2004). Commercial GM crops were grown by an estimated seven million farmers in 18 countries and represented a 15% global increase in area compared to 2002. Thirty percent of total GM crop area was grown in developing countries. The US was the top grower of GM crops, at 42.8 million hectares (mha), followed by Argentina (13.9 mha), Canada (4.4 mha), Brazil (3.0 mha), China (2.8 mha), South Africa (0.4 mha), Australia (0.1 mha), India (0.1 mha), Romania (>0.05 mha), and Uruguay (>0.05 mha) (James, 2004). As of 2005, (the most recent data available) there was little change in the major countries involved in GMO production. The United States still grew the most GM crops at 47.4 mha (55% of global plantings), still followed by Argentina (16.93 mha, 19% of global plantings), but Brazil had surpassed Canada and was growing 10% (nine mha) of global GMOs, compared to Canada's seven percent (5.858 mha) and China following with four percent of global plantings (3.3mha) (Brookes & Barfoot, 2006). The rest of the world's countries only accounted for five percent of GMO acreage (Brookes & Barfoot, 2006). Plant biotechnology is a field that has been led by North American based multinational companies, with European multinationals following close behind. Many of the original and key intellectual property rights in this field are held by northern based (US or European Union (EU)) companies or universities (Parayil, 2003; Falcon & Fowler, 2002; Yamin, 2003). Furthermore, plant biotechnology research has largely focused on crops best adapted to temperate climates. For instance, almost all the acreage currently planted with GM varieties is comprised of four crops: soybeans (62%), corn (22%), cotton (11%), and canola (5%) (Brookes & Barfoot, 2006). These crops are very important to North American agriculture, and indeed, the United States grows GM versions of all four of these crops, although soybeans and corn are planted over greater acerage than cotton and canola (Brookes & Barfoot, 2006).

labour required to create, perfect, and undertake genetic engineering protocols. As the second narrative in chapter 6 recounts, biotechnology is expensive.

5 GMOs are genetically modified for: 1) Herbicide resistance: this most common trait, makes up 76% of GM crops (Brookes & Barfoot, 2006) (compared to 73% in 2003) (Global Knowledge Centre on Crop Biotechnology, 2004)). 2) Insect resistance: the most common genes used for toxins come from the bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). Insect resistance is used in 24% of global GMO plantings (Brookes & Barfoot, 2006) (up from 18% in 2003 (Global Knowledge Centre on Crop Biotechnology, 2004)). 3) Virus resistance lags substantially behind as the third category. In 2003 a diminutive <0.1 mha represented global crops with "virus resistance or other traits" (Global Knowledge Centre on Crop Biotechnology, 2004). This category includes virus resistant Papaya (grown in Hawaii on 535 ha) and virus resistant squash (grown in the continental United States on 2,300 ha) (Brookes & Barfoot, 2006). More GM crops have been granted regulatory approval than are generally commercially grown. For instance, in Canada, as of 2002, 12 different plant species had received 51 different approvals5 for either importation to or growth in Canada, for traits including herbicide tolerance (26), insect resistance (12), oil quality, male sterility/fertility restoration, virus resistance, and improved shelf life (Belzile, 2002). There is a discrepancy between the breadth of crops with regulatory approval and those that are actually grown globally, which shows that not all the GMOs that have been created and granted regulatory approval reach the market. Herrera-Estrella (2000) has likened the situation in agricultural biotechnology with that of medical research, where market considerations have been more important than health equality, and thus tropical diseases have received little attention compared to diseases afflicting North America and Europe. Similarly, most of the crops developed to date have been intended for large mechanized farms practising industrial agriculture, with traits chosen for their economic value. Due to the concentration of agricultural biotechnology in corporate hands, there is little likelihood that market mechanisms will transfer the technology to small farmers, particularly those in tropical countries, who do not have sufficient resources to be considered a viable market. New plants and crops are being developed not to solve problems of hunger and deprivation, but mostly to increase shareholder values of companies that have

5 Regulatory approval in this context indicates the authority to commercialize the plant to be either sold in Canada [or sold there] for food or animal feed (Belzile, 2002).

6 invested heavily in R&D efforts in the biotechnology sector. Consumer preferences are more important than farmer's rights and interests in the development and diffusion of genetic agricultural technology, and the trend is to develop technology suited for the interests of large biotech firms. (Parayil, 2003: 983)

The context in which biotechnology is situated, then, consists of concentrated intellectual property rights ownership and market focused research. Large agricultural growers in temperate countries constitute a viable market for profit. As this kind of profit generating market is less common in most developing countries, many of which are tropical, the situation seems ill adapted for a large scale global transfer of this technology. In addition, there is some concern about the available market for agricultural export products if such countries did adopt GMOs. This concern springs from the consumer rejection of GM foods, particularly in the EU, as the result of a debate over the technology. It is to this debate that I will turn now.

Why Has the Issue Been Contentious?

The controversy that has sprung up over GMOs has been global in scope (Bauer & Gaskell, 2002; Buttel & Goodman, 2001; Muller, 2006b). One of the initial events involved protesting the entry of a 1996 shipment of US GM soy into Europe (Bauer & Gaskell, 2002) and protests have occurred at many other locations, such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) meetings in Seattle in 1999 and several locations in France and Mexico (Fitting, 2006b; Heller, 2002; Pagis, 2006). The controversy has led to an EU moratorium and then import restrictions on GMOs, an ensuing case was then brought against the EU in WTO tribunals (Brack et al., 2003; Murphy & Yanacopulos, 2005; Murphy et al., 2006; Peel, 2006; Sheldon, 2002), an attempt to internationally regulate the biosafety aspects of GMOs in the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety which has goals that diverge from those of the WTO (Brack et al, 2003; Gupta & Falkner, 2006; Oberthur & Gehring, 2006), and a politicization of food aid resulting from the inclusion of GMOs in food aid from the US to Africa (Clapp, 2004; 2005). Concern has been expressed over potential health and environmental risks associated with the technology. These issues can be complicated, due to the variety in the types of GMOs that are currently in the process of research development (Clark, 2006;

7 Pretty, 2002). Specific possible health risks include: toxins (unknown or known) present in GM plants, allergens (unknown or known) present in GM plants, the spread of antibiotic resistance from horizontal gene transfer between plants and bacteria (either in the soil or the human gut), altered nutritional values in foods, and the risk of proteins created for medicinal or industrial use accidentally being mixed into the food supply (Brunk et al., 2001; Weaver & Morris, 2005). Environmental concerns include the risk of cross pollination with other crops or wild relatives, which can result in potential loss of genetic diversity in areas where major crop biodiversity is present, such as with maize in Mexico, or the creation of invasive species or 'super weeds' if wild relatives acquired traits (such as herbicide resistance) that give them selective advantage. Other environmental concerns include the possibility of unintended harmful effects on non- targeted species, such as through the production of insecticidal proteins, and the disruption of the ecosystem and predator-prey relationships (Brunk et al., 2001; Conner et al., 2003; Bruinsma et al., 2003; Clark, 2006; Ervin et al., 2003; Schmidt & Wei, 2006; Weaver & Morris, 2005). Furthermore, one of the key concerns that have been raised by the public in regards to the risks of genetic modification is the degree to which potential risks are yet to be identified by scientists (Hoffmann-Riem & Wynne, 2002; von Krauss et al., 2004; Wynne, 2001). For instance, there is a great deal that is still unknown about epigenetic regulation, so that a shift in neighbouring genes can change gene expression; the relationship between genes is unknown and to some extent unpredictable with regards to potential health and environmental repercussions (Brunk et al., 2001). Haraway (1997a; 1997b) raises the issue that, similar to other products of biotechnology, GM seeds cross symbolic and categorical borders, such as those between animals and plants, that many are uncomfortable with and therefore serve as symbolic transgressions of valued cultural boundaries. Because of the potential for such environmental, health, and cultural risks as I have outlined above, labelling of GM foods has also been a contentious issue (Brunk et al., 2001; Hansen, 2004; Herrick, 2005; Noussair et al, 2002). The technical difficulties of separating GM from non-GM crops in order to label within the current food system has been played off against the right of consumers to make informed decisions about purchases. At the heart of this issue is the validity of the concept of substantial

8 equivalence (or whether a GMO crop is substantially the same as the non-transgenic variety of the crop), which is a topic to which I will return in chapter two. In addition, GMOs have been tied to fears of cultural homogenization of food consumption practices and US economic and cultural imperialism within countries such as France, Mexico, and India (Heller, 2002; Fitting, 2006a; Fitting, 2006b; Shiva, 2000). Miiller has pointed out that the arrival of genetically modified seeds "coincided with a growing distrust in the promises of market liberalism and technological progress" (2006b: 7), as consumers could see profits arising through 'seed rents' from GMOs for the agrochemical corporations involved, but no benefit to themselves. It is within this context that genetic modification has been framed as part of the process of big business and corporate monopolization of the agricultural industries (Doyle, 1985; Pretty, 2002; Kloppenburg, 1988; Kneen, 1999). Within this context, the ability of GMOs and biotechnology to feed the developing world, championed by Borlaug (2000) and others is questioned. These critiques involve the possibility that GMOs may take away farmers' ability to save their own seed, and thereby their independence; that the technology will not be used for crops that are of interest to developing country farmers; or that the attention to biotechnology removes initiatives to develop less costly and more efficient sustainable agriculture rather than encouraging harmful monoculture practices (Altieri, 2001; Altieri & Rosset, 2002; Herrera-Estrella, 2000; Pretty, 2002; Shiva, 2000).

Conceptual Influences

Three major areas of conceptual importance, drawn from scholarship in anthropology and the interdisciplinary field of science and technology studies, have contributed to the development of this research project. They focus on (1) historical analysis, (2) globalization and multi-sited ethnography and (3) anthropologically-based ethnography of science and social network analysis. The first area draws on work that has emphasized the importance of incorporating history into social science (e.g. Wolf (1982), Mintz (1985; 1996), and Sider and Smith (Sider & Smith, 1997b; Smith, 1999)). Mintz (1985; 1996), in particular, highlights the use of historical accounts to explain what choice in cultural behaviour and meaning the past bequeaths to the present. I combine this approach with Hacking's (2002) concept of historical ontology to examine the role

9 the past plays in shaping GMOs. Historical ontology is a concept that focuses on the way in which categories, ideas, and phenomena come into being, using a Foucauldian archaeological approach. For example, how do GMOs, as a category, come into being and how are they related to other plant breeding practices? A historical perspective is necessary for this topic, particularly because as a 'new' technology, GM is often discussed out of its historical context. "Although the novelty of so much that is occurring today in the biosciences cannot be overestimated, continuities with the past are equally arresting and significant" (Franklin & Lock, 2003: 6). The second area of conceptual interest has grown out of the literature on globalization. One of the focuses of this literature has been on the way in which local sites and practices interact with broader patterns that are referred to as 'globalization'. Such patterns include the intensified movement of capital, people, materials, technologies, or ideas across large geographic distance (Appadurai, 1996; Hannerz, 2002; Harvey, 2000; Held et al, 1999; Inda & Rosaldo, 2002; Tsing, 2002). Anthropologists have found the interaction of the 'local' and the 'global' of particular interest, as it became harder and harder to ignore widespread global migrations and interconnections that were not easily encompassed by traditional methods of intensive ethnographic research in a particular location (Inda & Rosaldo, 2002; Marcus, 1998). An interest in developing better conceptual and methodological tools for following 'global' patterns, while at the same time maintaining contact with 'local' sites, resulted in approaches that trace connections (in both space and time), groups of people, commodities, media, among other things (Appadurai, 1991; Hannerz, 2003; Inda & Rosaldo, 2002; Marcus, 1998; Wolf, 1982). As Inda and Rosaldo (2002) comment, critical attention is needed to discover exactly how global connections are incorporated into local patterns of behaviour change. Worldwide cultural homogenization, one of the possibilities heralded within an age of globalization, does not appear to be borne out by ethnographic study. In contrast to a homogenization model, cultural connections do not always flow exclusively from centres of power to their peripheries (Inda & Rosaldo, 2002). Additionally, Ferguson (1999) reminds us that it is important, in such studies, to look not only at how and why people and places are connected, but to include how and why they are disconnected. Given the

10 increase in inequalities globally (Comaroff & Comaroff, 2000; Harvey, 2000), such- disconnections are as important to look at as connections. If GMOs can be characterized as global objects of contention (Miiller, 2006b) and if they are situated within the connected world of international science, while at the same time they are created within local laboratory spaces, then the study of them requires that this local-global nexus be incorporated. Multi-sited ethnography, first proposed by Marcus (1995; 1998), is one of the key approaches to studying the interconnection of the local and global that has emerged within this discussion in Anthropology. Meanwhile, science studies research has been approaching similar issues. In the case of the anthropological ethnography of science, there is an interest in looking at scientific issues or projects within a wider domain of interactions between "scientific, governmental, industrial, religious, and other domains of society" (Hess, 1997b: 135), as well as an interest in scientific knowledge. Anthropology as a discipline is a "field that takes seriously both nature and culture, and both scientific and humanistic analyses" (Lindee et al., 2003: 4). Downey and Dumit (1997) suggest that anthropological ethnographers of science attempt to circumvent the metaphor of science as a 'citadel' of knowledge, by exploring how knowledge creation activities flow into wider arenas or how such mediation is blocked through discourses of objectivity and processes of legitimation. For instance, Martin (1997; Martin et al., 1997) traces the metaphors relating to immune system from the scientific laboratory into more popular contexts. Heath (1997) examines an area of research, not only from the point of view of the researchers, but also as it appears to a patient group hoping to benefit from such research. Cambrosio, et. al. (2000) suggest that anthropological investigations of science have the potential to combine anthropology's traditional interest in broad social and economic contexts, with science studies' traditional focus on understanding the 'black box' of knowledge, or how knowledge is created. Franklin and Lock (2003), building on anthropological approaches to the study of science that have highlighted both science as a cultural practice and concern about how biosciences were re-shaping knowledge, suggest that forces in the biosciences need to be specified as precisely as possible, while at the same time tying these accounts to "an emergent global biological economy" (Franklin & Lock, 2003: 13).

11 Network studies in science take a different approach from the anthropology of science. These studies emerged out of previous laboratory studies, concerned with how scientific knowledge was formed, with the "fundamental insight that informal social linkages play an important part in the making of science" (Hess, 1997b: 106). Similar to the desire of anthropologists to look beyond the local, such studies pressed beyond organizational entities such as the laboratory and the research centre to look at the networks involved in developing and disseminating knowledge. Actor-network theory, for instance, is an attempt to trace social and technical relations within heterogeneous networks (Williams-Jones & Graham, 2003). Importantly, proponents of this approach, such as Latour, Callon, and Law, advocate for symmetrical analysis of both human and non-human actors within such networks, in order to more accurately portray how associations between 'things' and 'people' shape the creation, dissemination and establishment of knowledge (Hess, 1997b; Williams-Jones & Graham, 2003). Inherent in this desire for symmetry, however, has been a critique of concepts such as 'society' or 'laboratory' as objects of study (Latour, 1993; 2004; 2005). Latour (2005), similarly to anthropological approaches, has argued that connections over distance need to be described and assessed. For instance, he suggests that one way to keep the global 'flat' or within our understanding, is to make clear the costs of connections or networks over distance. Within this, there is also recognition that the creation of scientific knowledge, or the making of technoscience, is an expensive process and not everyone will have equal access to it (Latour, 2005). We therefore see similar concerns amidst both anthropology and network studies with tracking processes (be they meaning creation, behavioural patterns, or knowledge construction) outside of a particular location, such as a laboratory or a village, albeit through different approaches and with different points of emphasis. Awareness of inequalities within processes of knowledge creation or globalization is present in both cases. What actor network theory particularly offers to a study of GMOs, with its inclusion of non-human actors, is an opportunity to incorporate important aspects of the material world (i.e. the science), which are crucial to understanding the work behaviours and goals of the scientists involved in GMOs, in a way that does not conflict with social scientific explanations. This is something with which anthropology, as a discipline, has struggled (Lindee et al.,

12 2003). At the same time, anthropological research tends to balance the focus on networks or connections with a continued appreciation of how individuals' behavioural patterns and the meaning they give those patterns are grounded in the particular social groups within which they find themselves. In short, local sites of GMO production, as well as the connections that lead from it, are both considered to be viable objects of study.

Situating the Research

How, then, does one build a methodological framework that incorporates such factors? The actor network approach, tends to focus on the complexity, local situatedness, and messiness in specific case studies and has therefore been critiqued for its repetition of a 'things could have been different' message against technological determinism and its lack of ability to distinguish wider patterns than those found at the case study level (Geels, 2007). As one solution to this critique of such methodological and conceptual frameworks, Hine (2007) argues that multi-sited ethnographic approaches have been useful in science and technology studies (including those done by anthropologists) as they allow the researcher to follow scientific research outside of the laboratory into various other arenas, a point Downey and Dumit (1997) made a decade earlier with respect to anthropological contributions to science studies. Hine also suggests that such projects attempt to "remain relevant to diverse audiences whilst faithful to a complex and ultimately methodologically elusive experienced world" (Hine, 2007: 653). That world, however, includes the day-to-day activities of science. Examining the day-to-day activities of science fosters understanding of science as a social practice, instead of as abstract knowledge (Hess, 2001b; Franklin & Lock, 2003). I have therefore chosen to employ the concept of multi-sited ethnography to guide my research by following the creation of GMOs through different sites in Canada and Colombia, although based in two laboratory field sites. While I will provide more detail in chapter three, one of these laboratory field sites was in Ottawa, Canada, while the other was in Cali, Colombia. The research was made truly multi-sited, however, through qualitative interviews, laboratory tours, and conferences with scientists using genetic engineering across Canada and Colombia. The choice of basing ethnographic research in two different countries and the choice of the countries themselves was made on the

13 supposition that if GMOs are part of the global practice of science, and if that practice takes places within unequal terrain, then the inclusion of researchers that have different access to resources and different agricultural traditions would allow the incorporation of some of Ferguson's 'disconnections' as well as global connections. This was of particular importance for looking at how GMOs are designed, given the claims that are made of them to contribute towards problems of hunger and poverty. A further decision was made to focus on researchers working in the public sector, rather than those, whom some might argue, were 'leading the field' in the US private sector6. This does not imply that some of these researchers were not connected in some way with private corporations, but the majority of them were based in public7 institutions for their research. This decision was partially pragmatic, as it was feared that access to private laboratories might be harder to negotiate, but mostly was due to the fact that much more has been written about the kind of GMO research being done in large corporate sectors. Interested in those advocating GMOs for the 'public good', my project addresses some of the other possibilities for GMO research and how these fit into the more popularized commercial trends described above. In addition, for me, studying scientists ethnographically also meant following a tradition of ethnographic practice, going back to Malinowski's (1961 [1922]) description of a 'native point of view' that aimed, at least initially, to follow scientific practices surrounding GMOs with an eye to understanding this work from the point of view of those involved in it. Wilson (1992) expresses this approach to one's research participants when discussing fieldwork ethics: Researching in an 'ethical manner' seems not about proclaiming good and evil, but about enabling the reader to hear the voices and appreciate the actions of as many of the different people involved as possible. [...] We must study people as human beings and not as (judged) economic and political processes, and ... ethical research must critique as well as acknowledge the foundations of the society studied. (Wilson, 1992: 181 & 183)

6 I was asked by one of the first scientists that I interviewed in Canada why I was talking to people in the 'backwater' of research in this field. If I was interested in how the topic was developing, he argued, I needed to go to the 'big' laboratories in the United States. 7 As Atkinson-Grosjean (2006) has documented, 'public' can have many meanings related to science. In this case, I refer to both institutions that receive government support (either directly or through the medium of international development programs) and to research that aims to provide 'public' or common benefits for society, such as through economic stimulation or an increase in the quality of life.

14 This approach to the research reflected my initial, pre-fieldwork perspective; I was concerned with the increasing monopolization and commercialization of the food industry, but separated this issue analytically from the pro-con value judgement of the technology itself. I was interested in how the technology was being applied by scientists, particularly with respect to the widespread benefits that were being claimed. Benefits must be weighed against potential risks or costs, but my work intended to draw out the contexts in which 'beneficial' and 'public' uses of the technology are being deliberately targeted (designed and developed), such as augmenting the nutrient value of an essential food crop by adding beta-carotene ('golden rice'). However, can GMOs be understood from the perspective of the laboratory alone? As the work outlined above demonstrates, scientific research (or any cultural practice within the contemporary world) exists in spaces outside of the laboratory and interacts with other actors that may be in opposition to those within the laboratory. I therefore included interviews with plant breeders who do not work with genetic engineering, as well as a category I have classed as 'relevant others', such as regulators and members of non-governmental organizations who have different types of intersection with and perspectives on GMOs.

Overview of Chapters

Contextualizing GMOs adequately required four different questions, which although separately answerable, are all important to understanding how GMOs fit into international research and debate, as a whole. Correspondingly, each chapter addresses one question, and the accompanying conceptual tools required to address it, and therefore one part of my main query. In addition, an overall methodological chapter is included. I describe the focus of each chapter below. I begin, in chapter two, with an archaeological investigation of how genetic engineering emerged from a longer history of plant breeding. Increasing specialization of plant breeding in the 1700s and 1800s within the context of colonialism made plant breeding ever more 'global' and also increased the distance between the practices of experienced farmers and landowners and professional plant breeders. Tracing how GMOs came into being locates them in time and space and among political actors; it

15 shows how they have similarities to increasingly specialized and controlled types of plant breeding that emerged in the 1900s. The comparison between genetic engineering and other methods used in plant breeding demonstrates both the differences and similarities between GMOs and other products of plant breeding. It is therefore important for understanding claims made on the part of those for and against GMOs about whether or not GMOs are 'natural'. In both cases, the parties making those claims must ignore portions of the historical trajectory within plant breeding that made it possible for GMOs to exist. In chapter three, I will discuss the methodology used for this ethnographic research. This will include a discussion of the particular methods chosen within the framework of multi-sited ethnography and my roles as a researcher within the different sites where I visited. The following chapters draw from this ethnographic research to describe the sites of GMO production, the meaning of GMOs, and the place of GMOs within a global political economy. In chapter four, I examine two specific sites of GMO creation, one in Canada, and one in Colombia. I begin with the local laboratory in order to show that GMOs have intricate relationships with the social groups that create them and that these relationships can change the form that GMOs take and the purpose for which they are created. I suggest that GMOs simultaneously form part of the laboratory, as a socially recognized unit, as well as being part of a network of actors, with connections outside of the laboratory. I also use these sites of GMO production to examine the social roles and relationships to different types of knowledge that those working in laboratories hold. Having established that there are differences between the locations in which GMOs are made, in the following chapter, chapter five, I move the level of analysis out from the laboratory to look at the meaning that GMOs have for the scientists creating them, as well as social scientists writing about them. Drawing on data collected through interviews as well as participant observation, I suggest that scientists recognize more internal heterogeneity within GMOs than do social scientists. To demonstrate this, I have created a classification of how GMOs differ that shows some of the key differences scientists mentioned between their work and that of other scientists using genetic engineering. Given this finding, I suggest that GMOs function as what Star and Greismer

16 (1989) call a boundary object. Boundary objects are important to collaborative work in science. They are generally recognizable, but their form and meaning changes from one space to another. In the same way, scientists recognized the methodological similarity in creating GMOs, but are also aware of the many differences that they can have. I explore the implications of seeing GMOs in this way to understanding the conflict over regulation within the public debate surrounding GMOs In the final data chapter, chapter six, I attempt to look at how GMOs and research on them fits into wider global scientific and socio-economic patterns. Many researchers, such as Appadurai (1996), have commented on the methodological and conceptual difficulties in demonstrating such patterns. I attempt it here, using a narrative format, which allows some of the complexities of global scientific patterns to be explored from the situated perspectives of particular actors. Drawing largely on scientists' stories of the research world that they occupy, I illustrate four main themes. First, I demonstrate that GMO research is set within a wider field of plant breeding research and civil society that might have reasons to view it sceptically. Second, GMO research does require internal, national, and international connections, or networks, in order to function, although these connections are rarely straightforward. Third, the costs of such connections can be high and therefore GMO research also features a series of global disconnections amongst countries, scientists and plants. Fourth, researchers have complex motivations for working in this area, despite the difficulties that it represents. Overall, through these narratives, I show that GMOs are created within a world beset with various kinds of inequalities and that these affect GMOs both as scientific knowledge (the knowledge derived from GMOs) and as scientific product (the GMOs themselves). In the concluding chapter, chapter 7,1 discuss the implications of my findings, both to the prospects GMOs have of acting in the world, and for our conceptual understanding of science in a globalized context.

17 Chapter 2 Bringing GMOs Into Being: An Archaeology of Plant Breeding Practices

Introduction

Historical ontology attends to the coming into being of categories or phenomena (Hacking, 2002). I use this concept to examine the ideas and practices that preceded genetically modified organisms (GMOs). I map the way in which plant breeding practices across time and space relate, conceptually and practically, to current views of GMOs. Hacking's adoption of Foucault's historical archaeological method involves examining two different types of activity with respect to GMOs: i) those plant breeding practices that led to the development of GMOs and ii) how contemporary practices intertwine with past practices to create (in the present) historical claims about GMOs. I suggest that there are two predominant sets of historical claims that are made for GMOs. Those who support genetic engineering construct a set of historical claims that connects GMOs with past practices. For example, some proponents of the technology suggest that we have been genetically modifying plants for thousands of years and that the practice itself is not very different from what is found both in nature and human history. Hood provides an example of this8: The transfer of foreign DNA into plant cells has been going on for centuries. The most obvious example of natural DNA transfer into plants is by Agrobacterium tumefaciens, the perpetrator of crown galls9. However, until recently, this DNA transfer went unnoticed and the presence of large growths on trees and herbaceous plants was accepted as a part of the landscape. (2003: 357)

While this account stresses the natural aspects of DNA transfer, other accounts play on the widest meaning of the words 'genetic modification' to indicate genetic change, no matter how it is technically achieved. For instance, more than one scientist that I interviewed commented that "We have been genetically modifying plants for

This is a position that I also heard expressed in interviews with scientists using genetic engineering and at public talks by scientists, as well as observing it in articles and editorials.

9 Crown gall is a type of plant disease that creates galls (or bumps) on stems and roots. The disease is common on fruit trees and ornamental plants, such as roses and is caused by the bacteria Agrobacterium tumefaciens (Washington State University Extension, 2002). Research on this bacteria led to the discovery of its ability to be used for inserting desired portions of DNA into plants (Lurquin, 2001).

18 thousands of years". According to this view, the techniques used in genetic modification are therefore merely one option out of a continuum of techniques that have been used to change plant characteristics. It is therefore one form out of many of modifying the underlying genetic makeup of a plant. In order to understand the proponents' perspective, we have to review the historical practices of plant breeding. In particular, the changes in practices that came with the development of professional and scientific plant breeding. Such practices have certain similarities to genetic engineering, which therefore serve to normalize the category of GMOs. At the same time as these claims make GMOs part of a historical continuity of human (and non-human) interactions with plants, GMOs are also considered to be abnormal or a break from past practices by those opposed to genetic engineering. For example, discussion of 'Franken food' space (Hightower, 2004; Word Spy, 2001) or images of GMOs as monsters (for example, Greenpeace, 2003) all stress the risk of the novelty of GMOs. Such claims are underpinned by a range of past and contemporary plant breeding practices. However, they are different plant breeding practices than those used to frame GMOs as part of a continuum. In this chapter, I shall review archaeological, ethnographic, and historical materials that discuss plant breeding practices and thereby examine how GMOs came into being. I explain how GMOs can be characterized as an extension of what humans have been doing for thousands of years and at the same time as a break in our relationship with both plants and nature. The increase of control and manipulation in plant breeding methodologies is one key trend within the historical trajectory leading to GMOs. In addition, we see a shift in focus from the macro to the micro level of a plant. While some plant breeding practices reflect the role of the plant as part of a wider system, others focus on the individual plant, and still others focus on plant characteristics, including those at the cellular and molecular level. I will begin by discussing Hacking's (2002) notion of historical ontology and how this concept guides my investigation of the historical creation of GMOs. Next I will describe three patterns of historical and contemporary plant breeding practices: 1) in situ farmer plant breeding; 2) European pre-cursors to scientific plant breeding; and 3)

19 (European-based) scientific plant breeding. All of these plant breeding trends were necessary in order to make GMOs possible, to bring them into existence.

Historical Ontology and GMOs

Many anthropologists have pointed to the importance of including an historical perspective to ethnographic study, in order to understand research fieldsites as dynamic locations as well as to highlight how multiple dimensions of social life and social actors interact in order to co-create history as a process (for example, Mintz, 1985; Mintz, 1996; Sider & Smith, 1997a; Wolf, 1982). Indeed, history has had a role in the discipline since its initial interest in culture change from the time of Lewis Henry Morgan's (1985 [1877]) interest in evolution and that of Franz Boas (1896) in historical particularism. An historical perspective is equally important for understanding GMOs, as they are often discussed in a manner that divorces the technology for their creation from other plant breeding practices. Within such discourse, GMOs are seen as a category apart from other plants. How did this category come into being? Hacking (Hacking, 2002), uses the concept of historical ontology10 to discuss how the possibilities of existence for categories, ideas, and phenomena arise. The catchphrase "historical ontology" helps us think of these diverse inquiries as forming part of a family. The comings, in comings into being, are historical. The beings that become - things, classifications, ideas, kinds of people, people, institutions - can they not be lumped under the generic heading of ontology? (Hacking, 2002: 4-5)

These comings into being, Hacking argues, do not occur as abstractions but instead occur along pathways that can be historically traced. Categories such as GMOs, despite being abstract in and of themselves, are constituted in specific and concrete ways, with their historical context providing some possibilities for their development, while obstructing others. It is not to be practiced in terms of grand abstractions, but in terms of the explicit formations in which we can constitute ourselves, formations whose trajectories can be plotted as clearly as those of trauma or child development, or, at one remove, that can be traced more obscurely by larger organizing concepts such as objectivity or even facts themselves. (Hacking, 2002: 23)

10 A concept first used, although rarely, by Foucault (Hacking, 2002)

20 Hacking (2002) borrows the idea of historical ontology from Foucault and the concept therefore incorporates Foucault's attention to the relationship between knowledge and power and his archaeological method and discourse analysis. Hacking acknowledges that "there is a cogent implication of Foucault's [focus on] knowledge, power, and ethics" (Hacking, 2002: 5). Hacking's elaboration of historical ontology follows Foucault's legacy of examining the relationship between knowledge and power (Knauft, 1996). In the case of GMOs, the evidence that this relationship is present is in the different degrees of status held by different types of plant breeding, which is connected to the status and power of those involved. The lack of status that in situ farmer breeding receives compared to scientific plant breeding is in keeping with the often elevated status of knowledge systems belonging to western science (Nader, 1996). In the case of plant breeding, this difference in status has roots in the scientific practices carried out by social and economic elites, which started during the Renaissance and continued through the colonial period. Foucault's archaeological method of genealogy, or as George Canguilhem phrased it, 'digging up the historical a priori' (Hacking, 2002), of a classification or an idea, is embedded within Hacking's elaboration of historical ontology. The concept of genealogy that Foucault used comes from Nietzsche, who suggested that in order to understand society's morality, we need in-depth genealogical studies of ideas like cruelty, punishment, and love (Dean, 1994; Flyvbjerg, 2001). A genealogy investigates objects, such as the concepts of punishment or love, that are institutions or practices thought to be excluded from change (Flyvbjerg, 2001). Similarly to these objects, the historical context of GMOs disappears or is engaged selectively when they are discussed. Foucault investigated these categories intensively using archival material, in order to create what Dean (1994) calls 'effective histories'. "An effective history both refuses to use history to assure us of our own identity and the necessity of the present, and also problematises the imposition of a suprahistorical or global theory" (Dean, 1994: 18). Foucault used this method to investigate the way in which the power of knowledge or classification can divide types of people and institutionalize "subordination and stigma through the projection and classification of difference" (Knauft, 1996: 142) for issues such as medicine, discipline, and sexuality (Foucault, 1973; Foucault, 1979; Foucault,

21 1978). An investigation of how such concepts appeared within discourse always needed to be disciplined by analysis of specific practices (Flyvbjerg, 2001). Practices are here understood as a way of acting and thinking at once. The meaning of discourses can be understood only as part of society's ongoing historical practices (Flyvbjerg, 2001). Historical ontology follows from Foucauldian discursive analysis, in that ontology presupposes that ways of speaking, writing and thinking make possible certain institutional arrangements or practices, which in turn make certain ways of speaking, writing, and thinking possible. Action and expression are always intertwined and affecting each other in a feedback loop. Nevertheless, the general focus in contemporary discursive analysis is upon the formation of the object of knowledge, how an object is framed, rules about who can produce knowledge about this object, what the rules are for establishing the legitimacy of a discourse, and the themes or strategies employed within that discourse (Lopez & Robertson, 2007). In this chapter, I am less concerned with the rules governing the discourse surrounding GMOs than I am with examining the historical and contemporary practices which create space for certain kinds of historical arguments to arise within GMO discourse. Hacking's approach suggests the need to pay attention to the interactive practices between plants and humans in history in order to understand how GMOs come into being as a category. My focus is therefore on the historical and contemporary practices from which GMOs are created, normalized and opposed. I am interested in the conceptual space created by historical practices that allows genetic engineering to be perceived as a continuity of practice to some scientists. At the same time, other plant-human interactions surrounding plant breeding provide conceptual space for this continuity to be questioned. I am therefore investigating the practices which allow a discourse of 'naturalization' as well as a discourse of 'unnaturalness' to occur, rather than investigating the discourse itself. Both of these claims about GMOs draw upon historical and contemporary practices in particular ways, while erasing or devaluing other historical or contemporary practices. In this sense, this chapter follows the Foucauldian tradition of writing a 'history of the present' (Dean, 1994: 20).

22 Plant Breeding Practices: From the Field to the Laboratory Claims made about the historical (dis)continuity of GMO draw on (or ignore) three historical and contemporary plant breeding patterns associated with three different approaches to plant breeding: GMOs can be historically linked to all three and the rest of this chapter will describe these three types of plant breeding practices in detail. The first, in situ farmer plant breeding, refers to those practices that are performed on farms and will be discussed from its presence in the archaeological record and then within contemporary ethnographic data. There are gaps about what we know about in situ farmer plant breeding, both in the past and in the present. However, we do know that this kind of plant breeding has been important in giving us almost all of the crops we use today. These practices focus more on a system of ecological or population-level selection, use less-intrusive techniques, and select and replant useful plants, rather than using a strategic system to change the plants' characteristics. There is overlap between in situ farmer breeding and the second pattern of practices, which developed within the European scientific tradition, although these are generally documented among the European upper-class and therefore are more likely to be practices initiated by landowners, rather than farmers. In situ farmer breeding practices are less professionally specialized than scientific plant breeding and are therefore disregarded or considered to be scientifically inferior. Second, in order to explain how a divergence between farmer breeding and scientific breeding emerged, I will then discuss how the historical precursors to scientific plant breeding, beginning during the Renaissance and including European colonial practices of botanical collection and classification, began to move in a different direction from in situ plant breeding practices. Such practices are associated with increased prestige and power compared to in situ plant breeding practices, as they were largely carried out by elite groups with more power than farmer breeders. Collection, categorization and relocation of plant varieties continued within Europe, but spread out over a wider geographical area throughout the colonial period to provide new germplasm for plant breeding. Finally, I will conclude by discussing the establishment of scientific plant breeding and the introduction of biotechnology into plant breeding. Scientific plant

23 breeding began while European precursor plant breeding activities were still predominant. While practices of collection and classification were important to the development of modern scientific plant breeding, scientific practices in the area required yet another change in direction to make GMOs possible. The trend towards understanding the inner workings of plants and then using that knowledge to manipulate characteristics of those plants began during the 1600s, but came strongly into force in the 1900s and is responsible for the establishment of scientific plant breeding. Scientific plant breeding practices developed high yielding varieties and helped to create other agricultural changes within the context of colonial expansion in Europe and the United States. Later, in the twentieth century, the Green Revolution introduced high yielding varieties into a new range of countries that were signalled out as needing agricultural development. Biotechnology, as an area of plant breeding, can be seen to have developed out of this tradition of laboratory and experimental botany and led directly to the development of genetic engineering and genetically modified organisms. It is this phase of plant breeding development that is ignored or rejected by GMO detractors when they stress the novel (and therefore dangerous) aspects of GMOs. Post colonial scholarship highlights the ways in which global power differentials under colonialism value and promote some forms of knowledge over others (Harding, 1998). Attention to power differentials points out that the second and third plant breeding categories discussed here are euro-centric and ignore potential specialization of plant knowledge and/or plant breeding in other areas of the world. I will be focusing on European or western specializations, and therefore omitting possible non-European specialized traditions for two reasons. First, specialized non-western plant breeding traditions are not well documented and are particularly absent from histories of plant breeding. Their very lack of documentation may indicate historical trends associated with colonialism to devalue or simply ignore non-western history, rather than an absence of a history of specialized plant breeding or classification knowledge, a topic which is discussed more generally by Wolf (1982), who points out the commonly assumed 'lack' of history for many non-European peoples. Colonialism may very well have co-opted any extant specialized plant knowledge to feed into expanding areas of European science, in the same way that they co-opted non-European plant varieties (as I will discuss later).

24 Secondly, my concern here is to discuss the historical trajectory from which GMOs arose. I argue that 'scientific plant breeding', to which GMOs are connected, came about along a European-based trajectory and which has since dominated other practices, in terms of both written documentation and prestige.

In Situ Farmer Plant Breeding

Plant Breeding Beginnings and the Archaeological Record Examining the archaeological record provides us with some information about how long humans have been modifying plants, as well as how humans have engaged in plant breeding in the past. This is important for establishing that in situ farmer breeding has been an essential component throughout the last 10,000 years of human history and gives us some indication about how plant breeding was done in the past. I will review the debates surrounding the origins of agriculture and regional variation in this farmer driven breeding to suggest both its importance and longevity. In addition, I review what we know and what we do not know about the nature of plant breeding during domestication for most of the world's major crops. Agriculture is widely held to have begun in the Levant, the Fertile Crescent of southwest Asia, which runs from Jordan Valley, through inland Syria, and into south eastern Turkey, then east through northern Iraq and into western Iran (Bellwood, 2005; Cauvin, 2000; Smith, 1995). The beginning of the Holocene, and its amelioration of climatic conditions between 9500 BC and 7500 BC are thought to have made crop domestication possible. There is archaeological evidence for agriculture within the Levant from approximately 11,000 years before present (BP) (Bellwood, 2005). Later origin centres for agriculture, each featuring different newly domesticated crops, include East Asia in the Yangtze and Yellow River basin at 9,000 years BP and Sub-Saharan Africa 5,000-4,000 years BP. In the Americas, origin centres have been identified in central Mexico and northern South America dating from 5,000-4,000 years BP and from the Eastern USA from 4,000-3,000 years BP (Bellwood, 2005).

25 The climatic conditions of the Holocene11 were warmer, wetter, and featured more predictable annual rainfall than the previous colder and dryer post glacial periods (Bellwood, 2005) and were therefore important for creating the pre-conditions for agriculture, but this was obviously not directly causal. There are various theories as to why the switch to agriculture from hunter-gathering occurred and even if it was a distinct switch. For instance, Rindos (1984) suggests that plants and humans co-evolved over a long period of time and the shift was a gradual, unconscious, evolutionary one. He suggests that the long history of humans operating as predators on plants gradually changed their seed dispersal mechanisms and began various selection mechanisms. If Rindos is correct, then phenotypic change in plants resulting from selection has, to some degree, been determined by humans for a long time. Rindos suggests that population pressure may have intensified these practices into those of conscious cultivation. This point about gradual evolution and constant phenotypic pressure is important, in that it suggests that looking for a fixed moment of agricultural origin may be irrelevant. There is some evidence for this position, in the sense that contemporary hunter-gatherers often have extensive knowledge of the plants in their areas and may engage in the resource management12 of these plants (Bellwood, 2005). The development of agriculture from resource management required a regular annual cycle of cultivation, where crops are planted, protected, harvested and then sown again, usually in a prepared area of ground. It involved the deliberate planting of crops, either as seeds or vegetative parts. There is still considerable debate about why the switch from resource management to agriculture occurred. Some argue that resource affluence was a necessary precedent, so that the ethic of interfamily sharing would be sufficiently broken down that individuals or groups were able to amass private wealth, including harvested plant material. Agriculture could then be driven partially by social competition between individuals (Bellwood, 2005). Others suggest the importance of demographic stress. The population grew to such a degree that the original farmers turned to agriculture because

11 The Holocene refers to the interglacial geological period from approximately 11,500 years ago to the present time period (Bellwood, 2005)..

26 they had to, as the population had exceeded the natural carrying capacity of the environment for hunting and gathering (Cohen, 1977). Settlement sedentarism is also seen by some as a pre-condition, although Bellwood (2005) notes that while it might have been important, there are various examples of sedentary affluent groups, especially in parts of Australia, California and British Colombia, that did not choose to become agriculturists. Agriculture may also have reduced the risk of periodic food shortages during the early Holocene (Bellwood, 2005; Smith, 1995). Cauvin (2000) suggests the importance of a new symbolic system, or religion, in the rise of agriculture, although a causal mechanism is not given. Whatever motivated the shift to an agricultural cycle of food provision in the various regions in which it occurred, Brown (2003) argues that agriculture changed the human ecological relationship from a negative feedback cycle on population growth to a positive one, as population growth allowed the first farmers to grow more food and expand into new areas more easily than they could as hunter- gatherers. Regardless of why the first farmers turned to a regular cycle of cultivation, seeds (identifiable as domesticated) appear in the archaeological record at the various centres of origin for agriculture between 11,000 years BP and 3,000 years BP. The specific characteristics that identify a seed or plant as domesticated may be different for each crop, but in general, the seeds have the following traits: increased seed size and abundance, non-shattering characteristics (or seed with a stronger attachment to the stock), thinner seed coats (making germination easier and increasing access to the nutritious parts of the plant for human consumption), increased uniformity, increased flavour, and decreased chemical defences within the plant (Smith, 1995; Bellwood, 2005; Zohary & Hopf, 2000). What do we know about how such changes came about in the phenotypes of these plants? In short, what do we know about the process of plant breeding from the archaeological record? Archaeological descriptions of the origins of agriculture are largely concerned with where and how agriculture started and particularly with how it spread to other groups. Such accounts are interested in regional patterns and the

12 Resource management could involve techniques which propagate, tend, or protect a species. It could also include techniques to reduce competition, prolong or increase harvest, extend the range or modify the nature, distribution, or density of a species (Bellwood, 2005).

27 practices of human groups in those regions. For instance, are agricultural settlement patterns, as seen in the archaeological record, correlated with linguistic groups? Did the practice of agriculture spread? Or did those practicing it spread? The role of plant breeding itself is often not the main purpose of such investigations, but there are some clues about how farmers perpetuated their crops and how they might have chosen certain characteristics over others. The earliest site of plant domestication, the Fertile Crescent, is also the best documented and was the place of origin of cereal grains (wheat, barley and rye) and legumes (pea, lentil, and chickpea). Wild cereals and legumes have certain characteristics that aid in their survival, but which make them harder for people to use as a food source. Grains are smaller, and the ears generally 'shatter' when the grains are ripe, so as to distribute the seeds. Wild legumes go through a similar process, where the two sides of the pod split open to distribute seeds, which is known as dehiscence. How does one gather such seeds for food? In the case of grain, there are three options for trying to gather seed: 1) humans can 'beat' the grains into a basket, taking advantage of the shattering capacity and even selecting for it; 2) they can harvest them by sickle when the seeds are slightly green, roast and then eat them; or 3) they can harvest them by sickle when ripe or nearly ripe, which will result in fewer grains being harvested, but those that are harvested and replanted will be those from plants that do not have a strong tendency to shatter. There is some archaeological evidence for all of these practices (based on what is known about them ethno-historically) and it is even possible that seeds were harvested differently for planting purposes than they were for food purposes (Bellwood, 2005). Use-wear and gloss analysis on sickle-blade edges show an increasing harvest of ripe grain during the course of the pre-pottery Neolithic, which would indicate successful harvesting of large quantities of ripe grain and would mean grain had already developed a non-shattering habit through domestication (Bellwood, 2005). Experiments have indicated that this domestication could have been achieved in about 20-30 years, if the crop was sickle harvested fairly ripe and then replanted every year on virgin land, using seed taken from last year's new plots (Hillman & Davies, 1990). The process of domestication was probably less directed than this, as the

28 archaeological record suggests that the wild and domesticated forms occurred together for over a millennium before domesticated cereals became fully dominant (Bellwood, 2005). However, the practice, either intentional or unintentional, of harvesting nearly ripe grains with a stone sickle and perhaps planting such seeds away from original stands of wild grain, could create a strong selective pressure on these grains, resulting in the domesticated changes. Smith (1995) notes that once humans participate in the plant's reproductive cycle by harvesting and protecting seed until it is planted the following season, a thinner seed coat, to promote quick germination, and a larger seed, thereby providing nutrients for the plant to grow quickly, are both advantageous. Plants with these characteristics are most likely to succeed in the disturbed ground where they are planted and are the most likely to be harvested and replanted. Therefore, we can expect a similar pattern to have taken effect with legumes and many other domesticated crops, as well as cereals. He suggests that these changes were largely unintentional, in terms of human intervention, but rather came about as selective responses to the new rules created by human intervention in the reproductive life cycle of the plant. The likelihood of such a scenario is increased by the biology of the majority of the crops in question. Many early domesticated plants, including wheat, barley, and many legumes tend to be self-, rather than cross- pollinated. In a self pollinated plant, 90-100% of the pollen used to fertilize a plant in this variety comes from that plant (Chahal & Gosal, 2002a). While not a rigid definition, this means that changes in the genetic structure of a plant, such as a tendency not to shatter, are more easily selected for and fixed in a population, because the plant selected with the desired characteristic is more likely to reproduce itself in the next generation. This is less likely and less efficient with plants that cross pollinate and therefore have higher degrees of genetic mixing in their populations. The processes of domestication in the East Asian centre of origin, between the middle and lower basins of the Yellow and Yangtze Rivers and the several small river basins that lie between them, are less well documented, due to an absence of archaeological evidence. However, its appearance in 7000 BC is thought to be independent from that of domestication in Southwest Asia. Despite this independent

29 occurrence, there is no evidence to suggest that the sequence of events leading to the domestication of rice (Oryza satvia) and foxtail millet (Setaria italicd) was different from that in the Levant with cereals and legumes (Bellwood, 2005). Again, a likely scenario is thought to be that the practice of replanting must have developed in order to maintain or increase cereal supplies. If this replanting occurred away from wild stocks, and wild rice was at the edge of its natural range in that area, then the proportion of non-shattering grain could have increased if it was harvested through sickle, knife, or uprooting. The plants would have again been under strong selective pressure for the rapid domination of non-shattering seed stock, reduction of seed toughness due to winter storage, and a trend towards synchronous ripening. However, there is no archaeological evidence of pre- agricultural harvesting knives or sickles and these tools are rare in oldest rice zone Neolithic villages. This makes the process of change hard to visualize. Uprooting the plants would provide an equal selection pressure, but would leave little material evidence, although there is one site with a lm thick layer of rice stalks and leaves at Hemudu (one of the oldest rice-zone Neolithic villages) (Bellwood, 2005; Lu, 1998). The agriculture centres of origin in sub-Saharan Africa and the Americas may have had a different relationship with domestication, but what the precise nature of this was is difficult to say, since there is even less archaeological evidence available for these areas than for sites in China. Despite having archaeological evidence for the first humans, archaeological evidence for African agriculture, for instance, is not very old, and only goes back to 2000 BC for most domesticated varieties. However, the majority of the African originated cereals, including sorghum (Sorghum bicolor), pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum), finger millet (Eleusine coracana), and tef (Eragrostis tej) have a high tendency to cross, rather than self pollination. Therefore, "any selection, unconscious or not, by humans for domesticated phenotypes would only work well if the stocks were planted beyond the ranges of wild stands" (Bellwood, 2005: 104), where they could not revert back to a wild type through pollination from wild species. There is some evidence for domestication in Sudan dating back to 5,000 BC, however none of these sites have stone sickles (Haaland, 1999), so the method of domestication is unclear and could have taken place through a different mechanism than it appears to have done in the Levant and China.

30 The Americas also appear to have a different experience with domestication, since it was decentralized. Domestication originally occurred with non-staple foods (such as chilli peppers, etc) rather than staple crops (such as wheat, etc). This was thought to be different from the Levant, however, recent evidence that figs were domesticated in the Levant approximately 1,000 years before staple cereal crops (Kislev et al., 2006) questions that assumption. The location for the domestication of various crops is very decentralized, rather than occurring in specific centres that then developed a full agricultural complex. This decentralized process makes archaeological evidence even more difficult to collect for a full picture. Meso-America and Peru have long been a focus of archaeological research, because of the large agricultural societies that later arose there, but there also appears to be preliminary evidence in the tropical lowlands and mid- altitude regions of Middle America and also in north-western South America, in areas of seasonal forest and broad rivers for original domestication of crops (Bellwood, 2005). The earliest domesticates in this area were mainly condiments, fruits, or industrial plants, such as chilli pepper, gourd, avocado, and cotton, rather than productive staples and many plants could have been domesticated independently in more than one region (Bellwood, 2005; Smith, 1995). Maize was the only highly productive cereal developed and there have been suggestions that its original relative, teosinte, may have been originally domesticated for the sugar content in its stem in order to brew alcoholic beverages and only later domesticated as a grain plant, since the original wild plant has very little seed and would provide little food (Smalley & Blake, 2003). Even squashes were likely originally domesticated for their use as containers, rather than as food. Bellwood (2005) argues that these would have been useful plants that hunter-gatherers would have favoured and promoted the growth of, but the absence of early domesticated staple foods indicates that this is a form of what he calls resource management, rather than systematic agriculture. Regardless, it argues for different mechanisms of domestication and plant breeding than those seen in the Levant. Later on in the archaeological record staple crops were domesticated in the Americas, such as maize, squash, beans, tubers (potatoes and sweet potatoes), chenopod grains (quinoa and goosefoot), as well as cassava. Again, the process of domestication itself is decentralized and we know little about how human-plant interaction led to the

31 domesticated versions of these crops (Bellwood, 2005). Maize, similarly to the African grains, is wild or cross pollinated and would also need to be away from wild stands in order to 'fix' into or stay in a higher yielding form. Cross pollination complicates the process of domestication, which is unlikely to have been identical to that seen in the Levant. The comparatively recent discovery of an agricultural complex in the woodlands of central-eastern USA, relying on a number of grain and oil crops that are no longer cultivated, including goosefoot, knotweed, may grass, and marsh elder, points to all that we might not yet know of the archaeological record on plant domestication. What we get from the archaeological record then, is overwhelming evidence that we have, in fact, been modifying the characteristics, and therefore the genetics of plants, for a very long time. If the essence of plant breeding is this change in plant characteristics, humans have been participating in this activity for thousands of years. We also know that the bulk of the domestication of all the world's major crops was done by farmers through processes of in situ plant breeding, which may have been linked to processes of resource management engaged in by hunter-gatherers. What we do not know from the archaeological record is much about the intentionality of this plant breeding or how the farmers participating in the plant breeding activities represented in the archaeological record made their decisions about replanting varieties.

Contemporary Ethnographic Accounts of Farmer In Situ Plant Breeding The archaeological record establishes the long history of farmer in situ breeding and its importance in agriculture, but it is unable to say much about how that breeding was done or the local knowledge systems on which it relied. Written history has been largely dominated by elites, particularly European elites (Wolf, 1982). While some information about plant breeding and the practices of botanical investigation is available from these sources, and I will review such information later, it does not tell us a great deal about the in situ plant breeding practices of farmers, either European peasants or those working the land in many other regions. We do, however, have information about contemporary in situ practices by farmers. I therefore turn to the ethnographic record for additional information about how breeding is done in such circumstances. Such farmer- plant interactions tend to remain relatively unspecialized (particularly compared to western scientific practices) and are well integrated into the farming system as a whole,

32 and have subsequently been devalued as 'not really plant breeding'. Some discussion of the interaction between in situ plant breeding as a local system of knowledge and the relatively higher status of scientific breeding is therefore necessary in order to understand how farmers are seen to approach in situ plant breeding in the ethnographic literature. In situ farmer plant breeding can be discussed as 'local' or 'indigenous' knowledge, which has been of anthropological interest since the works of Julian Steward (Murphy & Steward, 1956; Preston, 1970). Nader (1996) argues, on the basis of such work, that non-Western societies often have knowledge that is practical and systematic, yet such knowledge traditions are often ignored, devalued and distanced from scientific knowledge by categorizing them as 'magic' or 'superstition'. The western scientific knowledge system, Nader argues, is privileged over other knowledge systems, through labelling competing knowledge systems as 'superstition' or 'magic', but in fact, such knowledge systems may have systematic and practical elements that might make them the equal of (although different from) western scientific knowledge. Likewise, Harding (1998) draws attention to postcolonial accounts, which point out that modern science and technology, promoted by the wealth that came from European colonial expansion, developed in a way which devalued the prestige of 'local knowledge traditions' elsewhere. Modern science has been conceptualized as contrasting with earlier European and non-European cultures' magic, witchcraft, pre-logical thought, superstitions or pseudo sciences; with "folk explanations" or ethno sciences that are embedded in religious, anthropomorphic, and other only local belief systems; with merely technological achievements or merely speculative claims about the natural world. (Harding, 1998: 9)

Not surprisingly, then, a similar process could be said to apply to local, indigenous, farmer-based interaction with crop plants and crop plant development. Even after the colonial period, the devaluation and loss of local knowledge in agriculture has continued through the process of development and the continued spread of western science as a superior knowledge form (Shepard, 2005). Cleveland and Murray (1997) suggest that most of the knowledge about farmer breeding with folk varieties is anecdotal and observe that there is a tendency to romanticize indigenous knowledge as indigenous 'science' as defined in Western terms. Furthermore, Cleveland and Soleri (2007) note that different values underlie local farmer

33 scientific knowledge versus 'global' scientific knowledge, leading to different foci for and effects of that knowledge. Nader (1996) suggests that such knowledge does not have to be identical to western science to be a practical and systematic knowledge set, that deserves to be treated with a respect equal to that given to western knowledge sets. Shepard (2005) suggests that caution is needed in discussing local knowledge in relation to scientific knowledge, because of the temptation to see scientific knowledge as the objective measure for assessing other kinds of knowledge. He claims this practice is questionable, given that Western epistemology is the only system to have established a notion of 'objective knowledge' and therefore comparisons may have a tendency to devalue other knowledge systems. He further suggests that in the rural agricultural context, local knowledge is not an isolated cognitive capacity to accomplish a particular task, but is related to broader social relations and relations with nature. "Agriculture, for them, was lived experience rather than packaged knowledge" (Shepard, 2005: 41). A locally selected and maintained crop population is known as a 'landrace' (Brush, 1999). These are sometimes called 'folk varieties' in the anthropological literature, and are also known as 'traditional' or 'primitive' varieties (Cleveland, 1993). They form a key component of the diversity in indigenous agriculture and are contrasted with the 'modern varieties' or 'high yielding varieties' (HYV), which are prominent in commercial agriculture (Cleveland, 1993). The term 'landrace' is particularly interesting, since it serves to distance the plant variety from the idea of human involvement in its maintenance and creation. The term only dates from 1890, when scientific plant breeding was becoming more firmly established (Zeven, 1998). In the definition first given in 1908 von Rurnker states that landraces are given that name because they are grown in the region from which they obtained their name since time immemorial (Zeven, 1998). As Zeven points out, "since landraces migrate that 'time immemorial' is much shorter than many have considered it in the past and at present" (1998: 129). Despite the possible inappropriateness of the name, the term 'land race' is still used to differentiate it from scientifically created cultivars (Zeven, 1998). This distinction is an important one, as it differentiates plants as scientific products from those that are not such products by means of 1) their uniformity over time and 2) their selection for specific characteristics:

34 The term landrace is not mentioned in the ICNCP [International Code for Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants]. The item landrace cannot be included in the term cultivar as the cultivar is described as 'a taxon that had been selected for a particular attribute or a combination of attributes, and that is clearly distinct, uniform, and stable in its characteristics and that, when propagated by appropriate means, retains those characteristics.' As already stated no, or only limited, human selection is carried out to maintain a landrace, it may clearly be distinct from other landraces, but repeated cultivation especially under other circumstances, often results in a different appearance of the landrace. Hence, a landrace is not uniform and stable, and thus is different from a cultivar. (Zeven, 1998: 29)

'Limited or no selection', including some mass (or population level) breeding is considered to be equivalent to the lack of selection for specific characteristics. In some definitions, landraces are so described because natural selection is considered to be operating, rather than human selection, or alternately the human selection that does occur (by planting some varieties rather than others) is considered to be largely 'unconscious' (Zeven, 1998). Intentionality, therefore, is a key criterion that divides a plant that is a bred cultivar from a plant that is not. While Zeven (1998) recognizes that farmers sometimes provide quite strong selection pressure, this varies from farmer to farmer and very little of his or her experimentation has been recorded (Zeven, 1998) and therefore is not considered to reliably exist. Landraces, using such definitions, include many crop varieties still grown by farmers, market and private gardeners (Zeven, 1998). They are distinct from wild relatives, because they have evolved under cultivation and most rely upon human intervention in planting, etc. in order to survive (Zeven, 1998). However, landraces are expected to disappear sooner or later, on the assumption that farmers will choose to plant higher yield plants, since landraces were "developed for their yield stability" (Zeven, 1998: 128), while "cultivars are bred for high yield capacity under improved cultivation methods" (Zeven, 1998: 128). Farmer interaction with 'landraces' is often discussed in the ethnographic literature in the context of in situ genetic conservation of crop plants. Such a discussion directs attention away from how farmers are interacting with or selecting these varieties. The words 'preservation' or 'conservation' imply a much lower level of intention and direction than the word 'selection' and the maintenance of folk varieties may involve action which is somewhere in between these two end points on a spectrum. Such

35 varieties are often claimed to be continued through tradition, rather than through the intentional design that is supposed to mark scientific plant breeding. Significantly, the role of human agency in the continuance of such varieties is therefore downplayed. While it will be somewhat controversial, I will refer to these human activities as 'plant breeding', using the term to more inclusively recognize the practical knowledge traditions which are often marginalized, sometimes for their differences from western scientific thinking, and also to stay in keeping with the idea that we have been 'modifying' plants for a very long time. I will use the term 'scientific plant breeding' to refer to the practices which began to develop in the 16th to the 18th centuries in Europe. While there are strong differences between these two types of practices, it is inconsistent to insist that farmers are not actively breeding their crops while at the same time suggest that humans have been genetically modifying plants, in a similar way to plant breeders, for thousands of years. Methods of farmer plant breeding are not well documented, as the focus of studies with peasant or indigenous farmers has been on other aspects of their agricultural activities. Crop evolution can result from both 'natural' and 'conscious (farmer) selection' in farm settings (Brush, 1999). Plant modification is 'natural' in the sense that natural forces, such as pests, drought, etc. are driving the selection of the next generation of plants in many cases. However, farmers may also select for particular characteristics that they are interested in or find useful. Brush (1999) notes, in the context of farmer maintained crop diversity, that farmers require incentive to maintain a native crop population. A eurocentric, scientific approach may claim that farmer selection is not at work if the farmer is merely letting nature do the work for him/her and replanting the seed variety the following year. However, the possibility is open for farmers to merge 'natural' and human, goal oriented approaches in a way that does not fit the categories of scientific plant breeding. Farmer plant breeding is tied to crop variety selection and is very responsive to context and may include contrary or multiple goals. Despite this, selection by farmers has been reported for a range of crops and characteristics (Zeven, 1998). Finally, several authors suggest the importance of seed distribution networks in peasant or indigenous agricultural systems. Such seed distribution networks provide an important social addition to farmer plant breeding and crop variety maintenance.

36 Ethnographic data on in situ farmer plant breeding suggests that farmers make decisions about planting varieties within a complex set of desires and conditions. Several authors have reported that farmers see planting a diversity of varieties and crops as a form of food security (Cleveland, 1993; Cartledge, 1999; Ferguson & Mkandawire, 1993; Lacy et al., 2006). Further, farmers may use multiple, and even contradictory, criteria in a way which distributes risk (Nazarea, 1998). While farmer planting and breeding strategies are partly based on criteria such as drought resistance and yield, which are pragmatic, less 'pragmatic' categories such as aesthetics and others are also important (Etkin, 2000). Nazarea (1998) argues that finding a linear gradient between least and most desirable crop varieties is impossible if one is using the farmers' own evaluation criteria, which uses "fuzzy, adaptive local perceptions that foster diversity" (Nazarea, 1998: 72). These perceptions, which include contradictions and 'fuzziness' clash with "the ordering, reductionistic principles of formal science" (Nazarea, 1998: 72). This difference between scientific and lay categorization has been found in other areas, such as diagnostic categories (Graham & Ritchie, 2006; Graham et al., 1996). Despite such possible 'fuzziness', Brush (1992) suggests that "the rich nomenclature and systematic classification of crop diversity is prima facie evidence that the maintenance of diversity is intentional" (Brush, 1992: 147). Ferguson and Mkandawire (1993) provide a good example of the complexity of farmer decision making while discussing bean diversity in Malawi. They comment that women farmers in the Dedza Hills and Kalira had five reasons for planting a diversity of bean varieties. 1) Having bean varieties that mature at different times provides a steady supply of leaves, fresh beans and dried beans over the course of the year. 2) Different varieties planted in the same field make it less likely that all of them would be affected by drought, too much rain, or insect or disease infestations. 3) Varieties differ in how they tasted, store after cooking, and whether or not they are easy to digest, so diversity provides variation in the diet. 4) Different varieties meet different household needs: Some varieties are easy to sell on the market. Some varieties produce better leaves or fresh beans for household consumption. Some varieties cook quickly, which was helpful if there was a shortage of firewood, or mature early, which is important for poorer households who run out of food from the last harvest. 5) Some variation also occurs

37 simply because seed of preferred types are not available, as saving seed from season to season could be hampered by pests, disease, or other factors. While the women generally receive their initial bean stock from female relatives, they augment it from a variety of other sources (friends, relatives, and the market). Seed of a preferred variety in which they are deficient has to be substituted from one of these sources and they may be unable to find desired varieties in the market or among friends and relatives and must settle for other varieties. Whether farmer 'in situ' plant breeding can occur at all depends on context, as well. Ferguson and Mkandawire (1993) note that in a different region of Malawi, the diversity of bean crops was reduced to a minimum. They attributed this to land scarcity, which changed patterns of seed saving in the area. Many consumed or sold all of their beans after harvest and then bought seed at local markets shortly before planting time. As few varieties might be available, this affected the diversity of the bean crop in this area. Cleveland and Murray (1997), in a review of indigenous farmer plant breeding suggest that those who have studied the relationship of contemporary indigenous farmers' relationships to their crops observe that the genetic composition of folk varieties is often deliberately manipulated. Such farmers use a wide range of socio-cultural and environmental criteria to manage the genetic structure of their crops and this could include planning, executing and evaluating experiments with new varieties. Techniques used by farmers to manage existing varieties and create new ones that are described in the available data include collection and domestication of wild plants, hybridization of different folk varieties and of folk varieties and wild species, and planting patterns to regulate cross-pollination (Cleveland & Murray, 1997)13. Farmers also remove unwanted plants in the field, maintain mixtures of self-pollinated crops, and select seeds for replanting using desired plant and seed characteristics as criteria. New varieties are also obtained from spontaneous mutations in farmers' fields and from kin networks, neighbours, extension agents, and markets. Cleveland and Murray (1997) observe that there "are many indications that farmers' repertoires of different crops and crop varieties are consciously manipulated for agronomic, social, and cultural reasons"

Additional examples of farmer interaction with plant breeding are reviewed by Zeven (2000) by crop.

38 (Cleveland & Murray, 1997: 484) although there is a need for further empirical data on the subject. Cleveland (1993) argues that farmer-breeders may be more concerned with maintaining stability through diversity than increasing particular characteristics. For instance, overall yield stability, achieved through maintaining a diversity of varieties, is more important than working intensively with one crop in order to increase its yield. The approach to crop maintenance and breeding appears to be more systematically directed, rather than focused on the individual plant. Richards (1985) also suggests that many farmers prefer variety to manage environmental uncertainty in his review of the practices of Mende rice growers in Sierra Leone. In this case, however, it is quite clear that such a view is compatible with an understanding of experimentation and the ability to classify, recognize, and maintain pure varieties, as well. For instance, the gloss for experiment in Mende is the phrase "ti mbei sainiilo or 'they tried out the rice (e.g. in a seed bed to determine whether it would grow, before full-scale sowing)'" (Richards, 1985: 145), which demonstrates an understanding of field trials in Mende culture and language. A description of practices in 1945 by an officer of the Sierra Leone Department of Agriculture demonstrates an awareness of seed selection practices on the part of farmers: There are at least fourteen and probably as many as twenty varieties well known to farmers who can recognise them at once and unerringly when shown samples. Moreover, every precaution is taken to keep the varieties pure. Seed rice is reaped from the centre of fields while the borderline between fields of different varieties is eschewed. During the drying process the padi is carefully rogued before the seed is put away for the next planting. Almost everybody in the native village appears to be well acquainted with the varieties and the rougeing is generally done by women and even children... All the listed varieties are well liked and widely grown and each farmer may have several fancies. Some are reputedly quick, others heavy yielders; still others most suitable for certain types of 'bush' according to individual experience... Yet the subject has received but little attention judging by the absence of records and collections. (Squire, 1943; as quoted in Richards, 1985: 144)

Brush (1999) points to the importance of culturally/socially created seed distribution networks and these networks could be considered an important supporting factor for farmer plant breeding. Such networks have historically been very important in moving useful traits and whole organisms into new environments. Brush (1999) argues

39 that 'cosmopolitanism', rather than 'endemism' has been the common practice for crops and varieties and such a view encourages us to rethink the concept of 'landraces' as being tied to a particular geographical location, with minimal human interaction. It is possible to see such seed circulation networks as an integral and important feature of a 'farmer- based' or 'indigenous' approach to plant breeding. In some communities seed is viewed not as inert cargo, but is talked about in terms which attribute to it its own paths, history, and therefore agency. Shepard (2005) describes the ability of indigenous farmers in an Andean community to map out 'seed paths', which cumulatively can provide seed distribution 'maps'. Knowledge of seed circulation here is linked with other aspects of cultural knowledge, such as the phenotypic traits of various seeds. Brush claims such networks of seed dispersal are "necessary for the viability of agriculture" (Brush, 1999: 543) if crop genetic diversity is to be preserved, but is endangered by a growing movement towards assigning such landraces and seeds as intellectual property to fixed communities or geographical areas. He suggests that claims about intellectual property arise out of a different cultural system than the one that maintained a public seed distribution network. Both control and bioprospecting are predicated on a cultural construction of possessive individualism, which in turn is buttressed by the successes of late capitalism in framing our imagination of how individuals and societies relate to one another and to the natural world. This ideological construction is so pervasive that the public domain has become all but invisible, and use of biological public goods is erroneously labelled as biopiracy. (Brush, 1999: 550)

There is argument, however, over whether plant breeding and seed sharing is something that is in the public domain, and therefore represents a system outside the capitalist paradigm of property ownership (Brush, 1999), or whether knowledge about plant breeding and access to new varieties in these cultures is unevenly distributed and considered proprietary (Cleveland & Murray, 1997). Such debates are not merely academic. Asserting proprietary control is important if one is making a case for the ownership of such varieties and for rights to the intellectual property of the genetic resources involved. There may be a wide range of how 'public' or 'private' plant breeding and seed distribution are in any particular country and culturally valuing biological public goods

40 may not simply be an 'indigenous' response of 'other', non-western cultures. As an example, Steinberg (2001) details the existence of public seed distribution networks in the USA. The members of these networks foster heritage varieties through seed saving and sharing networks and these seeds represent a 'local' or 'community' alternative to large scale commercial farming in the USA run by multinational companies. What we see, then, is decisions made about cultivating certain varieties by farmers are complex, may include conflicting goals, and tend to be carried out in a way which values diversity and yield stability, rather than yield increase. Despite this, certain characteristics, such as taste, storage, leaf characteristics, pest resistance, etc. can be chosen for replanting, depending on availability, both of seed and of growing land. Some, such as Zeven (2000), argue that technically, on a global scale, little traditional crop maintenance breeding is done by farmers, with the possible exception of maize. This ignores the complex situations within which farmers obtain and use their knowledge of plant selection on farms. Zevan (2000) also argues that many selection activities are not plant breeding, but rather variety choice: the desired variety itself is maintained by natural selection, which is what allows it to survive and to provide stable yields. These varieties have processes of selection operating on them, simply by being grown and harvested in those areas, particularly when plants which have survived pest infestations, drought, or other climatic conditions are replanted, but the role of human agency, of intention, in this process is questioned. However, the extensive categorization of crop plants in many local knowledge systems, the practice of valuing and spreading newly found varieties, and farmers' experimentation with their plant varieties using a variety of techniques (Cleveland & Murray, 1997) all suggest that attempts to distinguish strictly between plant breeding done by specialists and the simple maintenance or growth of landraces by peasant farmers becomes very difficult to maintain and is sometimes merely based on a lack of documentation about the activities of the latter, coupled with the prejudices that come along with specialization. Finally, several communities have distribution networks, not only for seeds, but also for the cultural knowledge attached to those seeds, and these networks promote farmer plant breeding. While these practices bear some resemblance to what we know about the history of European peasant agriculturalists (Ambrosoli, 1997), the development of a more 'scientific' plant breeding

41 in Europe by the elite contains several differences in how plants are interacted with and selected. As this is the tradition from which GMOs are derived, I will turn to that history now.

Precursors of Scientific Plant Breeding: Botanical Investigation in the Renaissance and Colonial Period

From the Renaissance onwards, although we see the continuation of farmer in situ breeding, there was an expansion of activities surrounding the collection and classification of plants over great distances. In addition, farmer varieties collected from particular locations were relocated and adapted to new and various climates through the process of collection. We see in this period, an increasing degree of specialization in the subject of plant breeding, which became an elite activity and the beginnings of extensive publication on the subject. While this period did not see full expression of what we today recognize as modern scientific plant breeding, its practices of collection and categorization form an indispensable stage for later development of scientific plant breeding and the period will therefore be referred to as the precursor of scientific plant breeding European peasants provided the crop diversity in the botanical history of European agriculture. Ambrosoli (2003; 1997) suggests crop variety changed during the agricultural revolution in England (1650-1850) and later in Europe built on this platform of diversity, but were driven by the work of individual botanists, travellers and trade networks that deliberately collected and diffused plants. These plants were used to develop higher quality strains of crops and selection during this period encouraged greater yields in England and Europe during the early modern period. The process of seed selection was dependant upon the creation and maintenance of botanical collections. These collections drew on the genetic variety that peasant farmers maintained. Ambrosoli (2003) argues that a diversified peasant agriculture, across a whole continent, was necessary for the later development of the capitalist sector in agriculture, since the market price of seeds does not include the peasant labour required to produce them in the earlier stages, nor does it include the labour of collecting and categorizing plants that began during the European Renaissance. Botanical collections

42 led to categorization through taxonomy within the science of 'collection and comparison' (Drayton, 2000: xiv), in Europe beginning in the fifteenth century. These practices were important precursors to scientific plant breeding. From 1550 to 1880 the number of plants categorized by European elites increased, allowing for great variety during plant selection (Ambrosoli, 1997; 2003). "Renaissance scientific culture embarked on the enormous task of recognizing and using a huge number of plants (around 5,000 exemplars) from both the old and new worlds" (Ambrosoli, 2003: 359). From the 14th century, European landowners actively interacted with classical texts on plant knowledge, documenting their interest through copious notes in the margins of such manuscripts (Ambrosoli, 1997). These notes show an interest in adapting Mediterranean species to northern climates and therefore show a continuing interrelationship between northern and southern Europe from the 14 century and into the Renaissance period. The late 15th century and early 16th century saw the founding of botanical gardens, usually by interested individuals, such as Giuliano da Foligno who set out the botanical garden in the Giardini Vaticani in 1514 and there were many private botanical gardens established during this period (Ambrosoli, 1997). The importance of studying plants for their medicinal properties also grew during the 16 century and a system of general classification for plants was sought. After Leonardo da Vinci introduced improvements in the representation of nature during the late 15th century, botanicals became more commonly available that had accurate illustrations of plants that were used as references in pharmacies as well as for the growing area of botanical studies (Ambrosoli, 1997). Agronomists and landowners increased the number of plants cultivated during this period by using additional local varieties, as well as new, exotic plants such as maize, tomatoes, potatoes, tobacco, and the American bean. Exotic plants were grown in private botanical gardens and acclimatized before being used in the field (Ambrosoli, 1997). Many botanists also travelled extensively seeking new varieties to collect. The 16th century saw an intensification of the conflict surrounding the identification and classification of botanical species, creating a specialized disagreement to which outsiders had less access. As a consequence, "botanical writings were addressed to men of science, doctors, pharmacists, and young botanists rather than directly to

43 landowners in search of a printed text to help them come to terms with nature" (Ambrosoli, 1997: 113). We therefore see a distancing between the specialized and non- specialized reader in the area of botany for the first time in European history, as this specialized audience was not reflected in classical texts. During the same period, however, landowners were also writing a new agronomic literature, featuring the practical results they had achieved in agriculture (Ambrosoli, 1997). There were publishers in Paris, Lyons, Venice, Basle, and Antwerp providing these accounts for each regional area. Translations of Arab-Andulusian agronomy in Spain were also published to conserve the practical knowledge that was being lost to Europe after the reconquest of Spain in 1492 and the removal of Arab influences. Interest in both botanical and agronomic knowledge continued into the 17th and 18th centuries, as is evidenced by the increasing publication of herbals and agronomy books with expensive illustrations (Ambrosoli, 1997). Linnaeus, with his later publication of his Systema Naturae in 1735, is perhaps one of the most famous classificatory scientists, whose taxonomy of plants was solely based on the characteristics of a plant's reproductive organs (University of California Museum of Paleontology & Waggoner, 2000). The Renaissance also saw the establishment of wide networks of botanists all across Europe. An example of such network creation is the case of Pietro Antonio Michiel, a botanist from Venice and author of a herbal14, who travelled widely in the surrounding area collecting plants and herbs (Ambrosoli, 1997). He corresponded with several of the great naturalists of the time, including Ghini, Anguillara, Guilandin, and Aldrovandi and was in touch with French, German, and Flemish travellers and merchants who passed through Venice with seeds and dried specimens of plants. He also had contacts throughout the economic and political network of the Republic of Venice, which included Dalmatia, the Levant, Crete, Constantinople, Egypt, France, and Germany. Class was important in the selection of crops and specialization in agriculture from the 1450s to the 1800s (Ambrosoli, 2003). In general, the European aristocracy was concerned about the preservation of some animal and plant species rather than others. For instance, there was a keen interest in preserving woods and animals for sport

A herbal is a type of book that lists the classification, properties, and uses of plants, often featuring medicinal herbs.

44 shooting, such as pheasants, within their own parks. In keeping with this general context, the aristocracy promoted the growth of particular crops, such as high-quality wheat, which were important to upper class food consumption. This was in contrast with the general peasant farming and food practices of the period, but large landowners were able to promote the growth of particular crops through various mechanisms. Multi or intercropping was common in European agriculture at that time, so that seeds of rye and wheat, for example, were sown together, along with various other species, so as to leave no room for weeds. Such farming practices lowered the risk of a failed monoculture, especially in difficult years or poor soil, but also lowered the quality of the crop harvested. "In order to maximize price gains, commercially oriented farmers preferred to select one major crop, dropping the least favoured harvests that were, anyway, valuable from the genetic point of view" (Ambrosoli, 2003: 358). We therefore see an increasing specialization in what was planted in agriculture. This is coupled with a promotion of crops which fetched a better price on the market, as they were desired as trade products, and a decrease in the growth of crops which had traditionally been important for the consumption of the peasant farmers themselves. What resulted was an agricultural system designed to meet the needs of the landowners, aristocracy, church and bourgeoisie, who had food priorities that had high soil requirements. European agriculture was "limited by the dictates of an agronomy adapted to the needs of the great estates" (Ambrosoli, 1997: 414). Despite the dictates of wealthy land owners, Thirsk (1997) argues that the second half of the 17th century was also a time when many new crops, particularly horticultural fruits and vegetables, were being experimented with in a movement that was an alternative to the production of mainstream foodstuffs. Ambrosoli (2003) suggests that a balance was found between upper class food requirements and labouring class consumption only because peasants in a different area of the world had developed crops such as maize and potato that could be grown for household consumption and could successfully complement the growing of wheat as a cash crop. In summary, from the Renaissance period to the 1700s we see the development of a botanical science of collection and comparison, which involved individuals with European wide networks. Those interested in botany were actively engaged in collecting

45 plant materials from and exchanging ideas with individuals at a great geographical distance. In conjunction, the period also saw the establishment of botanical gardens (private and royal) which collected various plants and documented their characteristics. Interest in this kind of knowledge is evidenced in increasing numbers of texts written on botany and agronomy during this time period. However, the pursuit of this knowledge was largely confined to the upper class and was tailored to upper class concerns, although it would not have been possible without the plant varieties developed by the European and American farming populations. We also see an increased degree of specialization during this period surrounding botany, which distanced the topic from the common land owner. The collection and study of plants, particularly centered in botanical gardens increased from the 18 to the beginning of the 20* century. These gardens can be described as a "mixture of meditative retreat, scientific collection, menagerie, public playground, palace, and experimental station" (Drayton, 2000: xii-xiii). They played a part in a network of increasing size which allowed seeds and plants to be distributed. Ambrosoli (1997; 2003) describes two models in European history in the 17 to 19th centuries through which seeds and plants were distributed. In England, land owners provided their own seed supply through informal networks without outside organization and therefore solved the problem of seed diffusion themselves from 1550-1750. The French model involved first the monarchy, then the republic (l'Etat, the state), and finally the Napoleonic government to provide the structures for multiplying and distributing plants that were used to develop and support agriculture throughout the country (Ambrosoli, 2003). The Napoleonic government created an official network of nurseries and seed beds in every area of the country and supplied selected plants and seeds to French agriculture through this network. Creation of self-sufficiency in agriculture was particularly important during this period, because of the war with Britain. Plant collection and distribution through botanical gardens were part of the colonial enterprise, as well, and the British empire featured a global network of such gardens (Drayton, 2000; Brockway, 1979). By the 1780s, the Kew gardens in Britain were the centre for the movement of economic plants between the East and West and ornamental plants between the North and South, thereby becoming a "great botanical

46 exchange house for the empire" (Drayton, 2000: xiii). In the 1800s, the Kew gardens helped "entrepreneurs to plant empires of sugar-cane, cocoa, tea, coffee, palm oil, and rubber on which the sun has still not set" (Drayton, 2000: xii). By the 19th century, the establishment of botanic gardens was part of the consolidation of British imperial rule. Drayton (2000) argues that this collection of plants within the British Empire occurred at the same time as the ideology that promoted an increased knowledge of nature as a means towards the bureaucratic management of nature. This is the approach he calls 'Nature's government' and this desire for the controlled use of nature, underpinned by increased knowledge, was both sanctified by the religious and economic assumptions of the West and crucial to Imperial British expansion. Such an ideology encouraged an increasing manipulation of nature and plant life. At the same time, British expansion was crucial to the building of the collection at Kew gardens. Gardeners trained at Kew became attached to Admiralty vessels, to the botanic gardens of the War Office, to the East India Company, or to the missions of the Board of Trade or the Home Office during the reign of George III (Drayton, 2000). These individuals and institutions then sent plants back to His Majesty's collection at Kew. The Kew collection was augmented through the additions sent by explorers, soldiers, administrators, colonists, or missionaries who wished to have the patronage of the King, via Sir Joseph Banks, President of the Royal Society who assisted King George III to reorganize Kew Gardens. Similarly, the United States government participated in similar networks of collection and distribution and invested heavily in agriculture in the 1800s. The United States was an agrarian society at the time and in need of additional crops that could grow in the North American environment (Kloppenburg, 1988). The vagaries of natural history had not provided [the United States] with a foundation of plant genetic resources that would permit expansive growth of population and commerce. There was a clear and crucial social need for the introduction and adaptation of exotic crop species and varieties. (Kloppenburg, 1988: 54)

The creation of brand new crop varieties was too expensive an undertaking for an individual to complete and profit on in a private endeavour. In response, the United States invested in the adaptation of new plants to North America. Similarly to Britain,

47 they used Naval expeditions to help supply them with exotic germplasm (Kloppenburg, 1988). In the 1800s, seed of high quality, (initially exotic, but later common seed, as well) was distributed free of charge to farmers by the US Patent Office in order to ascertain its suitability to US growing conditions (Kloppenburg, 1988). This system of distribution was centralized by the elite, but still relied on individual farmer-breeders to use and develop plant resources. During this historical period, then, the activities of key importance were the collection of exotic and local germplasm15, the classification of those plants, and the adaptation of them to local conditions. The aim was not to modify plants in specific ways. Plant breeding activities took the role of finding new and potentially useful plants and ensuring that they could be profitably grown in new environments. Simmonds (1993) refers to such practices as "serious plant-collecting activities for economic purposes" and they involve modifying plants (adapting them from their original environment to grow in different areas) in order to provide profit. Simmonds labels activities in plant breeding that carry out long term development of new plant material so as to provide new, locally adapted populations as 'incorporation' or 'base broadening' (Simmonds, 1993). The adaptation of new world potatoes to Europe in the sixteenth century is one of his examples of how such a method is carried out and the process has been recently repeated in order to widen the potato's genetic base (Simmonds, 1993). The combination of such practices of adaptation and an increasing specialization of breeders distinguished the newer practices from previous farmer in situ breeding practices. Moving from the practices of collection, classification and adaptation to practices intended to deliberately change specific plant characteristics required additional scientific changes. The advent of increased interest in plant physiology and experimentation along with advances in the understanding of genetics would alter how plant breeding was conceptualized and done.

The Establishment of Scientific Plant Breeding

Busch and colleagues (1991) argue that the actual science of plant breeding did not exist until 200 years ago, a historical view that is reflected in most plant breeding

48 textbooks, such as that by Chahal & Gosal (2002b). Before that, the techniques used did not vary greatly from what farmers had been using. The botanical gardens, however, provided a gateway to a more rigorous experimentalism and specialization. There was a progression of events from the seventeenth century onwards that moved towards the full expression of what we know today as scientific plant breeding. This historical progression was centred in Europe and later in the United States. The practices and knowledge associated with an increasingly specialized plant collection and breeding expanded to other parts of the globe through the networks of colonialism created by the national interests of countries such as England and the United States. This power dynamic makes examining the development of practices and ideas for dealing with plants in countries such as England of importance, as they would later be dispersed to other parts of the globe along with other western systems of knowledge. Nader (1996) and Harding (1998) suggest that western systems of knowledge devalued other systems of knowledge. It is therefore from particular scientific patterns involving experimentation, professionalization, and a focus on the mechanisms of change, that occurred primarily in Europe in the 1800s and 1900s, which led to GMOs coming into being. The 'new botany' arose during this time and focused on experimentation and understanding how plants worked. At the same time as the rise of 'new botany', two other processes were occurring. First, plant breeding was becoming professionalized, due to the increased technical difficulty of new breeding techniques, the establishment of professional organizations, and the establishment of institutions devoted to agricultural research. Second, Darwin's writings on the role of selection and Mendel's discoveries about genetics emphasized the possibilities for breeders to make ever more specific changes in plants. I will discuss all three of these issues in more detail below. Together these changes distanced plant breeding from the practices of farmers, placed additional emphasis on changing particular plant characteristics, and simultaneously increased interest in understanding how plants functioned and passed their characteristics down to their offspring.

Term used to refer to the collection of genetic materials, in this case, of plants and usually in the form of seed or cuttings, etc.

49 The Rise of New Botany: Experimentation and Laboratory Work

Scientific plant breeding emerged within wider trends in the history of science. Nineteenth century natural history, following a trend begun in the Renaissance, gathered a vast amount of taxonomic and biogeographic information (Beeman & Pritchard, 2001). However, in the late nineteenth century, various areas of natural history became more specialized into particular disciplines and scientists placed more emphasis on experimentation within biology (Beeman & Pritchard, 2001). This trend was anticipated by various discoveries and practices from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. For instance, the eighteenth century saw the regular publication of the results of agricultural experiment in Europe (Ambrosoli, 1997). As an example, sex and sexual reproduction was first reported in plants by Camerarius in Germany in 1694, when he documented the male and female reproductive organs in maize (a plant collected from the 'new' world) (Chahal & Gosal, 2002b). This was followed by the creation of the first artificial hybrid plant, a cross between a carnation and the Sweet William, by Thomas Fairchild in 1719 in England, which was referred to as "Fairchild's Mule' (Chahal & Gosal, 2002b). This work was expanded upon by Joseph Gottlieb Koelreuter in Germany, whose systematic experimentation with hybrids in the second half of the eighteenth century established that planned hybridization (crossing one plant with another using human intervention, as opposed to any cross fertilization between plants that might occur naturally, for instance, as the result of pollen flow in a field) would be most successful for plant improvement only when attempted within a species, so that the offspring can also produce viable seed (Chahal & Gosal, 2002b). The experiments with hybridization showed not only a desire to understand the physiology of the plant, as in the case of Camerarius, but also the possibility of human intervention in the reproduction of individual plants. This manipulation of plant reproduction could then be used to achieve breeding goals. Thomas Knight, a horticulturalist in England, went on to use artificial hybridization to produce many varieties of horticultural crops between 1811 and 1833 (Chahal & Gosal, 2002b). He was a member of many American horticultural societies at the time (Rhodus, 2002b), participating in a cross-Atlantic and geographically widespread network of scientists who exchanged information. Hybridization was also

50 combined with selection by Patrik Sheireff in 1819 in wheat and rice, when Sheireff grew the new hybrids along side known varieties in order to compare them agronomically with older varieties (Chahal & Gosal, 2002b). Sheireff suggested that hybrids could provide important sources of new varieties and he began the practice of crossing carefully selected parents with characteristics that would be usefully combined in new varieties. While this process occasionally resulted in varieties that bred true (with offspring that were like the parents), as in the case of Red Fife wheat16, discovered by the Canadian David Fife in the 1840s, a knowledge of the scientific basis of genetic variation was lacking and awaited further studies in plant physiology (Chahal & Gosal, 2002b). Of course, many more individuals than those described here contributed to the knowledge of plant breeding and plant physiology in the 17th and 18th centuries (Rhodus, 2002a). However, those few mentioned show a growing relationship between experimentation on plant physiology and its application to plant breeding. With the later addition of Mendelian genetic knowledge, the discovery of hybridization allowed greater manipulation and control of plant varieties, but further focus on understanding plant physiology would come first. The interest in plant physiology, which originated in Germany, was named the 'New Botany' (Drayton, 2000). The interest in Germany in the structure and function of plants in the second half of the eighteenth century is exemplified by Sprengel's work on the structure and function of flowers, in which he identified self and cross-fertile plants (Chahal & Gosal, 2002b). This work continued in Germany, but was delayed in arriving in England, until translations of German work on the subject, such as the translation from the German of Hofmeister's Higher Cryptogamia was published in 1862 and sparked an interest in physiology and laboratory botany (Drayton, 2000). The 'New Botany' drew attention away from classification and enabled botany to affect the imperial economy to a greater extent in the 1870s (Drayton, 2000). Interest in living plants in specific environments, including first plant pathology and later genetics, was more able to contribute to agriculture than had strict herbarium work. It also

Red Fife might be better described as a landrace (Cassaday et al., 2001), however it also represents the arbitrary nature of such categorization, given that, it is also listed in plant breeding texts as an 'early accomplishment' of plant breeding (Chahal & Gosal, 2002b) and therefore is claimed as part of a 'professional' rather than 'farmer' plant breeding history with individual attribution.

51 increased the scientific interest in England (and presumably in other countries) of 'New Botanists' to be posted on the imperial periphery, as this now enabled them to answer scientific questions about the adaptation of plants to specific local environments. "Colonial work now meant an opportunity to reach the frontier of the discipline" (Drayton, 2000: 247).

Professionalization Among Plant Breeders

Mechanisms of professionalization for plant breeders were set in place during the late 1800s and early 1900s. Institutions were created for scientific agricultural research and a growing body of plant breeding professional associations were created. Institutions for agricultural research were set up around the world during the late 1800s and early 1900s and these institutionalized research on breeding and methods of selection (Jensen, 1994). The United States was the first to experience a transformation in agricultural science. Land grant colleges17 were established through the passing of the Morrill Act by Congress in 1862 (Drayton, 2000; Kloppenburg, 1988). After the US Civil War, these colleges became the forefront of agricultural extension and contained agricultural experiment stations. The American land grant colleges inspired the Europeans to create their own experiment stations in their colonial holdings. The first of these was in the Dutch colony of Java where the Tijikeumeuh Agricultural Experiment Station was created in 1876 (Drayton, 2000). This was based on the botanic garden created earlier by Dutch colonists in order to collect and export to Europe plants of interest during the period of colonial botanical collection described earlier. The agricultural station included an agricultural school to train the Javanese in cultivating new crops (Drayton, 2000) and is an example of how European knowledge systems surrounding plants and agriculture spread to other continents, affecting and interacting with their extant knowledge systems. The first centre

"A land-grant college or university is an institution that has been designated by its state legislature or Congress to receive the benefits of the Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890. The original mission of these institutions, as set forth in the first Morrill Act, was to teach agriculture, military tactics, and the mechanic arts as well as classical studies so that members of the working classes could obtain a liberal, practical education"(West Virgina University Extension Service, 1999: Para. 3). The establishment of agricultural experiment stations are a key part of the land grant program. Many of these later developed into 'State' universities in the United States, such as Rutgers University, West Virginia University, Michigan State University, Iowa State University, etc.

52 in Britain devoted to plant breeding, the Plant Breeding Institute, was inaugurated in 1912 (Palladino, 1996; 2002). It was part of the Department of Agriculture at the Cambridge University (Palladino, 2002). Also during the late 1800s, formal associations were being founded that brought plant breeders together as a professional group. Philip Pusey helped form the Royal Agricultural Society in Britain in 1840 (Secord, 1985). In so doing, he hoped to bring scientific stature to the topic of agriculture by forming such an association, since this method had proved successful in granting scientific status to the areas of zoology, botany, and geology (Secord, 1985). The society adopted the motto 'Practice with Science' (Secord, 1985). While this established the area of interest, professional plant breeding groups were also developed in Europe and Britain later. For instance, in 1886, the 'South Swedish Association for the growing and breeding of seed' was formed, followed by the 'Central Swedish Seed Association' in 1889, and the merging of these two associations into 'The Swedish Seed Association' ('Sveriges Utsadesforening') in 1892 (Akerman et al., 1938). The British Seed Corn Association comprised of breeders and seed firms, was likewise formed in 1903, although more general British and Scottish breeders associations did not occur until the first World War (Palladino, 2002). These associations were formed to breed new varieties and to test and to compare varieties from other sources, as well as to promote the use of 'improved' varieties. We therefore see professionalization of groups of individuals with specific goals, such as improving crop varieties occurring in Europe, Britain, and the United States at this time period.

Combining Selection with a Greater Knowledge of Genetic Factors: The Influence of Darwin and Mendel

The selection of more productive species in Europe began in the Renaissance with interested landowners and continued into the nineteenth century, where plant varieties were selected for a system of commercial production (e.g. the production of crops for sale and export) (Ambrosoli, 1997). How plant improvement methods developed within scientific plant breeding was crucially affected by the work of Darwin on selection and Mendel's insights into the mode of inheritance (Jensen, 1994). Robinson (1996) argues that these two individuals affected plant breeding in quite different ways, but everyone agrees that both were important.

53 Darwin was important for plant breeders because he highlighted the importance of selection within the variation present in any given species. Plant and animal breeders during Darwin's time had vast practical experience with variation, inheritance, generation and selection (Secord, 1985). Darwin drew on this knowledge and maintained extensive collaborative networks with many breeders in order to further his own theoretical work on variation and selection (Secord, 1985). He was also himself engaged in breeding fancy pigeons and orchids, as well as doing additional studies on poultry, rabbits, peas, beans, and cabbages (Secord, 1985). Darwin incorporated the work of many breeders when he suggested that plants and animals gradually change when natural conditions or circumstances select for particular traits within variable populations in 1858 (Darwin & Wallace, 1958). During the Victorian period there was a gap between the status given to breeders, of both plants and animals, and that given to those engaged in scientific pursuits. Darwin helped to bridge this gap. Through using information provided to him by many breeders, he was able to confer a degree of scientific status on those with whom he collaborated, in a system of what Secord (1985) refers to as intellectual paternalism. "In short, Darwin and the breeders were mutual beneficiaries ... in which both sides gained through participation in a major theoretical enterprise" (Secord, 1985: 537). Darwin's use of selection by humans as an extensive analogy to the processes of selection in nature (Secord, 1985) did not begin the use of selection within breeding circles, but it did highlight its role on a more abstract level as a process used within breeding. In addition, his incorporation of information from breeders within his work aided the process of professionalization within breeding, helping to raise the topic to the more intellectual level of the sciences (Secord, 1985). In addition to this, Robinson (1996) argues that Darwin's ideas lend themselves to a particular type of breeding, which he refers to as population breeding or a biometric approach to plant breeding. This way of viewing plant improvement assumes that changes will be gradually accumulated and focuses on those characters that are quantitatively variable and tend to be controlled or influenced by many genes. In essence, Robinson argues that this approach is "a refinement of the methods that farmers have been using since the dawn of agriculture" (Robinson, 1996: 13). As in the cases of in situ

54 farmer breeding that I discussed earlier, the best plants are selected from a population and used to make up the next generation. Each generation's population is therefore slightly better than the last, in a progression of gradual change. The 'refinement' in this method, came with the statistical tools developed at the turn of the twentieth century. Increasingly sophisticated statistical tools were developed in order to 'manage' chance through defining probability (Hacking, 1990) at this time period. These tools were necessary in order to understand experimental results from breeding experiments, particularly those involving continuous or multi-gene traits (Kloppenburg, 1988) , but such tools required expertise in order to use them. For example, the importance of statistical tools to understanding inheritance in plant breeding was established by the work of Fisher on continuous variation in 1918 (Chahal & Gosal, 2002b; Jensen, 1994). Darwin's work is in keeping, then, with plant breeding work which is more focused on populations than individuals19. Table 1: Key Features of Darwinian or Population Breeding versus Mendelian or Pedigree Breeding Population Breeding Pedigree Breeding • Slow, gradual change • Rapid change • Quantitative • Qualitative • Multiple genes • One or two genes • Population selection • Individual selection • Stronger focus on environment • Stronger focus on genetics

,,._„,,. „ ., ,,

Mendel's work, however, had strong pertinence to plant breeders because population selection is slower and more difficult to use with plants that are self- as opposed to cross-pollinated. As I mentioned above when discussing domestication, many of the world's major food crops are self-pollinated. More recently techniques such as

Statistical analysis is, of course, important for a wide range of plant breeding, but it can be argued that it has more significance for qualitative rather than quantitative traits (Robinson, 1996). 19 This type of breeding still used by some of the non-genetic engineering plant breeders with whom I spoke during the course of this research and whose interpretation of GMOs and genetic engineering will be discussed further in chapter 6.

55 male sterility have been developed in order to work around this problem, but these were not available when Mendel's work began to impact plant breeders. Gregor Mendel's work on the rules of inheritance was only widely understood 35 years after his publication of them in 1865 (Chahal & Gosal, 2002b). Mendel, researching qualitative traits such as flower colour in peas in an Augustinian abbey in the Austrian Empire, suggested 'factors' or genes as individual units of inheritance. Mendel's work was later expanded by the chromosome theory of inheritance, in which Sutton and Boveri demonstrated in 1903 that genes are situated on chromosomes (Chahal & Gosal, 2002b). Mendel's initial discussion and later findings by other scientists signifies a shift from viewing inheritance as gradual, to understanding inheritance as particulate and tied to a particular location on the chromosome. This makes it possible to locate the position of units of inheritance and more effectively manipulate the breeding of plants to have particular genetic traits (Chahal & Gosal, 2002b). Mendel's work is thought to have been ignored when published because of his relatively obscure position in an abbey in central Europe. However, Robinson (Robinson, 1996) argues that it was also because his findings about qualitative traits would have seemed unimportant to the major scientists of the day, such as Darwin, who were interested in quantitative traits and assumed change to be gradual. Darwin had focused the attention of plant breeders on the selection of better- adapted individuals (Kloppenburg, 1988). The rediscovery of Mendel's work at the beginning of the twentieth century joined this focus to a Mendelian analysis of hereditary differences (Simmonds, 1979). Increased knowledge of heredity, particularly the understanding of inheritance as particulate, and open to precise investigations is extremely important to later plant breeding practices and can be considered 'the Mendelian revolution' in plant breeding science (Stebbins, 1994). "At one stroke, plant breeding, which may be thought of as controlled evolution, moved from Darwin's open- ended time scale to a manageable human-generation scale" (Jensen, 1994: 185). Hybridization, in light of Mendel's work, created great optimism among plant breeders. This is expressed in the words of William Bateson, at the Second International Conference on Plant Breeding and Hybridization in New York in 1902 when he speaks about the plant breeder of the future:

56 He will be able to do what he wants to do instead of merely what happens to turn up. Hitherto I think it is not too much to say that the results of hybridization had given a hopeless entanglement of contradictory results. We crossed two things; we saw the incomprehensible diversity that comes in the second generation; we did not know how to reason about it, how to appreciate it, or what it meant... The period of confusion is passing away, and we have at length a basis from which to attach that mystery such as we could scarcely have hoped two years ago would be discovered in our time. (Bateson, 1902: 3,8; as quoted in Kloppenburg, 1988: 69)

Mendel inspired work in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century that, as described by Bateson, attempted to increase control. Mendelian based techniques, therefore, became increasingly important in the twentieth century. Robinson (1996) argues that between the influence of Darwin and Mendel, two different schools of plant breeding came into being. One of these, based on Darwin, he labels population breeding and it is based on biometric genetics and focuses on quantitative traits. The second, he calls pedigree breeding, and he suggests that it follows the Mendelian emphasis on single-gene, qualitative traits. The emphasis is on trying to create specific changes. Jensen (1994) suggests that the development of plant breeding techniques has followed a pendulum, in that it moved away from mixtures, landraces, and composites at the turn of the century towards the goal of creating pure single lines through methods such as pedigree selection20, backcrossing (see below), and other methods. Pure lines can be created which are genetically homogeneous, by repeatedly mating a plant with a near relative (Busch et al., 1991). Later in the twentieth century, there would be revived interest in the controlled formation and management of heterogeneous populations, through the use of composite and combination methods and Jensen (1994) cites examples of such methods from the 1940s and the 1980s. However, Robinson (1996) argues that Mendelian techniques have remained predominant. The difference between breeding for 'horizontal' versus 'vertical' resistance to pests or diseases is an example of these two different approaches (Robinson, 1996). Vertical resistance is a qualitative trait. Resistance is either present or absent and is usually inherited through one gene, and therefore fits within the Mendelian system. It is

20 Pedigree breeding does not have a very rigid procedure, but usually refers to selecting desirable offspring from a particular cross between plants (Chahal & Gosal, 2002b). The plant 'families' that result from this cross are grown through several generations, while records of their characteristics and 'pedigree' are kept.

57 said to have a gene-to-gene relationship with pests, in the sense that one genetic change in the pest can allow it to overcome the resistance developed from one genetic change in the plant. Horizontal resistance, on the other hand, is generally polygenetic (or inherited through multiple genes) and is quantitative, in that the plant can have greater or lesser resistance. It does not have a gene-to-gene relationship with pests and is bred for within populations. The work of Simmonds, Robinson and others to create 'horizontal' or population based resistance to pests is an example of this type of breeding and has the advantage of avoiding the 'arms race' between plant breeder and plant pest that is found with breeding for vertical resistance (Robinson, 1996). The difference between a Mendelian approach and a Darwinian or population-based approach is important, given that genetic engineering is used more easily within a Mendelian approach in its focus on single gene or trait changes and, in fact, commercially available, pest resistant GMOs follow a vertical resistance model. Mendelian based work focuses on a combination of selection and analysis of hereditary differences through crosses between two plants (Kloppenburg, 1988). New genetic variability was created through crossing one plant with another. A combination of genetic manipulation and selection provides the backbone for many scientific plant breeding methods. Individual characteristics can be transferred from one variety to another, through strategies such as back crossing (Kloppenburg, 1988). For example, using backcrossing21, an already popular, high yielding variety can be crossed with a different variety that contains genes for a desired characteristic, such as resistance to disease. The offspring of this cross would be repeatedly bred with the popular variety until the resulting variety contains disease resistance, but otherwise is very similar to the original popular variety (Kloppenburg, 1988). The creation of plants with 'hybrid vigour' or heterosis through crossing two pedigree lines and having the resulting offspring perform better than either parent became another important development (Jensen, 1994). Work in this area began to be published in 1908 (through the work of George Schull, Edward Murray East and Donald Jones) after it was recognized that inbreeding reduces corn yields, but this can be reversed in the

Eventually, good families and then progeny are selected and repeatedly bred to attain uniformity (Chahal & Gosal, 2002b). 21 For a more detailed description of the backcross method, see Chahal & Gosal (2002b: 212-229).

58 offspring resulting from the cross of two inbred lines (Doyle, 1985; Jensen, 1994). Hybrid corn was then successfully commercialized in the 1930s by De Kalb and Pioneer in the United States (Doyle, 1985). Farmers switched to hybrid corn, because of the higher yields, but they were unable to save and reuse their own corn seed, as the 'hybrid vigour' and the related increase in yield would drop in successive generations of corn seed created from hybrids (Doyle, 1985). Hybrid crossing and many other plant breeding techniques all required an understanding of the genetic factors underlying desirable traits and how those factors will be inherited in subsequent generations of crosses (Jensen, 1994). In the case of hybrid corn, this knowledge provided not only higher yields, but also an excellent business opportunity for the De Kalb and Pioneer companies (Doyle, 1985). The Mendelian 'revolution' (Stebbins, 1994) in plant breeding allowed the purposeful introduction of particular traits into already established varieties and changed the way plant breeding viewed itself, as a specialized profession. Using techniques based on a Mendelian understanding of genetics allowed the entrance of desirable traits into a high yielding variety through backcrossing and other methods. This increased the importance of finding and then inserting traits from related plant varieties. It sparked a search for genes that convey, for example, disease resistance and stimulated the collection of seeds of unused varieties of plants and their wild relatives (Stebbins, 1994). The goal was not, as it had been in previous centuries, to collect desirable or useful plant varieties from all over the world, but to collect desirable or useful traits or genes. Genetic diversity, in short, became important as a potential source of traits that could be added to already high yielding varieties. This is quite different from attempts to create new populations, such as the approach, described above, that Simmonds (1993) for instance took with potatoes. "No longer was the breeder's task to adapt elite germplasm from other countries to [local] conditions, it was now to improve established varieties by incorporating particular exotic characters" (Kloppenburg, 1988: 80). Kloppenburg (1988) argues that while this change was gradual, it was essentially complete, at least in the United States, by 1925. Plant exploration shifted emphasis from looking for useful plants to looking for useful traits.

59 As well as merely collecting useful traits or genes, a method of creating genetic variation was introduced in 1928 by Stadler, who discovered that X-ray treatment of individual plants caused artificial mutations and allowed the creation of new genes to improve plants (Chahal & Gosal, 2002b). This approach22 has been widened to use a variety of mutagenic agents. Techniques used to incorporate useful traits into favourite varieties, such as back crossing and other methods, were more time consuming and elaborate than the practices which farmer-breeders used. "The individual farmer was no longer the equal of the experiment station researcher" (Kloppenburg, 1988: 79). Successful use of these techniques required more time and resources than a farmer could generally afford (Kloppenburg, 1988). The complex nature of heredity required an understanding of genetic linkage, multiple and modifying factors, and factor interactions. This knowledge, along with the increasing sophistication of the techniques used, created a large gap between farmer breeders and specialists in scientific plant breeding (Kloppenburg, 1988). The emphasis on specialization began at the end of the nineteenth century when there was increased value placed on "reductionist and experimental approaches, because they resembled techniques used in the physical sciences, [and] enjoyed greater academic and budgetary prestige" (Beeman & Pritchard, 2001: 37). Therefore, scientific advancements in plant breeding techniques and knowledge were tied to a move towards increasing professionalization and scientific prestige among plant breeders. In summary, with the development of professional associations, institutional resources for agricultural experiments, and specialized techniques and knowledge for plant breeding, scientific plant breeding became established as a specialized occupation. Professional scientific plant breeders had the ability to manipulate the breeding of plants in order to obtain desired results through knowledge of genetic inheritance, the mechanisms of selection, and statistical analysis. Scientific plant breeders, as a specialized elite, separated themselves and the work they did more firmly than ever before from the kind of breeding which occurred in situ within farms.

This approach is known as 'mutagenesis'

60 High Yield Varieties and Agricultural Changes Scientific plant breeding can be seen as technical adaptations to human visions, based on scientific knowledge of crops, plant pathology, entomology, etc., to work towards particular goals (Riseman, 2002). The practice assumes deciding on certain goals, usually the improvement of particular plant characteristics, and using methods of selection and evaluation in order to achieve these characteristics. Intentionality or the identification of goals is therefore important in the process of scientific plant breeding, as is the ability to use techniques to control plants sufficiently to achieve those goals. Some of the key objectives of plant breeding involve the improvement of yield, quality, and resistance to stress (Chahal & Gosal, 2002b). Chahal and Gosal (2002b) suggest that the improvement of plants was formerly "unorganized and many times unintentional" (Chahal & Gosal, 2002b: 12) but systematic breeding provided "spectacular enhancement of [the] inherent potential of crops" (Chahal & Gosal, 2002b: 8). They argue one of the legacies of scientific breeding is that most of the world's major crops (defined as wheat, rice, maize, barley, and potatoes) during the twentieth century saw a progressive increase. It has therefore been: the coordinated effort of plant breeding and crop management technology which has met man's basic need for food so effectively that less than 5 per cent of our people can produce enough food for all of us that has freed [the] rest of us [non food producers] to develop the culture and way of life that prevails today. (Chahal & Gosal, 2002b: 12)

The development of high yielding varieties in staple crops (maize, wheat, etc.) is a key achievement of plant breeding. This increase was centred in the United States and Europe, where food production was undergoing industrialization. For instance, breeding for higher yields, as well as for characteristics that were more favourable to mechanization are considered part of the transformation of American agriculture in the period after World War II (Dimitri et al., 2005) , along with the introduction of chemical fertilizers and pesticides and mechanization: Advances in plant and animal breeding throughout the [twentieth] century facilitated mechanization and increased yields and quality, enhanced by the rapid development of inexpensive chemical fertilizers and pesticides since 1945. As a result of these advances, growth in agricultural productivity averaged 1.9 percent annually between 1948 and 1999. Productivity growth in manufacturing over the

61 same period averaged 1.3 percent annually, although it ranged from 0 to 2.3 percent, depending on the industry. (Dimitri et al., 2005: 6)

The appearance of inexpensive chemical fertilizers at this time came about partially through the surplus of factory space in the United States and Europe that had previously been used to make explosives, as it was possible to manufacture nitrogen fertilizers in these spaces without totally rebuilding the factories (Robinson, 1996). The attempt to spread high yielding crops, similar to those used in the United States, to the rest of the world is known as the 'green revolution'. The green revolution, which occurred in the 1960s, brought high yielding plant varieties, or 'improved' seeds, to many areas of the developing world, including South and South East Asia (Pottier, 1999). It was spearheaded by philanthropic agencies, such as the Rockefeller Foundation. Both Anderson et. al. (1991b) and Perkins (1997) suggests that, at least the Rockefeller Foundation funding of this agricultural research was motivated by a desire to prevent the spread of communism arising as a result of the poverty experienced in various regions of the world. It was a scientific and agricultural initiative that required the combined effort of scientists, such as the Nobel Prize winning Norman Borlaug (1997), technologists, academe, government and industry (Parayil, 2003). It was very successful at increasing yields, as long as fertilizer and irrigation were possible. For instance, India changed from being a wheat importing to a wheat exporting country (Robinson, 1996). However, its impacts on equality within regions have varied and been debated heavily (Pottier, 1999). These initiatives were primarily focused on staple crops, such as wheat and rice (Pottier, 1999). The success of 'miracle wheat' and 'miracle rice', as the new varieties were dubbed by the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations, which were created out of research centres in developing countries funded by these foundations encouraged governments and other charitable organization to establish additional research centres working on additional crops (Robinson, 1996). This was the birth of the Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). CI AT, which will be discussed further in chapter four, was one of these international research centres. Robinson (1996) critiques the CGIAR initiatives on the grounds that 1) scientific monopolies in areas of research and the subsequent lack of competition deter scientific progress, and that 2) the researchers in those locations were all trained using Mendelian methods and therefore

62 overemphasized the importance of single-gene characteristics. While both the improved wheat and rice varieties successfully used single-gene characteristics to increase yields, Robinson argues that it is unlikely that another, similarly important, Mendelian character of major agricultural importance will be discovered. The case is probably considerably more complex than this. Anderson, et. al. (1991b) in their discussion of issues impeding the success of technology transfer at the International Rice Research Institute suggest three different problems: 1) that there is a wide variety of physical and cultural diversity in Asian agriculture that was not sufficiently accounted for; 2) that seeds and agricultural knowledge are not shared in this region simply through vertical ('top down') mechanisms, but instead are more often found to circulate laterally, between neighbours and kin and that no allowance was made for this; 3) finally, the goals were not clearly established between different actors and the hope of introducing high yield rice into Asia meant different things to government officials, scientists, and fanners in different countries. Whatever lay behind the subsequent lack of progress after the initial successes of the green revolution, in many areas of the world, high yielding varieties did appear. These were accompanied with increased use of fertilizers, pesticides and agricultural machinery. Together, these elements have transformed the agricultural sector during the twentieth century. Breeders supported these changes using the new and developing techniques opened to them since the turn of the twentieth century (pedigree breeding, statistical analyses, and other techniques) and carried out this research and plant breeding in the institutions (such as the land grant colleges in the US and colonial agricultural stations) which had been recently formed. Advances in molecular biology would trigger another transformation in plant breeding (Jensen, 1994; Stebbins, 1994).

Biotechnology

Development of Molecular Biology and Biotechnological Tools The scientific knowledge that has grown as a result of the discovery of the molecular nature of genetic material in 1944 and of the double helix in 1953 has opened up new possibilities for scientific plant breeding (Stebbins, 1994). The application of such knowledge has resulted in a variety of technologies, collectively known as

63 biotechnology. These technologies have allowed the field of plant breeding to concentrate more strongly on the cellular and sub-cellular levels of plants (Busch et al., 1991). The ability of new tools of molecular biology to see and manipulate the genes that underlie the phenotypes of plant characteristics have provided an additional degree of control within plant breeding (Chahal & Gosal, 2002b; Jensen, 1994). The potential for practical applications of molecular biology's knowledge of and techniques to access recombinant DNA were recognized as early as the 1950s and 1960s (Wright, 1994). "If the living cell could be reduced to an information-processing machine, and mechanisms were found to alter at will the information fed to the cell, it followed that new forms of control and hence new practical capabilities would emerge" (Wright, 1994: 68). The ability to access knowledge about the genetic make-up underlying the phenotype, along with the potential for actually changing that genetic make-up directly, allow for greater manipulation of plants. Biotechnology was thus heralded as the next great phase of plant breeding. It provides the opportunity not just to work with the genetic variation present in a species, but to expand the variability to which a breeder has access. The production of previously unimagined gene combinations, which are of greater value to agriculture, has been made much quicker and more efficient and now forms bridges between distantly related species that were inconceivable 20 years ago.... The new plant breeding, based upon the new molecular genetics, has ahead of it a brilliant future, and at present can be regarded as the culmination of 90 years of patient research. (Stebbins, 1994: 20)

Before moving on to discuss the development of genetic engineering in more depth, however, it is important to note that while genetic engineering is one instrument of biotechnology, it is not the only one. Biotechnology tools can enable the exploitation of in vitro cultured cells of plants. These tools provide ways for scientists to identify, locate, isolate, characterize, clone, and transfer specific genes in crop plants (Chahal & Gosal, 2002b). Genetic engineering, the technical process that creates genetically modified organisms (GMOs), is one of several instruments that molecular biology and biotechnology have provided for the breeder. All

The phenotype is the "external appearance of an organism as contrasted with its genetic make-up or genotype for a particular character." (Chahal & Gosal, 2002b: 593)

64 of these techniques offer improved control of the plants with which they are working in one fashion or another.

Tissue Culture Tissue culture, with plant, animal, and bacterial cells, is a widespread biotechnology tool24. Plant tissue culture has been well established since the 1960s and 1970s, when protocols25 for the media in which to grow cells were developed and widely distributed (Chahal & Gosal, 2002b). For instance, Murashige and Skoog's (M&S) formula for media in which to grow plant cells, published in 1962 (Murashige & Skoog, 1962), is now produced and commercially available for laboratory purchase. This is both as a time saving measure, in much the same spirit as Betty Crocker cake mixes, and also provides precision in order for experiments to be replicable, and therefore publishable. Keating and Cambrosio (2003) suggest, when discussing cell-surface markers in immunological work, that this interaction between standardized protocols and reagents is common in creating what they term 'biomedical platforms', a term which denotes the combined social and technical aspects required to carry out scientific and medical activities. As with the M&S formula, they argue that cell surface markers exist concurrently as material objects, procedures and guidelines concerning their use, and as ideas. "To be blunt: markers are bottled concepts" (Keating & Cambrosio, 2003: 156). Plant tissue culture can be used for a wide variety of purposes that cannot be achieved using other plant breeding methods. This includes somatic embryogenesis (the creation of an embryo from a somatic cell rather than from a zygote, or plant cloning), the creation of artificial seeds, the altering of plant tissue into forms such as callus, which can be further manipulated and then regenerated, and many other purposes (Chahal & Gosal, 2002b). The potential benefits of culture techniques are multiple. One can maintain a large number of plants in a small area and it is possible to screen for particular

Tissue culture is not always discussed as one of the 'new' biotechnology tools, partially because it is now well established in the research of plant breeders who may not be interested in biotechnological tools originating from molecular biology. For instance, one breeder I interviewed said "and then there's tissue culture, which isn't really biotechnology, because it's useful....", which implies that it is also considered more accessible than many biotechnologies to breeders and less contentious. 25 A protocol is a set of instructions or procedures for doing or making something, in a similar way that a recipe is a way of making a particular dish.

65 characteristics or mutations in a short time, since one can work on the cellular level rather than wait for individual plants to show characteristics (Busch et al., 1991).

Marker Assisted Breeding Other types of biotechnology used in plant sciences that derive from molecular biology include the mapping, characterization and deployment of quantitative trait loci (Kearsey & Luo, 2003) and marker assisted breeding (Hospital, 2003). Marker assisted breeding and the mapping, characterization and deployment of quantitative trait loci involve the molecular mapping or identification of genes of interest, so that these genes can be identified as associated with a particular trait. In the case of marker assisted selection, when particular genes have been identified and can be marked, this allows the breeder to test at the molecular level to see if a particular plant will carry a gene or genes for a particular trait. This is of particular importance with slow growing crops, as the plant can be checked for a particular trait and selected early on in its lifetime. It is also useful for testing traits, such as disease resistance, which are difficult to select for in a field testing situation, as disease may not be present for any particular season. In order for marker assisted selection to occur it is necessary to first identify genes for particular traits and the identification of useful genes is another large area of plant biotechnology (Godwin, 2003). Of course, it is easier to identify genes responsible for a trait where there are comparatively fewer of them. Once again, we see a slight bias towards Mendelian traits (as discussed by Robinson (1996)), simply because they reduce the complexity of the enterprise and are easier to track and control. Although these represent only a few examples of a wider range of biotechnologies employed in scientific plant breeding, they are sufficient to show that the terms biotechnology and genetic engineering are not interchangeable, as genetic engineering is a biotechnology, but so are many other techniques. Biotechnologies all attempt to increase the precision of, and thereby control, knowledge about the heredity of particular traits within plants and therefore, to use biotechnological tools to make the manipulation of genetic material more precise or more transparent. They are an extension of the techniques used in scientific plant breeding and are usually directed towards similar goals of improving particular traits such as increased yield, quality, or disease, stress, or insect

66 resistance. This suite of technologies forms the context in which plant genetic engineering is present as a biotechnology (Puddephat, 2003).

Genetic Engineering The practice of plant genetic engineering, which is sometimes called genetic transformation, and which creates GMOs, started out as a contested and chaotic practice, as documented by Lurquin (2001). There were (and are) a range of techniques developed for direct gene transfer. The first instances were published by Lucien Ledoux of Mol, Belgium in 1968 and 1969 (Lurquin, 2001). In 1976, just when these results were starting to be questioned since they were irreproducible, the bacteria, Agrobacterium tumefaciens, which causes crown gall disease was discovered to spontaneously transfer a portion of its own DNA to plant cells, thereby providing a "naturally" occurring model for plant genetic engineering (Lurquin, 2001). In the case of Agrobacterium transfer, a naturally occurring mechanism26 of the bacteria is used to transfer DNA to the plant in question. As of 2001, in addition to the method using Agrobacterium tumefaciens, there were nine direct DNA transfer methodologies available with variants within each, although four of these are rarely used (Lurquin, 2001). Originally, the Agrobacterium method could not be used on all plant types, or had widely varying degrees of success with plants such as legumes, and direct DNA transfer filled in this need (Levings III et al., 1994). One of the best known of the methods of direct DNA transfer include the method commonly referred to as particle bombardment or the 'gene gun' (Levings III et al., 1994; Lurquin, 2001), which involves shooting microscopic metal beads, covered in DNA, at plant tissue27. This was the technique, for instance, that provided the first GM soybean (Lurquin, 2001).

Transgenic techniques were initially developed by academic scientists who saw them "as a great tool to understand how plants worked" (Lurquin, 2001: 111). Being able to be specific about what genetic changes occurred within the plant meant a controllable variable, which would allow for better physiological research, as well as research on gene-environment relationships. Interestingly, none of the techniques originally

26 The Ti plasmid in Agrobacterium transfers a piece of DNA into the genome of the plant (Lurquin, 2001). A plasmid is a circular piece of DNA found in bacteria that is outside of the nucleus/chromosomal DNA. Ti stands for 'tumor inducing', referring to the creation of crown gall tumors on plants that the bacteria creates. 27 It is a method that "some claim could have been invented only in the United States" (Lurquin, 2001: 98), and which originally involved a contraption to house a handgun (Lurquin, 2001).

67 developed for direct DNA transfer are currently used, since they were very inefficient, but the field has developed substantially since the 1970s (Lurquin, 2001). Much of this development has occurred within the private sector and has been patented. Multinational corporations began investing in private companies doing molecular biological research in the 1970s, in order to have a dominant position with regard to new development and application in this field and/or to protect their existing products from competitive products resulting from the new technology (Wright, 1994). In the 1980s, however, private funding for biotechnology research increased as it gave the potential to retain a stronger monopoly on a GM plant or bacterial variety than on a variety produced through previous methods. Genetic engineering within firms became much more predominant during this period, particularly in the United States. Universities and research institutions were still the main source for cutting edge work in this area during the 1980s, but with national funding in the United States (previously at very high levels for molecular biology) and other locations declining during this period, multinational corporations also increased their control over research done in these locations through research contracts, research partnerships, and other contractual arrangements (Wright, 1994). Government policy at this time in the United States and the UK, at least, was very supportive of university-industry collaborations, provided incentives for commercialization of practical applications of the technology, and created a facilitative regulatory policy (Wright, 1994). Wright argues that this changing institutional background "transformed [genetic engineering] from an almost exclusively academic field of research to one characterized by a network of corporate connections" (Wright, 1994) The involvement of multinational corporations in genetic engineering research has increased controversy over the technology, since it is largely held to increase the profit of biotechnology and seed companies, without other visible benefits (Lurquin, 2001). Lurquin (2001) suggests that most of the benefits this technology has brought to basic science and less controversial applications have been ignored or misrepresented. Whether or not genetic engineering can be used for a variety of social purposes, or just for corporate profit creation, the technique focuses even more specifically than previous scientific plant breeding techniques on particular traits, but in this case the focus is now at the molecular level. At the present time, the technology still lends itself to the

68 transfer of only one or two genes. This restricts its potential, since many traits, such as plant yield, tend to be polygenic quantitative traits (Lurquin, 2001). However, in its focus on genes, the technology fits into a wider cultural trend towards what Nelkin and Lindee (1995) have termed genetic essentialism. Genetic essentialism views genes as an increasingly strong source for social explanations of (and therefore control over) all kinds of traits and behaviours. Such an emphasis often downplays the role of other factors, such as the environment, or minimizes the complexity inherent in genetics. It increases what some, such as Richard Lewontin (1993; 2001), have labelled scientific reductionism, which in this case is focused at the molecular level. Scientists may stop looking at the plant as a whole organism, let alone taking into account its ecological interactions. The level of manipulation involved in this kind of breeding has also increased from previous plant breeding techniques. For instance, plant tissue culture techniques are required to manipulate the plant tissue into a form in which it will be receptive to gene transfer techniques, even those involving the bacteria Agrobacterium tumefaciens. Tissue culture techniques are then also required to coax this plant cell material into viable plant organisms again. Once again, we see the gap between farmer breeders and scientific plant breeding specialists widening. As in the nineteenth century, when experimental methods and reductionism tended to enjoy higher prestige, the new biotechnological techniques, and the field of molecular biology in general, have enjoyed greater prestige, resources, and ability to create publications than have older scientific breeding methods.

Genetic Engineering, 'Newness', and Substantial Equivalence The newer biotechnological tools of gene transfer into crop cultivars are, in fact, a refinement of earlier ones, and genetic enhancement by those techniques poses no greater risk to the consumer (Jauhar, 2006: 1852).

The debate in the scientific literature over the changes, or lack thereof, that genetic engineering has brought to plant breeding includes discussion around the degree of genetic change, the type of genetic change, the certainties and uncertainties of genetic change, how plant breeding has evolved, and the (often assumed) benefits of innovation. Fedoroff (2003), for example, suggests that large scale genetic changes, followed by widespread rapid adoption in crop plants has occurred in the past, citing the domestication of maize from teosinte as an example, thus likening GMOs to past instances of 'genetic

69 modification'. However, Gepts (2002) asserts that there are some qualitative differences between genetic engineering and previous breeding practices in that: 1) Genetic engineering often involves gain-of-function genetic mutations, rather than the loss-of- function mutations that occurred during crop domestication; 2) Genetic engineering provides additional knowledge or certainty about the gene being inserted compared to conventional breeding practices and; 3) Genetic engineering features considerable uncertainty about the site at which the gene will be inserted, which leads to uncertainties surrounding the expression of the transgenes after they are inserted into the plant genome. Jauhar (2006) sees this as a refinement of previous techniques that had evolved throughout the scientific evolution of plant breeding. Finally, Gepts (2002) points out that agricultural innovation might not always lead to better quality of life for those employing it and uses the decline in health of early farmers compared to their hunter- gather counterparts as an example. While the scientific debate on this issue obviously involves nuances in terms of the changes genetic engineering has wrought, research in this area has been caught between the demonstration of innovation within the technique of genetic engineering, which warrants intellectual property rights (Falcon & Fowler, 2002; Muller, 2006a; 2006b; Yamin, 2003), while at the same time finding GM crops 'substantially equivalent' decreases the degree of regulatory oversight required for the new technology. Substantial equivalence is a conceptual foundation of the regulatory system of the USA (National Research Council, 2004) and within many other countries, including Canada (Brunk et al., 2001). Substantial equivalence is intended to determine the differences between genetically modified foods and a comparative cultivar with a history of safe use, so as to guide the process of examining the safety of GM crops (Joint FAO and WHO Expert Consultation on Foods Derives from Biotechnology, 2000). Substantial equivalence originated within the conventional plant breeding system, where one cultivar would be compared against another in a context in which plant breeders were working with refined breeding lines with a known heritage (Brunk et al., 2001). "The explicit assumption behind this methodology is that, even where a breeding derived novel trait is involved, new combinations of existing genes operating within highly selected germplasm are not expected to generate harmful outcomes" (Brunk et al., 2001). The use of the concept in

70 GMO regulation operationally suggests that GM crops are no different from their traditional counterparts (Brunk et al., 2001). Genetic engineering, within such a framework, is very much placed categorically amongst other plant breeding techniques, and the results of this categorization have strong regulatory implications. The regulatory use of substantial equivalence has therefore been critiqued in many jurisdictions as the appropriateness of its use in a situation where the original operating conditions no longer exist is questioned (Brunk et al., 2001).

Conclusion

Humans have indeed been modifying plants, in terms of altering their genetic structure, for over 10,000 years. The way decisions are made about plant breeding, however, and the ways in which plant breeding is done has not remained constant. Peasant or farmer breeding often takes place within a complex and sometimes contradictory set of priorities and places importance on maintaining diversity, both within crops and in the number of different crops grown. While farmers may continually categorize and compare their local varieties, scientific plant breeding has precursors in more standardized theories and practices of categorization and comparison that began in the Renaissance and which incorporated wider geographical networks and then took on importance to the practice of nation and economy building throughout the period of colonial expansion. Large colonial empires facilitated the global dissemination of huge numbers of crop plants. These global connections and practices of categorization were embodied within the botanical gardens of Europe. Out of the science of categorization and comparison, traditional plant breeding methods of mass selection were augmented through specialized statistical analysis. There was also an increased focus on plant physiology and genetic modes of inheritance. Various techniques in plant breeding were developed that allowed greater precision in manipulating plant traits. Scientific plant breeding techniques were developed in the 1900s to carefully cross plants and their offspring in ways which harnessed the knowledge of genetics in order to introduce new traits into plant varieties and 'fix' them there, so that they would remain in all generations of the offspring. Such techniques, however, prized this specificity of goal over maintenance of diversity, and tended to shrink the genetic resources for the crops in

71 question, except where they are intentionally preserved and maintained as potential sources of useful traits. Biotechnology, including genetic engineering, continued this pattern of increasing control and specificity of the desired trait, but with increased focus on the molecular level of plants. These technologies allowed an increased degree of manipulation, greater transparency about the genes in question, and perhaps intensified concentration on single gene traits, since these are most easily manipulated using the genetic engineering and marker assisted selection. Genetic engineering creates opportunities for incorporating greater genetic diversity into crops, by allowing scientists to use genes outside the species gene pool of any particular plant and borrowing them from other plants, bacteria, or animals, but at the same time it may lessen the need for genetic diversity within crops to be maintained, since crossing species boundaries is no longer a barrier. It is therefore possible to view genetic engineering as part of a historical continuum that began with some manipulation of plants, either intentional or not, and gradually increased the specificity, intentionality, and degree of manipulation involved in plant breeding. There is also increasing specialization and professionalization within plant breeding, conferring increased status to some forms of breeding rather than others. This does not mean, however, that strategies which involve less control and manipulation, such as the early developed mass selection are not still used by some plant breeders. Plant breeding methodology viewed in historical perspective may be seen as a continuum, which has grown and continues to grow and build upon the methods proven in the past. As a consequence, the methodology today is more sophisticated and complex, and grows at an ever more accelerated pace, but paradoxically, shows little tendency to discard the older and simpler, time-tested procedures. (Jensen, 1994: 192)

Past practices in plant breeding, particularly dating from the European Renaissance, provide a history of how genetic engineering came into being, not as a radical change, but as part of a continuum that was driven by a desire to change plants in ever more specific ways and with more control. In this sense, is the development of genetic engineering, as a technique to increase the genes available for exploitation of useful traits in a plant species, any different from that of mutagenesis in the 1920s, which intentionally mutated plants in order to obtain the same goal? This view of genetic

72 engineering is more in keeping with the view of those who claim that we have been genetically modifying plants for thousands of years. At the same time, the increased degree of human controlled manipulation and the focus on achieving particular desired changes in a plant contrast with other practices of plant breeding, which place importance on maintaining diversity or populations. It is the contrast with often idealized plant breeding practices, such as mass selection, which can make genetic engineering seem radically different to those opposed to genetic engineering. Although this idealized notion of plant breeding may not reflect the breadth of plant breeding methods currently used, it stresses the intrusive nature of genetic engineering rather than seeing it as part of a continuum of scientific plant breeding. Added to this, of course, is the hype that molecular biologists themselves have used in promoting the technology and asserting that the varieties and techniques are new enough to warrant patenting. Therefore, we see within the birth of genetic engineering two conflicting lens of meaning. Through one lens the focus is on GMOs coming into being as part of a continuum, while the other lens sees the differences in methodological manipulation between selected plant breeding activities, such as in situ farmer breeding or population breeding methods and genetic engineering. Through this lens, GMOs come into being as a radical break from past history. At stake is the way property is defined and risks are regulated within the biotechnological realm.

73 Chapter 3 Methodology

Introduction The interest that drove my research was an inconsistency between 1) the claims made for genetic engineering; and 2) the genetic engineering products that had been commercialized. Most of the first genetically engineered plants to be released for widespread use were created within research divisions of large multinational corporations who were vertically integrating seed, chemical, and other areas of agricultural or pharmaceutical production28. They therefore owned many of the patents on genes and processes related to this area and were focused on producing crops that could be targeted to profitable markets (Lurquin, 2001). At the same time, claims that the technology could be used for humanitarian applications in development, food security, environmental, and other contexts were made (Burkhardt, 2001)29. In order to investigate this disjuncture, I used participant observation, interviews, and documentary analysis within a framework of multi-sited ethnography to do research which focused on the practices and opinions of those who used genetic engineering on plants in public institutions. Given the claims about future benefits, it was important that such research be done in locations that were trying to enact such benefits, but that also had different levels of resources available to them. I therefore traced GMO research across both Canada and Colombia, interviewing researchers from across those countries and basing participant observation in a government laboratory in Ottawa, Canada, and an international agricultural research centre in Cali, Colombia. I chose to focus this research on the scientists developing uses for genetic engineering, rather than looking at the impacts of the research, due to my theoretical engagement with the practical issue of novel genetic technology use. It can be difficult to

It is true that a more recent trend has been for private corporations to close or reduce their research divisions and 'outsource' their research though contracts with those in the public sector, such as university researchers (Mirowski & Sent, 2008). Increasingly, public research is also being privately commercialized (Atkinson-Grosjean, 2006). However, these trends occurred considerably after initial GMO product development within corporations. 29 For instance, it was argued that genetic engineering would increase yield in developing countries, thereby increasing food security and that it would do so without the use of chemical pesticides and fertilizers and therefore create an environmental benefit (McGloughlin, 2002).

74 predict impacts of a new technology (Hess, 2001b), but we can look at the global context in which GMOs are developed. An understanding of how and why a technology is developed (or is not being developed) allows us insight into the issues raised above, such as whether or not a technology is likely to be used for humanitarian purposes. During my engagement with methodological choices, my research questions, formed with these issues in mind, were: 1) What drives the choice of projects within genetic engineering? 2) What are the contexts in which those projects take place? and 3) How are GMOs understood by scientists? These questions were formed in the same spirit as Wynne's (2001) call to investigate the 'conditions, driving forces and purposes' of scientific research surrounding GMOs. In addition, genetic engineering research must take place within a global context. I therefore also asked how do global and local conditions, systems, and/or networks impact genetic engineering research? These research questions led me to address my research interests using a particular methodological framework, which I will describe in this chapter. I will discuss my methodological framework, including the reasons for drawing from ethnography and for engaging with multi-sited ethnography in particular. Next, I will describe in detail the three particular methods that I drew on within the larger methodological framework, namely participant observation, qualitative interviews, and document analysis. Following this, I will describe the process and thematic framework that guided data analysis. I will conclude by addressing various power relations which were present in my project and how I dealt with ethical concerns, including the negotiation of Research Ethics Board requirements.

Methodological Framework

The conditions, driving forces, and purposes of agricultural biotechnology are case specific and complex. Studying aspects of new scientific technologies requires methods which can encompass global connections and changes of scale (Franklin & Lock, 2003). Study of agricultural systems and biotechnology suggests that local uses and meanings of the technology will be variable and complex (Pottier, 1999; Scoones, 2002). It makes sense that methods which are able to incorporate local variations as well as the connections and processes occurring at a larger scale would be required. I drew

75 upon qualitative research methods to capture this complexity (Denzin et al., 1994; Dumit & Davis-Floyd, 1998). Ethnographic research within a laboratory setting is particularly useful for investigating the topic of genetically engineered crops. Ethnographies typically combine the research methods of participant observation, qualitative interviewing, and the analysis of relevant documents (Wolcott, 1999). Ethnographers follow everyday events in order to investigate the meaning and structure of those events in more depth (Wolcott, 1999; Hammersley & Atkinson, 1995), as well as to incorporate chance experiential occurrences within the research, such as Geertz' (1973) experience of the Balinese cock fight. Furthermore, ethnographies have a history of use in the creation of laboratory case studies in the field of science studies (Latour & Woolgar, 1986). The laboratory is an important location where GMO uses and meanings are designed and modified. Hess (1997a) suggests that anthropological strengths in science studies (as compared to the ethnographic studies done by non-anthropologists, such as Latour (Latour & Woolgar, 1986)), involve the exploration of the connections, contradictions, and complexities across domains of discourse and practice. He also claims that fieldwork sites in the ethnography of science and technology are rarely remote or disconnected from the world system, and therefore require methods that can integrate these connections (Hess, 2001b). Multi-sited ethnography was proposed by Marcus (1995; 1998) in an attempt to capture both local and global aspects of agricultural biotechnology. Marcus proposed ethnographically following a cultural process that has global connections, rather than being bounded within a single geographical space. Connections and global movement from and to a field site can be both physical and/or imaginary (Burawoy, 2000). The intent of an ethnography of the global system is fieldwork that assembles "a picture of the whole by recognizing diverse perspectives from the parts, from singular but connected sites" (Burawoy, 2000: 5). While this dissertation has a more narrow interest in GMOs within the global system, multi-sited ethnography as a methodological framework provides both the advantage of observing and understanding the case specific context in which genetic engineering takes place, which a traditional ethnographic framework provides, while suggesting the need to observe and follow up links to other people, places or ideas that may be geographically remote. Multi-sited ethnography has

76 only recently been linked with non-anthropological studies of science (Hine, 2007). However, tracing links in this way has overlap with the methodological approach employed by those applying actor network theory within science studies, as actor network theory suggests tracing networks provides a better understanding of how scientific facts and technical artefacts are produced (Hess, 1997b; Williams-Jones & Graham, 2003). I will review the particular constellation that the methods of participant observation, qualitative interviewing, and documentary analysis formed for this research within my overall use of multi-sited ethnography next.

Participant Observation

Participant observation allows one to participate in, as well as observe, day-to-day practices and interactions (Wolcott, 1999). This facilitates a better understanding of the everyday conditions people experience. Participant observation among scientists creates clearer histories of science as a process (Nader, 1996; Franklin & Lock, 2003). Understanding routine scientific practices is important, since so much in successful experimental science focuses on doing - activities which are physical by their nature and depend upon the manipulation of physical objects. Participant observation takes us towards an understanding of the habitus of scientific research. Bourdieu's concept of habitus is a way of seeing the social as inscribed into the everyday practices of the body (Bourdieu, 1977). Habitus represents the habitual or daily acting out of the structured, but unconscious ideological suppositions (or doxa) that underlying daily practices (Bourdieu, 1977; Knauft, 1996). The agent engaged in practice knows the world but with knowledge, which ... is not set up in the relation of externality of a knowing consciousness. He knows it, in a sense, too well, without objectifying distance, takes it for granted, precisely because he is caught up in it, bound up with it; he inhabits it like a garment [un habit] or a familiar habitat. He feels at home in the world because the world is also in him, in the form of habitus. (Bourdieu, 1997: 142-3)

Participant observation occurred mainly in two main fieldsites, where I joined research groups doing genetic engineering and participated in their activities, but occurred in a more temporary way in other locations, as well. Direct participation in scientific activities, such as tissue culture work, propagation of transgenic plants, and analysis of

77 transformed plant tissues, provided information about the conditions of genetic engineering research. The fieldsites were selected to allow me to examine the differences and similarities between scientists working towards different goals and laboratories in different global locations, but who were all using genetic engineering (GE) technology. Specifically, my attention was drawn to laboratories that were using genetic engineering in ways that were not directly tied to profit making, in other words, public or humanitarian applications of the technology °. These researchers and laboratories represented different possibilities for genetic engineering from that engaged by multinational corporations. The GE work of private industry is the most publicized by anti-GMO activists, since private corporations have created the products on the market that are the focus of protest. The work of public researchers for humanitarian purposes, however, has been publicized by multinational corporations, such as golden rice (Potrykus, 2001), which was featured in a series of Monsanto's television advertisements. Closer focus on this type of research warranted more critical attention than was generally granted by either side in the GMO debate. In addition, as issues of inequality between north and south have crucial repercussion on the use of such technology for development applications (Altieri & Rosset, 2002), the research necessarily included a northern and southern site, one in Canada and the other in Colombia. Field notes provided a record of everyday activities and conversations that I took part in and observed. Field notes also recorded how my commentary on research activities changed as I became more familiar with the research sites. Photographs and video data were also used to document scientific activities. Participant observation of day-to-day activities provided an important background against which to understand data from interview and document sources, as well as increasing my understanding of research process, habitus, and conditions. As the process of participant observation was slightly different in each fieldsite, I now provide a general description of each laboratory and my role in it. I also provide a description of the additional short term or temporary fieldsites I visited in addition to the two main sites.

A study of one or more private biotechnology firms would have been a different project, addressing different questions.

78 Fieldsite 1: A Government Laboratory in Canada The laboratory in which I did participant observation in Ottawa, Canada, existed within a government department that was studying novel areas of transgenic plant use. The researchers' purpose was to provide in-house, and ideally impartial, expertise regarding a type of transgenic plant that might be submitted for government review some years in the future, but which was not currently being considered for commercial release at the time of my research. Thus, the research was non-profit, in the sense that the intention of GMO creation was knowledge production, rather than product development. Such work is tied to product development, however, in that the activity was intended to indirectly support commercial products through investing in the process of regulating them. Alternately, one could argue that the work was intended to provide information to protect the public. In other words, they were engaged in developing the scientific expertise to thoroughly and sufficiently understand and evaluate the safety, efficacy, and quality of the novel GE products that would be submitted for regulatory approval. Government scientists can serve as expert scientific consultants to those who review applications for the licensing, release and marketing of biological entities or processes of production (new product submission review is in a different section of government departments than scientific research). The scientists are forbidden to accept any research funds from any company or institution that the department might regulate, thereby preventing any apparent conflicts of interest. Thus tensions over private versus public funding for scientific research did not touch its members in the same way they might in the context of, for instance, a university laboratory, where researchers alter their research trajectories in order to garner private funds in the guise of public-private collaboration. This government laboratory (that was exclusively publically funded) was therefore chosen as an example of research for a particular public purpose, to equip itself to adequately assess the harms and benefits of new products. It thereby presents a different face of genetic engineering research. The government laboratory used techniques similar to those being used to create plant products for the Canadian agricultural market, but was creating GMOs that would produce therapeutic products (drugs, vaccines, therapeutic agents, etc.), which I will describe in more detail in the next chapter. This scientific research area is one of strong interest to those who need to

79 regulate biologic therapeutics. The laboratory therefore represents one type of government laboratory research in Canada. Laboratory members included students as well as term (or contract) and permanent employees who had achieved a variety of different educational levels and had different areas of specialization. The 'laboratory', in this case, is a work group of approximately 15 people, located in the same physical space ('the lab') and who, during the time of my fieldwork, were largely working towards two joint projects (one using genetic engineering and the other not) and all reporting to a single individual, the laboratory head. Members of the laboratory considered it to be reasonably well funded, compared to the university laboratories with which they were familiar. This laboratory, as I will explain at greater length in the next chapter, was one of many laboratory units within a larger research group. All of these units were doing separate projects, but all had regulatory implications and would assist each other with methodological and other issues. I spent four and a half months (May-September 2003) taking on a role within the laboratory that was usually filled by a summer student. I was assigned a variety of routine tasks as part of a particular research team within the laboratory. This position in the laboratory allowed me to immerse myself in the daily routine of the laboratory, with similar concerns about getting my required tasks done as other laboratory members. It also placed an emphasis on increasing my skill in the physical nature of the tasks I was assigned, in order to perform them correctly, and not to jeopardize the work of the laboratory. My labour was, in this case, what I was exchanging for the opportunity to do participant observation in this setting, and while this was often not skilled labour, I did have specific responsibilities. The most important of these, from the perspective of the laboratory, were in the plant room. As part of the 'plant team', I not only acted as summer vacation replacement to make sure that the plants continued to be looked after while other laboratory members were on vacation, I also regularly did tissue culture, made plant media, harvested seeds, and other activities. As an individual, I did small tasks like autoclaving (sterilizing) laboratory equipment, looking after glassware, and other small, relatively unskilled tasks that were often given to students in the laboratory.

80 Along with other laboratory members, I attended regular laboratory meetings and went to scientific talks. I employed a great deal of casual conversation in the Ottawa lab, supplemented with short periods of shadowing, in order to get an overview of the research there. I shadowed laboratory members with whom I did not work closely, but who were actively working on some part of the genetic engineering project directed by the head of the laboratory, in order to understand how their daily work fit into the wider laboratory goals. Similarly to other laboratory members, I lived in the Ottawa area and commuted to work Monday to Friday. While the laboratory group had some social events outside of work, which I attended (the occasional evening party or celebratory lunch), the majority of contact with other laboratory members occurred within the physical space of the laboratory itself. Fieldnotes of participant observation were largely written in the afternoons after leaving the laboratory setting. Only short notes, or technical detail for my laboratory notebook (including protocols used, instructions, etc.), were taken in the laboratory itself.

Fieldsite 2: An International Laboratory in Colombia The second ethnographic site is the Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT) in Cali, Colombia, which is part of an international network of research centres - the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). These research centres were created and expanded during the Green Revolution and were intended, at that time, to increase agricultural yield in developing countries in order to prevent famine (Reeves & Cassaday, 2002). I will describe the work and funding behind this group of research centres in more detail in the following chapter, but it is generally tied to development initiatives, such as those promoted by the Rockefeller Foundation31. The site therefore has a decidedly strong development mandate, drawing an international group of scientists from many different countries. CIAT is a "not for profit organization that conducts socially and environmentally progressive research aimed at reducing hunger and poverty and preserving natural resources in developing countries" (CIAT, 2004). It focuses on the tropical crops cassava, beans, and tropical forages32, as well as additional work with crops such as rice and tropical fruit.

Discussed in the section on the green revolution in chapter two. Forages are a group of crops grown for livestock feed.

81 CI AT provided an excellent opportunity to observe the use of genetic engineering within the wider context of research aimed at improving agriculture in developing countries, in particular for small, subsistence or semi-subsistence farmers. I selected it for my project because it aimed to use genetic engineering (as well as many other different methods) for this goal, one that is widely claimed for genetic engineering, particularly by those not actually using it for this purpose. Although it was set in a developing country, many of the scientists were international, providing an interesting opportunity to look at an 'international' or 'global' instance of science, while at the same time looking at how such an institution was locally situated, or how it bridged to local situations. It therefore provided a different instance of the use of genetic engineering from the Canadian site, both in terms of the research goals (the creation of improved crops for tropical farmers or the development of methods to create such crops) and in terms of its situation in a tropical or southern country. CIAT contains 16 different units, also known as project areas, and I was based in the Agrobiodiversity and Biotechnology project, which tended to be referred to as the 'Biotecnologia' unit in Spanish by those working there. This unit itself contains a fluctuating number of approximately 50 individuals working on many different projects. Research goals included: the improved quality and productivity of crops, genetic mapping of agronomically useful traits, the development of biotechnological methods for crops not often worked on (for example, cassava) and the preservation of genetic diversity using in vitro methods and cryopreservation. Given the breadth of these goals, they often coordinated work with other units, connecting biotechnology with particular crop breeding programs, for example. The Biotecnologia unit was therefore much larger than the Ottawa laboratory and was a work group at a different level of organization, and with a more complicated structure. It contained many researchers, employees and students of different educational levels. I spent from August 2004 until March 2005 (with some time away in December 2004) in the Colombian fieldsite. Since the Biotecnologia unit contained many more people than the Canadian fieldsite, my involvement here was different from that in the Canadian laboratory. Rather than having a set series of tasks or a job within the unit, I rotated through various groups. For instance, I would spend two weeks doing participant

82 observation with a group working with tissue culture techniques on cassava, then two weeks with a group who used molecular biology techniques on cassava, and so on. This arrangement allowed me to get some idea of the daily tasks of the various different groups within the large Biotecnologia unit, as well as with some groups which worked with the unit. This was advantageous, as it gave me a solid overview of the work being done in the site. It was a more formal process than that which I used in the Ottawa laboratory and was more dependant on a more formal interaction in which I shadowed a group. The more casual approach I used in the Canadian site would not have served as well in the Colombian case, due to my lesser facility in Spanish than in English, particularly at the beginning of the field work, and the increased size of the unit. My scheduled arrangement of laboratory participant observation left a great deal of extra time at the centre, within a regular Monday to Friday work week, when I was not specifically assigned to a particular group. I spent this time in an office space shared by many of those with whom I was doing participant observation, where I was given a desk and an internet connection. Within this space, I arranged interviews in different locations in Colombia, and wrote fieldnotes. Fieldnotes were often also written at night or early in the morning away from the centre. Participant observation also included casual conversations participated in while going to lunch, having coffee in the morning, proof reading English versions of reports33, and various other situations. Office work was often interrupted by impromptu opportunities to see various procedures in the laboratory, go out on field visits, etc. I did not attend laboratory meetings, as there were no general meetings, rather, there were meetings of various groups on particular projects. I was occasionally present for such discussions if they occurred in a group I was shadowing at the time. CIAT as a whole, however, did have regular talks that were open to all and I did attend these. I lived outside of the research centre, with the exception of the first couple of weeks. This was common practice for most of the people who worked there, although visitors staying only a few weeks were more likely to stay at the centre itself. With the other CIAT employees, I took the CIAT buses to the site Monday to Friday with a pickup

3 Proofreading research reports is an example of the kind of informal documentary analysis that is common in ethnographic work and which I will discuss below. Such work provides context about the work of the unit and those within it.

83 time in the morning of approximately 6:30 am and was bussed back in the afternoon, leaving the centre at 4:30pm, 6:30pm, or 8:30pm. In my case, the trip generally took about an hour each way from the city of Cali out into the Valle de Cauca, although many employees also lived in the slightly closer and smaller town of Palmira. Bus rides and residence in the same city allowed extra opportunity for casual conversation and occasional social activities with some of the other students and employees present in the laboratory, but the majority of interaction took place Monday to Friday at the research centre.

Short Term Participant Observation and Temporary Fieldsites:

Colombian Laboratory Tours and Visits Both the reviewers for the International Development Research Centre of Canada (IDRC, a project funder) and several Colombian scientists I interviewed made the pertinent point that the research that was done at CIAT was not typical of Colombian research, since the international station had access to additional resources. I tried to counter this deficiency in my research by taking opportunities offered to do additional tours and visits, when possible, to other laboratories, where I interviewed at various spots throughout the country. Several interviews around different parts of the country resulted in tours of these laboratory facilities, with additional explanation of a researcher's work in this setting. While some of these tours included pointing out their success and available equipment, some also made a point of discussing their lack of equipment or the clever adaptations they had made with their existing resources to replace standard equipment to which they did not have access. One researcher also arranged for me to have a return visit and spend a day in his laboratory, with his students. Seeing all of these sites was important for documenting the variation in Colombian research settings. I made a point of explaining the full nature of my research the individuals within these laboratories.

Biotechnology Conference, September 2004. Bogota, Colombia I also attended the second Colombian Biotechnology conference (Segundo Congreso Colombiano de Biotecnologia) September 1-3, 2004 in Bogota, Colombia. A conference, in this case, represented an important temporary location for the formation of

84 the scientific community. Such 'temporary' field sites are increasingly important in multi-sited research, when the study involves groups that do not have geographical cohesion (Hannerz, 2003). Attendance allowed me to observe national trends in biotechnology, as well as how CIAT fit into the biotechnological community in Colombia. This biotechnology conference was also of particular interest to my research, since it involved the interaction of statesmen, philosophers, economists, educational lobby groups, and laboratory supply companies, as well as scientists, and thus was a site in which biotechnology was interacting with the social in a very concrete way.

Canadian Laboratory Visits The practice of taking an interviewer on a tour of one's laboratory at the end of an interview was not as evident when I interviewed Canadians as it had been in Colombia and therefore laboratory visits were less common34. It was not uncommon, however, for a researcher's office to be just off of his or her laboratory and, in one case, the interview took place while laboratory work was ongoing by the scientist, so I was able to gain some familiarity with Canadian laboratories, which, while brief, could be interpreted in the light of the laboratory familiarity I had inherited from participant observation in the Ottawa site.

GE3LS Conference February. 2003. Montreal. PC. Canada The GE3LS Conference, one of regular such meetings put on by Genome Canada highlights research projects aimed at studying and analyzing the ethical, environmental, economic, legal and social issues related to genomics research. In comparison to the Biotechnology conference in Bogota, this was a conference more geared towards social scientists, philosophers, and legal scholars. However, the 2003 conference had a particular focus on genetically modified organisms and the government funded strategic science agenda (Atkinson-Grosjean, 2006) and brought in several scientists, as well as social scientists to discuss the issues related to the organisms. This allowed me a better (pre-field site) understanding of the Canadian, as well as the global, context of the issues surrounding genetically modified organisms. I did not attend other scientific conferences

Differences in laboratory tours offered may partially be due to power differentials between the Canadian and Colombian settings, which I will discuss below. Both groups of researchers often gave me reprints of their papers before I left.

85 for several reasons: 1) the timing for potential conferences happened when I was out of the country, and 2) they either tended to be very broad (encompassing many areas of scientific plant or molecular research) or specifically attuned to one area of genetic engineering research (such as the production of pharmaceutical compounds in plants).

Qualitative Interviews

Qualitative interviews augmented participant observation in two ways. First, it allowed me to explore genetic engineering scientists' perspectives on GMO research and plant breeding. Second, it allowed me to gain a greater variety of perspectives on GMOs and plant breeding by talking to a variety of other people, including plant breeders, regulatory agents, and members of non-governmental organizations. Qualitative, open- ended interviews can provide detailed information about a topic; however, they remain flexible to allow the emergence of new information or issues which the researcher may not have originally considered (Hammersley & Atkinson, 1995; Kvale, 1996). Interviews took place with a judgmental35 sample of individuals from three groups in both Canada and Colombia, as schematically outlined in Table 1: 1) Scientists that work with genetic engineering; 2) Plant breeders and other agricultural scientists that do not work directly with genetic engineering; and 3) Members of various other relevant groups for understanding GMO research and its context. For instance, activists in non-governmental organizations, civil servants in policy creation and regulation, and individuals involved in biotechnology education and promotion groups.

35 A judgemental sample is a sample that is determined upon the judgement of the researcher that particular interviewees or institutions would add divergent perspectives to the study or complement previous interviews (Kvale, 1996).

86 Table 2: Interviews Completed in Canada and Colombia Interviewee Groups Canadian Colombian Total Interviews Interviews 1. Scientists working with genetic 9 19 28 engineering 2. Plant breeders and other 6 12 18 scientists not working with genetic engineering 3. Relevant Others (members of 8 5 13 non-governmental organizations and government officials) Total 23 36 59

Emphasis was placed on the first group, since scientists using genetic engineering (or GE scientists) were the primary focus of the study. Scientists were selected in order to provide variation and contribute a wide range of different perspectives to the study. These scientists were drawn from across Canada and across Colombia, their diverse locations being part of what makes this study multi-sited. However, their location was not the only thing that differed among them. Genetic engineering research on plants, as I will demonstrate in chapter 5, can differ in terms of the crops that are altered, the traits for which they are altered, and the overall goals of using the technology, as well as in other ways. The GE scientists I spoke to, therefore, are not easy to categorize in terms of their work, as the research of each could be categorized separately for each of five factors that I describe in chapter 5 (as shown in Figure 1). Furthermore, a categorization of any one scientist for all five of these factors, as well as their location, could make them identifiable. However, all GE scientists were located at public institutions of some type (university, government, etc.), although some of them had ties to or contracts with private enterprise. The second group, made up of non-GE scientists, provided information about the agricultural scientific context in which GM technology was being applied. Likewise, these scientists were from across Canada and Colombia. Most of these individuals were

87 plant breeders. As I discussed in the previous chapter, following Robinson (1996), one could class plant breeding into two camps: either pedigree breeding (following Mendel and focusing on particular traits), or population breeding (following Darwin's concept of gradual change and working with entire populations). I have argued in the previous chapter that the development of genetic engineering has stronger ties with Mendelian breeding than Darwinian. I interviewed plant breeders who fell into both of these camps: pedigree and population breeding, as well as some who used both methods, depending upon the project they had in hand. This ensured wider perspectives about genetic engineering and GMOs to be included within this research. While I do not spend a great deal of time on the differences between GE and non-GE scientists, they were important for shaping my understanding of GMOs and this wider perspective is represented in the first two narratives given in chapter six. In addition, this group of non-GE scientists included scientists engaged in other, although agriculturally related fields, such as entomology, phytopathology, ecology and others. The third group largely provided understanding about the social debate surrounding the technology, and regulation of the technology in both Canada and Colombia36. Individuals from non-governmental organizations were basically of two types. The first type of NGO were ones who were actively protesting the use of GM crops or who were concerned about and analyzing trends related to GM and biotechnology. The second type was focused on scientific education related to GMOs and who, although they claimed a certain neutrality, also suggested that opposition to GMOs sprang mostly from a lack of education about these plants. Government officials with whom I spoke were involved in regulating GMOs, either directly, through the assessment of claims, or indirectly, through the creation of policy. Some were concerned with GMO policy and regulation in general, while others specialized in looking at health and safety issues in regard to them. Some additional inclusions in this category were with individuals, either Colombian or from CIAT, who had some responsibility for directing biotechnology research in some institutional capacity. Again, these interviewees were selected and

It is important to note that the time of this research, Colombia had only had applications for the commercial release of GM crops that had already received regulatory approval, none for GM varieties that had originated in Colombian research, although GM crops that were being field tested and had been developed at CIAT had received approval for a more limited test release, following biosecurity guidelines.

88 individuals approached in order to provide a wide range of perspectives surrounding the wider context of genetic engineering use. A total of fifty-nine interviews were done in Canada (23) and Colombia (36) with a total of sixty-three individuals (see Table 1), in different regions of both countries. Data from both countries show a slight bias in the selection of interviewees towards the institutions in which participant observation occurred. For instance, of the 36 interviews done in Colombia, 19 were with CIAT personnel. The bias was not quite this strong in Canada, but five interviews were done with government employees of the same department of which the laboratory was a part. Interviewees were selected and recruited through previously made contacts (snowball method), by association with the research centre where participant observation occurred, and through web searches of institutions. Initial contact was largely made through electronic mail (e-mail), when I would introduce myself, my research project, and request an interview. A follow up telephone call was sometimes used in order to answer any further questions and/or to arrange a time to meet. The principle of saturation was used to determine sample size along with the availability and willingness of interviewees. As this was a qualitative study, the number of individuals interviewed was not determined by the number required to make statistical generalizations. Instead, since the goal was to explore what kind of issues surround and interact with genetic engineering, the number of interviews depended on a judgement of the point at which the likelihood of significant new issues arising is balanced against the expenditure (in time, later analysis effort, travel costs, etc.) required for further interviews. This is the point of saturation in qualitative interviewing (Kvale, 1996). Individuals were chosen for their ability to contribute different perspectives on genetic engineering. Group 1 interviews broadened knowledge about how and why genetic engineering research occurred. Group 2 interviews provided information on how genetic engineering fit into plant and agricultural research. Interviews with scientists in both groups were used to gain more information on how and why scientists went into certain areas of research, how they saw their research projects, and how their research fit into a global milieu. It also provided information on how scientists viewed the controversy over GMOs. Finally, Group 3 interviews were important to investigate the

89 social context which provides the impetus and constraints guiding research. For example, interviews with regulators provided detail on regulatory concerns for all GMO products. Other government employees provided information, for example, about Canadian biotechnology policy or trends in Colombian biotechnological research. This group gave alternate perspectives on the purposes and driving forces of research from those of genetic engineering researchers and other agricultural scientists. The interviews took place at a location and time of mutual convenience to the interviewee and researcher. This was generally in the office or laboratory of the interviewee, although interviews occasionally took place in neutral locations, such as coffee shops. Most interviews were approximately one hour in duration. Following an open ended structure, I began with asking the interviewees to provide some information on the individual's research training and background or background on their organization and its involvement with GMOs. I then continued on to various questions regarding the individual's work and his/her perceptions of GMOs and the controversy. Since the interview was semi-structured or open-ended, topics not listed in the questions were sometimes discussed and not all questions needed to be asked, as some topics of interest arose in conversation. Interviews were audio recorded, with the participant's permission. If the interviewee was uncomfortable with recording, only notes were taken. Twenty-four of the interviews were conducted in Spanish, usually with the assistance of a Spanish speaking assistant. Regardless of whether or not an assistant was present, since this was not always possible, a research assistant used the audio recording to write a summary of the interview in Spanish, allowing me a document to cross reference for validity with my English notes and to use as a guide to later work with the Spanish audio data. Since the majority of these interviews were recorded on digital media, allowing analytical manipulation of the audio files, most of the interviews were not transcribed. In the case of the digital recordings, a CD of the interview was made and sent to the interviewee. For those interviews recorded on cassette, a transcription was created and sent. This allowed participants to make whatever changes to the interview they felt were necessary.

90 Documents Examined for Ethnography

Examination of written records is an important third ethnographic method (Graham, 2006; Wolcott, 1999). Written records are of particular importance in multi- sited ethnography, as they can allow links to be traced to times and spaces where the ethnographer may not be able to go (Hannerz, 2003). They were used here to supplement data from participant observation and interviews. Most of the documents analyzed were largely connected to the sites of ethnographic research or interview participants in some way. These included, but were not limited to, authored publications, institutional reports, scientific web pages, and funding agencies' web pages. For example, research articles provided detailed information about the interviewee's research, and the form this work takes as part of international communication through science journals. The web pages of scientists provided an overview of their research, while web pages of members of government agencies and non-governmental organizations provided information about a particular institution's position or interest in GMOs. Many documents were chosen, as they were given to me or suggested by research participants as potentially of interest. Many of these documents cannot be specifically identified here, without also identifying the identity of interviewees. They were also chosen when they contained information necessary to complete analysis by following links through time and space. An example of this is the annual reports of the Biotecnologia unit, which allowed me to add chronological depth to the period in which I did participant observation. Another example is following up an interviewee's mention of, for example, the regulatory guidelines of a country, by reading documents about those guidelines. Finally, documents were also useful to access spheres which could not be accessed through interviews or participant observation. The scientific literature, particularly in the form of scientific review articles and editorials, were an important means of understanding publicly expressed attitudes of scientists towards the practice of genetic engineering and public concern over GMOs. These articles and editorials were accessed through search engines such as Web of Science. Regulatory documents and

91 internet web sites also provided information where it was not possible to interview individuals from regulatory and non-governmental organizations.

Data Analysis

Data analysis proceeded concurrently with data collection and write up, as ethnographic analysis is not a distinct stage of the research, but rather is an iterative process that feeds back into research design and data collection (Hammersley & Atkinson, 1995). This was particularly the case with the multi-sited nature of the research, as analysis of work in one site led to additional issues to investigate at the second site. In addition, the second site sometimes brought up additional questions about the first research site. Data analysis in the initial stages was informal and designed to give a better familiarity with the data. Transcripts, audio recordings, and notes were reviewed and emerging potential themes were noted. Key passages were also transcribed from the audio data. In later stages, data analysis was formalized to increase reliability, through the use of computer software. The software allows better organization of the data, so that themes can be checked and greater nuances in the data can be explored. Both Atlas Ti (Atlas.ti, 2007) and Transana (Wisconsin Centre for Education Research, 2007) were used. Atlas Ti provided an excellent overall analysis program, as it allowed me to analyze several different kinds of data: audio, digital photographs, video, as well as text data. It provided the opportunity to code data from these various sources into thematic areas and make connections between these themes. The program was well suited to the research analysis in question, as it is not a hierarchically-based program. It allows the identification and linking of various thematic codes (e.g. quotations in a particular area) without the need for these to be hierarchically related, which was a better fit for my research interests involving globalization, connections, and scientific research. Transana was useful in areas where Atlas Ti was not as proficient, particularly with the video data collected from the field site of laboratory tasks and the Spanish data. The software is designed to analyze video data and its use of a transcript accompanying a video allows careful observation of the video to be made and then categorized. In this

92 sense, it provides a better tool for more detailed video analysis than does Atlas Ti. Atlas Ti only allows portions of the video to be thematically coded, rather than the creation of an accompanying transcript. Transana is also able to link one audio WAV file (in this case, an audio recording of an interview) with multiple transcripts, something that Atlas Ti is not able to do. This was particularly useful for the interview recordings that were in Spanish, as this program allowed the research assistant's Spanish interview summary, my English interview notes, and key quotes or passages that had been transcribed from the interview, all to be linked to the same audio WAV file. Qualitative research software have the ability to perform a content analysis, where, for instance, the number of times portions of interviews are coded for a particular theme is intended to give a measure of the strength of that theme within the study population. The validity of such an approach can be questionable, however, given the use of a judgemental, rather than a random sample or any of the other necessities for the creation of a generalizable research design (Kvale, 1996). As Kvale points out, simply because an issue is only mentioned by one interviewee, does not make it any less important in the qualitative understanding of an issue. Nevertheless, the researcher can use the software to manage large bodies of data and organize patterns. It is perhaps most helpful in assisting a systematic examination of particular categories that one would expect to find, given debates in the literature or media on the topic of GMOs. Thematic analysis of interview transcripts, fieldnotes, audio recordings of interviews, photographic, and video data was divided into three areas, driven by my theoretical interests and research questions: 1) the local production and context of meaning for GMOs; 2) the way this meaning is translated into wider public debates; and 3) globalization and its interaction with the practice of science. These thematic areas were used to provide a framework and guide for the process of analysis, but the analysis was not tied to them. New thematic areas arose and themes within the broad three categories became better defined through the process of analysis. I will now talk about some of these sub-categories within these three main areas. In category number one, the local processes that produce GMOs include several sub categories. These included analysis of how scientific work was embodied and expressed through physical and technical tasks, the role of scientific knowledge, and how

93 specific sites of GMO production tied what they were doing with wider social issues. Analysis in this case was directed towards providing a thorough understanding and description of how GMO research was done in two particular local sites. In the second category, different perspectives on the GMO debate were traced through a variety of different actors. These actors were categorized into particular groups, due to their own research work and characteristics of their background, thereby simultaneously focusing analysis on both the actors' description of GMOs and the GMO controversy, as well as their description of self (their own group, providing an emic description) and others (groups who might have different perspectives on the issue, providing an etic description). Three key parts of globalization, as discussed in the literature, made up the third thematic category. These were connections between different parts of the world, increased global movement through technology, and global differences in resources or inequalities present in the contemporary political economy. Analysis therefore was focused to look at connections, global movement, and resources (or differences in resources) as they were discussed by scientists. Certain thematic areas relied more heavily upon data gathered from certain methods. For example, the technical habitus of scientific work was drawn more from participant observation field notes than from interview data, although both were used. Interview material was quite important for understanding different perspectives on the GMO debate, as well as how scientists positioned themselves globally.

Considerations of Power

Ethnographic research inevitably involves the researcher with questions of relative power, given that they are immersed into particular communities during the course of the project (Wilson, 1992; Tuhiwai Smith, 1999). "In presenting their methods, ethnographers seek to depict the varied qualities of their participation and their awareness of both the advantages and constraints of their roles in a specific setting" (Emerson et al., 1995: 203). While such biases cannot be removed, they can be acknowledged, in order to work towards what Harding refers to as 'strong objectivity' (Harding, 1993). While I provided some information about the roles I played within the two main sites of

94 participant observation, some additional comments about the wider power dynamics which impacted the multiple locations of my research help to reflexively position my study. My research in scientific institutions and associated organizations can simultaneously be considered a case of 'studying up', 'studying across' and 'studying down'. The research is 'studying up' in that the prestige and power of the research participants are often much greater than the researcher's (Nader, 1972)37. 'Studying up' alters the kind of research which can be done, as access to individuals and field sites may be limited and the research can be co-opted by powerful interests (Hess, 2001a; Nader, 1972). For instance, Harding (1998) notes that most postcolonial critiques of science have not come from participant observation studies of science because permission is needed from these scientists to study them. It is also a case of 'studying across' (Sheehan, 1993), as the research participants are largely educated, middle class people. Researchers in these situations will "share some of our informants' professional and intellectual concerns" (Sheehan, 1993: 253) and will be familiar with similar social capital and power as the researched. This creates a different kind of bias towards the familiarity of shared concerns. However, my research can also be construed as "studying down", since part of the research took place in a developing or southern country and therefore the researcher can be seen as representing the political, economic, and cultural influence of more privileged countries, even if the researcher's own perception of herself is that she has

TO similar or less power than the participant . "Western ethnographers now study people whose individual power is comparable to or equal to their own, but whose societies are

Of course, studying 'up' is a matter of perspective. It could be construed that any anthropologist who is respectfully studying among a group that has access to local knowledge or alternate forms of power that the researcher values is 'studying up'. 38 Various incidences occurred in Colombia, such as ease of interview access, etc. that differed from the reception I had received in similar situations in Canada and that were not explicable due to my personal access to power or influence, but which could be explained through my association with a more powerful geographic region. While any particular incident could be explained by other rationales, cumulatively, they are suggestive. For example, a request for an interview with one institutional official met the response that a senior official would be more 'appropriate' for me to talk to; when an interviewee was interrupted by a telephone call, he referred to me as an 'important' visitor, thus excusing his inability to prolong the telephone call; and a discussion with a research assistant about whether she or I should call to follow up an emailed request for an interview (due to my occasional difficulties understanding Spanish over the phone at the time) was met with the comment that my accent would 'help' me.

95 still subject to the political, economic, and cultural influence of the western core" (Sheehan, 1993: 253). This research therefore represents an attempt to balance studying 'up', 'across', and 'down'. Conducting research in both Canada and Colombia has aided in offsetting biases related to any one of these research positions, as it demanded a simultaneous dual focus on both 'marginal' and 'mainstream' positions.

Ethical Considerations

Ethical research, at its best, attempts to mitigate the unfair abuse of power and to avoid, as much as possible, the exploitation of and discomfort or harm to research participants (Hammersley & Atkinson, 1995; Tuhiwai Smith, 1999), although concern about the extent to which this is possible has been raised (Tuhiwai Smith, 1999). Wilson (1992) adds to this that it also means good scholarship, in the sense that good academic quality is provided through engagement with the empirical material found in the course of fieldwork. In Canada, research ethical board requirements are intended to ensure ethical research at the university level, operating under the Tri-Council policy for ethical research (Medical Research Council (MRC), the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC), and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC)) (Tri-Council Working Group, 1998). In consequence, my research went through the process of ethical review by Dalhousie University39. The Tri-Council policy is based on various ethical principles including the respect for human dignity, respect for free and informed consent, respect for privacy and confidentiality, respect for vulnerable persons, the balancing of harms and benefits, and the minimization of harm (Tri-Council Working Group, 1998). This tends to express itself in concern among the research ethical board about work among vulnerable persons, the ability to prove (preferably through written record) that an individual gave free and informed consent, and respect for the privacy of the individual through preservation of his/her identity. Several of the principles of ethical research, such as a desire to minimize harm, overlap with those held by anthropologists as a body. However, at times the

39 No formal permission (such as a research permit or ethical review) was required from the government of Colombia for research in the country, but one must be affiliated with a Colombian institution (Dra.

96 preferred approach advocated by the Tri-Council Policy and interpreted by local research ethics boards is difficult to translate into the ethnographic fieldsite while maintaining the original goals of ethical behaviour. This is perhaps one of the reasons why the code of ethical conduct of the American Anthropological Association (AAA), for instance, is based around the more fluid concept of varying responsibilities that must be balanced: responsibility to people with whom anthropological researchers work and whose lives and cultures they study; responsibility to scholarship and science; and responsibility to the public (American Anthropological Association, 1998). This interpretation of ethical behaviour puts an emphasis on the relationships that develop within the process of ethnographic fieldwork. I will therefore review the ethical considerations involved in my research, using main categories of concern to the Tri-Council (harm, privacy, and informed consent), but also discuss where the practices advocated by the research ethics board came into conflict with the maintenance of good relationships with and my responsibility to the people with whom I worked in particular situations.

Harm There is a research imperative not to harm, or cause damaging consequences for those who are participating in a research project. While ethnographic research rarely presents the same types of physical dangers as do medical experiments and interventions on patients, there is still the possibility that being researched will cause anxiety or that publication of the research could affect the public reputation of individuals or their material circumstances (Hammersley & Atkinson, 1995). This principle is therefore linked to the desire to maintain privacy and anonymity, which I will discuss below. Exploitation of research participants is also a potential concern for any ethnographic research, in that the researcher may derive tangible benefits from the research (such as a degree and career opportunities), while those being researched often receive little or nothing in return (Hammersley & Atkinson, 1995; Tuhiwai Smith, 1999). As many other ethnographers, I have relied greatly upon this form of generosity from those who were willing to grant me their time. Importantly, many of those to whom I

Margarita Chavez, Anthropologist, Institute Colombiano de Antropologia e Historia, pers. com.). In this case the Centro International de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT) fulfilled that function.

97 talked had sufficient prestige in their own communities to enable them to refuse an interview. In the micro-situations of participant observation, this issue is more delicate to negotiate, but as a temporary member of those communities, I tried to negotiate through what lay in my power to make up for the time and energy expended on my research. This varied from the situation in the Ottawa laboratory, where I served to provide some useful labour to the laboratory, to the CIAT centre in Colombia, where in the role of foreign visitor on a rotation between laboratory groups and not yet fluently bilingual, I was more difficult to communicate with and less helpful in the day-to-day work of the laboratory, although able to engage in more impromptu tasks such as English editing and translation.

Privacy and Anonymity Linked to the desire to minimize harm is the need to provide anonymity to research participants. Anonymity makes it difficult to identify research participants in published accounts and therefore should minimize harm to their reputations or material circumstances40 and the Tri-council policy suggests this is of key importance. This does not take into account, however, that within small communities, maintaining true anonymity can be a challenge when a great deal might be known in any given community about a particular individual. Therefore, following the AAA code of conduct, I stressed to all research participants that due to the small size of the genetic engineering research community, it might be possible for the identity of individuals to be guessed. This provided them with enough information to self-censure what they told me. This is different from promising confidentiality, which implies that information gained from research participants, in short the very goals of the research process, will not be made widely available. In keeping with this concern for maintaining anonymity, photographs and video taken in the laboratories focused on the hands of those participating in scientific research, rather than their entire bodies and faces. They are less identifiable and therefore preserve the anonymity of research participants, which was of concern to the research ethics board. Specific permission for taking photos or video was also obtained from all participants.

Although the AAA recognizes instances where individuals may wish to receive recognition, rather than to remain anonymous (American Anthropological Association, 1998).

98 It is usually possible to give sufficient information about the context of a person's activities without providing details that will identify particular individuals (Wilson, 1992). However, there are many decisions relating to how far anonymity and privacy is to be protected within the presentation of information within any written documents. For instance, it is fairly common practice in ethnography to use pseudonyms to refer to individuals and to give some context about a person's gender, etc., so as to make the information meaningful. This comes out of tradition of presenting people's words in a way that presents them as people, rather than numbers. It is also a practice that pays homage to the idea that gender and other characteristics can shape how an individual perceives the world around them, but to do this, it reveals an individual's gender. An experience I had while interviewing made me decide not to use pseudonyms so that I would not reveal the gender of the scientists I interviewed. One afternoon, at an interview with a woman at a Canadian university, when I was going over the letter of informed consent with her, the woman commented on the section that explained that it was common practice to use pseudonyms, but that no one's actual name would be used. 'That's fine' she said, 'You can call me Bill'. Many of the researchers who are quoted in this dissertation belong to a fairly small community of people, either in Canada or Colombia, who work on a particular plant. Adding the identifier of gender to this makes the community smaller still. Unlike Hayden (2003), who used pseudonyms for the plants under discussion, I have chosen to often include the name of the plants with which these scientists work, because there are some key differences between plants, particularly plants used as food, that matter both analytically to me as a researcher, but also to the scientists with whom I did the research. In consequence, I have chosen not to attach gender information (or ethnic or any of the other information we get from names) to interview quotations in order to protect anonymity for the purposes of this dissertation. There are many women, as well as men, who are represented in these pages, but the analysis of any gender differences between them will not be present in this dissertation, but may be in future work. Language and translation are other issues that are left to the author's discretion and which, to some extent, identify the research participant. Many of the interviews used in this work were conducted and recorded in Spanish. I have chosen, therefore, to include

99 the original Spanish passage, as well as the English translation here. I have done this for three reasons. The first is in the interests of scholarly accuracy, so that mistranslations that occurred have the possibility to be caught and noted in the future. Secondly, I have sometimes modified passages somewhat loosely from their literal translation in order to convey their meaning, as I remembered it in the context of the interview. In such a case, providing the original Spanish is more precise. Thirdly, the issue of accessibility to materials in Spanish, rather than English, was considered to be a political issue (once referred to as Hmperialismd'} by many of those surrounding me while I was doing the Colombian fieldwork. Therefore, as the words were originally spoken in Spanish, I present them here in Spanish.

Informed Consent Informed consent of research participants is an important component of ethical research and requires that all research participants are told the purpose of the study, who has funded it, how data will be collected, and how results may be used (Wilson, 1992). The process of obtaining consent, however, is recognized as more fluid and variable by the American Anthropological Association than it generally is by most research ethics boards, which expect a one time written informed consent. In ongoing fieldwork, such as participant observation, informed consent is made more difficult by continual changes in both the research participants' and the researcher's understandings of what the research is about and how it will be done (Wilson, 1992). This is formally recognized in the AAA code of ethical conduct: It is understood that the degree and breadth of informed consent required will depend on the nature of the project and may be affected by requirements of other codes, laws, and ethics of the country or community in which the research is pursued. Further, it is understood that the informed consent process is dynamic and continuous; the process should be initiated in the project design and continue through implementation by way of dialogue and negotiation with those studied. (American Anthropological Association, 1998: paragraph 16)

Added to this, in the case of my research, are the difficulties of different research contexts with different participant expectations of ethical research behaviour. Consent in an ethnographic situation needs to be continually re-negotiated in on-going dialogue between the researcher and research participants (Wilson, 1992). The interaction with research participants therefore entailed a variety of methods, including informal oral explanations,

100 formal presentations, and written letters of consent and information, as was appropriate for each situation. I also needed to accommodate the process of informed consent to the social organization of each location. The process of negotiating consent within the two main sites for participant observation, for instance, is different in each case. In the Canadian Ottawa site, the director of a group of 10-15 scientific workers allowed me to present my project to the group during laboratory meetings. The small group size allowed individuals to ask questions, and all members read and signed an informed consent form, regarding my presence in the laboratory. Conversations about my arrival had also taken place between the laboratory head and the laboratory members, and between the laboratory head and myself, which established certain guidelines before I arrived. For example, with the exception of the laboratory head, the other laboratory members were not formally interviewed, as I was told by the laboratory head that most were uncomfortable with this for reasons that were never fully explicated. Several group discussions on my research occurred during laboratory meetings and I was able to informally present preliminary findings before I left the fieldsite. I was also able to return to give updates on my work several times, a process which provided invaluable feedback on my research from the laboratory members. This process was facilitated by the laboratory practice of regular laboratory meetings of all members. Naturally, some were more engaged in this process than others, but it provided an opportunity for changes to be made, in particular to correct mistakes and to prevent harm to study participants. CI AT Biotecnologia unit contained more than 50 people in a number of various overlapping groups, who were in and out of the unit. This meant that the methods of obtaining ethical consent used in Ottawa would not have been practical at CIAT. Meetings with the Biotecnologia unit head to set general guidelines were very important, in terms of guiding appropriate research practices and we arranged for him to provide feed back on written work. The Colombian research community for social research does not require written informed consent practice. Formal written consent is associated with higher risk medical research. This required an alteration in Canadian, Tri-council oriented plans for obtaining ethical consent. Obtaining written consent could seem more alarming to my participants than the risks of my research warranted, making the process of obtaining written consent

101 more anxiety provoking than my research itself. I therefore presented my proposed research project, and the ethical information pertaining to it, during a regular seminar that was attended by individuals from all the different units within CIAT, and provided them with a letter of information. A combination of individuals from the biotecnologia unit and from other units attended. The audience expected a scientific research talk, rather than a meeting to discuss research participation. It was also too large for individual concerns to be adequately addressed, particularly since the large group size contributed to my nervousness and thereby reduced my Spanish ability. Therefore, constant one on one explanations of my research with individuals after this seminar was more necessary than in the Ottawa site and this took place throughout my time there, particularly when I moved from one small group to another. All interviewees were adult; most had one or more university degrees and had a familiarity with the concept of research. There was therefore no impediment to research ethics board informed consent. Written informed consent was sought from all Canadian interview participants. Since Colombia does not have a cultural practice of obtaining written informed consent for this kind of research, practices with interviewees in that country were more flexible. I did not collect signatures from all those interviewed in Colombia, particularly if the interviewee showed any discomfort signing the consent form. Nevertheless, the written letter of consent was reviewed with all participants and they were given time to read it. All interviewees (in Canada or Colombia) were left with their own copy of the consent form41, which was available in English and Spanish. Over the course of my research in Colombia, one of three research assistants42 accompanied me to all but five of the interviews conducted in Spanish and provided a written summary to all Spanish language interviews, based on the audio recording, whether they had been present or not. The ethical principles invoked by the research ethics board were reviewed with the assistants when we discussed the Spanish letter of consent, so that they would be able to assist me in explaining anything regarding this to interviewees.

41 There was one exception to this practice, which took place in an interview with a scientist who said he had too much paper around already and had already said everything that he was saying to me in public many times, so he was not worried about the interview and did not want to keep a copy of the consent form. Summary

This research used the methods of participant observation, qualitative interviews, and documentary analysis within a framework of multi-sited ethnography in order to understand the context of genetic engineering research and its connections to global processes. The research took place in Canada and Colombia, in order to investigate local- global connections and the application of genetic research for the purpose of development. Scientists who participated in this research included those working at national public institutions (universities, government laboratories) in Canada and Colombia, as well as those working within the international research station, CIAT (based in Colombia). While most of the scientists I spoke to used genetic engineering, I also spoke to other scientists (including plant breeders) who did not use this technology. In addition, this research included members of relevant organizations, such as NGOs, government, and others. In the next chapter I will begin to examine how GMOs were seen by scientists using genetic engineering, but first I will examine the way in which GMOs have been addressed by social scientists.

42 Research assistants changed depending on their geographical availability (for instance, the city in which I was interviewing) and the constraints of their other work or study commitments.

103 Chapter 4 GMOs in Laboratories

Introduction

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have concrete and specific form and meaning within the laboratories in which they are created. In order to demonstrate this, in this chapter I give ethnographic descriptions of two laboratories and the ways in which GMOs fit within those particular laboratory spaces. Such ethnographic descriptions are important in that they provide a sense of how GMOs exist on a day-to-day basis and the social space that surrounds and constructs them. This 'lived experience' of GMOs is usually ignored in discussions of their potential risks, social, or political aspects. A description of particular locations in which GMOs are created also demonstrates how GMOs are constructed differently, in material and symbolic combinations, in one location compared to the next. In addition, the ethnographic description of two GMO-creating laboratories allows me to show the ebb and flow of themes within each laboratory that contextualize GMOs. These themes include the following: 1) the multiple types of intellectual activities in which individuals within a laboratory engage in order to carry out scientific work; 2) the presence of the 'laboratory' as a social space or social grouping, which has in-group social validity, compared to the interaction of individual actors (including GMOs as non- human actors) across networks that are not circumscribed by abstract social constructs, such as the 'laboratory' and; 3) the interplay of 'local' and 'global' factors. The second and third of these themes are connected, in the sense that they both engage the flow between 'local' spaces and connections beyond, to more 'global' assemblages of exchange. These themes incorporate conceptual influences from science studies (including primarily the anthropology of science, as well as network studies, particularly actor network theory) and anthropological and sociological investigation of connections between the global and the local. I will address these themes in more detail in the following three paragraphs. Using the concepts ofphronesis, episteme and techne (Flyvbjerg, 2001), I suggest that there is a range of diverse intellectual activities that occur within laboratory scientific research. These are Aristotelian concepts that refer to different types of virtue or

104 knowledge about the world, ranging from the ability to direct one's actions within society (phronesis), basic principles or universal knowledge (episteme), and technical skill (techne). In using Flyvbjerg's (2001) definitions and seeing all of these kinds of knowledge, the embodied, the abstract, and the contextual, within the work of the laboratory, I am employing the concept of techne in a way that is different from recent work which opposes it to technoscience (Heath & Meneley, 2007; Heller, 2007). Individuals participating in research may specialize in some of these activities over others, but often have to go back and forth between categories of intellectual activity. For instance, I suggest that the daily activities within the laboratory require a focus on getting experiments and scientific protocols to work and executing them properly, and that this may require varying combinations of technical and epistemic knowledge to achieve. Daily scientific interaction with the values and wider social goals of a research project vary, depending on the role of the individual in the laboratory and the situation of the laboratory itself, but one's job description does not prohibit participation in all of the three categories of intellectual activities. This finding is contrary to previous accounts of laboratories that have distinguished between the 'heads' in laboratories, who do the cerebral work, and the 'hands' who do the physical work. What focusing on intellectual activities, rather than job roles, means for GMOs is that individuals engaged in scientific work on GMOs shift back and forth between the material aspects of GMOs, with which they interact technically, the scientific aspects of GMOs, which engage them epistemically, and the social aspects of GMOs, which require the situation of scientific work in relation to extra-laboratory factors. Framing a research laboratory as a 'local' site in which GMOs are constructed means acknowledging that a laboratory exists as a unit of analysis (Latour & Woolgar, 1986) in which to position GMOs. I refer to a 'laboratory' as a social unit within this chapter because a 'laboratory' has emic (in group) social relevance to the individuals who consider themselves to belong to that social group. The laboratory has social reality that shapes how human behaviour is organized and this 'insider perspective' needs to be acknowledged in order to understand the research work in which GMOs are enmeshed. At the same time, I use the insights of actor network theory to focus more broadly on networks and individual aspects of actors within scientific work. The proponents of actor

105 network theory suggest that the focus on abstract categories such as the laboratory (or 'science' and 'society') distracts from the creation of knowledge through networks of actors within science (Latour, 2004). These networks can include GMOs themselves who are present as non-human actors following either the actor network theory view proposed by Callon (1986) or, more broadly through Keating and Cambrosio's (2003) discussion of 'things' combining with skills, practices and meaning to create biomedical platforms. Combining the ethnographic approach to social groups with a science studies approach to networks of individuals performing science helps to portray and articulate the operation of GMOs within and beyond the social structure of the laboratory. GMOs are constructed from a combination of 'local' and 'global' concerns. Local labour patterns are present in the laboratories in which GMOs are created and GMOs occupy varying positions within these patterns. GMOs also fit into the trajectory of research and the research goals of that institution differently in each situation. At the same time, the institutions within which the research is taking place interact dynamically with many external factors and are therefore 'global'. For example, research laboratories in different countries often have different science policy goals and funding environments related to the wealth of the country in question and this may interact with the nature of a particular laboratory's research goals and how GMOs fit within both that funding context and those goals. In this dissertation, I contextualize genetically modified organisms by discussing the multiple forms and roles that they embody. Such an examination of context shows the differences in the way in which GMOs are perceived and perform that deepen our understanding of their multiple meanings and presences. This view adds to how they are portrayed in the media or in debate, where they are presented as a class of objects or organisms with a standardized set of homogeneous characteristics. I examined the historical context for GMOs in the previous chapter. In future chapters, I will discuss GMOs in their symbolic context and in a global political economic context. In this chapter, I highlight the most physical aspect of the context that surrounds GMOs: the laboratory and how GMOs fit within it. I will begin the chapter with a brief review of the conceptual implications of and influences on these themes. First will be a section discussing the anthropological and

106 sociological investigation of the local and global at the macro level. I will then turn to a comparison of the anthropological versus network approaches to examining laboratories within science studies. A combination of these approaches will create a lens for how I will look at laboratories and the work that is carried out within them. I will then show how GMOs fit into the two laboratory sites in which I did participant observation, including an ethnographic description of the activities and roles of those within those sites. This will show how sites of GMO creation can be assembled to participate in scientific work differently and how GMOs fulfil different roles within each site. Finally, I will compare the two sites to highlight how GMOs are both constructed by and construct their concrete surroundings in order to emerge as different non-human actors in each site.

Looking at the Local and the Global

As I have already mentioned, laboratories are both 'local', in that they are situated in a particular place, and 'global', in that they are tied to wider networks of individuals and ideas. In discussing globalization, authors such as Spybey (1996) have argued that global influences or institutions only exist as global phenomena if individuals in local spaces take them into their lives. "By definition, global institutions depend for their continuing existence upon social acts of reproduction on a global scale" (Spybey, 1996: 7). Smith (1999) argues that focusing on acts of reproduction to understand such local- global connections avoids the reification of the global or the local into things, rather than processes. Tsing (2002) cautions that there is an inherent danger in discussing local- global interaction in seeing the 'global' as an external process and the 'local' as a bounded space. This suggests that local and global may be thought of as both processes and spaces. Furthermore, active reproduction of the global is never a passive process, but instead should be thought of as uneven and contested (Spybey, 1996). It is important to remember, however, that such active reproduction is collective as well as individual and that collective behaviour has theoretical importance in understanding social behaviour (Douglas, 1992). Social patterns are always constructed within interactions between many individuals and exclusive focus on the individual ignores intersubjectivity, consensus making and social influences (Douglas, 1992). There

107 is therefore "simultaneous interdependence and opposition at the level of the social formation (not just at the level of the local fieldsite)" (Smith, 1999: 9). Collier and Ong (2005) are attempting to balance these tensions, between collective social reproduction and individual actions, as well as between what is local and what is global, when they suggest looking at global assemblages (or layers of relationships) rather than globalization, per se. They suggest "a form of inquiry that stays close to practice" and therefore employs a "mode of diagnosing the anthropological significance of these practices [that] stays close to specific problems" (Collier & Ong, 2005: 15). In keeping with this approach, then, I suggest that laboratories need to be seen as local social processes (which are collectively created), as well as spaces. Attention to these local practices and spaces of the laboratory is leavened with an awareness of the way in which global forms are "articulated" or "territorialized" (Collier & Ong, 2005: 4) in specific situations. A networks studies and actor network theory approach to the same space might seem to be in contrast with such an approach, but I detail here how it adds to existing work documenting laboratory practices within anthropological studies of science.

Looking at Laboratories

An ethnographic approach is used to understand laboratories as concrete locations in which particular GM plants emerge within a set of ongoing practices. Anthropological study of science allows us to examine a physical location and the practices that take place within it. While this approach allows understanding of laboratories as the social units in which GMOs are created, additional insights into how human actors engage with GMOs within the laboratory are found by looking at the network studies approach within science studies. I will review here some of the relevant network studies concepts important for understanding GMOs and laboratory research and explore how this fits into an ethnographic perspective within my approach, as well as where these two approaches could be seen to conflict. I employ the concept of non-human actors, used in science studies and specifically originating in actor network theory, in order to present how GMOs are involved in human networks both within and outside of the social unit of a particular laboratory. Callon (1986) suggests that the sociology of science had previously maintained a distinction

108 between the natural and the social when discussing scientific controversies. He argues that definite boundaries between natural and social events "are to be considered conflictual, for they are the result of analysis rather than its point of departure" (Callon, 1986: 201). Similarly, drawing upon Latour (1993), there should be symmetry in discussion between things that are held to belong to the social world (such as people) and those held to belong to the natural world (such as objects). Humans and non-humans (e.g. technologies, institutions, corporations) are treated as epistemologically equivalent for the purpose of critical analysis and are 'actors' inasmuch as they have the ability to act and be acted upon. (Williams-Jones & Graham, 2003: 272)

Objects, as non-human actors, are important since they affect human behaviour, even if they appear passive. Callon and Law (1995) draw on the example of the telephone. A telephone may not appear to have any agency, but "this impression changes when the telephone rings. Even if one decides to ignore the call, the telephone has still provoked a decision making process and elicited a response" (Williams-Jones & Graham, 2003: 273). Hess (1997a), on the other hand, suggests that for those still uncomfortable with the idea of an object having agency, another way of viewing non-human actors is that of being granted a degree of agency by those who surround them, which in turn elicits changes in behaviour and interaction. Non human actors can be seen as both an etic category, that assists the researcher in understanding interactions within the laboratory and an emic category in that plants are spoken of by scientists as if they have agency (e.g. 'a recalcitrant bean'). GMOs function as non-human actors, in that they have both the ability to act (as living organisms) and to be acted upon, and they could be considered to be granted a degree of agency by those with whom they work. The use of this term emphasizes the differences between different GMOs and their presence as living things whose reactions to laboratory environments or laboratory protocols impact the research that is done. Viewing GMOs as non-human actors also emphasizes their concrete presence in a laboratory, rather than the perspective of them as an abstract object of controversy. The concept of non-human actors is generally situated within wider actor network theory perspectives that focus on the interaction between actors within networks. Actor network theory traces social and technical relations; the significance of entities is

109 achieved through their relations with other entities (Williams-Jones & Graham, 2003). The idea is to understand how these relations or networks create meaning for these entities (Williams-Jones & Graham, 2003), rather than to focus on a bounded site of research. As Hess (1997b) points out, such an approach was originally developed out of philosophical and sociological concerns about the way in which knowledge was created, legitimated, and promoted. Since such a process occurred outside as well as within the boundaries of the laboratory, a focus on networks was advantageous. While studies within laboratories have formed a key part of science studies for some time (for example those of Knorr-Cetina (1981), Latour and Woolgar (1986), and Lynch (1985)) (Hess, 1997b), actor network theory perspectives have questioned the laboratory as an isolated unit. While science has been represented as occurring in a black box (Latour & Woolgar, 1979; Latour, 1993), the boundary between the science and society or politics has been continually discussed as an artificial one (Callon, 1986; Latour, 2004). In this view, not only does science have implications for society and society have implications for science, but this division itself is thought to be the imposition of a false dualism (Latour, 1993; 2004) Harding (1998; 2006) has further highlighted the number of non laboratory locations in which science is enacted and has observed that participant observation within a laboratory may create an inability to draw truly critical pictures of the workings of science. These authors suggest, therefore, that the laboratory might not necessarily be the appropriate place to study science and knowledge creation. Furthermore, GMOs can be viewed as interacting within networks, in which they both affect and are affected by others, independent of a bounded physical space. Nevertheless, I suggest an account of GMOs that lacks consideration of the physical and social location in which GMOs take shape is incomplete. An ethnographic perspective provides information about collectively constructed local practices, which as I have outlined above are important for understanding local (laboratory) to global (non-laboratory) interactions. It therefore combines the local practices and spaces of the laboratory with the connections (or networks) that flow from it. Viewing the location of GMO creation as an ethnographic fieldsite calls on the anthropological approach to science studies, which focuses on the role of meaning,

110 power, and social issues within scientific practice (Hess, 1997b). This differs from what Hess (1997b) describes as the 'first wave' of studies done within laboratories, in that these initial studies tended to focus on the creation of knowledge and were driven by philosophers and sociologists of science. Ethnographic laboratory studies tended to take place over a longer period of time and enabled the researcher to better understand how the daily practices within the laboratory relate to social issues of interest, or the creation of meaning (Hess, 1997b). In this case, I am interested in both how GMOs are interacted with on a practical level and how this relates to the meaning they are given within a specific context. As anthropologists have noted when addressing globalization, the local site remains important, no matter how many interactions across sites are in play (Inda & Rosaldo, 2002). Nevertheless, as in globalization-related studies where the local and global are inevitably intertwined, issues of meaning and daily interaction for GMOs within the laboratory relate to issues of power and the social debate over genetic modification that extend beyond the reach of the bounded space of the laboratory. While meaning is certainly given to GMOs through a network of social and technical relations, the only way to counter a homogenizing discourse surrounding GMOs is through an account of different GMOs in their own particular circumstances. Furthermore, the laboratory, as a social unit, may have great importance when seen through the perspective of those working there, who are involved in GMO creation. A laboratory is often viewed by those within it as a social unit, which may only have tenuous connections to other similar social units. For instance, Heath (1997) recounts that in the course of her ethnographic research, one scientist, commenting on differences between practices in one laboratory compared to another, said "Labs are like independent fiefdoms; they're really premodern" (Heath, 1997: 69). There can be differences in culture both between and across scientific laboratories, as different laboratories may have different practices, but they may also share various practices with other laboratories working within a similar research area (Heath, 1997)43.

Heath gives the example of different styles of working with a pippetter, an instrument used to suction and move small amounts of liquid, between molecular biology and protein related research in order to demonstrate that practices can be the same between different laboratories working in the same area, while differing for those who are in a different area.

Ill Laboratory practices can be categorized in terms of the roles that individuals within a laboratory have. For instance, practices have previously been split into roles for 'heads' and roles for 'hands', which distinguishes between manual and cerebral work that takes place within a laboratory (Heath, 1997). Tacit or embodied knowledge has been described as extremely important for understanding scientific practices in the laboratory, whether these are visual, tactical, or auditory (Doing, 2004; Mody, 2005). Heath (1997) suggests not only the importance of embodied knowledge within scientific work, but also that the embodied knowledge, or 'being hands' in science is seen as being a necessary stage before one is seen as having intellectual or cerebral input into science. The division of technoscientific labour is characterized by an apprenticeship system in which individuals are expected to work their way up from the "manual" labour of benchwork through graduate training and post-doc fellowships, eventually attaining the credentials necessary to do the "mental" labour of the PI [principal investigator] (and to be the "mind" that controls the "hands" of others). This privileges the role of rationality, while claiming to limit its distribution. It also relegates the career technician permanently to the status of non-mind. (Heath, 1997: 72)

She comments that the factory-like split between hands and heads within the laboratory is part of clarifying who has scientific 'ownership' of the scientific knowledge being presented, such as some scientists' practice of not including scientific technicians as authors on scientific papers, as they only did the manual labour involved. Heath (1997) notes, however, that authorship practices are contested and differ from laboratory to laboratory, while at the same time suggesting that the split between 'hand' and 'head' work is recognized more universally. While this split between 'hands' and 'heads' is important, in terms of the ethnographic fieldsites I describe here, I suggest it is more useful to focus on different types of activities (drawing from a range of embodied and cerebral work). Even though individuals may do very similar tasks from one day to the next, over the course of weeks or months, their tasks might change. I observed a continual movement of individuals shifting back and forth between embodied and more cerebral scientific work. It is therefore more appropriate, in this case, to discuss types of tasks done or knowledge and skills used by members of both laboratories, rather than using a strict hierarchy of laboratory hands working under a laboratory head. Therefore, as previously indicated, I

112 use the Aristotelian categories of techne, episteme, andphronesis to better understand the types of activities that go on in the laboratory and how these activities interact with GMOs in order to produce meaning.44 While scientists appear to use the terms 'heads' and 'hands' as emic categories in these laboratories, the Arisotelian categories are etic, or researcher imposed: they assist in drawing closer attention to the nature of the activities making up work practices. Using Flyvbjerg's (2001) interpretation, techne is technical skill, episteme is basic principles or universal knowledge, and phronesis can be translated as practical wisdom or the ability to direct one's actions within society. "It [phronesis] is ... the relationship you have to society when you act.. .Whereas episteme concerns theoretical know why and techne denotes technical know how, phronesis emphasizes practical knowledge and practical ethics" (Flyvbjerg, 2001: 55). Bench or laboratory work requires consummate techne and a good grasp of episteme. Phronesis, in terms of discussing the wider connections of one's research is more distant from the priorities of day-to-day laboratory work and can take various shapes within a laboratory context. I use these three concepts in order to highlight the different levels upon which GMOs, and laboratory objects in general, are incorporated into scientific work in the laboratory. In addition, they demonstrate how particular 'head' or 'hand' roles can flexibly involve different kinds of activities in the action of scientific work. These three Aristotelian categories, which were originally discussed as intellectual 'virtues' (Hutchinson, 1995), are heuristically useful for examining variation in intellectual activity within the laboratory. A focus on practices and the knowledge (be it embodied, abstract, or social) required to carry out those practices better reflects the differences in the training of those encountered in the laboratory and the variety of skills they would use there. Individual laboratory members were not producing knowledge in a factory setting, but rather were flexibly interacting with tasks using different combinations of intellectual activities (i.e., skills and knowledge) in order to work toward the goals set by the head of the laboratory. This is particularly the case over time, since

Much of the discussion concerning phronesis, episteme, and techne, as well as its relationship to the Ottawa laboratory was previously published in Holmes (2006), although the discussion here is expanded and now includes both laboratory sites.

113 some individuals in laboratories had quite a varied schedule of tasks in which they engaged. Techne is the most visible type of knowledge in the laboratory. It is pragmatic, variable, and context-dependant and often refers to the production of something, as in a craft or art (Flyvbjerg, 2001). The skill of pipetting is an example of techne. To pipette, one uses a small hand-held instrument (a pipette) to draw up a certain amount of a liquid and then to deposit it into a container. Pipetting is necessary in a variety of situations. Exactly how this is done, however, depends entirely on the context. In some situations, the pipette tip should touch the container to allow the last tiny droplet of liquid sticking to the tip to transfer to the side of the container. This is particularly important when pipetting small volumes of liquid. In other instances, it is important that the pipette tip does not touch the receiving container, in order to prevent contamination. The individual pipetting needs to know in which situations it is or is not appropriate to touch the pipette tip to the side to achieve a successful completion of the protocol or experiment. This kind of skill forms the building block of scientific bench work. If there are no skilled technicians, it is impossible to bring a project to completion. Techne tends to be passed on through demonstration or practical training. Details are demonstrated, but generally not written down. Written experimental protocols can be hard to follow. One needs to either confirm certain details with people who have used the protocol before or start a period of trial and error until the protocol works. For instance, is it essential to remove an RNA extraction from its room temperature incubation and to put it into the centrifuge at precisely five minutes, as the protocol says? Or is there flexibility here? There are many aspects of techne which would be difficult to learn without "hands- on" training from another person. In everyday work in the laboratory, there are myriad small details that have to be remembered and done correctly, in order for a scientific procedure to work. For example, if tissue culture work is not done properly and the plant growth media does not stay sterile, you loose the plants (including GM plants) or bacteria you are trying to grow. This type of activity requires a great deal of mental energy (at least when you are learning, as I was) and is more immediately necessary to successful scientific work on a day-to-day basis than thinking about how the wider project relates to larger social processes.

114 Those who run laboratories usually do not do this kind of task on a daily basis. In order to achieve such a position, however, most scientists have had to do that kind of task in the past (Heath, 1997)45. For instance, in most laboratories a basic competency in such activities needs to be demonstrated at undergraduate, masters, and sometimes doctoral levels before one can advance to positions without daily laboratory work. This process is similar to the creation of a 'medical gaze' among medical students where they learn to view people using a machine metaphor through their training in dissection and anatomy (Davenport, 2000; Good & Good, 1993). This gaze leads many medical students to focus on particular body parts to be fixed much as parts of a machine would be fixed, downplaying a holistic view of the interconnections within a person's body. Training may create a 'scientific gaze' which prioritizes laboratory-based, detail-related activities in the doing of science. Episteme was also present in the laboratory, where it would intertwine with discussions involving techne. Episteme is described as a kind of knowledge that is universal and invariable, which consists of deductions from and understanding of the basic principles of nature (Flyvbjerg, 2001). It concerns "the facts about the universe that cannot be altered" (Hutchinson, 1995: 206), or at least a working copy of what we think are those facts. It is generally this kind of intellectual virtue which is referred to when scientific knowledge or scientific laws are mentioned. In this instance, I refer to it as the specialized, abstract scientific knowledge called on by scientists to understand the principles at play within the organisms with which they work. Episteme lurks just below the daily whirl of protocols to be followed, below the mass of details to be remembered and executed. It is essential for problem solving when one's techne fails. It is at this point that the general rules underlying a protocol come into play in order to change and reorder activities to obtain the desired result. Episteme can also be seen when someone new is being trained. Sometimes a protocol is just demonstrated, but if it is also explained then episteme is used. I can, for example, be shown how to add hygromycin properly when I am making the plant growth media in which transformed plant material will grow. But I will not understand why unless I know

Conversations with scientists suggest that there are cross-cultural and organizational differences in the intensity and nature of such training, determined by the availability of technicians, the value placed on the ability to do such tasks oneself, etc.

115 that the plant has been transformed to be resistant to the antibiotic hygromycin, so as to mark it as a transformed plant, and therefore plant material that was unsuccessfully transformed will die on this plant growth media. Episteme is crucial to the methodology and design of experiments, as an understanding of the biological principles involved is necessary to direct why and how an experiment will be done. It guides the ordering and revision of scientific activities and provides the purpose behind the necessity for detail. Phronesis can be viewed as the link between such activities and the wider context in which research is done: how, in short, it fits into society. While the possibility of the category of society is contrary to an actor network theory perspective, which seeks to reduce the duality between science and society, it is worth considering how scientists see their work as interacting within society, in that many scientific participants may see a difference between science and society themselves. Phronesis, in this sense, can be thought of as activities which, performing according to an idealistic actor network theory view, reduce the dissymmetry of science studies by showing how scientists participate in both science and society at the same time. Horn phronesis is engaged in differs between different laboratory sites in particular ways that I will explore further in this chapter. The perspective presented in this chapter, therefore, represents a combination of both actor network theory and ethnographic approaches. I provide some attention to how connections link individual and objects (including GMOs), both within and outside of the laboratory, as is indicated in actor network theory, while placing those individuals and objects within a wider ethnographic context. To this end, I focus in this chapter on two individual sites where GMO are created. Further I describe the practices, social relations and concerns that apply within these sites that involve both those who are working there and GMOs, as non-human actors.

Describing the Two Laboratories

I start out with a brief description of the countries in which these two laboratories are situated. I will then move on to a description of the routine of the laboratories, in order to provide an ethnographic context for later description of the roles and the place of GMOs within the laboratories. Such a description also demonstrates what I have referred to above as the 'social unit' aspect of the laboratories in which I did participant

116 observation, while at the same time acknowledging the daily contact the individuals within that unit had with a wider group of people outside the laboratory unit, but within the institution in which they were working. In both cases, the institutions themselves had strongly demarcated boundaries, in that traffic in and out of the institution was controlled. Next, an examination of the work roles in the laboratory will address the question of the usefulness of the distinction between 'head' and hands', mentioned above as prevalent in science studies. While this distinction can aid in understanding how labour is organized within laboratories and the relationship of this labour to knowledge, I will also detail where it does not apply. Finally, in the sections on how GMOs fit, I discuss how GMOs were inserted into the activities of the laboratory, as well as its social or institutional goals.

Ottawa Government Laboratory

Canada Canada is located in the northern hemisphere and extends roughly from 49°N to 80°N, with a land area of 9,215,430km2 (Stanford, 1998) and is located to the north of the United States of America between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Its population was estimated to be 33,091,228 in 2007 (Statistics Canada, 2007), most of which is concentrated along its southern border (Stanford, 1998). The northern two-thirds of the country have long, cold winters, and short, cool summers. With the exception of the west coast of the country, Canada has a winter season with snow cover and average temperatures below freezing, although there are variable climatic conditions within the country (Encyclopaedia Britannica Online, 2008). In 2005, the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita was $US 35,073 and the life expectancy for males was 77 and 82 for females (United Nations Statistics Division, 2007a). Child mortality under five is six per 1,000 births (United Nations Statistics Division, 2007a). Canada, was made up of former British and French colonies, and was created as a dominion by that name in 1867 (Encyclopaedia Britannica Online, 2008). It did not reach its current boundaries until the mid-twentieth century with the inclusion of Newfoundland into the confederation. It is a parliamentary state, with the British monarch serving as its chief of state (represented in

117 Canada through the Governor General) (Encyclopaedia Britannica Online, 2008). While Canadians have been and continue to be involved in various kinds of military conflicts, there has not been a war or battle on Canadian soil since 1885 (Canadian War Museum, 2006). It has the world's largest border not patrolled by military forces (8,890 km with the United States) (Encyclopaedia Britannica Online, 2008). Despite a strong history of rural settlement and agriculture, as of 2001, 80% of the Canadian population was defined as urban and 20% as rural (Statistics Canada, 2005). Agriculture in the country, similar to the United States, has featured an increase in mechanization and farm size, with more land being owned by fewer individuals and the on-farm population has dropped from 3,289,140 people in 1931 to 727,125 in 2001 (Statistics Canada, 2001b). It is also becoming harder for on-farm families to make a living and farm work often has to be supplemented with off-farm employment. For instance, the average total income from all sources for all farm census families in 2000 was $64,160, 3.2% lower than the $66,263 received by census families in the general population (Statistics Canada, 2001a). In addition, net farm income contributed only 18 cents of each dollar earned in total family income for 2000 (the rest being earned off-farm), a decline from 1995 (Statistics Canada, 2001a).

A Day in the Laboratory The Ottawa laboratory was located within a complex of government buildings within that city. Employees regularly arrived to work between 7:30 and 8:30 am, often by bus, although also by roller blading, walking or (my personal choice of transportation) by bicycle along Ottawa's bike and walking paths. While Anglophones in the building tended to commute from Ottawa and its suburbs in Ontario, Francophones seemed to be more likely to live across the Ottawa River in Hull, in the province of Quebec. Everyone working in the building had to show a pass to a security guard to get into the building or they had to be signed in and escorted by someone who did have a pass. The building had several different laboratory units, such as the one I studied, as well as a library and a cafeteria. All of the laboratory units were working on slightly different projects, directed by the investigating scientist. As I mentioned in the last chapter, all such laboratories carried out research that could be applied to better regulate health products. In some cases, they created or fine tuned tests for standardization of product. However, the

118 laboratory I spent time in was interested in creating expertise about a range of new class pharmaceutical and medicinal products, including those created within genetically engineered plants. The laboratory I was in consisted of approximately 12-15 people, depending on the number of students and casual employees who were there at any particular time. It operated as a social unit, in the sense that people worked in close proximity to each other, all attended the weekly laboratory meetings, and worked under the direction of the same two individuals who ran the laboratory. Individuals had ties to those in other laboratory units, with whom they might interact socially in the cafeteria or at special social events, such as birthdays or baby showers, but their work usually did not overlap. Of course, exceptions occurred when two laboratories were collaborating with each other or when a member of one laboratory was borrowing time on equipment belonging to another laboratory. The laboratory existed within a physical space of four adjoining rooms, two of which were very large, with bays within them, containing a variety of scientific and computer equipment. All of them were flanked by a wide corridor, which had tables and where food was allowed to be consumed46. It was a corridor with which I was to become very familiar. Not only were most of my coffee breaks and lunch hours spent there, but the corridor also served as 'overflow' office space and therefore I and one other student were given desk space there. When I came in in the mornings, it was usual for people to be doing some computer or paper work in the two computer areas within the laboratory. They might be catching up on some record keeping from the day before, sending emails, ordering supplies, or other tasks. This period only usually lasted for half an hour to an hour, after which laboratory members started doing 'bench work'47. I usually filled this short period of quiet in the mornings by making myself useful with small laboratory tasks, such as

Food is not allowed to be consumed in laboratory spaces for safety reasons and therefore places for food consumption are generally strongly delineated. 47 The phrase laboratory or lab bench refers to the piece of furniture on which what gets commonly thought of as 'scientific' work in a scientific laboratory is done and incorporates the usual array of test tubes, pipetters, etc. Therefore, the phrase 'bench work' is a colloquial scientific term used to describe experimental work done at the laboratory bench, rather than ecological field work, agricultural field visits, etc.

119 preparing pipette tips for autoclaving. If anyone had a longer protocol to accomplish that day, the time spent at the computers would often be much shorter. As I was assigned to the 'plant team', after this quiet period, we often went to look after the plants in the morning, which were located in growing rooms in another wing of the building. We would water the plants, fertilize them (if necessary), and check that the temperatures were correct and that the humidifier, ventilation, and lights were working properly. The latter sounds quite routine, but the plants were grown completely inside, and moreover, some, such as the rice plants, would not grow well outside in Ottawa. Therefore, conditions had to be carefully controlled, which ensured that the humidifier was working properly, something that failed us not infrequently. In addition, we might need to harvest seeds (carefully recording which plants and therefore which transformation 'event'49 they had come from). Or we might plant 'seedlings'50. Others in the laboratory might spend their mornings doing tissue culture work (with plant or animal cells, depending on the project of interest), purify and test proteins, or using molecular biological techniques to create genetic constructs, extract DNA or many other tasks. Record keeping was an important part of daily routine, which resulted in a flow of motion, back and forth between the lab bench areas and office areas. Record keeping might be done while waiting for parts of a protocol to finish, so one could move on to the next stage in the same way that, when baking at home, one might put on a load of laundry or do other tasks while waiting for bread to rise and be ready for the next stage of bread making. Multi-tasking in this way was accomplished with the assistance of digital timers, which could be slipped into one's pocket and taken with one to remind you when it was time to move on to the next stage of a protocol.

A scientific protocol is a series of instructions for accomplishing a particular scientific task. A protocol often requires a set amount of time to complete and therefore cannot always be started and stopped to suit the requirements of the regular work day and so must be planned out ahead of time when working in an environment of an eight hour work day. 49 When plant tissue has foreign DNA inserted into it, it is 'transformed'. Because each sample of tissue might not be transformed in the same way, all plants in the laboratory were genealogically descended from a particular 'transformation event' or piece of tissue. This is not unlike keeping track of the 'lineage' of an individual in a reckoning of kinship, but had added scientific significance in that the desired genes and therefore trait might not have been successfully transferred in any particular instance of transformation. 501 refer here to small plants that were grown in media using sterile technique and then transferred to dirt pots. Some of these were sprouted from seed, whereas others might have grown out of tissue culture preparations.

120 Another activity during gaps in protocols was to have a coffee break. Around 10 in the morning, most people had a break to have tea or coffee. Some made these themselves in the corridor beside the laboratory, while eating a snack that they had brought and chatting. Others went to the cafeteria and got coffee there and stayed there to chat with other people from other laboratories. I did both of these things on occasion, but as the 'plant team' tended to belong to the corridor contingent, that was usually where I ended up. Lunch occurred in a similar fashion, with most people eating lunches they had brought from home or something purchased in the cafeteria at the tables in the corridor at times when it best suited the work to stop. The exact time of this changed depending on the work being done at any particular time, but only lasted for half an hour, so as to stick to the seven-and-a-half-hour work day. Some people did chose to work a slightly longer day, so that they could have extra time at lunch to exercise or run errands. After lunch, it was back to finish up the day's laboratory work. Again, the length of time this would take would depend on the task an individual was doing that day. For the 'plant team' I was a part of, afternoon or later morning tasks might involve plant tissue culture or making media51 or solutions. If these tasks were finished for the day, I often spent this period engaged in activities such as prepping items for autoclaving, autoclaving and doing other general lab tasks that were usually assigned to summer students (often those with less scientific training), which was the supplementary role I had taken on. The last hour or so of the afternoon was generally spent updating notebooks (either hand written or electronic ones) and doing other record keeping, until it was time to leave. Most people left between 3:30 and 4:30 pm. If employees needed to work overtime because a protocol required longer hours, then they left slightly earlier on another, quieter, day. Graduate students usually kept more flexible hours, as they were not paid for a standard work week in the same way as other employees were, and might come in late, stay late, or come in on weekends more frequently. Regular employees, on the other hand, restricted to a regular work week, did this only when it was absolutely necessary in order for project specific tasks to get done. The exception was the laboratory head, who also often stayed late and came in on weekends.

51 Media is the medium of nutrients in which plants would be grown in sterile conditions.

121 One day a week, the morning (or at least an hour of it) was given over to a laboratory meeting, which everyone was expected to attend. This meeting was important for discussion about who was responsible for which general laboratory tasks and allowed any difficult issues, either with laboratory arrangements or with the science being undertaken to be brought up. It also allowed individuals who might work on disparate parts of a project to get an idea of what the others were doing. Variation in daily tasks occurred depending on the progress of the research. As research work progressed by stages, it changed the tasks required. For example, in the group I was working with, the stage of transforming plants required certain tissue culture activities, so we would regularly change the media the callus was on, make media, etc.. However, once those plants were successfully producing their own seeds, a stage of testing the transgenic plants for various properties was required and was accompanied by different types of tasks. It is therefore important to make a distinction between laboratory research, which changes depending on the needs of the research goals or questions, and a factory type laboratory, which may be set up to do only one thing over and over again, as is the case in, for instance, a service laboratory doing regulatory testing or evaluating medical tests. This difference has relevance to the following discussion of laboratory work roles.

Roles in the Laboratory Roles in the Ottawa laboratory had two aspects52. They could relate to the project on which one is working and/or the individual's job title and level of expertise. Labour in the Ottawa laboratory was organized into teams, so that different teams worked on different projects or different parts of the same project. For instance, I was in the 'plant' team. There were several projects other than the one involving GMOs and these were done using animal cell tissue cultures and required a different set of techniques and protocols. The work using plants and GMOs included the creation of genetic constructs, which required molecular biological techniques; the transformation and maintenance of the plant tissue culture, which required aseptic technique; and the purification of the

521 focus, in this description on roles of direct importance to the scientific research occurring at this site. There is, of course, a wider context of government employees in roles such as the Director General, Directors, Managers, etc. that function above this and impact what is considered to be acceptable 'regulatory science'.

122 protein resulting from the transgenic plant, which required yet another set of techniques and equipment. Sometimes this process was divided up and given to different teams to work on. Alternately, graduate students might be participating in this whole continuum of activities, following the flow of their own particular project. The laboratory head was therefore in charge of directing all of these activities by providing feedback, coordinating between teams, and planning of what steps were next to take in the project. Interacting with the project specific roles that individuals had, they also had different levels of expertise in areas. One might be a member of the plant team and also the laboratory's microbiology resource person. Alternately, they might be working on protein purification and be the resource person for molecular techniques in the laboratory. This refers not only to knowledge about that particular area, but also to 'how to' knowledge of physically doing those tasks. Scientific roles in the Ottawa laboratory sometimes went along with differences in job titles, but not always. In addition, since this was a government laboratory, it was not structured in the same way as many university laboratories. For instance, many university laboratories might contain a research head (a tenured or tenure track professor), with graduate students working on some aspect related to the head's interest and with a range of possible autonomy for those projects (depending on the political economy of the situation - what they are being funded for, what kind of research it is, etc.). The degree of autonomy for students may determine what 'hands' or 'head' type tasks in which students participate. A university laboratory may also contain laboratory 'techs' or technicians, who tend to be thought of as 'hands'. In fact, these individuals can be highly skilled and do innovative work, or have fairly routine tasks associated with them. They may also have a range of educational and work experience behind them. The laboratory may also contain post-doctoral researchers, who may be hired for their ability to think through scientific problems or simply because they are very highly skilled 'hands'. Although the labels may be the same from one university laboratory to another, the characteristics and actual tasks of those filling those official posts can be quite variable. In a government laboratory, while the variability between job labels and experience and duties can still vary, the system is slightly different. Government workers

123 are all hired and continue in their employment according to certain set rules negotiated between government policy (which aims to avoid nepotism and create some flexibility within their work force) and labour union representatives (who aim to preserve job security and personnel seniority). In the Ottawa laboratory, therefore, there were many permanent government employees, including the laboratory head. The heads of laboratories within the government organization resembled university laboratory heads, in that they planned research, applied for funding, administered laboratories, and wrote up research findings for publication. They also had substantial committee duties, in their role as scientific advisors to other areas of the government department they were within. Employees working under the laboratory head may have extensive education, skills and abilities, and can be attracted by the benefits, security or reasonable working hours of a government job, compared to university work. All had a certain amount of professional training in the sciences, such as a bachelors or masters degree. The presence of union protected job security meant that an employee might have been switched from one area of research, if their previous position was made redundant, to a different area in which they might have less expertise, but still substantial government seniority. This is a case where the official job title might not match the level of expertise for a particular research project, requiring additional training in the new area. Alternately, some individuals also worked on renewable contracts of a year or two, or as casuals, with very little job security. These jobs were often taken either as work experience before moving on to something else after graduating from university, or in the hopes of eventually becoming a permanent employee. There were also co-op53 students, as in many government departments, doing four or eight month work terms in the laboratory as part of their university education, as well as graduate students, affiliated with a university, who were inserted uncomfortably into existing bureaucratic categories. The categories do not always correspond identically to specific ability or tasks undertaken by those within them. Activities involving simple laboratory tasks, tissue culture, molecular biology, protein purification, ordering of laboratory materials, laboratory safety committee work, and article and grant writing involved some laboratory

53 'Co-op' refers to 'Co-operative education' in which the students are accepted in a degree program that includes job placement for four or eight month terms in between terms of course work at a Canadian university.

124 members more than others. Some of these fit into the 'head' and 'hand' distinction often made in laboratory studies (Heath, 1997). For instance, the laboratory head engaged in many activities such as research project design, grant writing, publication writing, etc., and while collaborating extensively with those working in the laboratory about the progress of their projects, did not usually work in the laboratory him/herself. However, the role did not always correspond strictly to actions. At various times, other laboratory members did engage in parts of many of these tasks along with the laboratory head. Some individuals had more knowledge of the underlying scientific foundations from which research protocols were created than others and were therefore the best people to adjust them. However, one person might have more immunological knowledge, while another would have more knowledge of bacteria, and yet another more knowledge of plant tissue culture, so that the individual appropriate to consult about a particular problem might not be apparent from their official title. In the same way that the roles in the laboratory actually incorporated a variety of activities, the activities surrounding GMOs in the Ottawa laboratory incorporated techne, episteme, andphronesis. Many activities in the laboratory required excellent technical or embodied skill, or techne, but at the same time, episteme, or some level of understanding about why particular skilled sequences of activities worked, was never far from the surface, no matter what the 'head' or 'hand' designation an individual was assigned to by their laboratory role. For instance, during shadowing those doing protein purification in the laboratory, one of the laboratory members, a co-op work term student gave me a short lesson on the laboratory white board about how the different steps of the protocol we were doing worked, in terms of the underlying immunological principles being invoked. At the same time, being able to 'do' something with one's hands is considered an important way of understanding. Heath (1997) recounts a laboratory technician telling her that it is necessary to be 'hands' first in order to understand a procedure. This idea was corroborated in my fieldwork, when a graduate student in the laboratory asked if I was going to spend any time making genetic constructs for the agro bacterium transfer and asserted that I actually needed to do it, if I was going to understand it. Thus, techne and episteme are intertwined here in the understanding of daily labour by laboratory members in a way that defies the Cartesian division between 'hands' and 'heads'.

125 How Do GMOs Fit? In this laboratory genetically modified plants themselves were a means of production. What truly interested the laboratory members was not necessarily genetically modifying the plants themselves, although this presented an important technical challenge, but rather the biologies therapeutic products that could be produced through genetic engineering. Genetic modification was therefore only one stage of the total research process within a wider project in a location where three or four projects were occurring simultaneously. While producing plants genetically modified in the desired way was a scientific success, an equally interesting stage of the research came once the products had been created by the plants and they could be analyzed in various ways. As I mentioned above, laboratory members were divided into teams relating to genetic modification. Some were creating genetic constructs54 that would provide the genetic information needed for the plant to create the desired therapeutic products once the construct was inserted into the plant. Others were genetically transforming plant tissue using those constructs and caring for the plants that resulted from these transformations. This also involved making sure that appropriate biosafety measures were observed, for instance, the plants were all grown inside under lighting, access to the area they were in was restricted, and that there was a special filter in the ventilation that prevented pollen from escaping to the outside. Finally, there were individuals who were involved in purifying the proteins (the therapeutic products) that resulted and testing them to assess the quantity and quality of product that was produced, as well as its potential medical effectiveness. These aspects of the research using genetic modification stood along side other projects that other laboratory members were working on that investigated the safety and physiological effect of various other compounds and pharmaceuticals that had not been created using genetic engineering. It was therefore possible to interact with GMOs here both as a process and as very particular plants. For instance, part of the GMO could be said to start in the particular creation of the genetic construct which would be inserted, via agrobacterium, into the plant itself. Or it could be seen to start in the induction of the appropriate plant tissue material that would be infected and transformed by the agrobacterium. Or was it encased

126 in the bringing together of these things and the successful sprouting of a new plant from this transformed plant tissue? Taken together as a process, GMOs interact with researchers at all of these steps, co-operating or refusing to co-operate with the intended goals of the research stage (in the sense that working with biological systems will often provide an uncertain response to particular protocols and are seen as 'working' or 'co operating or not'). At the same time, individual genetically modified plant lines that derived from particular transformation events were individually distinguished by those who looked after the plants. Plant lines had a combination of letters and numbers to identify them, which enabled one to notice and record differences in their condition. For example, one might note that the A-Is were not doing as well as the B-2s, or that the C-3 needed to be harvested and had a good crop of seed. GMOs, at this level, were embodied through particular plants or groups of plants, with their own particular characteristics, versus a more abstract conception of them. In the context of this laboratory, the most important thing was the production, efficacy, and safety of the therapeutic products produced. The choice of plant to use as a GMO to make these products was a secondary consideration. This choice was driven by the ease of genetic engineering with that plant, by the knowledge available about it, and by the ability to keep the plant healthy in contained conditions. In this case, two plants were used. One, tobacco, had been a model system55 for research for some time, so that there was a great deal known about it, and at the time the research began, it lent itself to the process of genetic engineering for technical reasons.56 Rice57, was less easy to

Genetic constructs are the pieces of DNA, which one inserts into the plant DNA, in this case, via agro bacterium. 55 A model system is an organism that lends itself to the study of a particular problem. The philosophy behind this has been phrased this way: "We are unlikely to ever know everything about every organism. Therefore, we should agree on some convenient organism(s) to study in great depth, so that we can use the experience of the past (in that organism) to build on in the future. This will lead to a body of knowledge in that 'model system' that allows us to design appropriate studies of non-model systems to answer important questions about their biology" (Kunkel, 2006: para. 1). 56 Tobacco is a dicot. Flowering plants are divided into dicots and monocots, referring to physiological properties (whether a plant has one or two cotyledons). For some time, agro bacterium transformation was thought to only work in dicots and other methods of direct DNA transfer were used with monocots. However, the problem turned out to be not with the transformation itself, but rather with getting monocots to regenerate from cell tissue after transformation. The agro bacterium process is now used with both monocots and dicots (Lurquin, 2001). 57 Rice is a monocot.

127 genetically engineer, at first, but became so as techniques were developed in scientific circles. The second plant was chosen partially because collaborators were familiar with that plant and could therefore provide plant and tissue culture knowledge to a laboratory that had a strong immunological background, as well as familiarity with the pharmaceutical products that were being created using the genetically engineered plants. The presence of the Ottawa laboratory within a government department shaped its mandate for its research in various ways. It was doing research into novel areas of transgenic use. This provided in-house, and ideally impartial,58 expertise regarding a type of transgenic plant that might in future be submitted for government review by companies or institutions. Such an application would be necessary for bodies (corporations, etc.) planning to commercialize a variety, since government approval is necessary before commercial release under the Canadian regulation of novel foods or pharmaceuticals.59 Applications are reviewed for their health and safety potential. Scientists in this government research department may serve as scientific consultants to the government's application review department. They are therefore forbidden to accept research funds from any company or institution that the department might regulate, in order to avoid any direct conflict of interests. All funding sources came from the government, through in-house funds, or sometimes through collaborations with university researchers receiving national or provincial government funding. Thus tensions over private versus public funding for scientific research did not occur in this laboratory in the same way as they might in university laboratories, where research is often shaped to facilitate public-private collaboration. Members of the laboratory moreover considered the laboratory to be reasonably well-funded compared to the university laboratories with which they were familiar. Research projects done in this institutional setting needed to fulfill the department mandate and thus have an applied potential for increasing regulatory knowledge. The goal of the laboratory was to create knowledge to aid the regulation of new products created through genetic engineering rather than to create a product that would later be

This expertise was impartial in the sense that it was not tied to any commercial companies, in the way that an external source of expertise, such as in a university, might have been tied. A review of the Canadian government regulation of their novel foods category, which includes genetically modified plants can he found in Brunk et al. (2001) as well as on the Health Canada Web site: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/gmf- agm/index_e.html (accessed 30 May 2006)

128 commercially released. Laboratory members wanted to know whether certain kinds of compounds could be produced reliably using transgenic plants. In other words, could the same compounds be created repeatedly through several generations of plant and in what kind of concentration? Did compounds created within plants have the same properties or effectiveness as those created using other methods? Such knowledge is necessary to adequately create guidelines to regulate novel products of biotechnology. This research would not necessarily be funded outside of government; as such knowledge is most important to those regulating the health and safety of new biotechnology products. Furthermore, if such research were to be contracted out, meeting the guidelines concerning conflict of interest could provide a challenge in many university research situations. How GMOs and researchers participate in both science and society at the same time, what I am here referring to as phronesis, has institutionally imposed as well as individually negotiated aspects. The institutional mandate and funding under this research was done to provide the conditions under which those in the laboratory were able to form the relationship that they had to society when they acted. In this case, GMOs were symbolic of a gap in regulatory knowledge. The laboratory interacted with them in order to fill that gap. Both filling the regulatory gap and the potential for the product itself were considered to be worthwhile goals since producing pharmaceutical products using plants has the potential to be safer than their current production in animal or bacteria cell tissue cultures60, or they might reduce the cost of such products, through an increase in scale. Therefore, doing research that contributed to the appropriate regulation of such pharmaceutical products in the future was seen as a worthwhile goal. Given that regulatory considerations drove the research in this government laboratory, the knowledge gained through the process of creating novel products using GMOs was of more importance than the GMO itself. The laboratory members' involvement of GMOs in their discussion of how both GMOs and their research fit into wider societal goals strongly reflected their institutional structure and the roles present in the laboratory in a variety of ways. General discussions

60 The chance to inadvertently contaminate pharmaceutical products with viruses that could be transferred to humans was thought to be avoided if such products were created in plants, but had to be carefully controlled for in animal or bacterial tissue cell cultures.

129 about why and when GMOs could be created were not present, but in their stead, discussions occurred that fragmented GMO projects, lending approval to some and distrust to others61. While the subject of GMOs and the goals behind the research projects that all were engaged in did not come up on a day-to-day basis, when I mentioned this silence while describing preliminary findings to the group, their response explained this silence by suggesting three factors that I had not previously taken into account. First, laboratory members did not find all projects using GMOs equally desirable. Second, discussions over the desirability of a project belong chiefly to the design stage of the research, and so should not be expected within daily routine. Third, this decision was felt to be the role of the research head (and those closely involved in planning a project) more than the responsibility of the others. Silence over the topic in day-to-day work schedules was not intended to convey a lack of interest to the subject. For instance, one individual pointed out at one of the laboratory meetings that the difficulty with the way I was doing the research (i.e. the focus in that site on participant observation) was that if all anyone in the laboratory was talking about in relation to GMOs was the details of their work, then it would be possible for me to infer from that activity that scientists did not care about the controversy that was going on outside and that she would prefer to be directly asked what she thought about genetic engineering62. Ottawa laboratory members made distinctions between the uses of GMOs for some research purposes compared to others. They do place their work in a kind of value system, but not at the level of whether or not to use genetic engineering. Instead, distinctions are made about scientific work within the biotechnology field, where some projects have different social or economic goals than others. For instance, one individual commented in the midst of a group discussion on the topic that they felt what they were doing was different from projects that contributed to the use of chemicals in commercial agriculture. In another instance of general lunch time conversation, the work of Charles Arntzen on oral vaccines for the use of the developing world was spoken of admiringly,

I have elaborated on this issue in a previous publication (Holmes, 2006). 62 While the subject was not directly discussed, this comment may have also represented her dissention from the general desire that I not formally interview anyone in the laboratory other than the laboratory head, as I described in chapter 3.

130 both for his science and for his stand on large pharmaceutical companies not sufficiently serving the needs of developing nations. The moral choice for the laboratory members then is not the choice between genetic engineering and classical plant breeding, but rather between different types of biotechnological projects. In essence, their technological expertise and familiarity with genetic engineering have provided them with a greater conceptual vocabulary than the lay public to describe and understand GMOs, which enables them to have more categories in which to locate possible harms and benefits. I will return to this more heterogeneous understanding of GMOs in the next chapter. In addition, laboratory members might have felt distanced from some of the controversy, since their research was situated in an institution where it was intended to develop knowledge useful to regulating new forms of GMOs in the health-care field, rather than develop products to be marketed to farmers. Using these distinctions, individuals can stay involved in the general field, and yet take a nuanced and diversified position toward biotechnology in its different manifestations. This 'worldview' of GMOs allows a way of interacting with the technology and the powerful interests sometimes representing it that is more nuanced than a choice between an acceptance of, or rebellion against, a particular technique (genetic engineering) in all situations. The relationship between the laboratory members and the societal goals of their research was also felt to belong more to some laboratory roles than that of others and to be of more concern at the design stage of the research. Ottawa laboratory members argued that the place for decisions about the ethics of their work was in earlier planning discussions about potential future research projects. They did see a role for ethics and concern over risk within their research, but this was most important for them at the design stage of the research. For instance, they mentioned that their experimental work with GM plants was carefully designed so that any pollen or seed spread would be minimized as much as possible. Therefore, plants were grown indoors, filters were used in ventilation, access was carefully restricted to the plant room, and clothing was changed going in and coming out of the plant area. Furthermore, more of the responsibility for research design devolved to the laboratory head, who led the process of research design and who was the person who directly faced the questions of senior regulatory directors and government Ministers, as well as outsiders, such as journalists and anthropologists. In terms of the

131 rest of the laboratory, it was noted that someone opposed to or concerned about genetic engineering would not have chosen work in this area, but would instead have focused on another area of biology. Such a moral choice about biotechnology and genetic engineering would be made much earlier in their careers. The arrival on the job could therefore be taken as an indication that individuals involved in the work believed in its goals. Therefore, while the 'head' might make important decisions about the direction of the research, those whose roles were more inclined towards 'hands' chose research areas. In both cases, distinctions could be made between different projects that involved GMOs, as well as choosing projects that involved or did not involve GMOs at all.

Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (OAT)

Colombia Colombia is 1,141,568 square kilometres in total area (Encyclopaedia Britannica Online, 2007) and while a part passes through the equator, most of the country is located just north of the equator, stretching up to approximately 11°N (Stanford, 1998). It is surrounded by Ecuador, to the south, Brazil and Venezuela to the east, the Caribbean Sea and Panama to its north, and the Pacific Ocean to the west. The country's location in the tropics and the presence of the Andean mountain range give the country a great deal of diversity in terms of climate (which is more tropical at sea level and cooler at higher altitudes), vegetation, soil, and crops (Encyclopaedia Britannica Online, 2007). Temperatures tend to be fairly constant throughout the year in any one location and differ primarily in terms of altitude and the country also experiences abundant rainfall and therefore has rich vegetation (Safford & Palacios, 2002). In 2005, it had a population of approximately 45 million63 (United Nations Statistics Division, 2007b) and the bulk of this population lives between 3°N and 11°N (Safford & Palacios, 2002). In 2005, the GDP per capita was $US 2,673 and the life expectancy for males was 68 and for females was 75 (United Nations Statistics Division, 2007b). Child mortality under five is 28 per 1,000 births (United Nations Statistics Division, 2007b). The area we now know as Colombia was originally colonized by Spain starting in approximately 1540 and became

This compares to a Canadian estimate of approximately 32 million at the same time and from the same source (United Nations Statistics Division, 2007a). part of a colonial administrative unit, including Panama and called 'New Granada' (Safford & Palacios, 2002). The 1700s were marked with opposition to the Colonial regime which ended at the turn of the nineteenth century with a struggle towards independence and the formation of the republic first known as Colombia from 1808 to 1825, which predominantly featured Simon Bolivar (Safford & Palacios, 2002). The political entity envisioned that time, included Venezuela and Ecuador, as well as what we now know as Colombia and Panama and for that reason is sometimes referred to as 'Gran Colombia', and did not long outlast Bolivar (Safford & Palacios, 2002). The 1800s in the region saw shifting borders, the loss of Panama, and civil wars (Safford & Palacios, 2002). From 1900 to 2000 the country's population went from four million to forty-two million and from 1951-1973 it underwent a demographic transition from high levels of mortality and fertility and low life expectancy to a decrease in mortality and fertility with an increase in life expectancy (Safford & Palacios, 2002). There follows a transition to principal causes of death moving towards cardiovascular disease and cancer for the county as a whole64 (Safford & Palacios, 2002). In the twentieth century we also see an increasing migration from rural to urban areas and a greater concentration of population, such as that seen in many other countries, however probably accentuated through violent conflicts (Safford & Palacios, 2002). Violence and violent conflicts within Colombia during the twentieth century are hard to categorize easily, given the variety of forms, settings, and organizations that led to an increase in homicides, with a peak in the 1980s and 1990s (Safford & Palacios, 2002). It is commonly said that Colombia has suffered a half-century of war, or of violence, as if it has been one continuous process. However, judging from the statistics, it is difficulty to speak of a half-century of continuity. For example, if one groups all homicides together, without distinguishing between "political" and "common" killings, from the 1950s to the end of the 1970s the rates of homicide in Colombia were already the highest in Latin America - about 30 per 100,000. Nonetheless, although the rates were high, they were still within the range of the most homicidal countries of the world. But, early in the 1980s Colombian rates of homicide took off, and by the beginning of the 1990s had tripled over the levels of 1950-1980. (Safford & Palacios, 2002: 346)

The authors note, however, that homicide has been one of the chief causes of mortality for men between sixteen and thirty-four in Colombia's largest three cities (Bogota, Medellin, and Cali) (Safford & Palacios, 2002).

133 Safford and Palacios (2002) suggest that the initial period of political violence in the 1945-1953 period (sometimes referred to as La Violencia), was followed by a period of what they call 'mafia' violence related to coffee production, then the period of guerrillas of the left which began in the 1960s, under the impact of the Cuban revolution. The fourth phase, beginning in the 1980s and ongoing, they suggest is a combination of insurrectional and mafia violence involving drug-traffickers, guerrillas, paramilitaries, clientelistic politicians, cattle-owners, the military, and the police65. To this list, Murillo (2004) adds the United States government, upon whom the Colombian State has relied for economic and military support. This, of course, has been tied to the American 'war on drugs'. While Colombia's economy was strongly dependant upon coffee, particularly for the first half of the 1900s, fluctuations in world market prices have caused an increase in the importance of petroleum66 and illegal drugs67 in the Colombian economy (Safford & Palacios, 2002). The profitability of non-drug crops declined during this period, creating difficulties in promoting agricultural improvements that will be touched on in quotations from scientists in chapter 6 8. The choice of the country for an international agricultural station may seem unusual or impractical, given the level of violent unrest. Nevertheless, if we consider the anti-communist motivations of the foundations instrumental in setting up the international agricultural research centres and the threat of communist insurgency in the 1960s, it might be more understandable. Furthermore, as is commented in chapter 7, Colombia has a good educational system, in the sense that it trains capable scientific personnel, which is an advantage to CIAT as a research centre.

A Day in the Laboratory CIAT is set in the middle of the Valle de Cauca in Colombia and has its own group of buses that run along various routes in the city of Cali and the closer town of Palmira to transport its workers. How far away you were from the centre usually

This period and homicides in Colombia are discussed in ethnographic detail in specific areas, including the Valle de Cauca, of Colombia by Taussig (2003). 66 Coffee represented 50.1% of legal exports in 1980-84, but only 31.2% in 1990-1995. Petroleum, on the other hand went from 9.5% of legal exports to 18.4% in the same periods (Safford & Palacios, 2002). 67 Illegal drugs were important to export even before the 1980s, featuring chiefly cocaine, but also poppies. Illegal drug export is estimated to have created income worth 65.4% of all legal exports in 1980-1984 and 30.6% in 1990-1995 (Safford & Palacios, 2002). 68 Some of the other social repercussions of the importance of the drug trade are discussed in the ethnography 'My Cocaine Museum'' (Taussig, 2004).

134 determined how early you were picked up, but the buses tended to arrive at the research centre at about 7am. For myself, and the other CIAT students and employees who lived in the area, this meant walking a few blocks, perhaps with a brief stop to pick up a freshly grilled arepa69 for breakfast from a roadside vendor, down through the barrio of San Antonio, to the bus pick up location on the Calle Quinta70. The thirty minute to hour- long bus ride ran through a route in the city and then out into the Valle del Cauca, which is a region almost entirely given over to monoculture sugar cane production, with the mountains of the Cordilleras Central and Occidental at its edges. Arrangements had to be made to be picked up by these buses and they were not open to the public in general. Those without CIAT identification cards had to get off the bus and report themselves at the security gate, where they would get a visitor's pass71. The buses would pull through a semi-circular drive to the centre's main and original building, constructed through funds donated by the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations in 1968 (Chahal & Gosal, 2002b). The building forms a large square, with a garden in the middle, surrounded by a covered walkway on all sides. Various buildings, including office and administrative buildings, go off from this, leading to the laboratory buildings and additional office buildings further behind. The many and various staff at the centre would pass through the courtyard area in order to get to their offices or laboratory spaces and ready themselves to start the day. For most of the group with which I worked, there was a cubicle of office space and somewhere where one could lock one's valuables for the day before heading to the laboratory. Many of us were in the same room, but few people worked there for many hours in a day. The unit I was in at CIAT had gone through a variety of name changes and was officially called the Agrobiodiversity and Biotechnology Project but was referred to on a daily basis as ibiotecnologia'> by those who worked there. CIAT's biotecnologia unit was large and encompassed many individuals coming and going on a variety of different projects. Approximately 50 of these were employees and graduate and undergraduate

A signature Colombian food, made up of ground corn masa, shaped into flat cakes and then grilled. 70 Essentially 'fifth street'. The streets of Cali are laid out in a grid system. 71 This type of security was not at all unusual in the country. In fact, in order to get into some government office buildings, one went through the equivalent of Canadian airport security measures. 72 CIAT as a whole has almost 800 employees, although some of these are outposted to other developing countries (CIAT, 2006a) students also came and went through the centre (26 employees and 33 students were present at some point in 2004). There was coffee set out in the hallway of the laboratory rooms and everyone working in the laboratories gathered briefly for something to eat and coffee before starting the day. This space had benches along the walls and was both social and functional, as it was the only place that food was allowed to be consumed in the laboratory, for safety reasons. This wide hallway was surrounded by various work spaces. These included tissue culture rooms with flow hoods; a growing room with racks of plants and lights; a washing up and sterilization room where the autoclave was located; a stores room for general equipment; a molecular biology room, where the regular PCR machines were located; a large general laboratory space where many activities took place; a room for working with radioactive material; and another large room which combined general laboratory functions with more molecular biology work and where the real time PCR machines were located. Down the hall, there were other laboratory rooms and offices containing individuals working in other units. Once everyone had dispersed after the morning coffee, the hall space would be quiet, except for individuals moving from one room to another in order to use particular pieces of equipment that they needed. I would usually spend this time either shadowing individuals working in the laboratories or in the greenhouses located a few blocks away, or would go back to the office space to write, set up interviews, etc. Short breaks were usually taken around 10:00 am, as the protocols or projects which people were working on permitted, much as in the Ottawa laboratory. People would get more coffee in the hallway or a bite to eat at the snack bar in the back parking lot. At around 12:00 pm, almost everyone, except those with protocols to finish, would go and line up for lunch. There were three possible locations to eat lunch at the centre, the cafeteria, another small gazebo building, and a more formal and expensive dining room. The majority of those at the Centre, including myself, went to the cafeteria and ate lunch, then went out either for a walk around the grounds in pairs or groups or for a swim or to the gym at the Centre. After the lunch break, everyone returned to work. Most people left work and got on the buses to return home at 4:30. The buses loaded in the back parking lot at this time, with a security guard checking the contents of everyone's

136 bag before they got on the bus, to prevent theft. Any items of electronic equipment that were personally owned were required to be documented in the morning and the paperwork shown in the afternoon when getting on the bus. Many of the students stayed and worked into the evenings, as did employees more rarely. There would be other buses with a single route each through Cali and Palmira that would leave from the main gates at 6:30 and again at 8:30, which had far fewer people in them. Aside from those working late, these buses also carried those who played sports at the centre after work, went to the gym or another activity73 before heading home.

Roles in the Biotecnologia Unit CIAT as a whole had three main levels of employees engaged in scientific work, aside from administrative staff at the time I was there. These levels lend institutional weight to a distinction between 'head' and 'hands' work74, but also make a distinction between trained scientific work and tasks which require less training and more manual labour. In addition, individuals were also attached to one or more 'projects' or units, within which they worked. These could include projects involving agrobiodiversity and genetics, ecology and management of pests and diseases, soil ecology, analysis of spatial information, socioeconomic analysis, and crop focused breeding projects on cassava, beans, tropical forages, rice, or tropical fruits (CIAT, 2006a). The first level, which has a strong 'head' role, in the sense in which Heath (1997) uses the term, are the approximately 120 international staff within the institution (CIAT, 2006a). I was told that these individuals are internationally recruited and paid at international rates in US currency. These appointments are given on the basis of suitability to the position and are not restricted in terms of nationality in any way. Accordingly, most of the international staff members are not Colombian. All spoke English and many spoke a variety of other languages, including Spanish75, as well. These individuals run research programs, write papers and grants, travel to many meetings,

For instance, this ranged from formal activities, such as the folkloric dance club that would practice on the verandas, to informal gatherings of colleagues who might congregate socially after work. Because CIAT was far from the city of Cali or the town of Palmira and there would often be visitors living at the research centre itself, there were several places to get food or refreshment in the evenings, as well as during the day. 74 As discussed previously in terms of 'head' and 'hands' role dichotomies within laboratory studies. 75 Although not all of the staff spoke Spanish. correspond with researchers in various different countries, and have a wide range of duties that make them important to directing the research, but that prevents many of them from spending large amounts of time in the laboratory or the field.76 They contribute substantively to the intellectual direction research takes at CIAT, primarily through the design of research projects. Many of those at this level who were affiliated with biotecnologia were also carrying out other responsibilities within different projects, such as the breeding of cassava, rice, tropical fruit, or beans. The time dedicated to biotecnologia for these individuals varied from 20-100%. The second level consisted of a Colombian scientific or professional group. They had relevant scientific training in biology, agronomy, molecular biology, and other areas, usually with the minimum of a Bachelor of Science degree. They are nationally recruited within Colombia and paid at national rates in Colombian currency. They were predominantly Spanish speaking, but some also had considerable English speaking ability. This was particularly important for those in research programs run by international staff members with little Spanish ability who preferred to communicate in English. Many of the Colombian scientific employees were hired on contracts that were periodically renewed, as they held positions that are reliant for their funding on research grants. Their duties within the biotecnologia unit were wide ranging and similar to the Ottawa laboratory members. They had activities that required 'good hands' in the laboratory, as well as the intellectual scientific skills needed for adapting protocols or writing reports. The majority of this category of employee usually spent a large part of their time within the laboratory, although some might have had various additional duties such as supervision (formal or informal) of other employees and/or students, report or article writing, or grant preparation. Some had received advanced training (MSc or sometimes PhDs) within or outside of Colombia and ran sub groups of particular units. Intermixed with the Colombian scientific employees, many students that were doing their honours' thesis or graduate research were present in the laboratory. I was told that honours' thesis research at CIAT was more time consuming than that done in many of the universities in Colombia, since it often took over a year, rather than approximately four months. However, a small stipend was provided during honours research and the

This, of course, varies from individual to individual. extra time was felt to be worth the investment for one's career because it provided experience in an institution with better equipment and more resources. These students created and maintained a series of links between CIAT as an institution and various Colombian universities. One international staff member mentioned to me that this was important, both to create better relations with national institutions in Colombia (such as universities) and to contribute towards scientific training in the country. Many of the current CIAT employees at the professional level had spent time as students in the centre doing their honours' thesis research, and so, in one sense, CIAT continues the process of scientific training by providing some employment opportunities. Some former students and former employees moved on to graduate schools outside of the country or to other positions. The international connections that could be accessed through CIAT were often important in helping students and employees to move to graduate work outside of the country. Both the Colombian scientific employees and students regularly wore white laboratory coats with CIAT insignia on it while they were working in the laboratory. In addition to the Colombian scientific employees and students mentioned above, visiting researchers (national and international) would come through the laboratory. These could be at any level from graduate students to university or government researchers, depending on the circumstances and the project on which they were collaborating. Their presence was another way in which connections between CIAT and outside institutions was maintained. Colombian scientific employees working within the laboratory were the individuals with which I spent the majority of time during participant observation while at CIAT. These individuals were often divided, in terms of the separate research projects or the particular crops with which they worked. Generally speaking, individuals could be said to be assigned to the following areas: Tissue Culture/Cryopreservation/Plant Transformation, Genome Diversity, Plant-Stress interactions, and a biodiversity related project that collaboratively linked with CIAT and another institution. Research in these areas could be focused on Cassava, Beans, Rice, tropical fruit or other particular plants. In terms of employee roles, plant transformation, otherwise known as genetic engineering, was not segregated, but rather combined with other projects requiring similar tissue culture or molecular biological skills.

139 The third level of employee at CIAT engaged in scientific work did more field and greenhouse work rather than laboratory or strictly 'scientific' work77. This group were also Colombian and paid at national rates in Colombian currency, but did not necessarily have any formal scientific training. They were important in maintaining the field and greenhouse aspects of scientific research done at the centre and worked with the scientific employees to carry out various projects. Their work included everything from planting, harvesting and watering plants to doing very delicate pollination crosses between plants, which required both dexterity and experience. This group of individuals usually wore tan shirts and pants while working, with a small CIAT insignia over the left shirt pockets, which provided a visual marker of the division of labour, as well as being more practical for field work. Scientific staff would sometimes also wear these clothes if they were doing fieldwork on a particular day. While the Colombian scientific and field staff were usually visually differentiated by wearing either white lab coats or tan shirts and pants, the international staff and Colombian scientific staff were not delineated by any sharp visual markers, as a mixture of laboratory coat use versus non use was common within biotecnologia laboratory and office space, since laboratory coats were generally only worn when one was currently engaged in laboratory work. It was only when I started to go through biotecnologia's staff list, asking for interviews with the international staff later in the fieldwork, that I began to realize how few of them I had seen or spoken to before that point78. They could be seen checking on things in laboratories occasionally, of course, but many of them were required to travel extensively, attend meetings, and to do a great deal of office work79. They also often ate lunch at a separate place in the compound from where I and most of the other international students and CIAT workers did, at a location that offered more variety but also slightly more expensive meals. There were, of course, some exceptions, which is part of the reason why it took me some time to notice the social divide there was

77 They will therefore be referred to as 'field' staff to distinguish them from the Colombian 'scientific' staff, although these terms were not used within CIAT itself. There is no direct comparison of this group in the Ottawa setting, because there were no agricultural field operations to be taken care of there. 781 interacted most with the Spanish speaking Colombian scientific staff, but I interacted almost exclusively through interviews with the English speaking (as a second if not a first language) international staff,. 79 I do not intend to imply by this that international staff were out of touch with the laboratory work or those conducting that work. In fact, I was told that one of these individuals had acquired a reputation for being uncannily omniscient about what went on in the laboratory.

140 between international and Colombian scientific staff, in terms of daily interactions. This underlines the 'head' role that the international staff filled in directing scientific research, compared to the relatively 'hand' intensive roles of the nationals at the other two levels. Nevertheless, the 'head' versus 'hands' factory model of scientific research was no more a strict divide in CIAT than it was in the Ottawa laboratory when we look at the knowledge and skills used on a daily basis. For instance, here, as in the Ottawa laboratory, the understanding of the episteme or scientific knowledge underlying what one did with one's hands repeatedly became apparent. In some ways, this was more evident when the episteme supporting the techne failed. For example, background scientific knowledge about flower anatomy can be crucial to the successful execution of plant crosses. I was shadowing and participating in such crosses with a man who tended to the greenhouse plants and would not be considered to be fully in the scientific professional group mentioned above. Nonetheless he had many years of experience carrying out plant crosses, an act which requires delicacy of touch, as well as an understanding of how the flower worked. My basic flower biology was a little rusty, since it had been two years since this had been reviewed in a plant breeding course I had taken and this lead to disastrous results, as I documented in field notes on Friday, October 22, 2004: I realized when talking to Russell [my husband - about what I had been doing that day] that I should have revisited my basic flower biology - it's important not to damage the stamens in any way, as they are what gets pollinated. (Damn, damn, damn - now I know why many of the flowers didn't open....)

My techne certainly failed me in this instance, but so too did my grasp of episteme. Other projects being worked on by the Colombian scientific group required a similar ability to understand the underlying principles from which their protocols were formed, so as to be able to adjust and alter those protocols as needed to complete whatever project they were working on.

How Do GMOs Fit? Creating GMOs was not and had never been the exclusive activity within the biotecnologia unit at CIAT. There are very few personnel who are working exclusively

80 Interestingly, I was told that CIAT has a reputation for being less hierarchical and more open than many

141 on genetic transformation. Often, their work includes other aspects of tissue culture, connections with more conventional plant breeding work, or the use of molecular biology towards other ends. This has two implications. One is that, if funding for the creation of transgenics disappears, further investigation into tissue culture, more conventional forms of breeding, the search for genes associated with various characteristics and the use of molecular markers81 and other methods of molecular biology will all continue in this institution. Second, it represents the view of genetic engineering as one potential tool amongst many others that could achieve a desirable improvement of a plant, which is held by many scientists working in this area, which I will discuss further in the next chapter. Much of the social goals or phronesis surrounding the research done at CIAT, is explicitly set through CIAT's institutional goals. CIAT has an official mandate to reduce hunger and poverty. It describes itself as a "not-for-profit research and development organization dedicated to reducing poverty and hunger while protecting natural resources in developing countries" (CIAT, 2006a). Furthermore, it is committed to doing this in a tropical context, with a focus on tropical forages, beans, cassava, rice, and tropical fruit, since these are important crops for tropical areas. GMOs, in this context, are not symbolized as additions to knowledge, as much as they represent a method to increase food security and promote development in tropical countries. That being the case, multiple avenues of producing viable crop varieties are explored, including traditional breeding methods, and a range of biotechnological methods such as molecular markers. The crop plants, however, are not chosen for the background knowledge that is associated with them, as in the Ottawa case, but instead because of their importance to tropical agriculture. This work included not simply the production of new varieties for tropical countries to test and adopt, but also the development of scientific techniques for national government programs to use on tropical crops. At the same time, work was ongoing within the unit to use biotechnological tools such as tissue culture to aid in attempts to record and preserve crop biodiversity, particularly with cassava, although these efforts were centred within a separate project within CIAT. of the other CG (Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research) centres. 1 These techniques are discussed in more detail in the section on Biotechnology in the chapter detailing the historical context of GMOs.

142 A great deal of the funding which CIAT received in order to pursue these goals came from development related funds. CIAT is primarily funded through the umbrella organization of which it is a part, the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), which receives its funding from forty-seven countries, thirteen international and regional organizations, and four foundations, including the Ford Foundation, the Kellogg Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Syngenta Foundation for Sustainable Agriculture (CGIAR, 2005a). The international and regional organizations include organizations such as the World Bank, various United Nations bodies, such as the United Nations Development Programme, and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the European Commission, the OPEC Fund for International Development, the Asian Development Bank and others. In 2005, the funding intended for all of the CGIAR research centres amounted to $450 million (CGIAR, 2005b). All projects funded by this organization need to produce "research or research-related (including training) international public goods" (CGIAR, 2005b: para. 4). CIAT itself also receives additional funding directly from a variety of other organizations. The majority of these are from 20 different countries, generally from the development or agricultural branches of these countries (CIAT, 2006b). Eleven of these are European, three from Latin America, as well as the inclusion of Canada, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan. In addition, there are international and regional organizations and foundations that contribute to CIAT's project funding, including the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, World Vision, the Rockefeller Foundation, W.K. Kellogg Foundation, the Latin American and Caribbean Consortium to Support Cassava Research and Development (CLAYUCA) and many others (CIAT, 2006b), some of whom are also donors to CGIAR and were mentioned above. What we have then is a strong trend of funding being received from northern or richer countries (or the foundations within them) for the development of agricultural research in the tropics, in combination with other sources, all of which are public and for the purpose of providing publicly available research82. My experience in biotecnologia suggested that many of direct-to-CIAT

CIAT also "receives funds for research and development services provided under contract to a growing number of institutional clients" (CIAT, 2006b: para. 1) which may involve some proportion of private clients. These are still presumably carried out primarily on tropical crops and therefore this work still fits under the intention of improving tropical agriculture. In the cases with which I was directly familiar in

143 funders provide funding for particular projects, so that many research projects are occurring concurrently at any one time within the centre. The variety within the institutional mandate, in terms of the number of ways its goals may be achieved, is reflected within the activities ongoing within the biotecnologia unit itself. Describing the flow of daily activity was always difficult for biotecnologia for the simple reason that so many different people were working on different scientific projects, using various techniques and equipment in various rooms and coming together for various parts of various projects. The result was not unlike observing a subway station, watching people moving towards different lines, but not always being able to guess the destination, as some, for instance, plan to take the blue line only a few stops before transferring to the orange line and proceeding in that direction. So lines of scientific inquiry were followed for a variety of purposes and using a variety of methods, in order to arrive at the desired end point. There is an overall organization, but it can be difficult to see. To focus on where genetic transformation and the presence of GMOs fit into all of this, narrows the number of people within biotecnologia that one considers, but does not give you a group completely devoted to creating GMOs alone. Groups who primarily worked in the tissue culture of rice, beans, and cassava all had one or more representatives that participated in genetic transformation. They were the most directly involved in what we would think of as the creation of GMOs. In the case of beans, however, it should be noted that at that time they were proving difficult to regenerate as a plant after genetic transformation took place, making them, as transformed plants, entities that only appeared in the form of tissue culture and not full grown plants. Individuals maintained tissue culture using the appropriate protocols to prepare the tissue for transformation. They also maintained and applied the two systems used for transformation, bacteria (agrobacterium mediated transfer) that was more commonly used or biolistics DNA transfer (a.k.a. a 'gene gun') that was used more rarely. Those engaged in tissue culture manipulated GMOs created for different purposes, including pest resistance, increased vitamin and mineral content, increased starch content, and many other plant improvement goals. Different methodological protocols were used with the biotecnologia, these projects were likely to be methodological projects (the creation or a particular protocol, for instance) and included specific projects done for the Colombian government.

144 different plants, as what works well for rice may not work for cassava. Many of the genes they were inserting into the transformed plants were found in wild relatives, or other varieties of the plant, but for various reasons would be slow to incorporate into a plant such as cassava, which is notoriously difficult to breed, through conventional methods. Those working in tissue culture coaxed the transformed tissue cultures into plants. Plants were then kept in tissue culture or moved into biosecurity greenhouses, while tests to ensure they had been transformed properly were done using molecular biology methods. Some cassava and rice plants were going through some of their first field tests in the fields outside CIAT, surrounded by a thick hedge of sugar cane and often with other precautions taken to reduce the chance of cross pollination. This work in the tissue culture rooms, grow rooms, and greenhouses, was surrounded by those who were using tissue culture with the same crops for other purposes that had nothing to do with plant genetic transformation. For instance, tissue culture techniques, such as embryo rescue are long established as important methods for aiding conventional breeding by fostering early plant crosses of more widely related plants whose offspring do not fare well without additional help. Molecular biology was required to support this work and was often done by a different set of people who created the constructs, tested the transformed plants, and did a variety of other tasks. Other individuals doing molecular biology looked for relevant genes of interest, which could then be transferred. This was done by RNA,84 and looking at what genes were activated under what conditions, so as to find potentially useful genes to either use in transformation or to monitor in crops using molecular breeding methods.85 Once again, transformation was one thread within a wider weaving of molecular biology work occurring within the unit. Another aspect of research related to transgenics was empirical research on the potential environmental impact and risks of GMOs. One group in the unit was using molecular techniques to test the rates of pollen flow between transformed and non-

83 Since the seed will generally not sprout on its own, tissue culture techniques are used to increase the probability that the plant will grow by growing the embryo within the seed using tissue culture. 84 Ribonucleic acid, which is created from DNA as part of the process of making proteins. 85 These techniques are discussed in more detail in the section on Biotechnology in the chapter detailing the historical context of GMOs. Note, however, that this form of breeding is done using conventional

145 transformed rice plants in field trials. Their aim was to assess the likelihood of contamination in open fields for transgenics and therefore to aid in environmental risk assessments. Gene flow needs to be tested for each type of crop, since different characteristics in how a plant is fertilized and spreads its pollen changes rates of gene flow and hence possible risk. The group working on this was testing not only the transfer of transgenic genes through pollination transfer, but also the genetic transfer between non-transgenic types of rice, so as to provide baseline data. Such information had become crucial to obtain as a result of the growing regulatory attempts to manage the risks of transgenic crops. Scientists within the unit were therefore aware of and involved in empirically gathering data on the environmental implications of transgenics.. Another aspect of research carried out at CIAT that had bearing on the creation of GMOs, but yet had many other primary purposes was the collection and maintenance of thousands of different varieties of bean and cassava and forage plants in the genetic resources unit. This was essentially a seed bank, although cassava is not kept in seed form, but rather as a tissue culture collection of small plants growing in sterile containers in a large growing room. This is important to the creation of transgenics, in the same way that it is important to conventional breeding efforts. It maintains the genetic diversity of crop plants, which can be used as a resource of desirable characteristics and the genes underlying those characteristics for plant breeders using both conventional and molecular techniques to put into new varieties. Both the tissue culture work required for Cassava and the investigation of new techniques for creating a back up cryogenic (or frozen) bank created ties between this group and those in biotecnologia. This type of work is characteristic of the multiple projects going on at CIAT that potentially intersected with many different methods, genetic engineering included, in order to meet the centre's goals of improving tropical crop varieties and agriculture. It also incorporates a concern with biodiversity within the centre. Due to the mandate of the centre, the social role of the research that went on there was quite visible in the freedom and variety of interpretations with which people were willing to discuss the aims of the research and how it fit into the public good. Nor was

techniques, but molecular tools allow the 'previewing' of what genes a plant contains and thereby speeds up breeding.

146 this merely for the benefit of the stray anthropologist. The interconnection between the scientific research occurring in the centre and the social goals it hoped to promote were also articulated during visits by researchers and tours, such as school groups or government officials. Such visits were not a daily occurrence, but they did provide opportunities for the expression and development of phronesis. Many individuals within biotecnologia were comfortable discussing the advantages of genetic transformation when dealing with difficult crops to breed, such as cassava. However, they were fully aware of the fact that transgenics are controversially accepted. Attitudes within the laboratory towards the role of GMOs, and biotechnology more generally, while positive in the hopes that biotechnology techniques could improve crop varieties and agriculture, were moderate. One individual pointed out that as a tool, genetic engineering could do very specific projects, but it could not change larger issues, such as land tenure, that contribute towards hunger. Another mentioned that biotechnology can over promise and that the group at the centre therefore tries to focus on the delivery of particular products, rather than making grand statements. While some individuals were involved in the provision of short to medium term 'deliverables' some individuals felt that the impact of their work was likely to be somewhat delayed. For instance, one lunch time conversation, sparked when I explained what my research interests in CIAT were, developed into a debate between one individual who suggested that she does the molecular work she does because she likes it and while the work may help things eventually, it could take a long time to do so. Another, who worked in tissue culture, disagreed and felt the work they did would make a difference soon, although agreed that some aspects of research take longer to bring to fruition than others. One way in which the awareness of the social concern over risks involving GMOs was highlighted was in changes scientists were making in design and protocol to take into account public concerns about the technology. For instance, one individual commented that they felt that using only genes from plants, and ideally close plant relatives where possible, was more precautionary than crossing species or animal-plant barriers. This showed an awareness of the symbolic risk regarding crossing species barriers that Haraway discussed as part of the risks that GMOs represent. Another suggested that plant breeders had a responsibility to provide a visible marker (e.g. colour) for genetically

147 transformed plants. This would, in effect, 'label' the plants so that the farmers would be better able to identify them and make informed decisions about their use. In addition, various precautionary measures were taken against environmental release and thus environmental risks from transgenic plants, such as the use of biosafety greenhouses and the design of field test conditions to reduce pollen flow. CIAT also has a policy of not releasing transgenic varieties to any country that does not have a regulatory system to manage transgenic related risks. The research centre as a whole exemplified a cautious approach towards genetic transformation. The technology was felt to contain promise for faster breeding if the resulting plants, GMOs, are eventually more accepted. While there was awareness of potential risk, frustration about what was perceived as public misconceptions over the technology was also expressed. These misconceptions were felt to get in the way of potential promise from genetic engineering. However, other methods were still being vigorously investigated. Individuals were developing alternative pathways to allow them to reach breeding goals with plants that are difficult or time consuming to work with conventionally through such biotechnological techniques such as plant tissue culture (which one plant breeder told me once "isn't really biotechnology, because it's useful") and molecular markers for marker selected breeding. In summary, GMOs and work which intersected or lead to their creation is intertwined with many fields of inquiry and projects within CIAT. While the presence of transgenics permeated biotecnologia, at no time was it predominant or the central focus of the unit. Biotechnology was used in a variety of different ways, from tissue culture to molecular markers, and transgenic technologies formed a part of that. In general, individuals running projects within the unit were not heavily invested in the use of transgenics to the exclusion of other methods and were usually pursuing two or three lines of inquiry at the same time.

Comparing Sites of GMO Construction

Using an ethnographic approach, I have examined how GMOs fit into two laboratory locations where their importance has been situated amongst other research

148 tools and goals. I have shown how GMOs function in the two laboratories as non-human actors involved in research through their fit with the research goals, and institutional mandates within these two sites. Comparison of these two 'fits' for GMOs are important to understand the variability within the field of genetic transformation. These two laboratory contexts for GMOs also show the complexity of the roles and activities present in the scientific laboratories. While the pertinence of 'head' and 'hand' roles within laboratories is as important in understanding these research locations as they have shown themselves to be in the previous laboratory studies discussed above, this research indicates that laboratory activities contain greater complexity. My use of the additional categories of techne, episteme, and phronesis is one way of capturing some of this complexity by trying to understand the differing activities that laboratory members use to construct GMOs and to connect their technical labour to wider arenas of scientific knowledge and research goals. Part of the construction of GMOs as distinct types of non- human actors within these two social spaces is related to the differences in the roles and activities which surround them, which I will compare here. Furthermore, if we move the attribution of agency which makes GMO non-human actors into the realm of the Aristotelian categories, then the technical considerations of techne begin to blend into the social considerations of phronesis, as GMOs express 'social' agency. Incorporating the way technical biological differences affect relationships in the scientific workplace suggests that the way in which scientists relate GMOs to society is always socio- technical. I will continue exploration of this socio-technical aspect of GMO 'technical' details in the following chapter. Within both the GMO contexts examined here, 'head' and 'hand' roles are present and sometimes explicitly hierarchical. Such roles make distinctions between the levels of education, scientific expertise, and therefore levels of social capital that an individual within the laboratory holds. However, individuals also weave in and out of different activities within the laboratory and these activities are intertwined with the roles held within a laboratory. It was certainly considered to be the more explicit role of a laboratory 'head' to engage in phronesis while linking the research ongoing in the laboratory with wider social issues by participating in activities such as grant writing or talking to outsiders in both laboratory sites. However the willingness to engage in

149 explicitly phronesis activities differed between the Ottawa site, where laboratory members were more reluctant to comment on these issues, to CIAT, where all seemed more willing to discuss how what they were working on was expected or hoped to provide benefits to society. Likewise, some level of scientific expertise is often accessed even in positions that are largely 'hand' positions. Scientific research work, in the cases examined here, often requires flexibility and the ability to adapt to the changing needs of the research. This necessity does not easily fit a factory work model of 'head' versus 'hands'. The distinction between head and hands, however, does reflect differing levels of concentration in particular types of activities that could be observed in the laboratories discussed here. There was a range of activities present in both locations, from technical skill (techne), the use of underlying scientific knowledge (episteme), and the relation of scientific work to society as a whole (phronesis). In both locations, technical skills were extremely important to the daily functioning of the laboratory work. The key importance of technical skills to the successful undertaking of the research, however, did not mean that these skills were carried out in exactly the same way in both laboratories. Small differences in techne were immediately apparent between the two laboratories. For example, in the practices of sterile technique, those in the biotecnologia tissue culture section tended to sterilize their instruments using alcohol and flame two or three more times than was the case in Ottawa and additionally took the precaution of using alcohol to clean their hands before going into the flow hood, which was not an Ottawa practice. As another example of differences in routine technical tasks, liquids tended to be measured out through manually pouring them to the correct level in biotecnologia, in the making of solutions, for example. Coming from the Ottawa laboratory, where a large electric pipetter tended to be used for this purpose this was a technical skill that I lacked. Such differences in technical activities do not imply a difference in research success, but point to the idea that technical skills are not always directly transferable between different locations. In spite of these small differences, the relationship of techne to episteme was similar in both locations, with scientific knowledge not necessarily displayed on a regular basis, but always underlying the technical details of the protocol and being more

150 explicitly engaged to troubleshoot techne when anything went wrong with the protocols themselves. The relationship of the research work to episteme was different between the two sites, however, in that Ottawa's mandate was more explicitly to produce scientific knowledge. This was intended to be practical knowledge for application to regulatory reviews, but was framed as knowledge creation nonetheless. In CIAT, on the other hand, there was a strong emphasis on the development of products or protocols that could be used for national programs in various tropical countries, as well as on training individuals to help carry out that work. One individual commented that they were about product delivery, not about science. The Gates Foundation, for instance, was funding a product, not science, intended to help meet the Foundation's goals of eradicating extreme hunger, reducing child mortality, and improving maternal health. There was therefore a need to balance the conventional or university role of science to produce knowledge (episteme) with the idea of using of science to provide useful products for society. Risks related to GMOs might be assumed to lie within phronesis (or the relationship between scientific work and society). For example, there is a deliberate policy adopted by CIAT not to release transgenic varieties to individuals in countries that do not have a regulatory program to manage risks is a conscious tie of their scientific interactions to the political realm. Nonetheless, expression of risk awareness was more often expressed within the borderland between techne and episteme. For instance, at CIAT, investigations of gene flow contribute to societal ability to regulate new technologies. Attention given to biosafety design to reduce gene flow in both the Ottawa and CIAT laboratories relates to responsible risk aversion for transgenics, yet it is expressed as technical details in experimental design, growing from scientific knowledge {episteme) about pollination. Similarly, the design of visible markers for transgenic plans spoken of at CIAT provides a type of socially responsible labelling for farmers, yet it is a technical challenge relating to knowledge of the plant involved. All these socio-technical engagements with risk take place simultaneously with more overt positions on risk, such as the concern over herbicide resistance expressed by one member of the Ottawa laboratory. Compared to CIAT, the Ottawa laboratory appeared to have larger spaces of silence surrounding the wider social goals of the research project. In this sense the use of

151 phronesis was harder to see in the day-to-day of the laboratory. Ottawa laboratory workers discussed two reasons for this. First, wider social considerations were determined from before the beginning of the project and segregated to periods in which the design of a project is being laid out, for instance, for a grant proposal. Second, such decisions were borne more heavily by the head of the research laboratory and that role was assigned a larger proportion of the responsibility for making decisions about the direction of the project and making the links between the research occurring in the laboratory and social issues of consideration. The laboratory head's experience and the mandate of the institution in which the laboratory was located played a strong part in focusing particular social issues to be of more priority than others. Nevertheless, when the topic of GMOs was brought up in a laboratory meeting, many laboratory members had thought about what they were doing and saw their work as different from that of commercial GMO creation. In contrast to the Ottawa laboratory, in the case of CIAT, phronesis-related activities, such as the discussion of the social role of the scientific work laboratory members were engaged in, were more prominently visible within the institution. There may be several reasons for this difference. There was a greater institutional emphasis at CIAT on the social goals of the research, since it was a research institution that had been set up for humanitarian purposes. In addition, explaining their role as researchers to the outside world was part of the work day of many more individuals. Many members of biotecnologia did things like conduct visitors around the laboratory, from visiting scientists from other countries to Colombian government officials to school tours. Such repetitive explanation of their research to the outside world may have meant that social goals were explicated on a more regular basis than in a laboratory setting more restricted to the public. In some ways, my role as an anthropologist/visiting researcher in the institution fits into this type of activity. I noted that many members of the biotecnologia unit, while curious about what I was doing there, did not appear awkward or confused about my presence as an anthropologist, which had sometimes happened in Ottawa. In contrast to CIAT, the Ottawa laboratory was part of an institutional context where highly confidential information, intellectual property, responsibilities for managing potential population risk and the leakage of speculative risk issues were pervasive. As part of a

152 team of researchers who were the first into this institutional context, I was in an environment where individuals were used to the freedom to communicate their scientific results to other scientists, but where other discussion about the work of the department was group-censored. While many individuals within biotecnologia at CIAT were enthusiastic about the creation of GMOs and their potential uses within the mandate of the institution to improve tropical agriculture, they did not tend to make over inflated claims for its usefulness. GMOs played only one role within the biotecnologia unit, which was using and developing a range of biotechnological techniques. GMOs were only one face of biotechnology. This is similar to Ottawa, in that large claims were not made for the technology, but different in that genetic transformation was the only route to answer the questions of interest about the creation of pharmaceutical compounds in plants, and thereby achieve the research goals of the Ottawa laboratory. In CIAT, biotechnology was seen as an important potential tool (although one among many) for development within tropical countries. This can be seen as part of a wider growing enthusiasm for biotechnology as a force for economic development which Tambornini (2003), for instance, argues could greatly assist Latin America. In Colombia itself, at a general address to the conference on Biotechnology in Bogota, September 1, 2004, the director of the Universidad Nacional de Bogota stressed the importance of creative solutions, including biotechnology, in confronting the difficulties Colombia faced as a country. Biotechnology therefore symbolized potential benefit to Latin America generally and Colombia in particular within the context in which CIAT was working. This development and use of biotechnology within biotecnologia at CIAT, then, aided the institution to maintain good relations with its host country, Colombia. At the same time, the institution needs to maintain its potential usefulness to its range of international flinders. The ability to be aware of and to make explicit how biotechnology related research programs would contribute to the institutions development related goals and the goals of potential and ongoing funders was crucial to the institutions success. An awareness of phronesis was therefore an integral part of the make up of the institution and key to its continuance. This is the case for many development-related institutions and programs, which are required to be aware of how their work fits into the

153 narrative of funding agencies, so as to be in line with the goals of those agencies (Mosse, 2005). The Ottawa laboratory, too, needed to be continuously aware of the goals of the institution for which it worked. Research programs were carefully aligned to meet regulatory needs for additional, applicable knowledge. The conflict of interest restrictions for funding meant that fewer funders and funding cycles needed to be taken into consideration for the functioning of the laboratory. GMOs in this context were a means to achieve regulatory knowledge, not development in tropical countries. In summary, the level at which the wider social goals of GMOs are made visible at any particular time in laboratory work varies. This is partially due to the importance of other kinds of activities requiring more energy on a day-to-day basis in order to successfully participate in science in this area. However, it also depends on the context of the laboratory, its mandate, and how necessary it is for those involved in genetically modifying plants to make the links between their research and wider social goals visible. In the comparison discussed here, the Ottawa laboratory is an example of a public government laboratory, in which GMOs represented a way to gain regulatory knowledge and thus contribute to the public good. In CIAT, on the other hand, the laboratory in question was also public and intended to promote public good, but with a specific mandate to improve tropical agriculture. This was achieved through the creation of products, such as new plant varieties or research protocols for national programs in tropical countries to use and distribute. GMOs in this case were more important as products to be used in development, than as a type of knowledge. This continuum between knowledge and product delivery is prevalent in other areas of scientific research, and is an increasing tension in public universities, as well as private corporations (Atkinson-Grosjean, 2006). GMOs created in other settings, such as within companies or in university settings funded with private interests for commercial release could be expected to reflect the emphasis on product delivery seen in CIAT, rather than the emphasis placed on knowledge creation seen in the Ottawa laboratory. However, the end

The case of university involvement of publicly bred varieties can be complex and will vary. For instance, the researcher might be funded by a growers association, for example, who may want a public release of the variety. This is a more of a 'public good' goal than that where a company releases a particular variety, although the end goal is still the commercial success of the variety.

154 social goals of private research would be more geared towards the production of a commercial profit or successful public release than in either of the cases discussed here. In university settings, funded through public sources to create new knowledge, a GMO might again represent a way of gaining knowledge, as it did in the Ottawa laboratory, although in this case, the emphasis would often be on more basic scientific knowledge, rather than the applied nature required of regulatory knowledge. What this research suggests then, is that different laboratory situations, while all sharing some similarities in techniques and common scientific networks, such as through the scientific literature about genetic transformation, will construct GMOs as non-human actors with distinct meanings in ways that align with the mandates of those laboratories and the wider institutions of which they are a part. The purpose of the scientific research affected how GMOs fit into the roles and activities of the laboratory, as I have demonstrated here in my discussion of the biotecnologia unit at CIAT and the Ottawa government laboratory. The shifting construction of GMOs within a broader scientific context than the laboratory will be further explored in the next chapter. The framing of GMOs through a particular lens constructed by the research and institutional goals of particular laboratories also affects the networks and assemblages in which GMOs can participate as non-human actors. For example, in CIAT, such networks could involve people, genetic constructs, plants and other objects from a greater variety of international locations, given the international nature of the institution, than those found in Ottawa.87 Such connections and their implications for GMO research will be further examined in chapter six, when I explore the global context of GMOs.

Conclusion

To conclude, participant observation of GMOs and those who work with them in scientific laboratories suggests that GMOs are not interchangeable between such settings. These laboratories emerge as two different social worlds in which GMOs interact, as non human agents, with multiple actors within them. As non-human actors, GMOs do have their own networks of people and objects within the organization that are tied to them in

155 some way, as an actor network approach would suggest. Such connections branch out from a particular laboratory site to incorporate international funders and national concerns. However, the form and the role of GMOs is also crucially constructed out of the social unit in which they are placed and the socio-economic positioning of that social unit. GMOs are embedded differently in the laboratories that create them and represent different plants, different visions or mandates for research using them, and they integrate into different social and structural worlds. In the next two chapters, I will expand my examination of these issues by focusing on two particular themes. One of these is the way in which the meanings and roles of GMOs change depending upon their socio-technical composition and the actors (chiefly social scientists, GE scientists, or regulators) with whom they are working. Second, I will examine how GMOs fit into a wider political economy in a global environment which is characterized by both increasing global connections and global inequalities.

87 International connections were important for the Ottawa laboratory, as well, they just did not have the same level of prominence as they did in CIAT.

156 Chapter 5 Debating GMOs: From Objects of Contention to Boundary Objects

Each one [GMO] has to be examined case-by-case. The debate as it is now is merging everything together. Whether the gene comes from bacteria or from animal or from somewhere, people want to treat it like a gene coming from rice. If I bring a gene from rice and make the impossible possible and put it into beans, these are plants we are consuming together, so there shouldn't be a risk involved in that. Whereas if you are bringing the gene from bacteria or from a pathogen, it has to be taken with a bit of caution. This is my point. But merging everything together and saying this involves gene transfers, recombinant DNA transfer, so it's all bad, this is a bit serious. (10066 - CI AT biotechnologist)

Introduction

In my ethnographic research, some of which I have presented in the previous chapter, I have seen considerable variation within and between sites of GMO construction. From the scientific perspective, not all GMOs are equal. I argue that scientists using genetic engineering treat GMOs as boundary objects in as far as GMOs "inhabit multiple contexts at once and have both local and shared meaning" (Bowker & Star, 1999: 293). They hold their meaning across separate realms of practice, so as to provide a common reference, but at the same time are flexibly constructed within local situations (Star & Griesemer, 1989). GMOs can be ideas, material objects, or processes that are used differently in the different contexts or disciplines in which they find themselves, like Star and Griesemer's (1989) boundary objects. As with boundary objects, GMOs negotiate meaning between such contexts so as to stabilize the shared meaning. Scientists creating GMOs view genetic engineering as a tool to achieve certain ends and those ends can vary. This perception of GMOs as products of a particular technological tool (genetic engineering) is what brings the scientific work in the area together and what structures GMOs as boundary objects. Despite the difference in individual projects, there are methodological similarities. Although GMOs can be seen as a unified category, it is important to look more closely at the subtleties of how this technological process is used. How GMOs are discussed (for example, whether or not their differences are included in discussion about them) have important implications for how policy, regulation, and the public are able to interact with GMOs.

157 The social science literature has a tendency to homogenize GMOs, and therefore does not recognize the boundary quality that they have. Differences between GMOs are lost in the process of making broader claims about the impacts of GMOs on society. For example, public opinion surveys tend to be taken about attitudes towards GMOs in general, not specific types of GMOs. One GMO is taken to be interchangeable for another, when the implications for international trade harmonization are discussed. While there may be good reasons for this level of focus, GMOs appear more as objects of controversy or contention (Muller, 2006b) in the social science literature than as boundary objects. They are framed as one of the most divisive socio-technical issues to date, dividing scientist, citizens, and countries (Buttel & Goodman, 2001). Interestingly, such discussions of divisiveness tend to emphasize the homogenous quality of GMOs. This practice masks the local differences within GMOs, which are ever present for the scientists who work in the field of genetic engineering. In this chapter, I will therefore discuss the concept of boundary objects and its pertinence to the case of GMOs, before moving on to review the major ways in which GMOs have been discussed in the social science literature. This review highlights both the many connections GMOs hold to a range of important issues (including public debate and political and economic implications), as well as the way that the multiplication of these connections tends to homogenize GMOs as a category. Next I will contrast this view with that of the heterogeneity within GMOs as seen by the scientists who use genetic engineering (GE scientists) with whom I spoke. In order to demonstrate this emic or 'in view' of GMOs, I suggest a typology of how GE scientists differentiated between different types of GMOs. I interviewed a range of scientists in both Canada and Colombia for this dissertation, including, as I mentioned in the methods, plant breeders not using genetic engineering or any biotechnology; plant breeders using biotechnology, but not genetic engineering; entomologists; a plant disease specialist; a soil management specialist; and an ecologist, among others. While this range is important for giving a wider context for genetic engineering research, which will be reflected in the next chapter, it is important to note that I narrow discussion here to the views of those who use genetic engineering research or who are very familiar with it, through the use of other biotechnologies. These are the scientists with whom I did participant observation and

158 whom I interviewed most extensively. It is therefore the work and the emic views of this group (as diverse as they are) that the classification of GMOs that I propose is intended to represent. It was this group that explained to me the differences between GMOs in a way that seemed in striking contrast with the categorical treatment they received in the social science literature I had used to form this research work. To conclude this chapter, I will discuss the implications of this clash between homogeneous and heterogeneous ways of understanding GMOs when it comes time to regulate them and how the choices made about this are perceived within civil society.

GMOs as Boundary Objects

Conceptualizing GMOs as boundary objects can be used to explain both: 1) GMO's ability to provide a common reference over the many different scientific and social realms in which they appear; as well as 2) how fine distinctions in GMOs can be seen between and within the local laboratories in which they are constructed. It therefore explains the differences in how social scientists and genetic engineering research scientists have made sense of them. Boundary objects are objects that are generally recognizable but whose form and meaning changes from one space to another (Star & Griesemer, 1989). The idea of boundary objects reflects earlier discussion of the boundary work that is done, particularly between disciplines or between scientific and non-scientific realms, to create boundaries (and therefore expertise) between one area and another (Gieryn, 1983; Jasanoff, 1987). Boundary objects are both abstract concepts and concrete beings. Boundary objects are those objects that both inhabit several communities of practice and satisfy the informational requirements of each of them. Boundary objects are thus both plastic enough to adapt to local needs and constraints of the several parties employing them, yet robust enough to maintain a common identity across sites. They are weakly structured in common use and become strongly structured in individual-site use. These objects may be abstract or concrete. [...] Such objects have different meanings in different social worlds but their structure is common enough to more than one world to make them recognizable, a means of translation. The creation and management of boundary objects is a key process in developing and maintaining coherence across intersecting communities. (Bowker & Star, 1999: 297)

159 Boundary objects are different from a concept such as symbols, for instance, in that they serve the requirements of scientific communities that they be both cohesive and diverse at the same time. Star and Greismer (1989) also argue that the general nature of boundary objects is important for co-operative scientific work. All scientists using genetic engineering can define GMOs as the products of a technological process or a 'tool', agree on what they are, and share results. The focus is on the method itself in their definition of 'GMO'. Indeed, this is one of the reasons that those employing this method are more likely to talk about genetic engineering or genetic transformation, rather than 'GMOs', per se. At the same time, the concrete manifestation of a boundary object can be quite different from one locale to another and this, too, is crucial to scientific work, which is "conducted by extremely diverse groups of actors" (Star & Griesemer, 1989: 387). Shostak (2007), for instance, suggests genetically modified mice with altered molecular pathways serve as both boundary objects and technologies of translation in their ability to negotiate across boundaries and to build links. She suggests that the genetically modified mice create a space where both classical toxicologists and molecular biologists can work on different research questions using a common referent. In the same way, scientists from multiple backgrounds work on GMOs through their common use of genetic engineering. Boundary objects resolve the '"central tension' in science between divergent viewpoints and the need for generalizable findings" (Star & Griesemer, 1989: 387). In addition to GMOs role in the laboratory, GMOs appear within public, regulatory, and scientific discourses that flow between and across intersecting communities such as academic meetings, regulatory sites, and locations of public engagement. Star and Griesemer (1989) are careful to restrict boundary objects as a concept to areas of scientific collaboration. While this function of GMOs is present among scientists who work with genetic engineering technology, I argue that the concept of boundary objects is also useful in understanding the way GMOs operate in a regulatory context, as well as in a more public arena. In these locations, the way in which GMOs are framed becomes more contested and less co-operative. This brings up the interesting dilemma of what happens to a boundary object when it escapes the realm of co-operative scientific inquiry to become also an object of regulatory science, which Busch (2002)

160 argues immediately involves non-scientific spheres, as the impacts of regulatory science are economic, political, and social.

GMOs in the Social Science Literature

GMOs have been widely discussed within the social science literature, but not as boundary objects. In the same way that Heller (2002) argues that the GMO debate is either framed in terms of issues of risk or issues of globalization (or social issues), I here categorize the literature on GMOs into that which focuses on public opinion and the public debate surrounding GMOs and that which discusses the various political and economic issues related to GMOs. My purpose in reviewing these categories is twofold: First, I demonstrate that GMOs are connected by social scientists to a large range of issues in a way that contributes to their flexible identity as boundary objects. Second, I wish to show that this discussion tends to homogenize GMOs as a category in a way that conflicts with the view of GE scientists. This has repercussions for understanding the treatment of GMOs within the regulatory sphere.

Public Opinion & Public Debate on GMOs Research on public opinion surrounding GMOs has included investigating the degree of support the public has for the technology, the degree to which public views on GMOs affect consumer behaviour, the ethical principles behind public sentiment, public silence on the issue, and public risk perception. Another major related area of investigation has been examining how debate and discourse over GMOs have been framed. As I will show below, a great deal of this literature discusses the category of 'GMOs' in a homogenous way that suggests one GMO is similar to another. For instance, a study might report the extent to which a particular group of the public thinks that GMOs (implying all GMOs) are either 'safe' or 'dangerous'. Researchers use surveys, focus groups, or interviews with stakeholder groups to provide insight into public opinion on GMOs by describing the degree of opposition and support for the technology and the characteristics of those who hold these views (e.g. Aerni, 2005; Aerni & Bernauer, 2006; Napier et al., 2004; Plahuta et al., 2007; Poortinga & Pidgeon, 2004; 2006; Wen et al., 2002), or they focus on how particular groups

161 understand GMOs (e.g. Maekawa & Macer, 2004). There are, of course, many publics to be potentially researched and these examples often include policy recommendations for managing debate on GMOs. Such research treats GMOs as a public and policy relevant category, in the sense that public opinion is sought on GMOs, rather than herbicide resistant or pest resistant plants. Other researchers focus on consumer attitudes towards GM and the extent to which this influences their willingness or unwillingness to pay for GM food (e.g. Baker & Burnham, 2001; Baker & Mazzocco, 2002; Burton et al., 2001; Lusk et al., 2001; Nielsen & Anderson, 2001; Nielsen et al., 2007; Rigby & Burton, 2006). Once again, in these cases GMOs are often discussed generally, although sometimes as particular products such as GM corn chips (Lusk et al., 2001). Somewhat less frequently, the attitudes of farmers towards using GM technology (Kondoh & Jussaume, 2006), as well as their opinions about GM crops co-existing with non-GM crops (Qvist et al., 2006) are the study focus. An extension of the work to characterize public opinion on GMOs is the investigation of the ethical underpinnings of public positions. Attempts have been made to determine the moral codes (or the 'common moral code') by which members of the public evaluate GMOs in an attempt to contribute towards policy decisions (e.g. Cooley et al., 2004; Myskja, 2006). This work has included not only North American and European ethical positions, but also other groups that may have different ethical stances on the topics, such as Muslims (Al-Hayani, 2007). In a twist on public opinion research, Degnen (2006), drawing on ethnographic work in two communities in the UK, suggests that there are often substantial spaces of silence (or perhaps non-opinion) on the topic of GMOs, despite the fact that everyone must eat. She suggests that this is related to the framing of the issue as a matter for 'scientific expertise', but also argues that silence can highlight areas of political and social salience. The public debate over GMOs has been of interest to the field of risk and risk perception in many ways. Ekstrom and Askegaard (2000) argue that GMOs are an example that Europeans have entered Beck's risk society (1992; 1999). They argue this on the basis that GMOs diminish faith in the scientific control of hazards, as they

162 represent yet new hazards created by science. Thus, the new hazards arise from the same scientific processes that provide risk control. The EU is an important area for looking at risk perception and GMOs, as the region experienced an "explosion of media coverage, episodes of mobilisation in protest against field trials of GM crops, consumer resistance to GM foods, supermarket boycotts and finally a moratorium on the commercial planting of GM crops" (Gaskell et al., 2001: 53) from 1996 to 1999. The EU debate has had global repercussions, as the boycotting of GM food in the EU had trade repercussions (Murphy et al., 2006) and has made the adoption of GM crops more risky for countries that export agricultural products to the EU. A great deal of ambivalence over GM crops has been reported in public opinion in the EU, where, for instance, the public is divided in terms of whether genetic engineering will improve one's way of life or make it worse and who associate GM food with considerable risk (Gaskell & Bauer, 2001; Poortinga & Pidgeon, 2004). The EU public also lacked trust in the ability of government regulators and scientific experts to protect them from risk (Gaskell & Bauer, 2001). Events such as a well publicized case of a scientist working in Scotland who was fired after publically mentioning (in a television interview) adverse health effects that he was seeing in animal model experiments on the safety of GM crops exacerbated this lack of trust (Levidow, 2002; Pusztai, 2002). Perceptions of GMO risk have been studied with many different groups (e.g. Herrick, 2005; Maekawa & Macer, 2004; Napier et al., 2004; Poortinga & Pidgeon, 2004; Schmidt & Wei, 2006). While most of these address the risk perception of GMOs in general, thereby presenting a homogenous category, a particular GM product is sometimes specified. For example, the risks perceived for the use of GM eggplant by Indian farmers were tied to economic benefits, accountability and safety concerns, with economic benefits being the most important (Chong, 2005). Risk experts suggest that the public overexagerates risks from items such as GMOs, but underrates risks with which they are more familiar (De Boer et al., 2005; Sjoberg et al., 2005). The opposite approach is taken to the public's risk perception surrounding GM technologies by Wynne (2001) and Hoffman-Riem and Wynne (2002), who instead argue that the public is concerned about the risks that may come about as a result of scientific ignorance. Wynne suggests that scientific experts generally do not

163 acknowledge areas of uncertainty and this in turn leads to a decrease in public trust in science. While scientists may agree that uncertainty is important to acknowledge (von Krauss et al., 2004), a group of food safety experts surveyed in Ireland believe that it would also undermine public confidence (De Boer et al., 2005). This concurs with Busch's (2002) argument that ambiguity is not favoured in regulatory science, or science that is involved with public policy and decision making. Such ambiguity could also result if particulars about GMOs were taken into account, rather than discussing them in a general way. Those who examine how GMOs are framed through discourse in the public debate also tend to assume that GMOs are a homogenous category. For example, GMOs offer an opportunity for those engaged in media studies to examine the links between media coverage, public policy, and public perceptions of the new technology of biotechnology (Castro & Gomes, 2005). There is a wide divide between the meanings surrounding the agricultural applications of the technology, compared to the medical uses of the technology, with the former receiving less public support, particularly in the EU (Bauer, 2002; Castro & Gomes, 2005). This is referred to as the 'red/green' division, with red referring to health applications and the green to agricultural applications88 (Bauer, 2002). 'Red' applications of the technology tend to be associated with science, disease, and progress. The 'green' applications, on the other hand, are associated with agriculture and ideology, in the sense that they are compared to older agricultural advances over nature, such as hybrid corn, and to disaster scenarios, such as 'brave new world' or 'Pandora's box' (Castro & Gomes, 2005). Further the 'green' applications raise contradictions between 'nature' and 'culture' in media articles on the topic (Castro & Gomes, 2005). This is similar to Douget and O'Connor's (2003) findings, in their investigation of French terroir, that ecosystem contamination (or pollution of nature) is closely associated with GM agriculture and food. Heller (2001; 2002) argues that discourse over GMOs occurs in either a 'risk' or 'social' compartment. The original, or 'risk' frame meant that discussion surrounding GMOs had to relate to scientific evaluations of risk. There was later a shift to a 'social'

88 While this division may be counter intuitive from traffic light logic: that 'red means stop' and 'green means go', green is, in fact, associated with agricultural applications (and negative connotations) in this work. 'Green'is presumably associated with plants.

164 frame, which in France, tied GMOs to issues of globalization, quality, and the preservation of culture (Heller, 2002). This social frame allowed a greater range of individuals to contribute to the public debate about GMOs, as one did not have to be a 'risk expert' to have a valid point of view (Heller, 2002). While Heller's discussion is centred on the ongoing debate in France, the attempt to keep discussions of GMO within a scientific realm of expertise, versus a wider realm which incorporates cultural and social issues surrounding food is likely to be found in other locations as well, given its similarity to the wide variety of meanings associated with 'green' agricultural biotechnology (Castro & Gomes, 2005). In these descriptions of debates, as in studies of public opinion, one type of GMO is usually not distinguished from another.

Connecting Political and Economic Issues to GMOs: Local and International Governance & Trade Outside of issues of public opinion about GMOs and trust in the science that creates them, there are many political and economic issues to which social scientists have connected GMOs. These include policy and governance of new technologies, connections to international trade and harmonization, and issues related to corporate monopolization of agriculture and food production. GMOs are one example, among several, of an issue that questions the separation between consumption/food studies and production/agricultural studies in the social sciences (Goodman & Dupuis, 2002). Using GMOs as a site for these kinds of investigations stresses the social, economic, and political complexities of GMOs, while minimizing the category's internal differences. There has been much attention given to how GMOs should be and are regulated. This includes the evaluation of regulatory systems pertaining to GMOs (e.g. Borras, 2006; Myhr & Traavik, 2003; Gent, 1999; Grossman & Endres, 2000; Keeley, 2006; Mayer & Stirling, 2002); development of frameworks to evaluate risks and benefits in regulatory and policy decision making (e.g. Ando & Khanna, 2000; Strand, 2001; Tait & Levidow, 1992); the proposed addition of transparency about the degree of familiarity (or how much is known about a plant) to the regulatory process in order to demarcate the degree of scientific ignorance involved (Madsen et al., 2002); the ethical principles behind policy actions (Hansen, 2004); the new bio-legal entities that are created in the process of GM regulation (Lezaun, 2006); the influence of corporations on regulatory

165 processes (Newell & Glover, 2003); and the relationship between GMOs and the ideological framework of national regulation (Herrick, 2005). All of these assume that there is a single object or problem that needs to be regulated, with the exception of Madsen's (2002) proposal that GM plants be ranked and therefore treated differently within a regulatory scheme. Discussions of how risks are regulated have often made connections with GMOs. For instance, GMOs offer an example of the implementation of the precautionary principle in policy to deal with risks in various countries (Lofstedt et al., 2002; McAllister, 2005; Myhr & Traavik, 2002; Myhr & Traavik, 2003). Comparatively, it has been noted that the EU has taken a more precautionary approach than the US (Busch, 2002). In the EU, uncertainty over potential hazards and the public concern that accompanied them, challenged the traditional role of risk assessments in regulating new technologies (Torgersen et al., 2002). While there was a diversity of initial political responses between different countries within the EU to the regulation of biotechnology, the EU began to integrate its policy between 1990 and 1996. The initial framework was designed to prevent future trade wars by reconciling EU directives with those in the US, as only scientific evaluations of risk were taken into consideration and applications were to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis (Torgersen et al., 2002). Nevertheless, the EU did start out with a different initial position than the US, in the sense that they decided that GMOs required new regulations, while the US began regulating GMOs under existing legislation (Murphy et al., 2006). In 1996, there was a strong political backlash in the EU, featuring conflict over health risks and consumer rights. Pressure on national governments and the EU regulatory system led to a de facto moratorium on GMOs in the EU in 1999 followed by a trade dispute (Murphy et al, 2006; Torgersen et al., 2002). Murphy et.al. (2006) argue that the choice of comparator to establish 'normal' or 'acceptable' risk standards is at stake in the EU and US cases. They suggest that this choice involves a normative judgement which is incorporated into regulatory standards. Aslaksen et.al. (2006) suggest that if GMOs are a new kind of risk, they should bring in new policy approaches to risk assessment, risk management and risk communication. Cleveland and Soleri (2005), on the other hand, argue that the framework of risk management is widely applicable, but in the case of Third World agriculture, it needs to

166 incorporate the biological and social characteristics of small-scale, traditionally based agriculture, which are different from the characteristics of industrial agriculture. Furthermore, they agree with Murphy et.al. (2006) that the 'comparator' is important to the outcome of cost-benefit analysis. They argue that transgenic agricultural scenarios need to be compared against alternative agricultural systems (such as traditional or organic), as well as industrial agricultural systems in order to adequately manage risk and assess potential benefits. Regulatory governance of GMOs are also connected with trends towards increasing participation of society within governance and policy making, both at a national (Karlsson, 2003; Nielsen et al., 2007; Pellizzoni, 2001; Horlick-Jones et al., 2006; Walls et al., 2005) and an international level (Abbott, 2000; Nielsen et al., 2007; Skogstad, 2003). Different institutional procedures either do or do not incorporate various producer and consumer interests into regulation, leading to international differences in public participation in regulation (Bernauer & Meins, 2003). International comparison of the regulation of GMOs between countries highlights several differences, particularly between the United States and Europe, and there has been a great deal of interest in understanding such regulatory differences (Bernauer & Meins, 2003; Murphy & Yanacopulos, 2005; Murphy et al., 2006). Choice in the regulatory treatment of GMOs may arise from differences in institutional organization (Bernauer & Meins, 2003) or be mediated through a variety of international networks (Murphy & Yanacopulos, 2005). Busch (2002) argues that these differences relate to different cultural and economic values that underlie regulatory positions. Busch further argues that in order to avoid delegitimizing public trust in science, it is important to recognize the cultural and economic values that underlie policy decisions. As regulatory science is always designed to impact, and must be sensitive to economic, political, and social spheres (Murphy et al., 2006), and because it generally has to deal with insufficient scientific evidence, policy making would be more transparent if it was clear that decisions were not based solely upon scientific expertise (Busch, 2002). Issues of international trade and governance are strongly connected to GMOs through agricultural trade and food aid and the example has been used to explore international governance and trade issues of various kinds (Chambers & Melkonvan,

167 2007; Clapp, 2004; 2005; Drezner, 2005; Howse, 2004; Murphy & Yanacopulos, 2005; Nielsen & Anderson, 2001; Oberthur & Gehring, 2006; Peel, 2006; Seifert, 2006; Sheldon, 2002; van Meijl & van Tongeren, 2004; Xue & Tisdell, 2002). GMOs have affected the international food aid regime by introducing politicized discussions on both safety and economic factors into debates about food aid (Clapp, 2004; 2005; Zerbe, 2004). The EU de facto moratorium on GM agricultural products launched a WTO case, brought by the USA, Canada, and Argentina. Food safety guidelines for biotechnology needed to be established (which occurred between 1999 and 2003) in the Codex Alimentarius for international harmonization purposes (Clapp, 2004). In addition, movement of GM products, including food aid, into a country are also governed by the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, brought into effect in 2000 (Clapp, 2004). There is currently an international legal stalemate between the WTO position that trade should continue without demonstrated harm and the more precautionary approach invoked by the Cartagena Protocol, with an ensuing struggle for jurisdiction over the area (Drezner, 2005; Oberthur & Gehring, 2006). Drezner (2005) suggests that GMOs are an interesting example of nation states disagreement, thereby triggering a process of international governance harmonization that occurs by competition rather than by consensus. Gupta and Falkner (2006) note that while economic considerations (trade and market competitiveness) are of primary concern surrounding GMO-related policy in China, Mexico, and South Africa, the Cartagena Protocol has introduced greater legitimacy to precautionary biosafety discourse. They comment that although the Protocol is being implemented in all three countries, it is not being implemented in a harmonized way, as countries are choosing their own paths in biosafety. Gupta and Falkner (2006) argue that the disunity between North America and Europe on the issue has created greater policy freedom for other countries to make their own choices about biosafety, leading to an absence of a shared approach. For such comparative studies to be useful, however, the boundaries around GMOs have to be agreed upon by multiple parties, in order to provide a focus for regulation, trade, and policy creation. Aside from issues of governance, GMOs have been contextualized within wider political and economic concerns that affect both farmers and consumers. For example, Fitting (2006b; 2006b) argues that although public debate surrounding GM maize in

168 Mexico has centred around the threat of GM to Mexican culture and way of life, the neoliberal trade framework put into motion by NAFTA is more of a threat to corn farmers than genetic modification. Cheap US agricultural produce, including US corn, has out priced Mexican corn, causing Mexican farming families to supplement their income through measures such as migrant labour. This is similar to Lewontin's (2001) argument that farmers use GM plants in North America because herbicide and pest resistant crop varieties mean that they can be more flexible about when they work on the farm, which is important because of the increasing need for North American farmers to work for wages off the farm in order to make a living. It is possible to see GM plants as another way of taking resources and control from farmers, within a battery of other agricultural products and services provided by large corporations (Cleveland, 2007). For instance, the widespread struggle over the rights of farmers to save, use and exchange seeds, and thereby reduce corporate profit, becomes more immediate when genetically modified seed is involved (Perelmuter, 2007; Peschard, 2007). Stone (2007) cautions against seeing GM seed adoption as a sign of knowledgeable farmer support (and thus success) for the technology. In his case study in Warangal, India, he argues that adoption of Bt cotton is related to agricultural deskilling and the introduction of hybrid cotton seeds. Instead of innovation diffusion, with the technology being adopted due to its higher productivity as Monsanto representatives have suggested, Stone places GM cotton uptake into a wider pattern of 'fad' cotton hybrids that are planted by many, only to be replaced by new varieties in a process that more closely resembles gambling (Busch, 2007) than the result of local experimentation with seeds. This monoculture method of planting contrasts with research that suggests that small farmers maintain a range of varieties as a form of insurance (Cleveland, 1993). Further, Soleri, et. al. (2005), using transgenic maize as a case study, argue that traditional agricultural systems used by smaller farmers also feature different risks for the spread of transgenes than do industrialized agricultural systems, due to different farming practices. This research cumulatively shows that there is variety in farmer practices and the local knowledge available to them and this will affect the relationships that they have to GM varieties. While still understanding GMOs as a recognizable object with an agreed upon

169 definition, research done on farmers' experiences with particular crops point out some of the internal differences between GM plant varieties. Farmers also have to consider where they will sell their goods on the international market. The high prevalence for EU companies that refuse GM products has raised the issue of whether or not to grow GM crops. This is complicated at the level of the nation state by the infrastructural costs of separating GM crops from non-GM crops. Estimated segregation costs for farmers and producers are expected to increase as the tolerance level for GM within non-GM crop products decreases (Bullock & Desquilbet, 2002). The role of GMOs in economic monopolization of the agro-food industry has been modelled (Munro, 2003), as one example of seed company concentration (Doyle, 1985; Kloppenburg, 1988), and ties GMOs to issues of intellectual property rights and new globalized forms of agriculture (Gras & Hernandez, 2007; Perelmuter, 2007; Peschard, 2007). It also links GMOs to studies of the ethical responsibilities of multinational corporations in a globalized world (Griesse, 2007). On the other hand, however, illegal farmer-produced seeds ('stealth seeds') are widespread in developing countries such as India (Bt Cotton) and Brazil (glyphosate-resistant soybeans)89 (Herring, 2007). These 'anarchic capitalistic' practices appear to reduce the monopolistic and powerful nature of large corporations, however Herring (2007) argues that this inability of corporate interests to be met in developing countries will probably hasten the arrival of a technical control of intellectual property, such as terminator technology90.

Social Science and Science: Homogeneity Versus Heterogeneity in Viewing GMOs

Scientists using genetic engineering recognize a type of complexity between the traits and purposes of GMOs that social scientists have not. Instead social scientists recognize the complexity of GMOs as social actors, with connections to many meanings (in public opinion, media, etc.) and issues (regulatory, political, and economic). In order to satisfactorily make such associations and claims for GMOs as objects of social scientific research with broader application, it is necessary to commonly agree on the

89 Glyphosate-resistant soybeans, while still illegal in Brazil, were commonly referred to as soja Maradona in Brazil, after the famous Argentinian soccer player: the plants were from Argentina, short, wide, and very productive (like Maradona) and further, were as legitimate as Maradona's hand goal against the British team in the World Cup of 1986 (Tambornini, 2003). 90 This refers to a genetically modified plant that is designed to be infertile and cannot reproduce itself.

170 general boundaries or definition of what makes up a GMO that holds across all of these areas. It is necessary, in short, for GMOs to function as boundary objects. The social science literature, as a whole, suggests that although the meanings, regulations, and trade practices that surround GMOs may differ from country to country, GMOs themselves remain the same. Indeed, for those attempting to understand the processes underlying the regulatory framework or international trade agreements that pertain to GMOs, the specific differences between one GMO and another may seem immaterial or at least impractical to include in analysis. Exceptions, in the form of specification of a particular type of GMO, seem to come up most often where social scientists are examining the use of a particular seed variety by farmers (e.g. Chong, 2005; Stone, 2007) or following a specific case through a regulatory process (e.g. Murphy et al., 2006) and thus are interested in the manifestation of GMOs in a specific form in a specific context. It is this specificity that is of such importance to the scientists who are working with GMOs. The specifics surrounding how, why, and on what one is using genetic engineering determine the local manifestation of GMOs and thus their potential to hold meaning for GE scientists. I once had a casual conversation with another social scientist (who had worked on GMO related issues) and to whom I tried to explain that 'not all GMOs are equal'. Her response was "that sounds kind of technical". She was right, in the sense that the technical and the social are interwoven together in the meaning of GMOs for GE scientists. The dismissal of the technical as pertinent to social science, however, is to fail to appreciate the worldview of GE scientists91. For many of the GE scientists I spoke with, technical specifics alter the possibilities for GMOs as social and moral actors and therefore affect their meanings. It is therefore not possible to understand the 'social' meaning of GMO for GE scientists without taking into account the particular constellation of any one GMO's construction. This socio-technical view sees GMOs as shape-shifters (both materially and symbolically), which is in conflict with the type of social science project that might assign a single 'meaning' for GMOs, or even a constrained set of meanings, to groups such as 'media', 'public', 'organic farmers', etc. as well as to scientists who use genetic engineering. Just as the literature from the public

This is a case where Latour's (1993; 2004; 2005) call to abandon the dichotomy between 'science and society' or 'nature and culture' is grounded in patterns of scientific behaviour and conversation.

171 understanding of science can show us that there is no one homogeneous 'public', so too is there no homogeneous 'GMO' to GE scientists. The technical, in this case, is the door into understanding the symbolic representation of GMOs for scientists using genetic engineering. Using ethnographic data, I will trace some of the distinctions made by GE scientists about GMOs to create a classification of GMO differences, but first will look at the methodological tie that binds GMOs together for GE scientists. I will elaborate on these socio-technical interrelationships embodied in GMO design in the following sections when I discuss a typology for how GE scientists create unique socio-technical constellations of meaning for each GMO. However, let us first look at the methodological tie that binds GMOs together for GE scientists. The methodological similarities in the process of creating a GMO maintain their boundary and a category and make them boundary objects. In this sense, scientists are able to understand and distinguish whether a plant is or is not a GMO, depending on whether or not genetic engineering has been used. However, as boundary objects, the form and meaning of GMOs change from location to location.

GMOs and the Metaphor of the Tool

GM scientists in both Canada and Colombia tended to view genetic modification or genetic engineering as a tool, which could be used for a variety of different goals. Many commented on how it is only an additional tool and did not replace classical scientific plant breeding. La transformation genetica es una herramienta mas dentro de los sistemas convencionales, no pueden separarse, y yo diria en este momento que la una depende de la otra. (10049 - Colombia)

Genetic transformation is another tool within conventional systems; you cannot separate it. I would say at this point that one depends on the other. (10049 - Colombian university genetic engineering and molecular biodiversity researcher)

Para mi, la ingenieria genetica es simplemente, otro metodo mas de mejoramiento conventional. (10025 - Colombia)

For me, genetic engineering is simply another tool for conventional breeding. (10025 - Colombian university genetic engineering researcher and plant breeder) I actually started out as a plant breeder and became intrigued by the possibility of using these other techniques, both for genetic analysis.... And that's important. Breeders use a lot of these tools without even using GMOs, use a lot of these molecular biology tools to evaluate populations, to detect the presence of genes, basically to speed up the process. But genetic engineering to me is part of our whole set of tools. And mutagenesis is part of the tools that we have for genetically modifying and improving plants, I guess; so I don't.... It's different. It's not the same. But it's still enhanced breeding, if you want to call it that. It opens the range of possibilities. It allows us to do things that we couldn't do before. So, I think, obviously, I think it's a tremendous tool. Despite what some people say. (9 - Canadian plant breeder and genetic engineering researcher - emphasis mine)

The use of the tool metaphor is important in two senses. First, it makes it possible for scientists to see genetic engineering as facilitating quite different projects. The method is important to scientists using it, and they see it as having various kinds of advantages, but this does not make it any different from other tools, such as tissue culture, molecular markers, mutagenesis, pedigree breeding, or other methods used with plants to arrive at a breeding end point. Second, the use of the tool metaphor both normalizes and reduces the controversy inherent in discussing genetic engineering as qualitatively different from other plant breeding related activities. The tool metaphor emphasizes how GMOs are boundary objects for the scientists creating them. The use of similar processes provides common scientific ground for the exchange of information surrounding the method. At the same time, it is possible to see one's work as quite different from the work of another individual, who may be using the same tool, but who has a very different goal in mind for the plants with which they are working. For example, one scientist in Canada commented to me that s/he felt that his/her work, creating needed pharmaceutical components within plants, was quite different from the work of large corporations who use genetic engineering to create a plant that is more tolerant of chemical agricultural inputs (for example, herbicide resistance). S/he underscored this difference by commenting that s/he often bought organic produce. This demonstrates that genetic engineering can be used for various projects which are valued differently.

173 Classifying GMOs

It is worth detailing the variety of GMO projects undertaken to understand the socio-technical distinctions that scientists make between the GMOs they are creating and those of others. The classification that I have created here, and which is summarized in Figure 1, is intended as a typology to understand how GE scientists see different meanings amongst GMOs. These are differences that many GE scientists take for granted within GMO creation, but how they understand their projects in comparison to those of others (and thus 'GMOs' more generally) hinges on these differences. Such a classification also serves as a contrast to the relatively narrow types of GMOs that have been commercially released to date. GMO projects are seen to contain differences in the methods used, the general purpose of the research work, the specific breeding goals, the plant type, and the discipline from which one is working (see Figure 1). The ways in which choices are made in these areas create particular socio-technical constellations of meaning for GE scientists (and sometimes others) in ways that I will explore below.

174 Figure 1: Typology of GMO Heterogeneity as Seen by Scientists. While not exhaustive, this classification presents some of the major ways in which GMOs differ from each other. These, often technical, choices for GMO composition change the networks in which an individual GMO can interact.

1. Method 1.1. Transformation method: 1.1.1. Agrobacterium 1.1.2. Direct DNA transfer 1.2. Plant part transformed: 1.2.1. Callus 1.2.2. Meristem 1.2.3. Chloroplasts 1.2.4. Other 1.3. Inserted DNA source: 1.3.1. Bacteria 1.3.2. Plant 1.3.3. Animal 2. General Purpose of Research 2.1. Basic Science 2.2. Methodological Development 2.3. Regulatory Science 2.4. Applied Science/ Product production 3. Breeding Goals 3.1. Intended Use 3.1.1. Nonprofit/ Subsistence farmers 3.1.2. Profit/ Commercial Farming 3.2. Yield Enhancement 3.2.1. Direct (technical difficulties) 3.2.2. Indirect - Resistance to biotic and abiotic stress 3.2.2.1. Resistance to insects 3.2.2.2. Resistance to herbicides 3.2.2.3. Resistance to drought 3.2.2.4. Resistance to cold 3.2.2.5. Resistance to salinity 3.3. Enhancement of Plant Qualities 3.3.1. Enhanced vitamins 3.3.2. Enhanced nutrients 3.3.3. Enhanced starch content 3.3.4. Ability to perform phytoremediation 3.4. Molecular Pharming/ Industrial production of compounds within the plant 3.4.1. Medical compounds (e.g. drugs) 3.4.2. Industrial compounds (e.g. plastics) 4. Plant Type 4.1. Climate 4.1.1. Temperate 4.1.2. Tropical 4.2. Plant Variety 4.2.1. Local/Farmer Variety 4.2.2. Commercial/High Yielding Variety 5. Formative Discipline 5.1. Molecular Biology 5.2. Botanist/Physiologist 5.3. Plant Breeder 5.4. Medicine/ Veterinary

175 Methods for Creating GMOs: Transformation, Plant Tissue, & DNA Source The differences in the methods used to create individual GMO are more extensive than I will review here. Nonetheless, it is important to note that the basic method of transformation in genetic engineering can change. While I saw agrobacterium used more commonly while doing participant observation, there are also many different methods of direct DNA transfer (see Lurquin, 2001), the most well known of which is the ballistic or gene gun method. These methods require different equipment, expertise, and reagents, and work more easily on some plant varieties than others. Methods of transformation are linked, through the medium of intellectual property rights, to social issues of ownership. Some methods are considered closed to some research groups. In one Colombian laboratory that I visited, they were using the ballistic method of transformation because the rights to that method had been negotiated for their project. In addition to the method for the actual transformation itself, the plant part (or plant tissue) transformed changes. In some case, undifferentiated plant cells, or callus, may be transformed, while in others different parts of the plant may result in more successful or efficient transformation. In addition, researchers may want to target particular bodies inside of plant cells, such as chloroplasts, and will work specifically on those, as in the case below. Por ejemplo estd la posibilidad de capacitorse en transformation de cloroplastos, que alparecer enpldtano es un procedimiento muy eficiente. Van a ir participantes de Africa, de Colombia, de todo el mundo, y la idea es que sea una tecnologia universal pero aplicada con las condiciones de cadapais. Con esta base si se consigue semilla in vitro que le llegue alproductor, hacer lo mismo con las transgenicas. El mismo sistema y el costo va a ser muy bajo en relation a otras variedades mejoradas. (10051)

For example, there is the possibility of becoming capable of transforming chloroplasts, which seems to be a very efficient procedure in plantain. There are going to be participants from Africa, from Colombia, from all over the world, and the idea is that there will be a universal technology, but applied to the conditions of each country. With this base [a previously described participatory way of distributing healthy plant material through a network of farmers] if one can achieve in vitro seeds that reach the producer, we can do the same thing with transgenics. It's the same system and the cost is going to be very low in relation to other improved varieties. (10051 - Colombian genetic engineering and biotechnology researcher from a national research institute)

176 In this case, chloroplast transformation is more efficient and may also target the DNA transformation to particular cells that have chloroplasts expressed in them (i.e., the leaves, but not the fruit). As the above quote demonstrates, particular methodological protocols may be shared widely, particularly within specific crops, if they are developed collaboratively. Finally, the source of the DNA used can vary. As has been frequently commented upon, the form of DNA is essentially the same from one organism to another and therefore it is possible to insert DNA into a plant that was originally from another plant, but also from bacteria, or from an animal. One of the most common commercial GMOs is the Bt line of corn that is resistant to the European corn borer and has source DNA from a particular bacteria species that produces toxins affecting the corn borer's digestive tract. Bt was originally used in extreme cases of infestations as an acceptable pesticide by organic farmers. In some cases the particular breeding goal for GMO creation may require that animal or bacterial DNA is used. Sometimes, the availability of desired DNA (for instance, DNA that someone else does not have proprietary rights to) determines its source. This is an example of a 'technical' matter that has been very important in 'social' spheres. As Haraway (1997a) has commented, and the work of Douglas (1966) would predict, this crossing of the categorical boundaries between animals, bacteria, and plants has been considered publicly (and symbolically) dangerous, particularly for food. Interestingly, more than one scientist commented to me in the course of casual conversation that they believe that using DNA from other plants was sometimes technically easier, and that it is also more acceptable for 'regulatory purposes'. While a precise scientific risk that might affect a regulatory assessment was never mentioned, this suggests that scientists are responding to the public concern over boundary crossing between plant and animal, etc, which can be seen in representations of GMOs as Frankenstein-like monsters (such as organisms that are part strawberry, part fish), by changing their research design to less controversial DNA sources, now that a wider range of genes are known and therefore possible to incorporate. Methods, then, are one way in which GMOs can be different from each other, sometimes in publicly recognized ways.

177 A second area of difference between GMOs recognized by GE scientists, as laid out in Figure 1, is the broad reasons why GE scientists are creating GMOs.

General Purpose of GMO Research There are many general purposes for creating GMOs. The four main categories I discuss here are using GMOs to pursue basic science, methodological development, and regulatory science, as well as the better known applied science which uses GMOs to create products for commercial92 release. Genetic engineering as a technique started as a tool for scientists to understand more about how plants function, in short, as a tool for basic research (Lurquin, 2001). Thus, basic research forms one purpose for making GMOs that continues today, sometimes alongside more applied research projects. There is one aspect, maybe you want to put it into parentheses, where we would pursue transgenic research to understand gene function. So, even if we feel that transgenics is a powerful tool to understand gene function, this will eventually allow us to have better understanding of genome organization and plant function. And it might provide us with options for marker assisted selection or transgenics. So, transgenic research will not lead always to a transgenic product. It might lead to scientific knowledge and it also might lead to tools that will be useful as a non- transgenic approach for marker assisted selection. One example, if you can clone a gene and there is resistance, if you can identify polymorphisms, you might be able to use this kind of information ... for marker assisted selection. (10016 - CIAT plant breeder and genetic engineering researcher)

In many cases, the researcher's reasons for the research involving a GMO in a laboratory may go back and forth between multiple purposes, such as knowledge versus product creation. This reflects the 'cutting edge' nature of the technology, which combines the production of new findings in molecular biology, as well as the potential to be a practical tool, as the comment from the following Canadian plant breeding and genetic engineer demonstrates. I say, in general, it's the point of intersection where the most recent information about how plants, how organisms in general function at a molecular level, can be deployed. That's not a guarantee, but it means that understanding, which is growing all the time, is most easily utilized through plant transformation. Some cases, the appropriate application is just to develop and understand further so that we produce a transgenic plant that's tracking where a protein is going with green florescent protein. It doesn't have a particular immediate application, but it might very well be important in terms of understanding how that protein accumulates.

Commercial release implying widespread release. In some cases it may in fact be that there is a way of turning off a gene that we don't want expressed that might be producing a toxin in a plant. It's our best way, our most precise way of doing that, rather than using methodology that seems to be accepted - mutagenesis and selection - to try and knock that gene out. If we know what the gene is, we have techniques now that allow you to turn them off. So, I think that's... for me there's no guarantee in anything, but this is our best way of actually taking the information that we have from research on Arabidopsis, or whatever, to try to use it for crop improvement. C: So to really harness the knowledge you're building from working with model systems? Yeah, and the knowledge is huge... It's starting to be very accessible through all the international tool systems developed, in terms of gene bank information - gives the ability to compare from one species to another. So, it's really quite obvious that things that you learn from model systems are very.... One of the most interesting tales for me in the description of the gene sequencing of Arabidopsis was genes that might have relevance to human disease. You'd never think that working with a model plant would have any application to human diseases; but some of the gene sequences and mechanisms there are universal in biology. Some of the techniques we have now really allow you to test whether that has any validity or not, but it's intriguing how much it's shared among them. (10072 - Canadian university genetic engineering researcher and plant breeder)

GMOs can also be created for methodological development. In the quote above, the researcher suggests that transgenics could result in indirect methodological development, by creating tools for marker assisted selection. In addition, many projects are intended not necessarily to create a product, but to develop better and more efficient ways of creating GMOs, by developing better ways of doing genetic engineering. Such was the case for the development of chloroplast transformation in plantain cited above. Methodological development is particularly important in crops, particularly tropical crops, which have been less researched. Again, we can see a combination of purposes when, as in the quote from the Canadian plant breeder below, one needs to do basic or methodological research in order to solve problems so that you can create the applied product that is your ultimate goal. This quote demonstrates the intertwining of methodological development and production production. It also shows the tensions inherent in a government that is both regulating transgenics, as well as participating in product development, even if these two goals are separated by assigning them to different ministries. In this case, the scientist is from a different government ministry than that of the laboratory described in chapter four.

179 C: So you see a certain amount of basic research as important to get the applied aspect off the ground? Oh yeah, well, you can only do so much if you're just copying other people's work. You're not keeping up. It's already too late in this business. By the time you read about it, its already way too late, you're already way too far behind to even compete. And it's competitive. It's other people trying to do the same thing in different ways. And you may feel you have a better system, but you know, you need to be able to demonstrate that. (11 - Canadian plant breeder and genetic engineering researcher from a federal research centre)

Regulatory science93, as I described in chapter 4: GMOs in Laboratories, is another avenue for research using GMOs. In such a case research is directed towards advancing knowledge about the production of transgenics that will help in their safe regulation. While that research might contribute towards product creation, such is not its main purpose, nor could the individuals involved take a crop through such a process themselves due to conflict of interest. We, being [government regulatory] research scientists, are not in the business of making new products. That's the role of industry. We're not in the business of doing basic research on things that are fabulously interesting, to us, investigator initiated kind of stuff- that really is the role of university based scientists. Our role is to do "regulatory research". In other words, it has to be tied into the regulatory process... So, back to me, what I do ... so that's how I got to doing the transgenic plants with it and it's turned out to be a very useful series of investigations, that we've published on and that we're learning a lot about, and that is of use, certainly to [us], as a regulatory body because these products, which are soon to be referred to more as products of molecular farming - either a 'ph' or an 'f, your choice. They're that much closer to being used for clinical trials, or being submitted for clinical trials. So, I've been on a couple of working groups that are looking at those kinds of issues. Now, whether the actual products that we're making ever get on the market or not, is sort of an independent issue. It's not really our primary goal. Our primary goal is to use two proteins [in plants], as models for looking at the kinds of concerns regarding the safety and efficacy of these kinds of products. (6 - Canadian genetic engineering researcher from a federal research centre)

Finally, of course, GMOs may be created for applied purposes, in order to release a plant that has a particular desired characteristic. There are many examples of researchers working on product development. Some of the applied uses for the

I do not mean 'regulatory science' here to mean reviews of scientific evidence for regulatory purposes (Busch, 2002), but instead science that is creating knowledge for regulatory purposes.

180 technology are best exemplified in the discussion of specific breeding goals, to which I will turn next. An individual researcher could potentially be very comfortable with one general purpose for genetic engineering, but not another. This was never actually mentioned by anyone, unless their institution mandated a focus on one purpose over another. Individual researchers seemed more likely to react positively or negatively to particular breeding goals.

Difference in Breeding Goals As a plant breeder, we all improve the crop. That's all we do. So, where do we make our improvements? For canola, we try to improve the percentage of oil, the quality of oil... you know that oil's produced by fatty acids and there's a whole array of fatty acids in Canola... some of the fatty acids are beneficial, you know the monos and some of the polys, but most of them are unnecessary, so we try to jam them up into the good [ones] So, you're improving the quality of the product, the amount of the product and in order to get a good product and good quality, you need to improve yield, resistance of bugs, resistance of fungus, adaptability to cold. (10084 - Canadian university plant breeder who does genetic engineering, but not in his/her 'own' (versus on contract) breeding program)

Breeding goals are another way in which GMOs may differ from each other (Figure 1). As the quote above suggests, plant breeding goals are often present at many levels at once. However, the method of genetic engineering focuses on the insertion of a particular gene or genes into the DNA of the recipient plant. So, modifications for particular traits usually have to be done one at a time and are very focused94. Characteristics that have largely been available in commercially released GMOs have been restricted to the characteristics of herbicide resistance95 or pest resistance, through the production of pesticide within the plant itself96. However, there are many more

This compares to population breeding practices, for instance, where it is sometimes possible to select for many desirable traits at once. However, conventional practices are sometimes used for the development of some traits, while the transgenic element is developed in the laboratory and the two are then crossed. 95 The herbicide resistance is generally to the herbicide glyphosate, better known under its trade mark name Roundup Ready. While resistance to this particular herbicide has been engineered through a transfer of genes that allows the plant to withstand the application of the herbicide. Herbicide resistance can also be bred into plants through applying herbicide to large numbers of the plant in question and selecting those plants which survive (and therefore have mutations enabling them to survive the herbicide) and breeding this characteristic into the crop variety. 96 Chemical defences against pests, that either taste unpleasant or harm potential plant pests or predators, what we might call 'pesticides', are key defence mechanisms for plants. Such compounds are responsible for the flavouring in spices as well as the medicinal qualities found in plants. However, the nature, effect, and durability of such compounds differ widely. In this case, the pesticide in question is not one that characteristics of interest for which research is being done. Once again these possible variations are simultaneously social and technical. Some traits are technically more challenging to incorporate than others, but the availability of funding to overcome those technical hurdles requires economic and political will. Someone has to be interested in achieving those goals. This brings us to the first variable for deciding breeding goals for a GMO: the intended user of the product. This changes the characteristics that are required and/or being sought. Certain characteristics can provide resistance to forms of biotic or abiotic stress (such as drought, salinity, insects, etc.) and therefore provide indirect increases to yield, as the plant is better able to grow in conditions of stress. The desired characteristic may also involve the enhancement of particular qualities of a plant, such as an increase in nutrients, starch content, or other qualities. Also, plants are genetically engineered to produce compounds, such as drugs, chemicals to make plastics, etc. This process is often referred to as molecular pharming (or molecular farming), which transforms the plants into sites of industrial production. What particular characteristic is genetically engineered into a plant will affect its environmental and health risks, and therefore its regulatory implications, as well as the social roles the plant is able to fulfill (such as who the plant will benefit). I have therefore grouped discussion of breeding goals into subsections, as in Figure 1, to discuss their intended use, yield enhancement, enhancement of plant characteristics, and molecular pharming. Intended Use (Or Who Is It For?) The eventual user of the genetically modified plant varies. Some products are intended to be turned into commercial commodities and to enter into the market in ways that are expected to recoup the cost of their design and provide a profit for those who paid for the research. Most of the varieties available commercially up to this point have operated with this intention in mind, and have incorporated the accompanying property right protection. This can be a very competitive field.

Some of the interesting projects that I get from companies are to find a method to do transformation that is not protected by patents. So go around somebody's naturally occurs in plants. Instead, it is based on proteins produced in nature by a bacteria that affects the gut of certain classes of insect. Although the bacteria itself, Bt [Bacillus thuringiensis] produces several different kinds of protein toxins, usually the genes for only one or two of these proteins are added to the plant in genetic engineering.

182 patent, basically find a new method to do transformation. And you know how hard that is? Because the first guy did it the easy way, patent it, the next guy did it the next easy way, and it just gets harder and harder. (10084 - Canadian university plant breeder who does genetic engineering, but not usually in his/her 'own' (versus on contract) breeding program) If the products have intended commercial uses, one needs a substantial market willing and able to buy the resulting products with the improved characteristics in order to make such an endeavour profitable. One of the criticisms of GMOs has been that it hasn't addressed the consumer need to date. And I guess I would argue that's not right. The companies that have worked on this, by design or by chance, met their consumer very well. And their consumer is, at this point, the farmer. And so, what they've done in the first round of transgenics, and I always compare them - so these are the model T's, right?... is they've addressed a central issue in agriculture right now, which is the survival of the farm. And what's the driver in North America is the economic liability of farming operations. North Americans are not willing to pay alot extra for food. Why, I don't know, but that's just the way it is: if you look at the percentage that North Americans pay in the household for food, it's considerably less than they pay in Europe... So, the North American farmer does all the calculations in terms of economics. They're sophisticated people; if at the end of the season, it doesn't make any sense to harvest what remains there, they're not going to harvest, because they're not going to spend the extra money, throwing good after bad. So the traits that we have now are production oriented. They're there to reduce costs: the number of trips into the field; the number of inputs that the farmers need to make. And they've met enormous acceptance. Some people have commented that there is no other technology that has been taken up as quickly as GMOs. (10072 - Canadian university genetic engineering researcher and plant breeder)

Therefore, in the Canadian case, it is possible to see GM crops that are chosen for production traits as helping the farmer as well as tapping a viable market. On the other hand, the intended use for GMOs could be as products not intended to produce a profit. For instance, there are cases in which there is not a large global market for the changed plant or where the intended recipients are poor or largely grow food for subsistence. Some of our target regions are non-commercial crops from the multinational company point of view. (10016 - CIAT plant breeder and genetic engineering researcher)

While there isn't & profit, there could still be a need for improved varieties. Such research is often carried out using public or international development funding. For instance, in the case of plantain crop improvement, new varieties can take a long time to

183 produce, but are an important crop for Colombian subsistence farmers, as well as tropical farmers in other countries. Genetic engineering is seen as a way to speed up the time required for crop improvement. The researchers here explicitly acknowledge that such research is a different type of project than the creation of a for-profit product and that it has development implications. Elpldtano hibrido es dificil de mejorary este proceso puede tomar 40 ahos. Est a es una estrategia de 10 o 15 ahospero si se compara con un fitomejoramiento tradicional, es mucho lo que se ahorra. Y tambien que esa variedadpueda ser usadapor pequenosproductoresporque elpldtano no le importa a las multinacionales y es unproducto de productor pequeno. A lo que se estdn enfocando entonces es a que los pequenos productores tengan acceso a la biotecnologiay variedades obtenidaspor ellos. [...] Todas esas variedades mejoradas inicialmente las acapararon fueron las multinacionales Por ejemplo la tecnologia terminator, la semilla en el experimento solo se usa una vez aunqueyya despues toca volverla a comprar. Entonces el sentido nuestro es totalmente diferente entregarla al pequeno productor, es una entidad sin dnimo de lucro. (10051 - Colombia)

Hybrid plantain is difficult to improve and this process can take forty years. This [genetic engineering] is a 10-15 year strategy, but otherwise, yes, it is comparable to traditional plant breeding, and a lot [of time] is saved. Also, this variety could be used for small producers because plantain isn't important to the multinationals and is a product of the small producers. The focus, then, is for small producers to have access to biotechnology and the varieties obtained through it. [...] All of these improved varieties were initially monopolized by the multinationals. For example, the terminator technology, where the seed in the experiment is only used once and then one must return to buy more. Our intention is completely different since we are giving it to the small producer; it is an entity without a spirit of profit (with no profit motive in mind). (10051 - Colombian genetic engineering and biotechnology researcher from a national research institute, emphasis mine)

Yield Enhancement (Or Increasing a Farmer's Harvest) Direct enhancement of yield in plant crops is thought to be multigenetic and the genetic control mechanisms of this trait are still the subject of research. As a result, a technique such as genetic engineering that makes specific insertions of one or two genes has not been as useful for direct yield increase as other methods. In the case of molecular genomics, there are two aspects, the knowledge that will eventually be used in breeding and eventual application. I think right now for direct application, we are successful at tackling traits that are controlled by simple genes, one or two genes. The major bottleneck is how we're going to deal with

184 complex traits, which are important traits, yield, tolerance to drought. I think, I am hoping, that CIAT is taking a more realistic view than other groups who are simplifying. These are complex traits; it's going to take time to develop the knowledge base and how to do it. (10016 - CIAT plant breeder and genetic engineering researcher)

On the other hand, certain characteristics can be added to plants that enable them to grow better in a wider variety of conditions and thereby indirectly increase the yield of the plant. Many researchers have worked on increasing the ability of the plant to be resistant to a variety of biotic and abiotic stresses. For example, some of the scientists I interviewed mentioned making disease and pest resistant plants. So, for example, in Cassava, we are working on stem borer, there is no natural variation, so in a way there are no [conventional] options right now to very quickly build resistance to stem borer (10016 - CIAT plant breeder and genetic engineering researcher)

Hay por lo menos dos/rentes de trabajo grande: 1) Mejoramiento de la calidad nutricional. 2) Mejoramiento de la resistencia aplagasy enfermedades, estres biotico y abiotico. Trabqjamos con resistencia a insectos, hemos tenido problemas pues los genes no nos hanfuncionado. Ahora esperamos que con la colaboracion de [universidad de Canada] tengamos nuevos genes para probar la resistencia a insectos. Para mi es muy importante esto, pues mi mision es trabajar para encontrar unaplanta resistente aplagas, pero no lo hemos logrado, lo vamos a volver a intentar. (10034 - CIAT)

There are two main fronts of work: 1) improvements of nutritional quality; 2) improvement of resistance to pest and diseases and biotic and abiotic stress. We are working with insect resistance, but we've had problems as the genes haven't worked for us. Now we're hoping that with the collaboration of the [Canadian university], we will have new genes in order to test insect resistance. For me, that's very important, as my mission is to work to find a plant resistant to pests, but we haven't achieved it yet, we are going to continue to try. (10034 - CIAT researcher using genetic engineering and other biotechnologies)

Fungus resistance was also mentioned.

En Colombia tenemos 30.000 hectdreas de pldtano y banano, very close to Haliconias, they were together in the past, they split now, so anyways... 30,000 hectdreas de pldtano y banano con problemas fitosanitarios, con un hongo que se llama "Sigatoca negra", pero tambien tenemos heliconias que no tiene el hongo, entonces vamos a buscar en estas plantas los genes resistentes para posteriormente hacer transferencia. Entonces el banco genomico sirve para el mejoramiento deflores ornamentales y genes quepuedan servir para otros

185 alimentos, como pldtano y banano, igual que arroz -jtodos los dias en la comida! Entonces, queremos ver esa posibilidad. (10040 - Colombia)

In Colombia, we have 30,000 hectares of plantain and banana. They're very [closely related] to Haliconias97 they were together in the past, although they've split now. So anyways.... 30,000 hectares of plantain and banana with fitosanitary problems, like a fungus that's called 'Sigatoca negra'. But also we have Haliconias that do no have the fungus, so we are going to look for the resistant genes in these plants in order to do transference [through transformation] later. Then we have a genomic bank that serves to improve ornamental flowers, as well as genes that can serve for other food crops, like plantain and banana. They're like rice - every day in the diet! So, we want to look at that possibility. (10040 - Colombian university researcher using genetic engineering and doing genetic research)

Cold tolerance is an example of a trait of interest for abiotic stress. Work to reduce stress from drought and salinity were also mentioned by different researchers. Cold tolerance is one example of a trait that begins to address multi-genetic traits, as suggested in the following. So, the lab that I was in, it works on low temperature stress. They're interested in primarily the forages, which are plants that are grown for their feed quality. The plant that I was working with was alfalfa. There was a reason for working with alfalfa. Alfalfa has two important characteristics. One is it's a perennial. The plant keeps coming back and coming back. It's incredibly high in protein, and it has nitrogen fixing capabilities. It's part of the family of legume plants, it has the ability to pull nitrogen out of the atmosphere and convert it into useable forms. Agriculturally, this was discovered to be incredibly useful about 8,000 years ago. Just about every major livestock production system on the planet is based on an alfalfa or a similar forage type system. So, there are varieties of alfalfa that have been bred to live in very warm climates and others that have bred to live in cold climates, through a process of cold acclimation. When the fall comes, the plant begins to change its physiology. 'Things are different now I've got to prepare for winter'. And it goes through a series of changes that allows it to over winter. But even after all of that, in Ontario today, you get a severe winter; you can have over 60% winter kill in a field of alfalfa. That translates to enormous limitations in alfalfa production. Part of the problem [is] you want to seed a field with alfalfa and you want have it growing for three or four years before you plough it down and then you ... So, in a forage production, you manage the other fields, but all of a sudden, you've lost half of it, what do you do? Do you scrap it and start again, or do you deal half of what you had. So, it's a problem.

A group of native Colombian flowers, similar to bird of paradise, that is sometimes imported to North America and is readily commercially available as cut flowers and grown in Colombia. They are referred to as both haliconia and heliconia in English.

186 So looking at some genetic profiling, some previous work that was done in my lab, making genetic libraries of cold acclimated alfalfa plants, we found that heat shock genes were activated, and more importantly, their transcription factor, that regulates these genes, was optimized. To give you an idea what this is, you have the heat shock response. Based on the Arabidopsis sequencing project, we know there are some 200 + genes involved here. In plants, those genes are all controlled by a single family of transcription factors. These are genes that use protein products as the ability to turn on and essentially turn off heat shock protein genes. So, these are a master control switch of this massive cadre of heat shock proteins. So, my interest lay in understanding how these master control switches function. What's turning them on, what turns them off, under what conditions they get turned on and off? So, that's where I began my work. (10 - Canadian university plant breeder using genetic engineering)

Many breeders considered finding ways of improving the plant's yield, in other words, to increase the ability of farmer's to grow more food, to be a crucial component of their jobs. This was particularly evident in conversations I would have in the course of participant observation at CIAT, but also reflects the opinions of many Canadian researchers, as well. While some entomologists might question the long term effectiveness of reliance on one genetic change for pest resistance (thus providing strong natural selection pressure for resistance mutations in the pest in question), these measures are still considered to be worthy by GE scientists. As one Canadian researcher commented (see previous quotation in the intended use section, p. 178), improving the ability of plant varieties to thrive addresses "a central issue in agriculture right now, which is the survival of the farm". While s/he focuses on increasing a farmer's economic margin of profit (or preventing a margin of loss), others discuss the need to improve the ability of the farmer to feed his/her family. While the individual quoted below was not actively working with genetic engineering, his/her words echo this type of sentiment about trying multiple avenues to increase plant yield. That guy [discussion of poor farmer in a rural developing country] is between starvation and reality. The question is: why is it like that? Well, that's a question that is difficult to solve. It could be corruption in the federal government. It could be lack of interest in the rest of the world to help him out of this bad situation... a list of things. That's not what we're concerned about right now. All we're concerned about is how can we help that guy, so he can have enough to feed his family. And I think it goes beyond organic farming. You have to use everything that you have at your disposal to help that guy. (10045 - CIAT plant breeder who uses biotechnology but not genetic engineering)

187 Enhancement of Plant Qualities (Or Making Plants Better for You) There are many ways of adding various qualities to the plant that will enhance or change the qualities of a plant. There is interest in engineering traits, such as increased vitamin content, to enhance the plant's nutritive value. This is particularly of interest when a staple plant in a diet is lacking in a nutrient. Golden rice, which attempts98 to increase the amount of beta-carotene, an important Vitamin A precursor, is an example of this kind of research (Potrykus, 2001). Vitamin A deficiency is common in heavily rice- based diets. Another publicized case, appearing on November 23, 2006 in the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's Radio program, "As It Happens", was that of a cotton researcher in Texas who had made cotton edible by silencing the gene which created the toxin that made the crop impossible for humans to eat. Since Potrykus' success, the Gates Foundation has funded research into the improvement of nutritional quality in many food crops, using both conventional and biotechnological methods (including projects taking place at CI AT). El otro enfoque es mejorar la calidad nutricional, estamos haciendo un trabajo para incrementar provitamina' en yuca, en raiz. Estamos explorando expresion de genes en raiz, genes y promotores en raiz. Estamos colaborando con gente de Alemania. (10034 - CUT)

The other focus is to improve nutritional quality. We are working to increase 'pro-vitamin' in cassava, in rice. We are collaborating with people in Germany. (10034 - CIAT researcher using genetic engineering and other biotechnologies)

Another example of plant enhancement research using genetic engineering is the attempt to increase starch content (to improve the use of a crop for industrial possessing possibilities). Such research is intended to extend or improve the uses of pre-existing crop plants, and differs from molecular pharming, which will be discussed next, only by the degree of change required in what the plant will start producing and the potential risk" involved.

The nutritional benefit of this rice strain has been questioned. Nutritional trials were on going while I was in Colombia (as reported by a visiting researcher there). 99 Pharmaceutical compounds that could contaminate the food supply present greater health risks than a starchier version of Cassava.

188 Molecular (Ph)Farming Another breeding goal for GMOs is the use of plants as biofactories that produce particular compounds, such as medicinal ones (hence the play on pharma in the term, molecular pharming). The production of cosmetic and industrial compounds is also being explored. Those with whom I spoke who were interested in this type of research were usually most interested in medicinal applications, either for humans or for animals. These kinds of plant characteristics include creating so-called 'edible vaccines', or immuno- proteins for use in oral vaccination. The possibility of creating vaccines that can be grown cheaply and administered orally has excited a great deal of interest, since conventional vaccination requires needles and the vaccines need to be kept at stable temperatures, something that is often difficult to do in tropical countries without 'cold chain' (i.e., refrigeration) infrastructure. Another attraction of plants that produce pharmaceutical compounds is the ability of these new varieties to create added economic possibilities for crops that farmers already grow, but which are experiencing a flagging market. Tobacco is a good example of this. And, obviously, not a great future in tobacco, but the idea was to try and also create replacement crops for tobacco for the region. [...] But from that, at least in my mind, developed the concept of replacing tobacco with tobacco and creating a new use for it that didn't involve smoking. [...] out of that developed this idea of producing biopharmaceuticals or industrial molecules or things like that in tobacco, using tobacco as a platform for that type of work, which involves genetic engineering. We've been doing that ever since and we have a focus on auto immune disease and we've done some vaccine antigens mostly for farm animals. Most of these projects run as collaborations with hospitals, companies.... Biotechnology companies, things like that. And that's where we are today. And tobacco is the platform, low nicotine, male sterile100, visually distinct tobacco, like that flashy yellow looking stuff there. (11- Canadian plant breeder and genetic engineering researcher from a federal research institution)

While the idea of genetically modified plants creating medicinal products has aroused less controversy than genetically modified food, the health risks for plants that could be mixed into the food supply are actually greater. Therefore, various discussions about whether to use food plants versus non-food plants have begun and in some cases

This is important, as it means that the plant will not produce pollen that could spread and therefore contaminate other tobacco crops. The visually distinct aspect is so that the transgenic plants can be more readily identified, again for biosafety reasons.

189 regulatory recommendations have cautioned against the use of food crops . Many researchers, in fact, started working with food crops when they started work in this area, both because these plants were better known and characterized and therefore easier to work with and also because the idea of developing country use suggested that the ideal plant would require as little processing as possible. In other words, that it could be consumed readily, without requiring expensive processing. Because of the safety issue, there is now discussion about growing such crops only in greenhouses, so as to prevent gene flow to conventional crops or wild relatives in the area. The use of greenhouses, particularly biosafety greenhouses (e.g. equipped with filters to ensure that pollen flow does not occur), is more expensive than field growth. This has the potential to reduce the usefulness both to poorer countries and also to large industrial production of such compounds using plants. The real advantage to plants in many of these cases is their economy of scale. It is possible to grow large numbers of them in a field and thereby create large amounts of a certain compound. When the expense of such growth goes up, as it does in greenhouses, the expenses may become similar to other processes. There's a lot of different ways to make antibodies. You can make them in yeast, you can make them in bacteria, you can make them in mammalian cells, you can do them in all sorts of ways. The things plants have to offer is scale. So, not only can you make antibodies, you can make 1,000 kilos of a particular antibody. You can then use it for things that you wouldn't otherwise imagine. So, being constrained like that constrains the application of the technology. Limits it and in fact, doesn't make it very competitive, relative to other systems. Why bother? It's just different, it's not better, in that context, than if you put it in a cell culture system or a highly contained greenhouse system. Its very capital intensive and productivity is not that great. (11 - Canadian plant breeder and genetic engineering researcher from a federal research institution)

Tissue culture, which is used to grow certain medicines, etc. using animal cells, is also being examined as a possibility for plant tissue culture for certain commodities. For instance, one individual commented on the possibility of manufacturing colouring or flavour elements this way, using genetic engineering to optimize such products.

Otro proyecto (tenemos que diversificar para poder conseguir recursos) consiste en producir jugo de naranjas sin cultivar naranjas, solo cultivando las celulas, de aquipuedo sacar color antes, saborizantes, reactivos, vitaminas y manipular

Canada is a country that has done this (Canadian Food Inspection Agency, 2004). geneticamente para obtener mejores productos. Este unproyecto a largo plazo pero todo parece indicar que esfactible. (10040 - Colombia)

Another project (we have to diversify in order to obtain resources) consists of producing orange juice without growing oranges, only cultivated in cells. From these we can take out colorants, flavours, chemicals, vitamins, and they can be genetically manipulated in order to obtain better products. This is a long term project, but everything seems to indicate that it is feasible. (10040 - Colombian university researcher using genetic engineering and doing genetic research)

The particular breeding goals used in each GMO can therefore change, depending on the factors that I have described above. Another key difference within GMOs is which plant is used to create them (Figure 1).

Differences in Plant Species and Variety Used The plant picked to become a GMO has implications for the intended user, the technical ease of using genetic engineering, and the breeding goals. I encountered two major distinctions: 1) whether the plants were intended for tropical or temperate use and 2) whether they focused on commercial high yielding varieties, or more local varieties Plants can be either temperate or tropical, in the sense that they are crops that grow best and are important to farmers in either temperate or tropical areas. Crops described as truly 'temperate' versus 'tropical' tend to differ in Canada from the distinction made in Colombia. Whether something is considered a 'temperate' plant in Canada may differ from its designation as such in Colombia, thereby reflecting the different geographical context in which agriculture takes place and the amount of heat or cold stress present. Nevertheless, for the purposes of this, more social, characterization, crops grown in temperate areas, such as North America, are considered to have a much better commercial market, and therefore comprise more of the focus of work done by multinational corporations, than do tropical crops. This is tied to the greater number of small farmers in tropical countries such as Colombia (compared to Canada), who are not considered to be a good market for agricultural seed and inputs, partially due to their poverty. Because there is a good market for these crops, there has been and is more research done with them. This was reflected when Colombian or CIAT scientists talked about the lack of interest in or development of tropical crops by 'the market' or multinationals.

191 Hay cosas que es mejor que compremos porque no tenemos el tiempo ni el dinero para desarrollarlas. Pero en cambio los grandes cultivos estdn en manos de las trasnacionales. Es un hecho pero tenemos otros cultivos como los promisorios que las nacionales no van a tomar porque no les interesa como mercado. Eso es lo que tenemos que desarrollar nosotros. Pero tenemos que dor la information, esto solo es un sistema mas que nos garantiza un producto mas controlado desde elpunto de vista genomano. Que antes de ser liberado se han evaluado todos los riesgos, y que tenemos un sistema normativo que garantiza que se ha evaluado esto, y que no va a afectar la saludni el ambiente. (10049 - Colombia)

There are things that are better to be bought because we don't have time or the money to develop them. But in return the major crops are in the hands of the transnationals. It is a fact, but we have other crops, but they will not take because they are not interested in the market. That is what we have to develop. But we have to provide information: this is only a system that guarantees us a controlled product, more controlled from the genome perspective; that before [a GM variety] was liberated, the risks have been evaluated, and it will not affect the health of the environment. (10049 - Colombian university genetic engineering and molecular biodiversity researcher)

Colombia es unpais mega diver so y si encontramos genes de mejor adaptation frente a sequias, plagas o de mejor calidad, sepueden introducir a las especies nativas en las cuales las multinacionales no estdn interesadas. Si los colombianos no lo hacemos, nadie lo hard. Es el caso de losfrutales tropicales. (10050 - Colombia)

Colombia is a mega-diverse country and if we find genes for better adaptation to drought, pests, or of better quality, they can be introduced into native species in which the multinationals are not interested. If Colombians don't do this, nobody will. (10050 - Colombian genetic engineering researcher and plant breeder from a national institute)

The reverse side of this, of course, is that work on many of the important crops in temperate zones is fiercely competitive and marked by the involvement of multinational seed corporations. I'm breeding conventional lines, which is no GMO, because I can't give Monsanto $1 million to use their Round-up gene, even though, when they come to me with contracts, I'm, of course, working with their Round-up gene. But that's just between us, and I have to separate my germplasm strictly in one growth room area, and we've got another growth room over here, because it's just not cool to mix them all up. So, I don't mind getting contracts and paying my people to do interesting work. But I think that farmers and producers should get a choice. And, what happens usually is, when I produce a good line, the companies will come and say, okay, we've got the license to market this line - can you put Round-

192 up into it?' I say, 'yes, pay me money, and it's still yours'. I'm not stupid. I'm not going to chase money away, but I still think that there should be an opportunity for producers to choose. And I know that the organic people are coming in the fore and they need something. (10084 - Canadian university plant breeder who does genetic engineering, but not usually in his/her 'own' (versus on contract) breeding program)

In addition, particular plant/crop varieties contain their own facility for being used as research objects, with some plants made easier than others, by either history or physiology to use with certain kinds of breeding techniques. For instance, plants that have had more extensive research done on them will generally be easier to work with, as more is known about them. In addition to previous research work, some plants are simply easier than others to genetically engineer. For instance, beans are difficult to genetically engineer, due to difficulties in getting the plant to successfully survive and regrow after the transformation process. For some reasons, beans are very recalcitrant. We tried. We had a project for two years to try to develop methodology, and we made progress, but it's like many of these very focused short-term projects, by the time you're just getting going, the funding is finished and you just can't afford to carry it on. (10072 - Canadian university genetic engineering researcher and plant breeder)

Canola, on the other hand, has been commercially released in a GMO form, has a temperate and industrial market, and has both a history and a facility for genetic engineering. As you know, Canola is one of the best crops for biotechnology, because that's where alot of things started, because it works so well. Canola, as some people like to say, is so close to a weed that it works so well on everything. Which is totally insulting!...but probably true. [...] It's number three for vegetable oil production in the world after palm and soy (10084 - Canadian university plant breeder who does genetic engineering, but not usually in his/her 'own' (versus on contract) breeding program)

In similar cases to the latter, the technology has been worked out for that plant and the concern is more focused on creating and releasing varieties with useful characteristics in them in the immediate future. In contrast, there is less history working with a tropical plant like cassava and therefore a researcher's immediate goal might be more concerned with getting a particular technique or particular gene insertion to work in order to create a cassava GMO. Commercial release or even field testing to work towards commercial

193 release may be some way off as a goal in this research situation, where the focus is on getting the methodological protocols established and functional. The source variety of the GMO for any particular plant matters, as well. In general, commercial high yielding varieties are more widespread, which allows them to be better for a competitive market, as they grow reasonably well in a variety of conditions (Doyle, 1985). For instance, a general cotton variety developed by a transnational corporation might be marketable in a range of countries, even if they do not perform as well as more local varieties. Las variedades de algodon introducidas comparadas con variedades colombianas, experimentalmente ahora, estdn a un mismo nivel o unpoquito mas bajo debido a que las variedades colombianas han sido mejoradas para nuestras condiciones, lo que lesfalta, nuestras variedades, es el valor agregado de la caracteristica transgenica. En la medida en que las variedades colombianas tengan, mediante transgenicos, resistencia aplagas, a enfermedades o tolerancia a herbicidas, van a tener una ventaja comparativa y competitiva frente a las variedades introducidas. (10050 — Colombia)

The introduced cotton varieties compared with Colombian varieties, experimentally at the moment, they are at the same level or a little bit lower than the Colombian varieties that have been improved for our conditions, what they lack, our varieties, is the added value of the transgenic characteristic. With the measurement that the Colombian varieties would have, through transgenics, resistance to pests, to diseases, or tolerance to herbicides, they are going to have a comparative and competitive advantage, compared to the introduced varieties (10050 - Colombian genetic engineering researcher and plant breeder from a national institute).

Since local varieties are often better adapted to specific environmental conditions in the areas in which they are bred, they are often better at withstanding extreme conditions that may be present in those areas and, therefore, while less widely marketable, can be less risky to grow (Cleveland, 1993). This means that there is less of a market for them after the costly transgenic process. However, local varieties are sometimes worked with, as reflected in the following discussion of plantain varieties, in which the Colombian researchers are arguing that each region needs its own regional variety with the transgenic characteristic added La produccion es muy especifica en cadapais, de cada continente. Elpldtano en Africa es diferente al de inter es en otros paises. Incluso en Colombia hay diferencias por regiones Harton en la costa atldntico, en otras el dominico harton. Cada desarrollo de transformation genetica responde a unas necesidades por cada pais y a los cultivos priorizados que tenga cada uno. No sirve desarrollar unprotocolo universalizado para pldtano de Africa cuando por ejemplo en Colombia no va a ser aplicado. Igual todos los productos. (10051 - Colombia)

The production is very specific in each country, from each continent. Plantain in Africa is different from the interest of other countries. Even in Colombia, there are regional differences. Harton [variety] in the Atlantic coast and in the other areas dominico harton [variety]. Each genetic transformation development responds to the necessities of each country and those cultivars prioritized by each [country]. It doesn't work to develop a universal protocol for plantain from Africa when, for example, in Colombia it will not be applied. It's the same for all products. (10051 - Colombian genetic engineering and biotechnology researcher from a national research institute)

The plant that is the focus of genetic transformation therefore differs depending on the geographic and systemic agricultural context. While there are technical characteristics of the plant involved that are considered, again, the choice of plant is strongly related to background political and economic factors. We now turn to the final section in discussing ways in which GMOs can differ, the disciplinary setting in which they are enmeshed.

Differences in Disciplinary Settings Researchers from a number of different disciplinary backgrounds have found genetic engineering appealing to use. Some of these disciplines are not ones that have traditionally been allied with plant breeding. These include, beside the more traditional botany or plant physiology, areas of molecular biology and also medical or veterinary related fields. It is not necessary for all those involved to have been trained in conventional scientific plant breeding in order to use genetic engineering. For instance, there seems to be two backgrounds for the people who participate in molecular pharming, both of them interdisciplinary. The first, and most common, are plant breeders with training in molecular methods who make up part of a multidisciplinary team, with others who have medicinal or veterinary expertise and know how to carry out the clinical trial research for the therapeutic products produced with genetic engineering. The other alternative is to start from a background which deals with the effects of the compound itself, such as medicine, immunology, etc. and then to acquire expertise in the plant

195 science and genetic engineering aspects of the research. Different backgrounds create interests in producing different kinds of knowledge, which are ongoing at the same time as their goals for product creation. The following quote from a Canadian plant breeder who acquired molecular biology skills later in his/her career illustrates that knowledge of the genetic engineering system does not necessarily equate to knowledge of plant breeding. This platform ° work that we do, the development of the platform, introduction of the male sterility, the introduction of the visual distinguishability... I do that using conventional breeding techniques. You don't need genetic engineering.... You need genetic engineering if you want a human gene in a plant... well, currently, there isn't another way to do it. So, there again, it's a point where there's an actual synergy, where you can put those two things together and come up with a complete system. And you often find, again, on the molecular biology side, there's a lack of understanding of the platform and the biology and how you might use that in your favour. And again, through collaboration, you're seeing companies that are working well with companies on the experimental agriculture side, working on their platforms along with some biotechnology ones,... process engineering and the medical side to put a whole package together. In my case, I have that skill already and it's a part I know quite well, so that runs in the background the whole time. (11 - Canadian plant breeder and genetic engineering researcher from a federal research institution)

Different disciplinary backgrounds, then, provide different incentives for knowledge creation as a part of genetic engineering and to some degree direct the breeding trait of interest.

Summary Taken together, the differences exemplified by the typology of GMOs displayed in Figure 1 show how one GMO can be quite strikingly different from another. Overall there are many uses for this technology. These differences, recognized by GE scientists, are part of what shapes a GMO as a boundary object from one laboratory to another. GE scientists do recognize that GMOs have social implications, but assume that these could be quite different, depending on the particular features of each individual GMO. One change in the classification of a GMO can result in a very different non-

102 The platform referred to here is the plant variety that you develop that has all the traits you want in it, except for that one that is genetically engineering. The platform is generally crossed with the genetically engineered variety, rather than directly transformed because it is easier to do this way for technical reasons.

196 human actor, in terms of its research, social, and regulatory implications, and thus may change its acceptability for individual GE researchers. For example, in Figure 2, GMO 2 and GMO 3 are essentially identically classified, except for one characteristic: they both are intended for industrial farming; they both use the agrobacterium transfer of DNA from a plant source; they both involve temperate crops and high yielding varieties; and both research projects are intended to produce a product and are done by plant breeders. However in the case of GMO 2, the breeding goal is to introduce cold resistance to the crop, while the breeding goal for GMO 3 is to enable the plant to act as a biofactory that produces a particular drug component. The markets, patents, growing conditions, and environmental and health risks for these two GMOs are going to be quite different, as are the regulatory interests. The scientific boundary that holds all this heterogeneity together as 'GMOs' is the acknowledgement of the similarities involved in the methodological process. This is a new area of investigation in which GE scientists are actively publishing and exchanging methodological protocols and findings on the topic. While they may prefer more method- centric names such as 'genetic engineering' to GMO, all GE scientists recognize what a GMO is, while knowing each will have differences. This common focus on the method, or in other words, keeping the boundary object of GMOs intact, means that differences of opinion between GE scientists about what purposes, traits, and intended users are an appropriate use of genetic engineering do not have to be brought into the open, but rather are smoothed over in the name of methodological cooperation. The overall approach to GMOs, however, is quite different from that found in social science, which to some extent mirrors the homogeneity found in the media coverage of the topic. What are the implications for this differential emphasis on how GMOs are seen?

197 Figure 2: Socio-Technical Choices in GMO Creation The design of the three GMOs categorized here can be quite different in terms of their social, environmental and health implications. For instance, GMO 1, as a tropical plant which needs more methodological development for genetic engineering to created products for the subsistence farmers that use this crop will have very different market possibilities and likelihood of use than GMOs 2 and 3. GMOs 2 and 3, as commercially important temperate plants designed for use in industrial farming are much more likely to generate profit (similarities circled in black), but creating GMO 2 to be resistant abiotic stress (i.e. to cold) will present very different environmental and health risks than will the creation of GMO 3 for drug production (differences circled in blue).

198 Internal Heterogeneity and the Implication for GMOs as Boundary Objects: Into the Regulatory Realm... The implications for the scientific heterogeneous view are more wide ranging than naming preferences among scientists, as they also affect regulatory practices and the critique of those practices by non-governmental organizations. The regulatory preference for examining GMOs on a 'case-by-case' basis is clearly reflected in the scientific recognition of differences within GMOs. Como todo hay cosas que son malas, hay cosas que estan mal y cosas que estan bien, pero cada caso se debe estudiar de una forma muy particular y tratar de entender que es lo mejor para el medio ambiente, para el agricultor y para el consumidor. (10039 - Colombia)

Like everything, there are things that are bad and things that are good, but each case needs to be studied in a very particular form to try and understand what is the best for the environment, for the farmer, and for the consumer. (10039 - Colombia, emphasis mine)

The maintenance of the boundary of these organisms as 'GMOs' despite their internal differences, however, is not the same in Canada as it is in Colombia. In Colombia, regulators who were interviewed commented that their procedures were similar to those in other parts of the world and that they followed international parameters and that applications were reviewed on a case-by-case basis. They therefore recognize the diversity within the category, but at the same time, recognize the need to regulate the category itself (in Spanish as "OGM" - organismos geneticamente modificados) This category was set out in various resolutions, starting in 1998 and modified thereafter (Ministerio de Agricultura y Desarollo Rural, 2006). GMOs required an application for risk review by ICA (Instituto Colombiano Agropecuario), the Colombian Institute of Agriculture within the Ministerio de Agricultura y Desarollo Rural, to be submitted for the importation, production, release, and commercialization of GMOs (Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development). Since 2005, applications are under the combined expertise of ICA as well as the Ministerio de Ambiente, Vivienda, y Desarrollo Territorial (Ministry of Environment, Habitation, and Territorial development), regarding the environment, and the Ministerio de la Protection Social

199 (Ministry of Social Protection), regarding health and human nutrition (Ministerio de Agricultura y Desarollo Rural, 2006). In Canada, however, the boundary object itself falls apart in the regulatory realm, as 'GMOs' are not officially recognized as a category that requires regulation in all the different departments (Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), Environment Canada, and Health Canada) that play a role in granting any individual GMO regulatory approval. For instance, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) performs the lead role for coordinating GMO regulation (Brunk et al., 2001). The CFIA directly regulates the release of GMOs for field trials (release into the environment to grow in a field, as opposed to a biosafety greenhouse), and the approval of GMOs as animal feed. It coordinates with Environment Canada to regulate the environmental and biodiversity impacts of GMOs (Brunk et al., 2001). Health Canada, however, has the responsibility to assess food safety, although the application is coordinated with the applicant through the CFIA (Brunk et al., 2001). GMOs are not explicitly recognized in the Health Canada context as a group which are regulated, however. Instead, products of genetic engineering are grouped under the classification of 'novel foods', which are then assessed on a case-by-case basis, as the Royal Society Report on the Future of Food Biotechnology commented. Many GM crops are destined, as a whole or as specific parts, for the human food supply system. For this reason, they must not only obtain CFIA approval, but must also be assessed by Health Canada. Health Canada gains its jurisdiction to regulate in this area from the Food and Drugs Act and Regulations, within which GM foods come under the Novel Foods Regulations. [...] After reviewing the relevant documents and holding discussions with Health Canada personnel, it appears to the Panel that no formal criteria or decision-making framework exists for food safety approvals of GM products by Health Canada. Decisions are largely made on a case-by-case, ad hoc basis. (Brunk et al, 2001: 37, emphasis mine)

This procedure groups GMOs along with other food products that have not been previously marketed in Canada. Therefore, in a regulatory sense, at least as it applies to Health Canada, while the heterogeneous nature of the products of genetic engineering is recognized (products are assessed on a case-by-case basis), the homogenous sense in which social scientists have engaged with GMOs is not (they are grouped with other things under the 'novel foods' category, not within their own category). GMOs as a

200 boundary object disappear in this case, to be replaced with particular plant products that appear as members of a 'novel foods' category. In both Canada and Colombia, regulatory agencies are reflecting the important differences that scientists see between one GMO and the next in their case-by-case consideration of the health and environmental risks posed by the products of this technology. While the Royal Society Report noted the need for this flexibility, they also commented that in the Canadian case it provided the possibility for inappropriate decisions to be taken (Brunk et al., 2001). The case-by-case approach is in contrast to the position of many NGOs and segments of civil society that concentrate on the category of 'GMOs' rather than their internal differences. For example, one Canadian environmental group member made a distinction between GMOs, which are seen as all representing an environmental risk, and other molecular biology tools (or biotechnology as a whole). We're not against genomics or science per se around this. There's actually... the science of genetics and genomics, in many ways, could offer explanations about how biodiversity sustained itself. So, in fact, it's not against knowledge or understanding what's happening, the mechanisms. The issue is more in terms of the commercial and technological application of that kind of knowledge, which is basically what we call biotechnology and more specifically the environmental release of organisms in the environment. [Our organization] is an environmental organization. We are not in principle against GMOs per se. For example, if they are in contained form. We don't have an environmental case for that per se. [...] It's one thing to contain use and it's another thing to disseminate organisms on large scales into the environment without knowing the full impacts. Sometimes there is alot of fantasy and accusations saying we are against progress ... Well, actually, it is not the case. It depends on what kind of technology is being used. (10070 - Canada)

201 GMOs in the quote above have a firm boundary drawn around them in the sense that there is an opposition to any transgenics being released into the environment, implying that all GMOs pose an environmental risk103. This is different from the concept of risks being associated with particular traits which is more commonly found among scientists using genetic engineering. There has been less public controversy over GMOs in Colombia than in Canada. GMOs have not been targeted to the same extent by political activism against their regulatory release and consumer consumption. This is possibly, as one member of an educational NGO supported by multinational corporations suggested, because most Colombians had other concerns. Tenemos otras cosas en nuestras cabezas que son mas importantes...si tiene un problema de guerrilla, o narcotrdfwo, o economico, pues...pasen a segundopiano los temas de plantas transgenicas, bueno o no. (10048 - Colombia)

We have other things in our head that are more important... If you have a problem, like the guerrilla, drug trafficking, the economy, well... the issue of transgenic plants goes to the second level, whether they're good or not. (10048 - Colombia)

Nevertheless, an NGO in Colombia which was against the release of GMOs in Colombia shows a similar position to the Canadian environmental group member regarding their view of GMOs as a category objected to as a group, rather than on a 'case-by-case' basis, the key difference being whether a GMO has been released in the environment or is contained, not any differences between the GMOs themselves. While they were similarly concerned with environmental effects, they also feared the technology would promote the loss of important local varieties and that Colombia did not have the regulatory infrastructure and trained personnel to adequately address health and environmental risks. We are therefore left with a situation where there is possible conflict between civil society groups and regulatory institutions, which is partially based on the degree of recognition of socio-technical difference within boundary objects that is so predominant among the scientists who work on them. The boundary object, within such a space, is not supported by the co-operative intention necessary for agreeing on a boundary that all

103 While some could argue that this shows a degree of scientific ignorance, it is important to remember that the commercialized varieties are largely only herbicide or pest resistant and thus represent a more

202 recognize, while allowing for local differences in its permutations. Instead, the category of GMO takes on different levels of transparency or opacity, with one group arguing that the other does not understand the differences that appear when one looks at the issue 'scientifically' and the other arguing that the risks of GMOs are not sufficiently heeded, as regulatory bodies are using a 'case-by-case' approach to avoid dealing with the potential risk issues that the GMOs carry as a homogeneous body. What is missed in such arguments is that GMOs, if we think of them as boundary objects, have both these characteristics simultaneously.

Conclusion

GMOs are held together as a group by the boundary of the methodological process that creates them. GE scientists recognize myriad forms of GMO as reflected in the GMO typology that I have presented in this chapter. Social science discussions of GMOs have not reflected these socio-technical differences, but instead have focused on the way GMOs, as a homogeneous group, have interacted with the public, and regulatory, economic, and governance structures. Civil society actors seem to also recognize GMOs as a group. Regulatory bodies in Canada and Colombia have recognized and given emphasis to the scientific perspective of high internal difference within the category of GMO. This practice is justified by scientifically valid and important reasons, as the risk presented by one GMO compared to another can change, depending on its characteristics. Nevertheless, in the Canadian case, placing so much emphasis on the differences between GMOs, to the extent that they are not always regulated as a group, has also alienated regulators from civil society and NGOs who are concerned about the general effects of the products of this technology. This is not simply a case of scientific expertise versus lay ignorance. Wynne (2001) has suggested, in his discussion of scientific ignorance regarding GMOs, that scientific and lay groups have focused on different aspects of what was known and unknown about GMOs. Similarly, I here suggest that focusing on one aspect of GMOs (their internal heterogeneity), without acknowledging them as a general category, has created a lack of trust in government organizations on the part of civil society groups and has laid the groundwork for further miscommunication on this issue. homogeneous risk picture.

203 In fact, both GMOs connection to specific (i.e. 'case-by-case') constellations of local socio-technical differences and a general methodological group have important social, environmental, and health implications. Additionally, the inability of scientists to make the differences between individual GMOs clear to public groups has allowed the technology as a whole to be susceptible to highly successful anti-GMO campaigns in the commercial marketplace. I am not discounting the possibility for far reaching environmental and health implications resulting from the process of genetic engineering. The Canadian Royal Society report has comprehensively documented the many areas of scientific ignorance on this topic (Brunk et al., 2001). I do, however, suggest that regulatory and civil society groups are using different frameworks when they discuss the risks present in GMOs. The social science literature I have reviewed here has discussed the many ways in which GMOs interact with social, political, and economic realms. In the next chapter, using globalization as a framework, I will explore how social, political, and economic factors impact on GMO design.

204 Chapter 6 GMOs in the Global: Snapshots from a Science-scape The world has the technology that is either available or well advanced in the research pipeline to feed a population of 10 billion people. The more pertinent question today is: Will farmers and ranchers be permitted to use this new technology? [...] The affluent nations can afford to adopt elitist positions and pay more for food produced by the so-called natural methods; the 1 billion chronically poor and hungry people of this world cannot. New technology will be their salvation, freeing them from obsolete, low-yielding, and more costly production technology. [...] We must also speak unequivocally and convincingly to policy makers that global food insecurity will not disappear without new technology; to ignore this reality will make future solutions all the more difficult to achieve. (Borlaug, 2000: 490)

I have established in the previous chapter that there are multiple avenues through which GMOs can be shaped. The implication from this is that there is not a mythical homogeneous body of scientists working on GMO that are all trying to achieve the same thing, but rather a variety of actors engaging with genetic engineering for various goals. Therefore, how do we go about understanding how GMOs (as non-human actors) and the scientists who work with them are involved in the webs of connection and systemic complexities that take place across space and time in ways that are integral to contemporary life? More broadly, how is science global in the case of GMOs? Claims have been made that the tools of genetic engineering and agricultural biotechnology more broadly, will be able to contribute solutions to social problems such as hunger on a global scale. There are therefore expectations that GMOs will be global actors, and as such, will participate in agricultural research and practices in a global arena. In order to critically understand and evaluate such claims, we need to look at the assumptions that are being made about the global applicability of GMOs, the processes of globalization and the context of scientific development in which GMOs are being created. To fail to do this is to fall into what Burkhardt (2001) refers to as the fallacy of the future benefits argument for agricultural biotechnology, where benefits are assumed for the future rather than proven. We know that the way in which technologies are designed and come into being is important in establishing the ways in which they can be used (Hess,

205 2001b; Winner, 1986) . Therefore, understanding how GMOs fit into the global context has implications in evaluating claims that GMOs can increase global food production. Soleri et. al. (2008) suggest that transgenic crop varieties are already assumed by most major international development organizations to provide a key method to support small-scale Third World farmers. Such farmers are receiving increasing attention, as they are not only important for local food production, but also maintain important crop diversity and cultural traditions. However, Soleri et. al. (2008) assert that this policy position rests on the work of development economists whose research uses flawed assumptions. For example, economic research assumes that farmers will choose transgenic varieties that are economically more profitable (i.e. economic assumptions of a 'rational' farmer). They also assume that farmers are risk neutral. In contrast, Soleri et. al. (2008) found that with the exception of farmers already integrated into modern agriculture, most small-scale Latin American farmers in their study had important non monetary preferences (especially for varieties prized for eating). In addition, they were risk averse, in the sense that they preferred more stable varieties, even if this meant a lower mean yield. Drawing from these conclusions, Soleri et. al. (2008) question the applicability of transgenics. Given that small-scale traditionally based agriculture has unique biological and social characteristics; transgenics could also have different and more persistent risks than for industrial agriculture, which small-scale farmers themselves see as potentially harmful (Cleveland & Soleri, 2005; Soleri et al., 2005). Proponents of transgenics also make scientific assumptions about the basic approach used to create them. Robinson (1996), for instance, questions the utility of Mendelian pedigree breeding to substantially increase global crop yields. He asserts that there are few, if any, major traits that affect production and are controlled by only one or two genes that have not already been improved. Instead, he argues that population breeding is an important, but neglected, option for creating widespread improvements. As genetic engineering falls squarely within the Mendelian approach, his argument suggests that is would have narrow practical application. Lewontin (2001) has also

104 Winner (1986), for instance provides case studies of how technological artefacts contain political properties. In one of them, he describes how Robert Moses, the master builder of roads, parks, bridges, and other public works of the 1920s to 1970s in New York built overpasses to Long Island to specifications that

206 suggested that genetic engineering is reductionist. The work of Simmonds (1993) supports the suggestion that transgenics have limited utility. He suggests that a broadening of the genetic base of agricultural crops (a method he calls 'incorporation') is a crucial method for increasing yield and resistance in the long term. While he argues that this approach is scientifically valid and effective for breeding plants, the process relies on widely based populations, genetic recombination, weak selection (including heavy reliance on natural selection), local adaption and most importantly, long term commitment. It is therefore bureaucratically undesirable as it requires long term investment, no opportunities for intellectual property rights to be claimed on the research, and few publication opportunities for scientists. The progressive collapse of publically supported agricultural research, as declining funds are diverted to biotechnological tricks, beyond potentially useful diagnostics and irrelevant to the genetic bases of our crops, is but one aspect of the matter. (Simmonds, 1993: 558)

Despite the difficulties, he does note that it has been successfully used on potatoes and sugar cane, but also that "it may be relevant that potatoes, like sugar cane, have excellent international research connexions" (Simmonds, 1993: 549). He suggests that the ability to carry out this approach in the past was dependant on these crops having well collected crops, collections that were sensibly used, a background of evolutionary and cytogenetic understanding, a strong economic impulse for improvement, and long-term commitment by the researchers and funding agencies. I assert that the claims for global benefits for GMOs also rest on assumptions about the ease of scientific technological transfer from developed (or First World) to developing (or Third World) countries. Research on globalization calls into question the flow of technology from one location to another, given that global interconnections are subject to the fluctuations of inequality. The attempt to understand social interactions that take place over space and time, much of which comes under the rubric of 'globalization', is one that has been central to both anthropology and science studies. The challenges to looking at this issue have been simultaneously methodological and theoretical. How does one look at processes that take discouraged buses, but not cars on the parkway, thereby limiting the access to the public park Jones Beach of the poor who would normally use public transit.

207 place over time and distance, while simultaneously being anchored to a particular location and present? Latour (2005), for instance, suggests that in order for this to be done, the global needs to be 'kept flat', so that movement over distance is shown at its true cost. Multi-sited ethnography is also an attempt to draw attention to processes that occur over distance, through having the anthropologist follow issues, people, or things across space (Marcus, 1998). There has been a good deal written debating what globalization is and critiquing the concept, as well as attempting to discover what differences there are in the present global situation compared to the past. Globalization has been framed as both a type of social transformation and a structural change involving new relationships between the national and the international (Albrow, 1997; Friedman, 1999; Gill, 1997; Gilpin, 2001; Held et al., 1999; Mittleman, 1997). Jameson (1998) suggests that it consists of relations of antagonism and tension between the universal and the particular, while Gill (1997) suggests that it is a dialectal relationship between politico-economic and socio-cultural tendencies. Inda and Rosaldo (2002), on the other hand, suggest it consists of cultural, economic, political, and ecological interdependence. The concept has also been simultaneously critiqued for expanding neoliberal views, while being used to explain an outgrowth of capitalism, consumerism, and westernization (Bauman, 1998; Harvey, 2000; Miyoshi, 1998; Mittleman, 1997; Sklair, 2000; Spybey, 1996; Subramani, 1998; Tsing, 2002). Rouse (1995), for instance, suggests that it is a type of discourse that disguises the hegemonic influence of some parts of the world over others. Technological changes in communication (media, telephone, and internet) and transportation (airplanes, trains, and automobiles) at the very least seem to be compressing distance (Harvey, 2000; Sklair, 2000), thereby facilitating interconnections and the maintenance of transnational ties (Inda & Rosaldo, 2002; Glick Schiller & Fouron, 2001; Rouse, 1995). These advances are also associated with global cultural spread, which can be seen as a form of cultural imperialism from, for instance, the United States (Jameson, 1998; Miyoshi, 1998). The view of'cultural exportation' from a centre to the periphery has been critiqued, particularly in anthropology, for being inappropriate (Hannerz, 2002), as the meaning of imported entertainment or material culture, for example, is subject to interpretation in specific local contexts (Inda & Rosaldo, 2002).

208 Nevertheless, the cultural imperialist view has the benefit of pointing to issues of economics and inequality that are present within globalization. The most vital Utopian vision of our own time [is] of an immense global urban intercultural festival without a center or even any longer a dominant cultural mode. I myself think this view needs a little economic specificity and is rather inconsistent with the quality and impoverishment of what has to be called corporate culture on a global scale. (Jameson, 1998: 66)

The increased mobility of finance capital and a regionally divided global division of labour (i.e. the outsourcing of labour to cheaper labour markets) have both been tied to neoliberal economic policies that Harvey (2000) argues underpin globalization. These factors, along with programs of structural adjustment that reduce public programs in favour of an open market, contribute towards growing inequality both within and between states (Edelman, 1999; Gill, 1997; Harvey, 2000). Appadurai (1991; 1996) is one of many anthropologists who have pointed out just how difficult the contemporary situation can be to examine, due to the complex, conflicting and overlapping processes that are occurring (also, Hannerz, 2002; Harvey, 2000; Spybey, 1996). The new global cultural economy has to be seen as a complex, overlapping, disjunctive order that cannot any longer be understood in terms of existing center- periphery models (even those that might account for multiple centers and peripheries). (Appadurai, 1996:32)

He goes on to suggest that the global cultural economy needs to be thought of more in terms of the shape of overlapping fractals, rather than something with fixed, regular boundaries or systems (Appadurai, 1996). More recently, Collier and Ong (2005) expand on the idea of alternate ways to represent the 'global'. They suggest that phenomena are "distinguished by a particular quality we refer to as global. They are abstractable, mobile, and dynamic, moving across and reconstituting "society," "culture," and "economy," those classic social scientific abstractions" (Collier & Ong, 2005: 4). They advocate the investigation of such phenomena through an examination of the assemblages through which such global forms are articulated within particular issues, rather than examination of 'global forms' in and of themselves. They therefore tie this investigation to that of practices, as I have outlined in chapter four.

209 Appadurai (1996), however, highlights the contradictory way in which the global cultural economy operates and, further, argues that more attention needs to be paid to the 'disjunctures' between five different areas of global cultural flows, which he identifies as: ethnoscapes (the movement of people); mediascapes (the distribution of electronic capabilities to produce and disseminate information); technoscapes (the global configuration of technology and how it moves across boundaries); financescapes (the disposition and flow of global capital); and ideoscapes (or the movement of a chain of ideas, terms, images, etc.). Each of these corresponds to one key area of globalization, as he sees it. He argues that tracing these areas and understanding how they relate to each other is a good starting point for understanding the global cultural economy. Whether one agrees with the precise formation of how Appadurai has laid out his potential objects of study to contribute towards future theory building, his analysis echoes that of others who have pointed to the importance of theorizing movement across space, in the form of global interconnections (Tsing, 2002) or global connections (Wolf, 1982). Appadurai justifies the use of the word 'scapes' to discuss areas of study on the grounds that it implies a certain fluidity, messiness, and incompleteness in what we are able to capture as ethnographers of the global. This neologism has certain ambiguities deliberately built into it. It refers, first, to the dilemmas of perspective and representation that all ethnographers must confront, and it admits that (as with landscapes in visual art) traditions of perception and perspective, as well as variations in the situation of the observer, may affect the process and product of representation. But I also intend this term to indicate that there are some brute facts about the world of the twentieth century that all ethnographers must confront. (Appadurai, 1996: 48)

While his framework attempts to find a way to cover what he argues is new and increasing complexity, it has also been criticized. For instance, Smith (1999) critiques the work on the grounds that Appadurai focuses on cultural 'newness' to the exclusion of recognizing the continuities between the past and the present that exist in people's lives. Smith argues that this is hard to justify if one is looking at livelihood, for instance, instead of diasporas and the mass movement of people. "Somehow his imagery of'globalization' has already been politically sanitized before we get to the anthropologist's task. Yet we need not abandon the role of imagination to endorse a more realist kind of anthropology" (Smith, 1999: 6).

210 In the same way as Smith finds this emphasis on movement and breaks in tradition counterproductive in the portrayal of the lives of workers, Appadurai's framework fits awkwardly into the world of GMOs. Many of the areas that he identifies, the flow of capital, objects, people, and ideas, are important to the way in which scientific research is done. The difficulty is that the movement (or stillness) of ideas, technology and people intertwine so fundamentally in the way that scientists work with GMOs that an attempt to strictly disentangle these elements leads not to a better comprehension of the interwoven global processes that influence biotechnology research, but rather leave one with a series of unconnected strings of the movement of plant material here or the travel of one student there that make such things appear unconnected. This dilemma is similar to Comaroff and Comaroff s (2000) comment that a strict interest in production, rather than a more broadly conceptualized 'livelihood', is no longer adequate in understanding the global economy, given the switch to service industries and other economic trends which attenuate the connection between capital accumulation and the production of material goods. Harvey similarly suggests that one must pay attention to "positionality in relation to capital circulation and accumulation" (2000: 102) in order to better understand current global inequality and further the internal contradictions which result from the multiple social positions from which individuals interact. GMO research, in the same way, does not fit a strict view of industrial modes of production, which can neatly separate capital, ideas, and people. There is a need for a more flexible model to understand the inequalities and connections inherent in this area. Collier and Ong (2005) point to Franklin's (2005) analysis of stem cell research as an example of how a global phenomena can be examined more flexibly, through her focus on "the ensembles of heterogeneous elements - the assemblages - through which stem cell research and its significance are articulated" (Collier & Ong, 2005: 4-5). Therefore, what I propose to do here is to adopt Appadurai's '-scape', with all its connotations of trying to capture the messiness of global interconnection, and use this to present certain aspects or 'snapshots' of the ways in which scientists mention the 'assemblages' of global processes. What I am presenting, then, are views from a global GMO 'science-scape', that blend many of Appadurai's '-scapes' together and bring to

211 light the various, overlapping, and contradictory elements found in GM research. As Appadurai suggests, '-scapes' are not objectively given relations that look the same from every angle of vision but, rather, that they are deeply perspectival constructs, inflected by the historical, linguistic, and political situatedness of different sorts of actors... These landscapes are eventually navigated by agents who both experience and constitute larger formations, in part from their own sense of what these landscapes offer. (Appadurai, 1996: 33)

I will present the particular perspectives of individual scientists through longer excerpts of their interviews as narratives. The term narrative implies the telling of a story, or more of the worldview of the individual speaking than does a shorter quote, which illustrates a particular point. While the narratives I present are short, I suggest that they, nonetheless, provide a sense of the complexity of working in or around GM research within a global milieu. I am therefore following a long tradition of anthropological work which has used narrative to enable the consideration of the complexities in which individuals are immersed and that, while not strictly generalizable, in the scientific or statistical sense, highlights systemic areas of concern surrounding a topic. Fischer (2003) argues that the anthropological voice, in the face of complex and differentiated kinds of cultures participating in greater interaction, has the possibility to capture new narrations of the peopling of technologies. Such narrations, which he suggests occur in a variety of forms, allow us not only to reposition our points of view and modes of judgement through the discernment of patterns, but can help to build new analytical tools. The anthropological voice - the aspiration for cross-culturally comparative, socially grounded, linguistically and culturally attentive perspectives - remains a rare jewel among the contemporary social sciences. Anthropology's use of "culture" as a kind of touchstone has stood for the ability to do work in places where all the variables change at the same time. (Fischer, 2003)

One of the key advantages of such an approach is that it retains the complexity and occasional contradictoriness of scientists' positions as social actors. Understanding processes of globalization from this perspective does not always fit neatly into set categories, and the narrative approach has the benefit of demonstrating this while still highlighting the major processes that are of importance to understanding global GMO work. This is in keeping with Latour's (2005) argument that the most important task of

212 the scholar of science is a description of science as a dynamic process, rather than prematurely constricting the scientific process into a static theoretical framework. I will therefore allow the reader to examine the narrative 'snap-shot' before providing analysis on what we learn about GMOs within a science-scape from the particular position of that narrative. I have arranged these narratives into four groups. The first is an overview or landscape shot of how GMOs fit into a wider field of scientific research. I have spent considerable time detailing the differences between GMO projects and, without denying that complexity, there is something to be learned from looking at the place of GMOs within plant research that does not use genetic engineering. Further, I will also present a perspective of GMOs from outside of science. Next, I will look at connections over distance and the ways in which the flow of people, ideas, and things is important to GMO research, as we would predict from both actor network theory and globalization studies. I will then move on to a discussion of the kind of disconnections that are important in GMO research, where the inability of ideas, people, and things to flow freely is based on various kinds of inequalities amongst not only the scientists, but also the plants with which the scientists create GMOs. Finally, I will examine the motivations of scientists for creating and working with GMOs, as a way of exploring how scientists see their work contributing to particular values or goals, and therefore interacting with wider global, national, and local processes. Using this format of the science-scape, I first argue that GMOs are part of a larger, global scientific knowledge building process, as well as products for markets. Following the insights of both actor network theory and anthropology, we know that connections (and disconnections) in both globalization and scientific endeavours are an important part of how knowledge is built, validated, and used. Second, I also argue that the case of GMOs highlights some of the inequalities in science that we see in other globalization processes. Not all GMOs are equal to one another, but neither is the science that creates them, although most of the scientists with whom I spoke would argue that they are participating in a wider, global scientific endeavour. This tension between global aspirations and local conditions is continually negotiated.

213 Landscape: Looking at GMOs from Outside Genetic Engineering

Genetic engineering takes place within the wider scientific fields of molecular biology, plant breeding, and biology. There is a tendency to oppose how 'scientists' think about genetic engineering and contrast this with how 'the public' thinks about GMOs. In fact, 'scientists' who are not directly engaged in this work also have views about the uses of genetic engineering and how it fits into the work in their field. In this section, I therefore present two narratives from plant breeders who do not use genetic engineering in order to give a wider view of the place of genetic engineering and biotechnology within plant breeding efforts. I follow this with a narrative from a member of a non governmental organization, who has a different view of the role of scientific plant breeding should play for farmers.

Landscape Snapshot #1: Are GMOs Useful and Where Does the Corporation Fit In? The first narrative is from a Canadian plant breeder who employs different methods to get to some of the same goals that genetic engineering does in a crop that is widely available in genetically modified forms. The efficacy of GMOs are questioned, while at the same time a description of how they have changed certain aspects of plant breeding in the Canadian context is given, with implications for the breeder's European connections. Finally, the breeder suggests that there is a global level of enthusiasm for GMOs, despite these issues, because of the scientific advantages that they bring.

This is what we're working on, which is just a kind of fungus that kills plants. It gets into the stem and then the plant dies, because it can't suck up anything. There's no transport between the top and the bottom of the plant. It affects all crops and is pretty well the same species. Pioneer and a few others, they have a gene construct that cures this. They've been bragging about it for years, they've been working on it; they've been putting it into everything in sight and ... where is the product? It ain't working. So, that's one of the reasons... it cost them lots of money, lots of time, lots of bragging rights: where is it? If it was so great, it would be out there competing with this crop that I'm doing. What I'm doing, actually, it's so easy and so cheap, and everything that comes out of my breeding program is going to be resistant... So, just as a rule. How easy is that? So, I'm glad I'm getting out there first because, when they come out with their GMO resistant, it's going to be in one line, it's going to be probably great, it'll be great advertising, farmers will fall for it. Big deal. Everyone else can use this... That's the difference, never mind the health stuff and the ethical stuff. [...]

214 Another thing I hate about the GMO thing, this is strictly from a plant breeders [perspective], I've had, you know, you spend X years producing a cultivar that's ready to go and Ottawa °5 looks at our sample and says, it's contaminated with Round-up or god knows what... It's blowing around in the wind. Bees are carrying it. It didn't happen in my hand inside, but as soon as it's outside, it's gone. The analogy I like to use is it's like Monsanto should be using the condom to prevent [contamination]... it's my fault that I caught this? Right. What's this David and Goliath thing going on? If I had a really great variety, they should be paying me off or protecting my crop planting. Or even farmer's fields... I mean, my rights to breed conventional lines are gone, they're trampled. And it takes me years to find that out, because Ottawa will say, this was a nice line, but sorry, you can't use it. Not only that, but I do a fair amount of breeding on contract for Europe and they just get hysterical about this. So I just send them stuff that I produced indoors and they do everything else out there. If there's contamination, it's theirs. That's beyond ethics, that's just bad neighbours. [...] If you listen to European scientists, the people that I hang around with, they think it's [genetic engineering] great. Because, they want to be scientists, they want to fiddle around with this stuff like anybody else. They don't want to get hung back, watching everybody else get all the big papers out, so they're going to say all the things like 'oh it's not so bad, it's okay... 'And the companies are giving them tons of money to do this. If it's not acceptable in Europe, let's give it to the European scientists and make it look like its home grown, and then it is, and let them fight the scientific wars with the public. And it's the same over here. (10084 - Canadian university plant breeder who does genetic engineering, but not usually in his/her 'own' (versus on contract) breeding program)

This scientist, speaking from a position of work outside of genetic engineering, questions GMOs on the basis of whether they are really more useful than other kinds of conventional breeding techniques. This also brings in the ever present issue of multinational corporate involvement in this field of research. A breeder could ask are GMOs actually better than what I'm doing? Or do they just have better advertising? This is coupled with unease surrounding the ownership rights that companies hold over particular genes, while their liability for losses caused by pollen contamination is denied. This issue has become particularly pertinent in Canada, since recent legal rulings have simultaneously upheld ownership privileges, while denying legal responsibility for the agency of 'trespassing plants' (Muller, 2006a). Perhaps, due to these ongoing trials in the

105 Cultivars for commercial release in Canada are evaluated independently against currently available commercial cultivars by the federal government, in order to ensure that the new crops released have an improved performance from the ones already on the market.

215 Canadian setting, this issue of corporate predominance came up more often in discussions with Canadian scientists, but was also an issue for many Colombian and CIAT scientists I spoke to, as you will see below. The liability issue is an interesting one and is being closely followed by scientists hoping to release crops in the future for development purposes, because, while a corporation like Monsanto might have the resources to deal with liability suits after the release of a GMO, most public research institutions do not. Therefore, if one has to assume public legal liability for the potential contamination from a GM line of crops, this will make it more difficult for public institutions to release GMOs. The other key issue that this scientist's perspective on GMOs brings up is the prestige in being associated with GMO research within scientific circles, even within areas where there is considerable public rejection of the technology. Because of the newness of biotechnology, generally, association with biotechnology can bring scientists prestige and opportunity over conventional breeding techniques, as another scientist at CIAT pointed out. Any new field means you get a lot of publications. It's very hard to publish a paper now on traditional breeding. [.. .It's easier to] publish on genomics and marker assisted selection, all those fancy things. So, for young people, their careers, they're important. And without papers, there's no way you can get a good job and compete in an interview with other people. So, I think the one thing the guys who are involved in universities should do is they should still put a pretty good emphasis on conventional breeding, while at the same time teaching them the new things. They shouldn't give up one form for the other one. Biotech is important, but conventional breeding has fed us up till now and it's still feeding us. But I agree with you, many universities claim that it is harder to attract people to field based breeding programs. (10045 - CIAT plant breeder who uses biotechnology but not genetic engineering)

Such pressures within the scientific milieu present difficulties to the continued recruitment, training, and retention of scientists who have knowledge of field-based plant breeding methods; methods that, as the scientist above pointed out, have been feeding us for some time. Reeves and Cassady (2002), in a review of the history of plant breeding, discuss an increasingly limited pool of plant breeders in the public sector who have experience both in the field and in the laboratory, and this concern has been echoed by others (Knight, 2003). When asked about Reeves and Cassady's statement, although

216 many of the scientists I spoke to suggested that one could not have genetic engineering without conventional breeding, or that they tried to keep a strong conventional component to their training programs in their universities, many also expressed concern about this issue.

Landscape Snapshot #2: GMOs and Biotechnology as Knowledge Building Tools The following narrative, by another plant breeder who does not use genetic engineering or biotechnology and who works in a crop which does not have GM varieties commercially released, again questions the utility of GMOs. However, in this case the plant breeder does this by differentiating between biotechnology as part of knowledge production (i.e. knowledge of gene function or plant physiology) and biotechnology as part of product creation (i.e., plant breeding). In the former biotechnology is considered to be beneficial, whereas in the latter it is not. The breeder also points to the expensive nature of biotechnology, which hints at the disconnections I will discuss later on. I basically do not use biotechnology at all. It's partly philosophical. I don't think we need transgenes. I feel no need for them. And it's partly financial in that I cannot afford to use some of the DNA and analytical techniques (e.g. molecular markers): several of them I would really like to use and we certainly will be using some in the future if I can afford it. Some of the molecular tools are wonderful. From a research perspective, I think they're fantastic. Because they can tell you exactly what you've got genetically, that I can't do by any other way. But as a plant breeder, I generally don't need to use them. Plant breeding is very pragmatic. I want to get something that works. The mechanism that makes it work doesn't really matter. I don't care if its gene A, B, or C. And in many cases it's better that I don't know, because I might be using some genes that I would not have identified if I was only using gene A that I thought was the best. So in some respects, it's better to have some of the cards face down. But that's from a plant breeding perspective. From a research perspective, you really do need to know what you've got, because you're trying to predict. As a plant breeder, I'm not worried about predicting the best one; I'm only worried about observing it. So, two different perspectives on it... Now, I need to use the genetic tools. I need to use the knowledge we gain about breeding in plant breeding, but I don't need to do genetics as a plant breeder. If I was going to do genetics, I would keep the whole population. As a plant breeder, I throw out everything that has a defect. So, when you're getting the knowledge, you have to have everything documented. You have to have all the details. You have to do everything by the book, so you can truly understand the process and the biology behind what's going on. So, plant breeding is much more focused on results, rather than process. Whereas genetics..., the research side of it, has to focus on process. The results will be the results of the process.

217 But in plant breeding, the results may be due to a number of things in addition to the process itself. So, when I'm breeding, if I have an opportunity to breed for something that is drought tolerant this year, I may not have set out to do that. But if I can find something, just due to serendipity, that is good this year, I'll grab it. If I was doing research in drought tolerance, I would have had to set it all up and control it and so on. But as a plant breeder, I don't do that. I take what I get. I didn't set out to do that, I didn't create the situation, but I'm willing to take the results. I want to get results as quickly and as economically as possible. I try to apply as many tried and true methods as possible to achieve that, but if something doesn't work somewhere because of some circumstance... to heck with it... I'll do something different or I'll change methodology in the middle of the year, whereas in research you can't do that. It's really two different kinds of people. Some people go for the details and are very good at following the recipe or developing a recipe with a small modification. Plant breeders have the general idea of the ingredients you want in the recipe and they just mix it together and throw it in the oven. Genetics is the basis of plant breeding, but plant breeding is not genetics, it's other things as well. If you don't understand genetics, you probably won't be able to do plant breeding. However, our ancestors did. They used phenotypic mass selection, which is the simplest thing, coupled with natural selection and made tremendous progress. We have made further progress or faster progress by understanding genetics and creating environments so that we could use imposed selection, rather than just natural selection, but they did a good job. We haven't domesticated very many new plants lately, that was all done 5,000-10,000 years ago... and we're working with what they gave us. We're not going out and starting out all over again. We're using what we've got... I have done some work with biotechnology... and it is a fantastic research tool, but I do not use it as a breeding technique. There are other ways of getting the same results that are either cheaper or easier or more reliable in the environment that I work in. [...] From the research perspective, I see it [genetic engineering] as being an exciting way of testing out a number of different theoretical approaches to things. If you can turn on a gene or turn off a gene or create a protein, what will happen? A way of exploring possibilities that are difficult or impossible to do using existing systems. As such, it'll give us insight into what can be done... but it needs to be done with the perspective that it is research. It is exploratory. And then once we can figure out what can be done, then to me that hands me the challenge as a plant breeder to either find that particular protein or create a plant that is capable of producing that protein, or variation of a protein. And in many cases, I think, there will be genetic systems already in existence. Once we know what to look for I can probably find it in existing genetic systems. What concerns me about inserting a gene is that every gene in the pile probably interacts with every other gene and the environment and getting something to express out there in the real world in a specific genetic background is sometimes very difficult to do and some of the transgenics I have seen are not stable over a long period of time. They may work well for five or six generations, but many of them break down or

218 cease to express to the same extent. I am not overly concerned about the potential toxic effects or the other things you hear hyped. It's whether they will function or not. [...] Almost everything in biology is extremely complex. We can predict and do some very interesting things in the lab that do not function in the real world. (10076 - Canadian plant breeder, no GE use)

This plant breeder echoes the first by asking whether GMOs will actually work better than plants created using other methods. But the position expressed on GMOs is not a straightforward one. If one separates the idea of plant breeding as product development and plant breeding as knowledge creation, GMOs may be considered unsuitable for the first, while intriguing for the latter. This separation was not clearly made by many of those that I spoke to, but is a pivotal one for understanding GMOs in the scientific context. This point reinforces the importance of 'research prestige' discussed above, by pointing out that GMOs (and biotechnology more generally) play a key role in the creation of new knowledge in this area. If, however, knowledge creation provides a key focus, along with product development, what research or plant breeding is not being done? What might contribute to product development, but not provide such exciting opportunities for knowledge creation? What room is there, then, for what has been called 'mundane science' (Kammen & Dove, 1997), something that gets practical results, but might not be considered to advance knowledge? This perspective on GMOs also echoes Robinson's (1996) and Simmonds' (1993) positions in that it suggests that the best plant breeding solution can be the one that stresses the population as a whole and a wide genetic base. Genetic engineering and single gene additions are not always the most economical, efficient, nor effective breeding solution. Such a perspective places the onus on those using genetic engineering to prove when it is the best practical option.

Landscape Snapshot #3: Too Much Emphasis on Science in Plant Breeding? The last narrative showed us the importance of what has been done by farmers in the past. This raises the question, what is the role of farmers in plant breeding in the present? The following snapshot is from a member of a non governmental organization who questions the worth of biotechnology, or even scientific plant breeding at all, rather than more farmer-focused types of plant breeding. He also highlights the global role of multinational corporations in the science-scape of GMOs.

219 The patent they'd [a particular company] be requesting would be moving into herbicide tolerant varieties and, as corporate consolidation continued, it would be harder and harder for farmers to have other choices. We felt that the options that might be left to them at the end of the day would only be either their traditional varieties or GM crops. And that was one aspect of it that to us was vital. The second one that was important to us is that it would make farmer's germplasm more valuable to the companies, and so issues related to biopiracy and who was going to control the gene banks were going to be important. And thirdly, we were quite convinced that whether or not the companies... the companies didn't have to be successful with the technology in order to make a profit. Essentially, all they had to do was to restructure the regulatory system and get everyone to agree that what they were doing was important. So, we weren't convinced that the companies would do a good job of the technology. We just thought they would do it. And unfortunately, it went down that path, whether we liked it or not. So we felt it was important to track the technology for the mistakes as much as anything else. [...] There is a tremendous amount of knowledge in the community and in farm organizations and the starting point for any sort of new developments or new scientific work should be that. Farmers should take the lead in saying 'here's what we want to get done'. And in fact, the problem, again, with CGIAR [Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, also referred to as CG] is it has those kinds of meetings, but it goes in saying, 'how can we use our scientific tools in your community?' As opposed to 'what does your community need to do?' If CG was part of FAO [Food and Agricultural Organization], for example, and they're part of rural development strategy... so that what was being done was a rural development plan was being established for this section of Colombia. And as part of that team who was coming in to work with local people, was a scientist who knew what was happening and what was available and at some point a scientist would be able to speak up as well, and say, well, there are some things we can do to help out here, what do you think? Should we develop this or not? Well, everyone would say, our budget is this amount to do this work in this region. They're saying, goats are more important and they want water work done here, and that's what's critical for them, and the schools are in the wrong place, so we have to shift that around and... so there isn't that much left over for the science... But that doesn't happen. The CG goes there in the first place saying 'okay, now here's how our science can help you guys'. And the work being done by NGOs, for example, really starts with that other approach. It begins by assuming that farmers aren't in a deficit situation. That farmers, in fact, and their communities and organizations have a knowledge base that is strong, and could be augmented, but that it's there. So, you work from that as the beginning point and you go from there. I think we sometimes described it as the difference between high tech and wide tech, and that farmers have wide tech and that's every bit as valuable as the high tech, or more valuable: not that high tech can't play a role. [...] Christina: could biotechnology be useful for poorer farmers?

220 Well, it hasn't happened. It doesn't mean it couldn't happen. I wouldn't flatly rule out that it couldn't happen. It could be that Richard Jefferson106 out in Australia with CAMBIA will come out with some brilliant thing that will provide drought tolerance, or some great disease response mechanism, or who knows what, or some way to add nutrition to the crops that is just wonderful. And I wouldn't want to deny either Richard Jefferson or Joachim Voss107 or any one else from trying those things to see if they could do it. I think it is difficult, extremely difficult, and I would, over all, say that strategies that work from a more conventional basis will, in the end, yield more results. Rather than having big box science around the planet and these CGIAR centres, I think it would be much better to put the money into working with farmers to stimulate more farmer plant breeding. Why have a few scientists doing it in a few labs when you could actually have a few million farmers doing it, and are doing it to some degree, but coordinating that research and helping to evaluate the results and share the results that farmers are doing? I'd rather have had a..., even an anthropologist, out there in the field with farmers saying, 'that's great stuff. Do more of that' '...can I get you some germplasm from somewhere else that you can work with that you could try out.. .would you like to try that out?' And the farmer would say 'yeah I'll try that'. ...And then being able to help them with some of the lab work to help them identify their results more easily. To me that would be great. Here we are in a world where communication is becoming pretty easy and the capacity of farmers and their organizations to actually communicate what they are doing and share knowledge with each other and the scientists in the labs is very high, and I would put the effort into that rather than in a bunch of bright guys in some white coats in labs on their own. It's a very traditional method of science whose day has passed. (10001 - Canada, member of a non-governmental organization)

This discussion highlights the concerns over farmers' rights and the corporate consolidation of both agriculture and food systems that have been echoed by many others (Busch et al., 1991; Doyle, 1985; Kloppenburg, 1988; Kneen, 1999). Similarly to the first plant breeder's comments, there is questioning about how well the technology actually works versus the role that marketing the technology plays in farmer purchases, a point that is not only salient to North American farmers, but which is raised in the context of India, as well (Stone, 2007). How much actual choice will farmers have in a context of

106 Richard Jefferson is a molecular biologist, whose research work has focused on plant biotechnology. He is the CEO of CAMBIA (meaning change), which is an international non-profit institute based in Australia that was founded in 1991. CAMBIA has been trying to make molecular enabling technologies more accessible through various ways, including creating their own for distribution, providing a 'patent lens' to make patent information more transparent, and the Biological Open Source Initiative, which like the open source software movement, advocates and facilitates licenses that are open source forms of collaborative agreement to make life science technology more widely accessible (CAMBIA, 2008). 107 Director of CIAT during the period when this research was done.

221 corporate monopoly in seed companies that parallels the consolidation of the food industry as a whole? This concern is paralleled in the anti-globalization movements of farmers in France who see cultural and economic consolidation of the food industry as a threat to their rural livelihoods, as well as food quality (Heller, 2002). Looking at GMOs from this viewpoint, one can also question the extent to which farmers' needs are truly being served by biotechnology, or even scientific plant breeding as a whole. This ties into the lack of value that is often given to farmers' knowledge of their own crops and ecosystems when faced with the more authoritative knowledge of scientists (Cleveland, 1993; Nader, 1996). Stone (2007) takes this argument further to suggest that farmers are being systematically stripped of such knowledge, given its relative lack of value. The concern over agricultural deskilling and who science is serving in the agricultural context becomes particularly troubling when the trend towards the outsourcing of private sector research to public research settings, and therefore the increasing harnessing of public institutions to derive corporate profit from science is taken into account (Atkinson-Grosjean, 2006; Mirowski & Sent, 2008). In summary, what we have learned by looking at GMOs from outside the immediate field is that there are questions both within and outside of science about how useful these new entities, GMOs, will ultimately be both from a technical point of view and due to the key drivers of this type of research. This, however, does not necessarily negate the ability of biotechnology and genetic engineering to create useful knowledge for the plant breeder of the future. The field is considered to be an attractive one for students and scientists in the early stages of their careers, because it provides both symbolic (publications and prestige) and material (employment and research grants) benefits. The effects of this pressure on the maintenance of conventional, field-based plant breeding knowledge are still in the balance. Biotechnology itself may be able to reinvigorate interest in field-based work, through its incorporation of molecular markers into more conventional breeding techniques (Knight, 2003), but in the meantime conventional breeders are becoming more difficult to find. An overall landscape view also shows why research at institutions such as CIAT, which I described in detail in chapter four, aim for a middle ground that tries to balance the use of both conventional breeding techniques and biotechnological ones within the

222 institution. Treating GMOs as one way, among many, to improve plants echoes Cleveland's (1993) description of subsistence farmers preferring to use many varieties, rather than just one, as a type of practical risk management. Some of the techniques, just as some of the cultivars, are bound to prosper, providing a more even production over the long term. Everyone I spoke to during the course of the research would not be in agreement about the perspectives discussed above. This is one indication of the 'disjunctures' that Appadurai (1996) refers to as being common within the contemporary global situation.

Connections: GMOs and Scientific Exchange

Popular representations of globalization, such as those of Friedman (1999), would suggest that with the enhancement of global communication systems and transportation, moving across distance has become easier than ever before. A process of cultural homogenization is often associated with this process, even when local differences in global processes are still manifestly apparent (Inda & Rosaldo, 2002). Translating this into the scientific realm, one would expect to see discussion about the increased ease and importance of connections in the practice of science and, to some extent, one does find this. For instance, research can be seen as something that is done the same way all over the world.

Well, like I said, the research here... this type of research is done all over the world: genomics is done all over the world, functional genomics. [...] There is not much difference. The only difference is the sources of funding. [...] University labs would be the same in Ottawa as they would be in London, England or anywhere else. You could transfer this lab to France or Italy and you wouldn't see any difference in the way things are done. The research community is very connected. It has a very small degree of separation. And it's typically just the sources of funding that are different. (P83 - Canadian genomics researcher, researches genetic engineering methods)

I think you go with collaborations, either national or international... Boundaries are pretty inconsequential, in research generally. Certainly anything I've been involved with. My collaborators are either within Canada or outside Canada wherever those collaborations would seem to be most useful for all parties. In terms of the kinds of questions we're asking, for these plant derived products, they're the same questions everywhere. (P82 - Canadian researcher using genetic engineering)

223 The comments above imply that the scientific world is sufficiently connected, that similar kinds of research questions are worked on, no matter where one is. Discussion of the importance of connections is particularly to be expected, given what we know from actor network theory and science studies about the importance of forming alliances and enrolling a variety of actors into one's research in order to have the results of such research authenticated as facts (Latour, 1983; Latour & Woolgar, 1986).

Es importante mantenernos actualizados porque esto va evolucionando cada dia, y cada dia tiene uno que estar aprendiendo mdsy mdsy esos contactos con centros internacionales de excelencia nos hanfacilitado. Si, no estariamos en el avance que estamos sino hubieramos tenido esa cooperacion tecnica internacional. (10049 - Colombia)

It is important to keep ourselves up to date because this [area] evolves every day, and every day one has to be learning more and more, and the contacts with international centers of excellence have facilitated this for us. We would not have advanced as we have if we had not had this international cooperation. (10049 - Colombian university genetic engineering and molecular biodiversity researcher)

Today there might be a bit more ties and a bit more communication going on, but, hey, there was no internet. We went to the same meetings and they were in Bangkok. The world's biochemists met in Perth or they met in Moscow, and only the Dean got to go or something. And then he'd come back with some notes. What a different world we live in today! The information exchange of ideas is so much faster. (P79 - Canadian researcher using genetic engineering)

Connections were mentioned as important to all of the scientists I spoke with and one could see the evidence of connections between laboratories during participant observation constantly, in terms of the movement of students between colleagues' laboratories, collaborative projects, funding sources, and shared protocols, among other things. Particularly interesting was the possibility that biotechnology, with its laboratory focus, raises for a brand new type of connection, in that the area in which one does research on any given plant is no longer required to be hospitable for that particular plant, as it can be grown in the laboratory in tissue culture. This allows the intensification of the type of travel that plants and seeds did in the past from one climatic zone to another. Previously, such plants might be grown at considerable cost in greenhouses (Drayton, 2000), transplanted into the new climate for adaptation at a very low rate of success (Simmonds, 1993), or rotated between one 'summer' site to another (Knight, 2003), a

224 practice which started in the 1960s to speed up plant breeding programs. While all these practices involved a certain amount of 'globetrotting' on the part of plant varieties, biotechnology has the potential to augment this, allowing plants, as well as people, to become more 'trans-national'. This can be done through tissue culture, which allows researchers to keep a greater number of plants in a relatively small amount of space, or through the movement of plant genes or information about them. This allows for the possibility that northern collaborators can aid in the breeding efforts for 'orphan crops', such as tropical crops, which have previously received little attention in more northern climates. However, it also raises the potential of biopiracy, as one researcher mentions later in this chapter. The three narrative snapshots within this section show how connections through the movement of people, ideas, technology, and finances are all important within the science-scape in which GMOs are created. Following Latour (2005), who asks how we keep the global 'flat', I also question what are the costs of crossing geographical space? Despite the importance of connections, the following narratives show that crossing space entails costs that must be paid, either in time or in material costs, particularly when that crossing is done across uneven terrain.

Connections Snapshot #1: Connections Through Students The following narrative is from an international researcher at CIAT, who does not use genetic engineering, but uses other kinds of biotechnologies. It shows one of the pertinent types of people movement that links laboratories, which is the movement of students between laboratories, for either short or long periods of time. In addition, the scientific need for highly qualified personnel is discussed. The biggest advantage for us at CIAT is the quality of support staff. All the labs are mostly run by Colombians and the quality is very high. They have a good quality education system and so they produce alot of students. If you have one position for an assistant, you have many highly qualified applicants. And we get the best because they know that CIAT is a venue to go to graduate school elsewhere in Europe, in the US, or wherever. So, they get alot of good technical experience here and they are very good. They come with a good mind and they learn quickly and they get all their technical experience here and then usually we send them off to graduate school, mostly in the US and they are a success, because they don't have to learn the techniques. So, they can just go ahead and do the work; their thesis and course work together. Because many people have very

225 positive experiences with Colombian students, they want to recruit them and I can't keep up with the demand. Really! With financial support and everything. The problem is... There are two problems. One is passing the TOEFL; the English exam is an important crack. As soon as they pass it, the financial support is no problem, they get it. Last year I sent one of my assistants, she is now doing her PhD in [location in the USA], another one, I'm waiting for her to pass her TOEFL, because she has already done everything with [a US] university. The other bad part is that many of them don't come back. Because they do a very good job in their thesis, they publish very good work in very good journals, and then they get jobs just like that [snaps fingers] there. So many of them don't come back. In my 12 years here, I sent maybe eight or nine and only one came back. Why? Because he was partially funded by Fulbright and it was required. Those who arranged for financial support directly from the department, they don't come back. So, it's a minus for the country, but again, when they do come back to the country, the salaries are too low, so many of them aren't willing to stay for that kind of salary. (10066 - CI AT researcher who uses biotechnology, but not genetic engineering)

From this perspective, we see that scientific connections are indeed global and involve the movement of students from laboratories in one country to another for graduate study. This is so successful largely because the students are doing similar kinds of things in both places, thus reinforcing the idea that science is a global endeavour. But this movement is predicated on certain things: working with selected scientists who already have connections to other countries and the ability to cross language barriers. It is also apparent that the geographic space crossed is uneven, in terms of inequalities between regions, so that the 'global flow' of the people moving will not be equal in both directions.

Connections Snapshot #2: Connections Through Collaboration The next narrative snapshot is from a plant breeder who used to use genetic engineering, but stopped that line of his research when it became clear that GM varieties in the crop worked on were not of interest to the growers or consumers of this crop. It shows different types of issues surrounding connection making, those involving collaboration on scientific projects. The account highlights the time and expense involved. It also discusses the connection to funding sources and also still reflects some of those inequalities involved, but this time does it from a Canadian perspective. This

226 narrative begins after a discussion of the Canadian interest in traits such as cold tolerance, which may be of less interest elsewhere. Yes, you might go to a conference and be the only one concerned about it. You could find, some of the people from the northern states, northern Europe, they would have similar concerns. Sometimes there isn't quite the critical mass that other traits [for example pest resistance] have. Christina: Was there anything else that you wanted to say about the Canada-International comparison that struck you? I think, in general, in Canada, we're grossly under funded and don't have the momentum in a lot of places, don't have the critical mass of people that you see in the US. Our grants are often tens of thousands of dollars, grants in the US are hundreds of thousands. I think a really good example is genomics projects. I don't know the numbers, Christina, but they are magnitudes higher in the US, magnitudes. They were doing the corn genome, mainly in the States. Something like that, you just have to churn through the stuff... you'll get there eventually, but you just have to churn through the stuff and need the resources. And there are some species that are uniquely Canadian. Canola, for instance. You know, there are only going to be a couple of labs that are interested in doing the sequencing, and the money they have for doing that has to be balanced with all the other needs of the commodity, or of that research community for that particular crop. And I would guess that genomics would take a lower priority. I mean, you're not going to get a farmers' group, the Canola group of western Canada for instance, to support a genomics project when they want new cultivars, disease resistance, new herbicide trials, all of the above. Christina - How important are connections? Other scientific connections in the work you do, and do they tend to be mostly in the area or international connections? Connections in this day and age are extremely important for a couple reasons. One, local institutions have tended to be downsized. So, you might not find the critical mass in your own institution that you might once have found. So, you often go outside for... you always went outside for collaboration, but I think it's more important now. There just seems to be less money for some things, ... you tend to divide up the work a little better now. You work on this, I'll work on that and we'll share the responsibility. A lot of research now is multidisciplinary and I've had some wonderful collaborations with people. Locally, like here in the building, and in the US. It's a little harder to do the European stuff, because of the distance. I mean, the internet is wonderful, but the distance and the expense it's difficult to have it meaningful. If it's going to be meaningful, you want to be able to go back and forth and somebody spends time here and I spend time there. My strongest collaborator is in the US in [a particular crop] and he grew some things for me and he was on a grad student committee. Two years in a row, we loaded up the truck and we spent a week down there, but it was costly. The cost of the vehicle and I took a grad student and another summer student. Three meals a day for three people, two hotel rooms... It adds up quickly Christina: So, to have it meaningful you need those concentrated periods?

227 I think so, yes. I mean, we got alot done. It certainly changed the focus of the study from one that was very local to one that covered more of the north eastern US and Canada. It's well worth it, everyone got a lot out of it, and I would do it again. We were looking for very different environments and found them. That was one of the benefits of working with somebody in Maryland versus working with someone in [Ontario]. (10081 - Canadian plant breeder who used to use GE, but no longer does)

This snapshot of connections from a different perspective suggests three important things that were reflected in other interviews. First, funding constraints (for collaboration or research more generally) are not a 'southern' or 'developing country' problem from the perspective of the scientists engaged in research in Canada. Canadian research is still considered to be under funded compared to US research. No one I spoke to told me that they had more than enough funding and funding was never a problem. Without belittling the very real resource inequalities between laboratories, it is important to note that research is expensive. However, the degree to which connections with funders took place locally or across distance changed. Canadian research funding tended to be connected to growers groups, provincial governments, federal government funds, or private enterprises operating within Canada. Northern farmers groups, through their ability to pay for certain kinds of research, also have the ability to have their priorities included. In contrast, as we will see below, international, rather than local, connections with important funders appear to be more important in the Colombian context. Maintaining connections across distance is expensive and the more geographical (and presumably cultural) distance, the greater the cost in time and scarce108 resources. So, although researchers in both Canada and Colombia mentioned that collaborations are an effective way to solve scientific problems with scarce resources through a division of labour, the time and resources must be in place to support them. Collaboration with others is predicated on the ability to find people who are working in similar areas and who are free to collaborate with you. This means collaborative connections might be harder to establish if one is working in less popular areas. Perhaps more importantly (and certainly more often mentioned in Canada, at least) the collaborations need to make sense. One cannot be competing with potential collaborators by either working on similar projects rather than having complementary

At least in the way they are perceived the resources appear scarce, even if that scarcity is relative.

228 expertise or because contracts with private companies prevent you from collaborating with another public researcher who holds a contract from a rival company.

Connections Snapshot #3; Connections to Funding & Farmers The next snapshot of connections continues to discuss the importance of collaborative connections, but with farmers, as well as other scientists. It also shows the role of international funders for research in Colombia. This narrative is from a Colombian researcher who uses genetic engineering, as well as biotechnologies, such as plant tissue culture, to try and solve problems raised by a community of farmers on the Atlantic coast of Colombia. Muchas veces las directrices del gobierno no coinciden con las de los pequenos productores. Por ejemplo elproblema con barrenador deyuca y el cuero de sapo que no es importante para el Gobierno pero si para los productores. Esto ayuda a orientar la investigacion que hay que hacer. Con toda esa base se empezo a hacer investigacion participativa a mediano y largo plazo. Se metieron en procesos de ingenieria genetica para variedades mejoradas. El primer proyecto fue en pldtano para producir una variedad resistente a su mayor plaga que es elpicudo negro y que afecta el 70% de los cultivos en la costa atldntica. Los pobladores pusieron el problema y con esta base sepenso en como hacer llegar la variedad mejorada a un costo asequible para ellos. Se hace con la estrategia que vienen trabajando (se refiere alproceso que se expuso antes) Este proyecto es financiado por Holanda y se trabaja con productores de la costa atldntica. Ellos seleccionan las plantas con mejores caracteristicas. [El grupo de los investigadores] hacen el proceso de celulas embriogenicas, identifican los genes y hacen el proceso de transformacion encaminado a obtener una variedad mejorada quepuedas ser asequible para los productores. El costo de laboratorio va a ser muy alto pero con esta metodologia sepueden abaratary puede que esta variedad llegue a ellos a mediano o largo plazo. Empezamos con este proyecto y es la base para abarcar otros cultivos y otras prioridades que ellos tengan. Con transformacion genetica hay un abanico de posibilidades. Es quizds la unica herramienta para obtener variedades mejoradas eficientes porque cuando se hace mejoramiento genetico por simple seleccion, con el tiempo esa caracteristica se va perdiendo. En cambio, con estos procesos es mas estable.

En el caso del pldtano resistencia apicudo negro, este proyecto esta en la red de Pldtanos y bananos. Estdn paises de Africa, Colombia y cada uno involucra una parte para que el proceso sea eficiente. Yse trata de que en todos estos paises la semilla este disponible para un pequeho productor. No es el caso de que el gen sea propiedad de una empresa en la que uno tenga quepagar regalias sino que se desarrolle la tecnologiay se tengan los genes nativos. [...]

229 Algo bueno de la red es que cada tecnologia que se genera sepasa a instituciones que la necesiten. Por ejemplo estd la posibilidad de capacitor se en transformation de cloroplastos, que alparecer enpldtano es un procedimiento muy eficiente. Van a ir participantes de varias partes del mundo y la idea es que sea una tecnologia universal pero aplicada con las condiciones de cada pais.

Christina: iMayores obstdculos? Uno de los principales problemas es que la mayoria de sector es de mas pobreza y falta de tecnologia son donde se genera mas violencia. Desde hace un tiempo se apoya la sustitucion de cultivos ilicitos. Sin embargo, es complicado por que la coca es mas rentable que el pldtano pero el argumento se basa en la seguridady en la calidad de vida, en que sus hijos van a vivir mejory a que no van a ser desplazados por la violencia. Este es un problema que se ve actualmente en las ciudades donde se estdn aumentando los cinturones de miseria. Es un problema muy grande en Colombia: la seguridad (se refiere a la falta de ella) Hay que salir al campo y la seguridad en la comunidady la seguridad social son muy importantes para desarrollar esto, porque no es a puerta cerradaya que nuestro objetivo son los pequenos productores y ellos estdn en el campo. Otro es conseguir dinero para tecnologias depunta que son muy costosas. LO que hacemos es que nos vinculamos con otras entidades como CIATpara hacer parte del proyecto principalmente en cuanto a infraestructura; por ejemplo podemos tener 1 invernadero de bioseguridadpero no podemos tener 10 para todos los cultivos. [...] Hacer transformation genetica en este pais es muy complicado, por los recursos. Osea es algo muy costoso. Pero afortunadamente tenemos alianzas internacionales. Tambien estamos aliados con la red international de pldtanos y bananos (Inibad); ellos nos apoyan mucho, con recursos de Holanda. Prdcticamente esta investigation genera bastantes recursos, mas que todo lo hacemos con recursos internacionales; y acd buscamos ayuda con Colciencias Casi que los casos exitosos son proyectos que reciben financiacion international... Los recursos del exterior son mas bondadosos o ellos saben lo que cuesta montar unpaquete tecnologico con pequenos productores. Hay limitantes de recursos. Pero vamospoco apoco, pero si, vamos... (10051 - Colombia)

Many times, the directives of the government are not the same as those of the small producers. For example, the problems with [two particular diseases] in cassava are not important to the government, but they are for the producers. This helps to orient the research that has to be done. With this foundation, one begins to do participatory research in the medium and long term. It puts into process genetic engineering for improved varieties. The first project was in plantain to produce a variety resistant to its major pest, which is picudo negro, which affects 70% of the cultivars in the Atlantic coast region. The villagers raised the problem and with this as a base, one thought about how to make an improved variety possible at an affordable cost for them. It was done through the strategy that they came to work on before

230 [referring to a process that was discussed previously - involving participatory agricultural research using methods that did not use genetic engineering]. The project is financed by Holland and one works with the producers from the Atlantic coast. They [the farmers] select the plants that have the best characteristics. We do the process of cellular embryogenesis, identify the genes, and do the process of transformation towards obtaining an improved variety that can be affordable for the producers. The laboratory cost is going to be very high, but with this methodology [involving techniques for farmers to produce cultivars for sale locally in their region] the price can be reduced and this variety can get to them in the medium or long term. We begin with this project and it is the foundation from which to cover other cultivars and other priorities that they [the producers] have. With genetic transformation, there is a range of possibilities. It is, perhaps, the only tool for obtaining efficient improved varieties because when one does genetic improvement by regular selection, with time, the characteristic will be lost. Instead, with these processes, it is more stable. [...] In the case of Plantain resistance to picudo negro [a disease], this project is in the network of Plantain and Bananas. This [network] is in African countries, Colombia, [other countries], and each one is involved in a part of the process in order to be efficient. The main point is that in each of these countries, the seed is available for the small producer. It is not the case of the gene being the property of a business to which one has to pay royalties: instead the technology is developed [by the network] and they have the native genes. Something good about the network is that each technology that is created goes to institutions that need it. For example, there is the possibility of training in the transformation of chloroplasts, which looks like a very efficient procedure in plantain. Participants of various parts of the world are going to go and the idea is that it will be a universal technology, but applied to the conditions of each country. [...] Christina: What are your biggest obstacles? One of the principal problems is that the majority of the poorest sectors that lack technology are where the most violence is generated. For some time, the substitution of illicit crops has been supported. However, it's complicated, because coca is more profitable than plantain, but the argument is based in security and in the quality of life, so that their children can live better lives and that they won't be displaced by the violence. This is a problem that can currently be seen in the cities where the poverty belts1 are increasing. It's a very large problem in Colombia: security. One needs to go out to the countryside and the security in the community, social security, are very important to develop this [research], because it is not a closed door and our objective is the small producers and they are in the countryside. The other is that to obtain money for high-technology that is very costly. What we do is to link ourselves with other entities, like CIAT, in order to do part

109 Cinturones de miseria, literally, 'belts of misery' is often translated as 'poverty belts' because it refers to the poor areas on the outskirts of cities, which is not adequately reflected in terms like 'inner city' or 'ghetto', etc.

231 of the principal project, in terms of infrastructure; for example, we could have one biosafety greenhouse, but we couldn't have ten for all of the cultivars. Doing genetic transformation in this country is very complicated, because of the resources. You see, it is something that is very costly. But fortunately, we have international alliances. We are also allied with the international network of banana and plantain (Inibad). They support us a great deal, with resources from Holland. Practically speaking, this research is able to bring in sufficient resources. More than anything, we do it with international resources and here [in Colombia] we also seek aid from Colciencias. Almost all the successful cases are projects that receive international financing. The exterior resources from outside are kinder or they know what it costs to set up a technological package with small producers. There are resource limits. But we're getting there, little by little, but yes, we're getting there... (10051 - Colombian genetic engineering and biotechnology researcher from a national research institute)

The network of connections displayed by this narrative is widespread, moving from Africa, to Holland, to the rural countryside of Colombia's Atlantic coast. Again, we see the use of international scientific collaboration to make the best use of scarce resources, through the sharing of ideas, training, techniques, and genes across space. The scientific goals and the original plant varieties that are to become GMOs, however, are determined through more local connections with farmers; connections that endemic violence in the countryside has the power to break, adding an additional potential cost to the time and resources needed to maintain connections. The funding, on the other hand, comes from Holland, along with a larger development mandate that drives the reasons for the research. This need for international funders, in addition to national ones, provides a key counter point to the more local funding system found in the Canadian case and was common among Colombian and CIAT scientists. Appadurai's idea-scapes, financescapes, techno-scapes, and ethno-scapes all collide within a few minutes conversation about the movement of techniques, funding, genes, equipment, and people that make up the reality of the scientist's practice. In summary, then, what these three snapshots of connections demonstrate is that connections, involving various people, ideas, and things crossing vast geographical areas, are important to the scientific practice of plant breeding and GMO creation. They form an integral part of the GMO science-scape, but are uneven and require effort and resources. This unevenness brings us to the issue of what happens when connections are not maintained.

232 Disconnections: GMOs and Inequalities

Ferguson (1999) critiques the rhetoric of globalization, as the image of a rapidly more interconnected world seemed increasingly at odds with the ethnographic reality of the copper belt in Zambia after the end of the copper boom. He suggests, instead, that we need to look at disconnections, as well as connections, in the contemporary global reality, as a way to incorporate contemporary inequalities more firmly within our understanding of globalization processes. It is from this perspective that I will look at the inequalities inherent in the different worlds in which scientists create GMOs. The three narrative snapshots in this section focus on disconnections in the degree of scientific knowledge that is available to create GMOs: linguistic disconnections, inequalities in resources, and difficulties related to accessing intellectual property rights.

Disconnections Snapshot #1: Plant Scientific Capital This narrative is from a CIAT plant breeder who uses biotechnology, but not genetic engineering. It shows the inequalities in the amount of scientific knowledge available for a particular plant. It also highlights some of the difficulties involved in conventional plant breeding about which outsiders are often unaware and that make various biotechnologies attractive, as methods, to scientists in the field. Funding sources for research affect the choice of the plant worked on, as well as the traits incorporated into the plant. For the past 12 years, I've been trying to develop some tools, to make breeding much more efficient. Cassava breeding is pretty inefficient.... It's very slow for several reasons. One, it has only 35 years of existence, it's pretty short compared to maize in the US or, what is it? ... canola in Canada. So many years of breeding... of consistent effort. Cassava breeding is pretty young. Another problem, it has very low seed sets. For every cross you make, you have only about 30 seeds, compared to hundreds, literally, in maize. And also, one other problem, it's a long root cycle crop: it goes for about 12 months. From seed to seed, to get the next seed is 18 months, so it's a pretty long root cycle. And that makes breeders, who want to actually do something within their short career period, not do any elegant studies... Just try and cross two things, find the best, and then release it. So, it's pretty inefficient. The chance of getting something good out of any standard breeding program is pretty low. To give an example, our program in Thailand, we had a very strong program in Thailand and they worked from 1985 to about 1995 - about 10 years. They gathered about 240,000 seeds and they only got about six varieties from that. That's a lot of work for very little.

233 So, beginning in the 1990s, all these new tools came out, mapping, tools of genomics... Could they be applied to make cassava breeding much more efficient? In other words, it's to be applied to select the best parents. When a breeder does a cross, what he does is he selects two good parents for traits of interest to him and then he crosses them, and awaits the progeny and tries to get the best ones. Very often, what you see is not what you get. You have two very good parents, but what you're seeing are very specific gene combinations and once you begin to make crosses you lose them. Crosses with cassava are very heterozygous, in the sense that every locus has two different alleles. What you see is not what you really get. So, we thought we can make all that much more efficient if we had a way of looking into the black box. Not just of looking at the phenotype, but having a way of going deeper into the genotype and pulling out what actually is there, not what we see. [...description of looking for and selecting genes of interest in Cassava] I believe that transformation extends for the breeder the available phenotypes. Of course, there are lots of concerns about the environment and food safety and all that. I think that we should never shut out the potential of transmission. We should manage the risk, but don't throw away the benefits because of the risk. Even conventional breeding has its risk. We work with wild relatives and some of them have a lot of [toxins] in the roots, which are toxic. We don't stop the breeding of cassava because of the risk. We manage it. That's my personal opinion: some people don't like that opinion. Christina: how did you get started using biotechnology? My own [story] is very easy. I got frustrated. I was doing my PhD. My PhD was to transfer high protein content from wild relatives into cassava. It's a game of numbers, and I'll describe it like this.... You start with the first wild relative, you make a cross, and you end up with a family, say 100 FIs. In Cassava, the Fls are not the same, like in corn or something where they are all identical. In cassava, they are all different. You pick maybe five Fls that are very high protein and you make crosses to cassava, because the wild varieties come with undesirable genes and you want to get that all out through backcrossing. Then from five Fls, backcrossing, so you elect five families ... say you get 500 with the backcross work. Then you check all the 500 plants and look for the highest ones with protein and then you get five per family, and then you make another backcross with cassava, so you've got 2,500 and that's only backcross two... And that is still looking very wild, so by the time you go another round of backcrosses, you have a huge number that you cannot manage or you have to reduce the number of individuals that you backcross. And when you do that... you look at traits. And I got very frustrated... I got to backcross two and I had lost the traits, you know? So, as I said initially, what you see is not what you get... so I told myself, we have to look for a better way. This was in 1992, so I decided okay, I'm going to look for another way. And I read about all these new ... gene map, etc. and I said well, why couldn't we do this with cassava? Find the gene; follow the trait with the markers. You follow the trait and it's much easier."

234 Markers are not a cure-all and they have to be used very closely with field based breeding and other aspects of breeding They have to go hand in hand. If you think that one tool is going to be like the silver bullet, cure-all... It's not true. It's not true. They all have their own uses. It has to be part of a bigger picture.

There are very interesting things you can work on in cassava, but we don't work on them because we don't have the money. Money is the big determiner. A lot of the time, the donor is distributing tax payer's money from people from rich countries. And the tax payers, they think they know what is important. For them, the environment is important... Many people would rather fund a cassava variety that doesn't damage the soil than one that is high yielding and can use fertilizer and grow and yield more. They would rather have organic farming If you're going to work for the subsistence farmers, what you want to do is breed top varieties. Forget about whether or not it's organic, just breed top varieties. (10045 - CI AT plant breeder who uses biotechnology but not genetic engineering)

This snapshot of disconnections bring up a serious issue that was repeatedly mentioned when I was in Colombia; that tropical crops, or crops without a large industrial market, have not had as much research done on them as temperate, or more marketable crops. Despite not being considered to have a large market, crops like Cassava may be of key importance to the diet of subsistence farmers. Nevertheless, they are difficult to find funding to work on and, as this narrative points out, when that funding is found, the distance at which the research is funded may mean that there is a gap between what the donor agency wants funded and what the scientist perceives the agricultural needs to be110. The largest disconnect comes in, however, when one considers that the lack of research work done on tropical crops, such as cassava, make it even harder to work on and achieve results, thereby perpetuating historical inequities between crops. Some plants and characteristics are considered easier to work on than others because the wealth of research that has been done on these plants has provided additional information about a plant's physiology, genetics, and other areas, as well as contributing to the methodological protocols developed for that particular plant111. In the same way that Bourdieu (1977; 1986) used the terms social and cultural capital in order to refer to ways

The scientist's assessment of the farmer's needs may, of course, be different from the farmer's, who is not funding the research in such a case (Richards, 1985). 1'' Methodological protocols often need to be altered slightly for each plant type.

235 in which individuals had an increased ability to gain access to resources and power through established networks or forms of knowledge, I here suggest that different plants have different levels of 'scientific capital'. Therefore, a particular plant type has greater scientific capital than others, in that they arrive at the laboratory bench with a greater accompaniment of scientific knowledge and methodological protocols, which then furthers future research done on this type of crop. This built up scientific knowledge or 'capital' is generally the result of the money invested into research on that particular plant in the past, as this scientist describes. Here it is kind of a vicious circle: Very few people work on beans, as compared to maize. Beans are not as important as maize, but it's important to a large part of the population. So you need to, with limited resources, try to use these technologies to increase productivity and nutrition, etc. The commercial aspect is related to the amount of emphasis, research invested into it. Arabidopsis is not commercially important, but then, because it's a model crop, a lot of resources have been invested into it, as compared to an important crop like cassava. So, the commercial is not just the only criteria, it's more how much was invested in developed countries for the crops, compared to the crops that we're working with. (10016 - CI AT plant breeder and genetic engineering researcher)

Plants without this scientific capital, sometimes referred to by scientists as 'orphan crops', are more difficult to work on and so the inequalities between the levels of scientific capital that particular crops accumulate over time. This has occasionally changed in the past. For instance, the Rockefeller foundation (among other groups), in an effort to improve this difficulty for rice, which was important to many of the world's poor, but which was largely consumed close to where it was produced and was therefore not an important commercial export crop, began funding rice research on a large scale, including the 'Golden Rice' project (Potrykus, 2001). The build up of research on rice has provided it with enough scientific capital that rice is being chosen to work with on the basis that enough is known about it that it is easier to work on. This, of course, creates more scientific capital for the plant. For instance, one of the laboratory groups that I spoke to, working on creating pharmaceuticals in plants, chose to work on rice primarily because a close collaborator had the most experience with it, as he had had a previous project using rice that was funded by the Rockefeller Foundation. These kinds of disconnections of scientific knowledge and technical know-how are more subtle than the funding inequalities, to which we will turn next.

236 Disconnections Snapshot #2: Disconnections in Resources and Language The narrative snapshot below brings up some of the difficulties in doing biotechnological research in Colombia. It also questions who benefits from the research that is being done, given the constraints of obtaining resources. Language plays a part in how research benefits are distributed, as it is a key way in which the research becomes disconnected from some audiences and connected to others. The narrative is from a Colombian researcher who uses genetic engineering, as well as other biotechnologies.

iComo ve biotecnologia comparando a otros metodos? La biotecnologia en relation con otros metodos de mejoramiento es costosa para los paises en via de desarrollo, porque el equipamiento para hacer transgenesis es costoso, los reactivos son costosos, capital humano, information, etc., son muy costosos. Pero pienso son herramientas poderosas para cambiar elfuturo. Yo creo que necesitamos conocer lo que tenemos. Sobretodo en el tropico donde tenemos tanta biodiversidad e interaction entre estos organismos, por lo que lo primero es conocer lo que se tiene para asi saber quey como utilizarlo, para de estas forma crear pequenas empresas de alta tecnologia en las ciudades que produzcan productos del campo, generando mas empleo tanto en las ciudades como en las zonas rurales. Lo que necesitamos es capital semilla para las empresas de estudiantes y capital de riesgopara hacer ciencia y tecnologia, asi como hacer alianzas estrategicas con paises desarrollados para poder salir adelante y trabajar en conjunto. Las conexiones son vitales (indispensables), la ciencia es multidisciplinaria y multisectorial, todos los sectores se tocan y necesitamos capital humano muy bienformado, y la unica manera es haciendo alianzas estrategicas donde todos compartamos lo que sabemos. [...] Con regeneration in vitro tambien trabajamos con orquideas y otros tipos deflores tropicales, aunque Colombia es el segundo exportador de /lores en el mundo, no exportamos flores nativas. Aqui tenemos 89 especies de Heliconias, centro de biodiversidad. The centre of biodiversity [for Heliconias] is Colombia, but we don't export them. Why? Lack of science, lack of knowledge, lack of interest in our own biodiversity. Asi como generar alternativas para el campo; las heliconias no requieren infraestructura costosa por lo que cualquier campesino las pueden cultivarlos, lo cual generaria empleo y desarrollo con base en flores, entonces la biotecnologia es para el desarrollo del pais [...] lHas visto unprograma americana se llama MacGyver? Todo invento con las manos de la nada Este laboratorio se llama 'MacGyver' This is the code name. Porque la verdad es que no hay muchos recursos [...] En Colombia hay un mal manejo de laplata destinada a la investigation cientifica, pues nos dan prestamos en pesos colombianos pero los gastos en los que incurrimos durante la investigation en su mayoria son en dolares, hasta los informes finales de estos proyectos son publicados en el exterior y en ingles por lo que estas investigaciones no son para colombianos, ademds de esto tenemos que pagar elprestamo mas intereses, entonces lapregunta es para quien estamos trabajando? Ese me duele - it's pain for me, because the loan to the States plus interest and science for Colombia where is it? Who reads it? Who knows what we are doing? Prestige? For me? I can make more money; my university pays more money for publication. What happens to my country? Who is gaining in this? Who? Nobody. Scientific impact for Colombia: first for the country and then for the world. We have to solve our own problems first, not to solve the problems of the other countries, they have their own. But, we don't understand it... they obligate you to publish in English and the most famous journals - that nobody can buy. Colombia needs a change, a big change. We need more for Colombia, first Colombia. [...] The little scientific community [needs] to solve their problems in these areas, given the money, first, and then .... Because we cannot afford to do science for science only. We need to start biggest and critical [problems]... food, health, people dying, starving in the country. Look at the possibilities, this is absurd." (10040 - Colombia)

How do I see biotechnology compared to other methods? Biotechnology in relation with other methods of breeding is expensive for countries in the process of development, because the equipment to do transgenesis is expensive, the reagents are expensive, human capital, information, etc. are very expensive. But I think they are powerful tools to change the future. I believe that we need to know what it is that we have. More than anything, in the tropics, where we have such biodiversity and interaction between organisms, the first thing is to know what there is, so as to know how to use it. In this way, small, high tech businesses can be created in the cities that produce products from the country side, and create more employment, in the cities as well as in the rural zones. What we need is the seed capital for the businesses of students and risk capital to do science and technology, so as to make strategic alliances with developed countries to be able to get ahead and to work together. Connections are vital, indispensable. Science is multidisciplinary and multi-sectoral, it touches all sectors and we need very well trained human capital and the only way is to make strategic alliances where all can share what they know. [...] With in vitro regeneration we are also working with orchids and other types of tropical flowers. Although Colombia is the second exporter of flowers in the world, we don't export native flowers. Here we have 89 species of Heliconias, the centre of biodiversity... The centre of biodiversity [for Heliconias] is Colombia, but we don't export them. Why? Lack of science, lack of knowledge, lack of interest in our own biodiversity. That is how to generate alternatives for the countryside; Heliconias do not require expensive infrastructure for the campesino to be able to grow them, which could create employment and development with a base in flowers. Therefore, biotechnology is for the development of the country. [...]

238 Have you seen the American program called MacGyver112? Everything invented by hand from nothing. This laboratory is called 'MacGyver'. This is the code name. Because the truth is that there aren't many resources. [...] In Colombia, there is bad handling of the money destined for scientific investigation, as they give us loans in Colombian pesos, but the costs that we incur during the research are largely in dollars. Then, the final reports of these projects are published in the outside and in English, so these investigations are not for Colombians. Besides this, we have to pay the loan, plus interest. So, the question is, for whom are we working? This hurts me - it's pain for me, because the loan to the States, plus interest and science for Colombia, where is it? Who reads it? Who knows what we are doing? Prestige? For me? I can make more money; my university pays more money for publication. What happens to my country? Who is gaining in this? Who? Nobody. Scientific impact for Colombia: first for the country and then for the world. We have to solve our own problems first, not solve the problems of the other countries, they have their own. But we don't understand it... they obligate you to publish in English and the most famous journals - that nobody can buy. Colombia needs a change, a big change. We need more for Colombia, first Colombia. [...] The little scientific community [needs] to solve their problems in these areas, given the money, first and then... Because we cannot afford to do science for science only. We need to start [with the] biggest and critical [problems] ... food, health, people dying, starving in the country. Look at the possibilities, this is absurd. (10040 - Colombian university researcher using genetic engineering and doing genetic research)

What this scientist is suggesting is that scientific disconnections are perpetuated globally in a systemic fashion: one gets foreign grants or national grants that come from foreign loans and then must publish in a competitive global environment in which there is more prestige given to English journals than Spanish ones. Such journals are therefore inaccessible to many Colombians due to both language disconnections and fiscal disconnections, as the journals are too expensive to access easily. We also see disconnections in the form of the costs of equipment and reagents, which are often imported and therefore paid for in foreign currency. The comment about the laboratory being 'muy ('very ') MacGyver', as the researcher commented at a different points in the

112 MacGyver', refers to the 1985-1992 television programs on ABC, staring Richard Dean Anderson and filmed primarily in Vancouver, Canada, in which the main character always managed to escape from dangerous situations or solve difficult problems by using his knowledge of science to create devices out of available everyday objects.

239 interview and on the following laboratory tour, touches on the spirit in which researchers are trying to work around the restrictions in resources that they face. While this is the only individual who drew on the television program to express this, this spirit could be seen in many different locations. This researcher also brings up the lack of available knowledge (or lack of scientific capital) for a certain agronomic area (in this case, tropical flowers), which was expressed in the previous quotation. Biotechnology, the researcher believes, provides many possibilities to build useful knowledge about the tropics, and is therefore worth the expense. Therefore, while the researcher comments on the impossibility of doing science for science's sake alone, s/he does value scientific knowledge and the potential for application from that knowledge. This idea, that knowledge production using biotechnology could benefit Colombia as a nation, was found in several interviews, as well as at the Biotecnologia Congress in Bogota. The rationale behind such interest in knowledge and technological development is elaborated by Gilpin (2001), who suggests that new economic theories place increased importance on the relationship between a state's or region's technological design and production capacity and the general state of its economy. Control of technologies can therefore establish the economic future and relative economic position of a firm or nation. An important aspect of this in the case of biotechnology is the idea that knowledge about biodiversity, in the form of intellectual property, can be owned. We will turn to the potential for disconnection related to intellectual property in the next narrative.

Disconnections Snapshot #3: Disconnections Though Intellectual Property The following narrative shows the difficulties that result from the strengthened intellectual property rights regime in which scientists are currently working. Who owns particular gene constructs or technological processes and who can therefore have access to them is an emerging issue within the public sector. This narrative is from a plant breeder who added biotechnology and genetic engineering to his/her research repertoire mid-career and who had a strong research interest in creating therapeutic products.

240 Patent issues are something we didn't talk about, but it's a very significant constraint in this business, particularly when you work for the public sector. And people have varying opinions on whether they think that's a good idea or a bad idea, but patents are an issue. And it's a new thing for agricultural scientists to have to pay attention to patent literature all the time. Something you never really did... it certainly wasn't part of our training. In the public sector, we're still wrestling with what our role in society is as genetic engineers, because we're not corporate. We don't... When we were in the cultivar business, we are in the plant breeding business; we release materials directly, for direct use by farmers. You know, through seed companies who do the increase [of seeds], but otherwise, these things are for direct use. But in the case of engineered materials, we need different kinds of partnerships to start, way earlier, further upstream, because of the cost of regulation, the cost of developing these things into commercial products. It's a question exactly of how we do that, who we partner with, whether it's going to be small start-up companies or big multinational companies or ... Because of patents, our ability to release things directly... We just can't do it. We don't have the licenses, the legal access to use particular technologies. While we use them everyday in the lab, they don't belong to us. So, there's a thing that isn't completely resolved in the public sector. University guys tend to ignore it, but at their peril. They're basically in exactly the same position. Often worse because they try to remain ignorant about it and claim that they're doing research. But really what they're doing is what I'm doing. It's called product development, at the low level. The upstream stuff is research, but if you're putting antibody in a plant for a commercial purpose, it's certainly not your technology. It belongs to [company name] pharmaceuticals in San Diego. Period. (11011 - Canadian plant breeder using genetic engineering)

This researcher brought up how difficult it is now to have to deal with patent and intellectual property related issues while doing genetic engineering. Not owning rights to the genes or processes used in genetic engineering can disconnect the possibility for a research project to turn into a commercially available product. For example, while the Golden rice project was almost entirely funded with public funds, there were still found to be 70 intellectual property rights and technical property rights belonging to 32 different companies and universities that they had used in their experiments that access needed to be negotiated for before commercial release was possible (Potrykus, 2001). Many of these rights do not need to be negotiated for research purposes, but they do if any product is to be widely released. While few of the scientists I spoke to mentioned this independently, this could partially be because they were still at an earlier stage of

241 research and had not encountered the difficulties surrounding the issue, as this quote from another researcher suggests. There is... Where it [intellectual property] becomes a barrier is when you think of commercializing stuff yourself. That's when patents on methodology, a particular gene construct that you used and all of a sudden.... you used it initially in research and you never thought that this would develop into a commercial [product]... and all of a sudden it has all these interesting traits and, boy, wouldn't it be nice to use it... and then you look and its encumbered. That's where it ends up being a problem. But in terms of trying to understand the problem... in a public institution, other than some of the breeding that we do and products that we release, I don't know that we are in the position to develop a transgenic plant and commercialize it. So, to some degree, it's a theoretical limitation. But we can show proof of concept, in terms of taking the material, testing it out in the field ... Does this gene do the thing that we expect it to do, in this plant, even under field conditions? We can take it that far. No problem. (10072 - Canadian university genetic engineering researcher and plant breeder)

The question, of course, is what happens after this point? Will, as this researcher goes on to suggest, companies become freer with their material, since there are too many genes in their databases for them to hope to be able to exploit them all? Alternatively, does this force future researchers to work around these disconnections by ensuring that the genes and material that they use are openly accessible? Will some groups be better able to do this than others, creating yet another type of connection and disconnection surrounding this issue? In summary, disconnections surrounding GMO research are quite common and the flow of people, ideas, and technology can be impeded by various kinds of economic, scientific, linguistic, and ownership inequalities. These disconnections make research on and the creation of GMOs for the market much more difficult in some places than in others. Why, then, do scientists continue to exert such effort in order to create GMOs?

Why Are GMOs Important Anyway?: Scientific Motivations and Social Action

I have discussed above that there are various forces, such as the increased possibility for publications, grants, and prestige, that are associated with biotechnology and genetic engineering, and that therefore encourage scientists to work in this field113.

One may question, what about personal financial profit? While not discounting this possibility, no one ever mentioned it. This may be partially because my research involved exclusively those attached to public institutions. As was raised in the previous chapter, research at public institutions does not always translate into products, due to intellectual property difficulties, and many other reasons that could impinge on the

242 At the same time, given the inequalities and disconnections present in a global GMO science-scape, it requires a great deal of effort to do research with and create a GMO. Why then, is GMO research considered valuable enough in this science-scape to make it worth the training and precious career time for those involved? I have alluded to the kind of reasons, in terms of scientific prestige and access to employment, that Latour (1987) mentions and which were outlined by those working in the institutional sociology of science who have studied stratification within science (Hess, 1997b). Is there, however, more to it than that? Why does the creation of GMOs appeal to scientists in various different settings? In the following three narrative snapshots, three researchers, one each from Canada, CIAT, and Colombia, discuss their work and why they think it is worthwhile to pursue this field in general, and genetic engineering in particular.

Motivations Snapshot #1: Genetic Engineering for the Future The following narrative describes how this particular Canadian researcher, who uses genetic engineering for plant breeding, sees the agricultural systems currently available and why he/she believes change (change from biotechnology and genetic engineering) is needed for the future. This narrative snapshot shows the enthusiasm that s/he holds for genetic engineering and an anticipation of its possibilities. In my estimation, you look at global agriculture. You have ... We've come to a point in the expansion of our species that, you know, one cannot sort of passively sit by and say, okay, let everyone take care of their own. Everyone grows their own food ... You know, just do what you can. There has to be some planning involved. Our impact is changing our world so rapidly, it's imperative to take active steps to plan sustainable agriculture. Sustainable food: not for the next 10 years, but for the next 60 to 100 years. You have to have that kind of foresight, to have it implemented and in place to deal with what's coming down the road. So, I became interested in that. And you look at current agricultural techniques today ... Before genetic engineering, they sort of fell into two main categories, in my estimation. There was historical and traditional farming, or some people call it organic farming. And then there was modern agriculture, it's often coined the green revolution, which uses supplemented chemicals to supply the nutrients that are deficient. And possibility for knowledge to 'translate' into profit (for more on this, see Atkinson-Grosjean, 2006). On the other hand, this may be an area of self-censureship on the part of researchers. For instance, I did one interview with an individual who was publically associated with a private 'spin off company, as well as their post at a public institution. The interview discussion of his work stayed firmly upon the public aspects of their work in terms of both research (which could be proprietary) and implications.

243 that's what you had. You had that in conjunction with breeding programs to produce new varieties of plants. And that's where we are. You take a step back, and they've all got benefits and they've all got drawbacks. [...] So, it comes down to a question. We're loosing land and we need more food and its happening really, really quickly. Genetic engineering was for me an exciting alternative. Something totally different, totally new, and extremely powerful. With genetics being revealed for certain characteristics ... I want a plant that will do this, that will grow so high, that will live in this environment and do this ... And when that kind of genetic information was starting to be revealed (and it's still being revealed, we don't know nearly enough, yet) it became clear that one could augment the plant physiology, change its physiology, by the addition of genetic material. They realized that the addition of very simple genetic material can have a profound effect on the plant. The classic, original example, back in 1983, was the insertion of a gene from luciferase, into a tobacco plant. Now you'll see in text books, a wonderful picture of this tiny little tobacco seedling, glowing. Luciferase is from a gene from fireflies they put in it. Now, it... they had to supply the certain genes to that transgenic plant to get it... It didn't glow quite like that. That was a little overexposed image. It didn't quite glow like a firefly. But it demonstrated the point that adding a single gene can have a particular effect on a plant. It launched the circle [of inquiry] - What else can we augment? Can we increase yield? Can we increase drought resistance? Heat resistance? Cold resistance? All these questions were just flying off people's minds. This is incredible, what can we do? But, there were drawbacks. Because as soon as they realized ... as soon as the question was asked ... That's great, but, cold stress .... Is that a single gene trait? No, no, it's a multi-genic trait. There are hundreds and hundreds of different genes that are involved in the production of cold tolerance. But, it's not even that, it's those hundred genes that produce a series of proteins in certain combinations, at a certain time of year, that have a specific effect in certain environments. There are enormous factors that are involved in these traits. So, when you look at the scope of genetic engineering trait plants, you see very, very few useful products out there. There are only, really, two successes that are on the market. The most commonly know is Bt corn, and Round-Up Ready soy. [...] A lot of the research is ... just because of the sheer cost of it, is being done by corporations. It seems to be the only way to do this kind of research. So, where the money is, that's where the research is going. So, yeah. A lot of it is happening in North America because there are dollars to do it. [...] Right now, we haven't even begun to see the tip of the iceberg, what has to be done. All we see now is big multinationals making more money off of this new product, and they are. Some of the producers that I've spoken to have said, 'listen, Bt corn is expensive and most years, European corn borer pressure is pretty low, I'm paying extra for no reason. But the one year or two years that it's high, I'm glad I had it. It saved my ass.' These things, these are not groundbreaking products. These are nothing that are really changing agriculture.

244 Where it's really going to take off, and it has happened, is getting plants to grow in high salinity. Can you imagine what it would mean to be able to irrigate fields with salt water? Plants could grow in low temperatures. We have loads of land that can't be used because it's cold. Because of certain soils, rocky, loam, sandy. These are where the big changes are coming, by producing plants that could not have been produced any other way. (10 - Canadian university plant breeder using genetic engineering)

This narrative of scientific motivation for this research echoes a point I have made elsewhere (Holmes, 2006), that many scientists assume that research may require a great deal of time in order to produce results. In this case, the scientist does not perceive an immediate need, but rather one further in the future. GMOs, in this context, represent a possibility for the future that needs time to be developed to show whether or not it will be able to fulfil its promise. At the same time, though, conflict is present. The expense of the technology is mentioned, as is the concurrent necessity to have enough capital to do this kind of research, which means that much of the research is being done by corporations. While this work is not viewed as very innovative, there is still hope for further development of the technology into areas that will address the scientist's central concern. Both the need for additional time for the development of genetic engineering to assess its true potential and the implication that research, itself, involves something of a gamble on possibilities is present again in the following narrative.

Motivations Snapshot # 2: Neglected Crops and Searching for Solutions This narrative snapshot begins with a description of the difficulties associated with biotechnology: that it has been associated with large multinational corporations, and that it can be difficult to get access to intellectual property and to funding. This CI AT researcher who uses genetic engineering, among other biotechnologies, then goes on to talk about why biotechnology and genetic engineering are important to try in this context. lEntonces, hay muchas cosas que son... like a dream, like a dream, que no podemos hacer en otras maneras, no? Yo no veo.... rdpido, efwiente. Pero, obviamente, tambien hay muchas desventajas. [...] El impacto de sociedady... if it's healthy or not - that's absurd, para mi... es un cuento que la gente... todas las tecnologias implican un cambio, son mas arriesgados que otras, el gran problema... La desventaja es que la biotecnologia ha estado asociada a las grandes companias, se dice que sus productos no son saludables, se ha armado toda una

245 historia alrededor de esto y la gente lo ha creido, se estigmatizo completamente. Por eso creo que es importante hacer investigation en este campo en productos comoyuca, papa, batata, etc., y no con productos que son mane) ados por multinacionales. Actualmente el concepto de biotecnologia esta asociado a multinacionales y es una desventaja grande por que la perception de la gente esta influidapor esto. [...] La mayor desventaja es a iquien lepertenece la tecnologia?, who is the owner of the technology?, eso nos obliga a nosotros a hacer nuestras propias cosas (buscar los genes) para poder decir mas adelante que este producto es un bien publico, producido por CI AT, etc. The biotechnology, it is free. Elproblema de la biotecnologia es que muchas de las cosas que son utiles no los pertenecen, hay quepagarpor ellas, entonces nos obligan a hacer lo... ourselves. [...] Para mi, el primer obstdculo, los mas grandes es no tener la disponibilidad de genes, lo hemos intentado con la empresa privada, pidiendo su colaboracion pero ellos son muy cerrados. Pero no esporque no quieran sino porque son muy cuidadosos con sus productos por que no saben cudl es el producto final, a donde va, como se administra, la regulation es muy estricta. 'Sorry, we can't give it to you' Para la empresa privada es muy importante, pero no siempre sepuede. El segundo obstdculo fue lafalta de experiencia en lo que tiene que ver con genes, debimos haber tenido la experiencia con un biologo molecular para saber como clonarlos, como usarlos, tener la tecnica. Para saber como se mueve el mercado en estos aspectos, 'how to deal with' companias, 'how good is it'voy a comprar, apagar cincuenta, sesenta mil dolares, okay, you should have a test or something, (para saber cudnto vale) Eso fue problema. Esos son los mejores obstdculos, tecnicamente habldndolo. [...] El problema grande es que tu... mepongo hablar con la gente, por ejemplo, en Switzerland, y ellos tienen problema para gustar dinero para trabajar conyuca. La institution misma no les da, no les daplata. (Hay pocos investigadores en yuca, y elproblema grande es que hay problemaspara trabajar con yuca, no hay dinero.) Tenemos colaboracion con [universidad en los estados unidosj, pero no esfdcil conseguir dinero para trabajar en yuca. Hay unos megos esfuerzos como Harvest Plus, que esta financiado por Gates Foundation, y todas estas cosas, y son esfuerzos donde hay que hacer mucho 'lobby', pero muchisimo para que se interese la gente. Pero se ocurre una vez cada diez anos, no? Mientras si tu comparas un inversion en arroz, en arabidopsis, en otros cultivos, maiz, girasol, canolay son mucho mas grandes. Entonces, es un problema, no?, 'financing', es un problema, siempre lo es. [...J La inversion en investigation agricola siempre va a hacer una pregunta, es un circulo vicioso en donde se invierte mucho dinero porque esperar producir y alimentar a mucha gente, pero sigues invirtiendo y nunca termina y la pobreza no disminuye, se sigue invirtiendo en investigation agricola, no en biotecnologia sino en mejoramiento conventional, pero nunca es suficiente. Elproblema no esta en invertir en biotecnologia, hay otros componentes que no permiten que llegue la comida a quien tiene que llegar, y en eso tiene razon Greenpeace, no es que el 'Golden Rice' con 'high content' en el grano vaya a resolver el problema de

246 deficiencia de vitamina A, elproblema sepudo haber resuelto hace muchos anos con los pills', pero el problema es que los 'pills' no llegan o cuestan mucho. Se deben buscar alternativas, en vez de tener 'pills' ya tienes tusfrutas con las vitaminas incorporadas, la gente los tiene en sufincay los va a cultivar alia. Porque invertirle dinero a biotecnologia? Porque biotecnologia tiene promesas... La biotecnologiapromete hacer cosas, estamos en la etapa exploratoria, lo de plantas transgenicos empezo hace 30 anos, creo que lefaltan otros 30 anos para saber que impacto van a tener - no de verdad. Economicamente es todavia rentable invertir en este tipo de tecnologia, pero aun la biotecnologia no hapodido contribuir a los paises en desarrollo, excepto en casos excepcionales como China, Argentina, Chile... Triente anos no es nada... Creo que como todas las tecnologias que llegan con un 'boom' de ofertas pocas van a quedar, solo quedardn las que sean efectivas, mi interes es que algunas de estas sepuedan hacer con yuca. Para esto es necesario jugar con muchas fichas. Hay muchos factores implicados en el exito que es necesario apostar a muchas alternativas para que alguna pueda funcionar, yo espero que una de estas cosas que funcione sea con yuca. "failure, failure, failure, doesn't matter - as long as you have one. Hay que mirar en muchas frentes. [...] Pero lafinalidad es una. Es simplemente, es un cultivo al cual ninguna institucion en el mundo, que yo sepa, lepresta la atencion que requiere. Entonces, necesitas hacer mejoramiento convencional, necesitas hacer mejoramiento con biotecnologia, necesitas hacer investigacion de hongos de bacterias, caracterizar genes, buscar tolerancias afrio, a sequia, todo eso. El objetivo es ese, mejorar esaplanta, siempre. (10034 - CIAT)

So, there are many things that are... like a dream, like a dream, that we can't do in other ways, not that I can see... rapid, efficient. But obviously, there are also many disadvantages. [...] The societal impact and ... if it's healthy or not - that's absurd, for me... it's a story that people... all technologies imply a change, are more risky than others, the big problem... The disadvantage is that biotechnology has been associated with the large companies: it is said that their products are not healthy, a story has been put together about this and people have believed it. It is completely stigmatized. Therefore, I believe it is important to do research in this field in products like cassava, potato, sweet potato, etc., and not with products that are managed by the multinationals. Currently, the concept of biotechnology is associated with multinationals, and it is a large disadvantage because people's perception is influenced by this. [...] The major disadvantage is who owns the technology. Who is the owner of the technology? This obliges us to make our own things (to look for genes) to be able to say further on that this product is truly public, produced by CIAT, etc. The biotechnology, it is free. The problem of biotechnology is that many of the things that are useful don't belong to them. They must be paid for, so that makes us have to do it ourselves. [...]

247 For me, the first obstacle, the largest, is to not have available genes: we had tried, with private businesses, to ask for their collaboration, but they are very closed. But it is not because they don't want to, but because they are very cautious with their products because they don't know what the final product will be, where it will go, how it will be administered: the regulation is very strict. 'Sorry we can't help you'. For a private business, it's very important, but not always possible114. The second obstacle was the lack of experience in what had to be done with genes. We should have had the experience of a molecular biologist in order to know how to clone them, how to use them, to have the technique. In order to know how the market moves in these aspects, how to deal with companies, how good is it. I'm going to buy, to pay fifty, sixty thousand dollars: okay, you should have a test or something (in order to know what it's worth). That was the problem. Those are the biggest obstacles, technically speaking. [...] A large problem is that you ... I contacted people, for example, in Switzerland and they had a problem spending money to work with cassava. The institution itself didn't give it to them, didn't give them the money. (There are few researchers in cassava and the big problem is that there are problems working with cassava: there is no money.) We have a collaboration with [a US university], but it isn't easy to obtain money to work with cassava. There are some major efforts, like Harvest Plus, that is financed by the Gates Foundation, and all these things, and they are efforts where one has to do a lot of 'lobbying', a lot, in order to interest people. But that happens once every ten years? Meanwhile, if you compare the investment in rice, in Arabidopsis, in other cultivars, corn, sunflowers, canola and they are much greater. So, it's a problem, isn't it? 'Financing' is a problem, it always is. [...] The investment in agricultural research will always create a question: it's a vicious circle where a lot of money is invested because it is expected to produce and to feed many people. But you continue investing and it never stops and the poverty doesn't diminish, agricultural research continues to be invested in, not in biotechnology, but in conventional breeding, but it is never sufficient. The problem is not in investing in biotechnology: there are other components that do not permit food to reach who it ought to reach. And in this, Greenpeace is right; it is not that 'Golden Rice' with high content in the grain is going to resolve the problem of vitamin A deficiency. The problem could have been resolved years ago with pills, but the problem is that the pills don't arrive or they cost a lot. Alternatives should be sought: in place of having pills, you now have fruit with the vitamins incorporated, and the people can have them on their farm and can grow them there. Why invest money in biotechnology? Because biotechnology has promise..., biotechnology promises to do things, we are at an exploratory stage. Transgenic plants began 30 years ago. I believe that it will take

114 Since this interview occurred, the interviewee has noted that recent collaboration between OAT and a European university has greatly improved their ability to have access to genes and promoters that belong to others.

248 another 30 years to know what impact they are going to have115. No, really. Economically, it is still worthwhile to invest in this type of technology, but biotechnology has not been able to contribute to developing countries yet, except in exceptional cases like China, Argentina, Chile...Thirty years is nothing... I believe that, like all technologies that arrive with a 'boom' of offers, few will remain; only those that are effective will stay. My interest is that some of these can be done with cassava. For this it is necessary to play with many chips [or possibilities]. There are many factors involved in success so it is necessary to bet on many alternatives so that some can work. I hope that one of these things that works will be with cassava. 'Failure, failure, failure' doesn't matter, as long as you have one. One has to look on many fronts. [...] But in the end it's all one. Simply, it is a cultivar to which no other institution in the world, that I know of, pays attention to what it needs. Therefore, you need to do conventional breeding, you need to do breeding with biotechnology, and you need to do research on fungus and bacteria, to characterize genes, to look for cold tolerance, for drought tolerance, all of that. The objective is this, improve that plant, always. (10034 - CIAT researcher using genetic engineering and other biotechnologies)

The disconnections mentioned earlier are present in this snapshot of the scientific motivation for engaging in genetic engineering. There is the difficulty in finding funding, in finding collaborators who can work on the crop of interest, and the difficulties that arise from intellectual property rights. We see here, again, the difficulty of working with a plant which has a low scientific capital, both for obtaining funding and due to technical difficulties. The influence of large corporations is also present here, both in the discussion of intellectual property rights, as well as in the public perception of GMOs. The scientist is well aware of all these issues in this context. Nevertheless, the main motivation here is to try to realize the promise of genetic engineering for at least that particular crop. The chance of success of any particular venture is less important than the attempt to find something, either with biotechnology or without, which will work for this crop. An extension of this argument suggests that all such approaches are important for trying to improve the deficit of cassava's scientific capital, and there is the possibility that such knowledge can be used later to aid in breeding efforts for that plant, even if a particular effort fails to produce a concrete product. In addition, the scientist is careful to express that while any single technology cannot miraculously solve widespread complex

115 While the interviewee later mentioned that, of course, there have been impacts in terms of cotton, maize, and canola impacts globally, the interviewee is still looking for "a different kind of impact", something that benefits a wider range of groups and that will change the current view on who benefits from GMOs.

249 problems, such as the example of vitamin A deficiency, this should not discount the importance of trying new avenues to provide scientific and technical solutions.

Motivations Snapshot #3: Biodiversity in the Context of International Competition This Colombian researcher who uses genetic engineering begins by commenting on why the particular project engaged in was of interest before moving on to talk about more national concerns. In the face of international competition and interest in the resources of biodiversity, this scientist suggests that an international legal 'right' to the biological patrimony of one's country is meaningless unless accompanied by science that can explore and use such patrimony that exists within the country.

Entonces a mi me interesaba trabajar con la especie quefuera de interes nacional, que ademas estuviera siendo utilizada por todos los sectores de la production, zonas de economia campesina hasta productores orientados a la exportation. Y que fundamentalmente me permitiera desarrollar procesos de empoderamiento del pais, del conocimiento con respecto a los recursos geneticos, y entonces pues ademas hay algo arrastrado por mis ancestros campesinos. ... Si se utiliza solo para apoyar la gran production agricola y social, van a tener razon los companeros de la red pan America latina libre de transgenicos en considerar que es una instrumentation de la ciencia que solo le sirve a los poderosos. Hay grupos de investigation que trabajan con nuestra papa cria. Que es una variedad que incluso nofue desarrollada por el mejoramiento conventional cientifwo, sinofue mejorada por el mejoramiento traditional de los campesinos. Cuando hago el andlisis de la information en Internet, me encuentro que hay grupos en Alemania, Inglaterra, en estados unidos, en escocia que hace parte del reino unido, en Australia que estdn trabajando con papa criolla variedad de la yema del huevo. Incluso me sorprende un grupo japones, de la universidad Kioto, que dene una patente para la production de mini tuberculos de papa, criolla bajo condiciones de invernadero. Entonces cuando me doy cuenta de otro elemento ahi, y es que hay todo un discurso construido sobre el asunto de los recursos geneticos despues de la convention para la diversidad biologica. Que bdsicamente senala que los recursos geneticos son patrimonio de las naciones. Los recursos geneticos en Colombia son propiedad de la nation colombiana. Es un instrumento politico muy importante, lo queyo llevo a la conclusion cuando me encuentro que la universidad de Kioto tiene una patente, no solo de la papa criolla; pero si en la cual la papa criolla esta incluida comofuente de un proceso industria para la production de tuberculos en el invernadero, y eso es en el Japon. Entonces llego a la conclusion que es muy bueno que exista un instrumento politico, que nos permita internacionalmente lucharpor toda la biotecnologia que se pasepor la papa criolla. Pero si no le metemos investigation cientifica del mas alto nivel, por mucho que tengamos desarrollados instrumentos politicos eso no va a servir para nada. (10025 - Colombia)

250 What was important to me, then, was to work with a species that was of national interest and that besides was being used by all sectors of production: from the zone of the peasant economy to producers oriented towards exportation. And that fundamentally allowed me to develop processes of empowerment for the country, [to develop] knowledge, with respect to genetic resources. Then, besides, it was something influenced by my peasant ancestors. [....] If it is used only to support large agricultural production, the members of the network for a Latin America free of transgenics are going to be right in thinking that it is an instrument of science that only serves the powerful. There are research groups that work with our potato variety. This is a variety that was not developed by conventional scientific breeding, but instead was improved through traditional breeding by the peasant farmers {campesinos). When I did a search for information on the Internet, I found out that there are groups in Germany, England, the USA, Scotland, and Australia that are working with the criolla potato variety yema del huevo. Also, I was surprised to find out that a Japanese group, from the University of Kyoto had a patent on the production of mini potato tubers, grown under greenhouse conditions. Then, when I realized another issue, which is that there is a discussion over the topic of genetic resources since the Convention on Biological Resources Basically, this points out that genetic resources are the patrimony of nation states. The genetic resources in Colombia are the property of the nation of Colombia. It is a very important political instrument. However, I found out that the University of Kyoto has a patent, not only for the criolla potato, but in the fact, that the criolla potato is included as a foundation for the industrial production of tubers in greenhouses, and this is in Japan.... I therefore came to the conclusion that it is very good that there is a political instrument, which enables us to fight internationally for all the biotechnological research that uses the criolla potato. However, if we do not participate in scientific investigation at the highest level, in spite of the fact that we have developed political instruments, they will be worthless. (10025 - Colombian researcher who uses genetic engineering)

This snapshot of scientific motivation to work on GMOs is similar to the previous one, in that we see again the desire to work on a crop that is important to the peasant economy. The researcher specifically comments that if they do not create GMOs for such purposes, then the technology truly will only be left in the hands of corporations who will make decisions about its development on the basis of profit potential, rather than need. This type of sentiment came up often in conversations with Colombian scientists, where they asserted that if they, as Colombians, didn't work on a particular plant variety or trait that was not of interest to the multinational corporations, than no one would.

251 This snapshot also brings up the issue of biotechnology as part of the new knowledge economy, with an increasing number of property rights over plant varieties, genes, process and other intellectual and technical aspects of agrarian research. The scientist suggests that, although there are international conventions in place that should theoretically protect biodiversity resources belonging to the country, if that right is not supported by active scientific research in the country which attempts to consolidate knowledge about and to use those resources, it will become meaningless. In summary, then we are left with three slightly different research contexts (one from Canada, one from CIAT, and one from Colombia, but all from 'public' research institutions) on why work on GMOs is worthwhile. The first makes larger claims about exploring avenues for different types of agricultural practices in the future; the second is more narrowly focused on the creation of useful varieties in one particular crop of importance; while the third combines creating an alternative use of the technology to that of large corporations, with increasing his/her country's stake in the new knowledge economy based on biodiversity resources which Colombia has in abundance.

Conclusion: Knowledge Building & Inequalities

The global GMO science-scape features many important connections, as well as disconnections, reflecting both the importance of contemporary global connections (Held et al., 1999) and the global inequalities that many have commented were present in the past and claim are increasing in contemporary global conditions (Bauman, 1998; Comaroff & Comaroff, 2000; Ferguson, 1999; Wolf, 1982). As such, it is an example of globalization that neither falls comfortably within a cultural (or scientific) homogenization model, nor a model of 'resistance' to global forces. It is closer to Inda and Rosaldo's discussion of globalization as "an intensification of circuits of economic, political, cultural, and ecological interdependence" (2002: 5), or Collier and Ong's (2005) conception of an issue with a 'global assemblage' of heterogeneous elements. While interconnections are important in the scientific world of GMOs, the effort and cost of reaching out over distance to achieve Harvey's (2000) 'time-space compression' are ever present, as are the resulting disconnections when that cost cannot be paid. As Appadurai (1996) points out, the global movement involves profound disjunctures within and

252 between the flow of people, capital, ideas, information, and technology in the global political economy. What the network and knowledge construction studies branches of science studies (Hess, 1997b) add to our understanding of the GMO science-scape is a sense of the confluence of things, people, and ideas. In a practical sense, dividing these flows makes us lose sense of how inequalities and the process of knowledge production and dissemination are intertwined within GMO creation. If, for instance, you are a canola GMO, your options for gene insertions might be considerably wider than if you are a cassava GMO. The reasons for that, while grounded in global connections and disconnections are also bound to issues of how and on what knowledge is produced. In this sense, then, the symmetry of considering things, people, and ideas as equally important and connected becomes important for an adequate and sufficient view of scientific practice (Latour, 1993). Many of these snapshots of the GMO science-scape suggest that the United States forms a type of 'scientific centre' for GMOs, to which other countries' scientific engagement form a type of periphery. What happens on the 'cutting edge' of science, and one's ability to participate in it matters: for prestige, for employment, for access to resources, and for alliances. In this context, global interconnections within science cannot be formed unless the interests of others in the knowledge creation process has first been captured (Latour, 1983). Knowledge production processes may well have centres and Latour hints at the theoretical tension in anthropology between those who discuss the unequal global political economy and those who focus on the increasing cultural (or in this case, scientific) interconnections in understanding the process of globalization. Such an increase in the number of elements tied to a claim is to be paid for and that makes the production of credible facts and efficient artefacts a costly business. This cost is not to be evaluated only in terms of money, but also by the number of people to be enrolled, by the size of the laboratories and of the instruments, by the number of institutions gathering the data, by the time spent to go from 'seminal ideas' to workable products, and by the complication of mechanisms piling black boxes onto one another. This means that shaping reality in this way is not within everybody' s reach [...]. Since the proof race is so expensive that only a few people, nations, institutions, or professions are able to sustain it, this means that the production of facts and artefacts will not occur everywhere and for free, but will occur only at restricted places at particular times. This leads to a third way of summarising

253 what we have learned in this book so far, a way that fuses together the two first aspects: technoscience is made in relatively new, rare, expensive and fragile places that garner disproportionate amounts of resources; these places may come to occupy strategic positions and be related with one another. Thus, technoscience may be described simultaneously as a demiurgic enterprise that multiplies the number of allies and as a rare and fragile achievement that we hear about only when all the other allies are present. If technoscience may be described as being so powerful and yet so small, so concentrated and so dilute, it means it has the characteristics of a network. The word network indicates that resources are concentrated in a few places - the knots and the nodes - which are connected with one another - the links and the mesh: these connections transform the scattered resources into a net that may seem to extend everywhere (Latour, 1987: 179-180).

Scientific knowledge production, then, can be seen as a place of relative privilege, both expensive and as the result of a fine network of connections that has the ability to spread over great distances. If such a network is fragile, it can be easily broken to create disconnections. Pushing such disconnections to the level of political choice, Hannerez (2002) notes that global flows in knowledge are sometimes actively prevented for economic or military reasons, as a means of maintaining dominance. However, networks have the ability to form outside of dominance, as when groups or movements who consider themselves to be 'unaligned' with such dominance are created (Gupta, 1997). What Inda and Rosaldo (2002) refer to as circuits of culture that 'circumvent the West' are also important forms of scientific connections, such as the international group formed to work on plantain and banana among tropical countries. This is particularly the case when northern groups in Europe or the United States are unable to obtain funding for research on crops that are not considered important in those regions and therefore, place importance on alternate networks which are both willing and able to pursue research in a particular area together. What we see within these snapshots of the GMO science-scape is the motivation on the part of certain GM scientists within the public realm to extend the realm in which genetic engineering technology is able to contribute to both knowledge production and the creation of new plant varieties, through enrolling different actors using different leverage points to create new meaning and possibilities for GMOs globally than that found in corporate constructions of GMOs. Looking at these motivations, anthropologically, gives us, not the case study analysis of success or failure of the

254 production of a scientific artefact sometimes found in laboratory or network studies, but rather a view of how the meanings and possibilities for GMOs are being negotiated in a complex global situation. I will return to these motivations and what they imply for GMOs within an unequal world in the conclusion. Chapter 7 Conclusion

Review of Research Results

What I demonstrate in this thesis is that, contrary to public media opinion, not all GMOs are the same. Instead, GMOs are created by particular practices and for various purposes, whether the site of their construction is in Canada or Colombia. The practice of genetic engineering grew out of an historical trajectory of plant breeding practices, thereby linking GMOs with other products and processes of plant breeding in the minds of those who create them. Nonetheless, it is important to note that other plant breeding practices, many of which are still in use, improve plants using different methods that emphasize the role of the ecosystem and selection, and which may better target more complicated multi-genetic traits. GMOs walk a fine balance between the process that creates them being 'natural' (or in keeping with past practices) and 'unnatural' (in the degree of intrusiveness required to make the change). Ethnographic research in two particular sites, the government laboratory in Ottawa and the laboratory within CIAT, shows clearly that GMOs are placed firmly within a 'laboratory' as the social unit that creates them, as well as having interactions that are not bound easily into such an arbitrary social unit. This being the case, GMOs look different, in physical form, process, and meaning, within different sites. The roles of those involved in GMO creation call for many different types of knowledge, both conceptual and embodied, despite there being a generally recognized division between 'heads' and 'hands' in the sites of GMO creation in both Ottawa and CIAT. The argument that not all GMOs are alike carries over into discussion with scientists from multiple research sites. Within my discussion of GMOs as boundary objects, I have shown that the heterogeneity that exists within the category of GMOs suggests also that different risks and benefits would attach to different kinds of GMOs. Some of these could be considered to be more potentially harmful to human health and the environment than others. At the same time, some are also more fittingly described as meeting the 'public good' than others. This heterogeneity is rarely addressed in social science publications on the topic, partially due to the monopolization of commercially released varieties that generate profits for multinational corporations through traits such

256 as pesticide and herbicide resistance. The interaction of this heterogeneity and homogeneity within GMOs has put regulators in the awkward position of trying to negotiate which aspects of GMOs to emphasize. To stress the methodological similarities is to ignore the traits for which GMOs are being engineered and the differences in risks that these create. Alternately, to ignore the methodological similarities which provide GMOs with the boundary of their identity is also to ignore the more public understanding of GMOs and any risks that might be related to the method of their creation. Research creating GMOs is embedded within wider structures that constrain the choices that can be made about GMO research. Thus, the availability of funding, research connections of different types, the prestige and publication possibilities attached to biotechnology, and the disconnections found within the global research community all impact how GMOs are created in overlapping and complex ways.

Implications for Understanding GMOs

Understanding the context in which GMOs are developed and the way in which they are seen from that place of construction yields results that are important for understanding both the controversy and the ensuing policies surrounding GMOs. This research questions the division which is made by some about the differences between GMOs and products of conventional plant breeding. There are great similarities between methods in that one trait or one or two genes are often the focus, and the type of traits bred for and the corporations that generally distribute them tend to be the same, particularly in North America. Plant breeding has been a specialized profession with particularly focused directions for some time. Scientific plant breeding has been criticized for an overly reductionist perspective. As the third narrative snapshot provided in the last chapter suggests, there could be other ways in which scientists could be involved in plant breeding efforts that might combine, rather than compete with, existing farmer knowledge. Nevertheless, it is unlikely that farmer breeding, which could be portrayed as more organic or sustainable, can easily replace current plant breeding efforts, in all locations. To suggest this is to ignore the ways in which alternative knowledge, and particularly farmers' knowledge, has been culturally devalued and seen as inferior to authoritative knowledge that scientists have produced about the world (Jasanoff, 2005)

257 within the processes of colonialization and neoliberalism (Fitting, 2006a; Nader, 1996). It also ignores the socio-economic limitations which may restrict farmers' seed planting choices (Ferguson & Mkandawire, 1993). What remains may only be a small resistance against larger market and political forces in the same way that Stone (2001) portrays local, organic farming when compared to the widespread and comprehensive nature of the contemporary industrial food system. The assumption that traditional knowledge is maintained in the face of the deskilling of the agricultural work force, described in the ethnographic accounts of Fitting (2006a) and Stone (2007), is naive. At the same time, attempts to preserve and build on in situ plant breeding knowledge is an area of research and policy that is underrepresented, in my opinion, and which might be a better investment in the maintenance of biodiversity than the 'doomsday' seed bank built off of Norway's northern coast (Global Crop Diversity Trust, 2006). Conceptualizing GMOs as boundary objects, which have a boundary maintained by the methodologies that create them, but which also feature immense potential internal heterogeneity, raises important questions. For instance, is it really the process that creates GMOs that is controversial? Or is it with the uses to which the technology has primarily been put by the multinational corporations that were the first to commercialize such products? Genetically engineered plants may well turn out to have significant health and environmental impacts: there is a great deal that we do not yet know about the way one gene interacts with another. Nevertheless, it is more likely that such impacts will be tied to the particular traits engineered rather than to the process itself. If one does not focus on specifying the type of GMO created, then discussions of their health and environmental risks become blurred, allowing a pro-GMO group to say, with some honesty, that groups who are opposed to GMOs are confused or not sufficiently educated. Worse, it prevents meaningful discussion, amongst both lay people and scientists, about what traits ought to be genetically engineered and which should not. This raises the larger question: what traits should be bred in plants? This is not a 'technical' question about plant breeding or GMOs. Ignoring the question of what traits are engineered for what purposes, in favour of focusing on the method by which they are created, merely draws together all scientific actors using the technological process, who then feel called upon to defend the technology as a whole. This masks crucial differences between the

258 purposes for which some scientists use the technology compared to others and allows scientists to refrain from confronting ethical questions related to the work they and others do. Burkhardt (2001) suggests that the ethical justification made for biotechnology and GMOs is that they will eventually be socially beneficial. However, he argues that such utilitarian ethical justifications usually fall into what he refers to as the fallacy of the future benefits argument (FBA). The benefits (presumed to be weighed against risks) need to be demonstrated and widely distributed before one can make the argument that a technology or practice is therefore useful to society as a whole. As Burkhardt points out, while most of the uses for GMOs at present do not fit these criteria, it is possible that they might. Indeed, those who espouse the FBA must assume the responsibility for at least attempting to make agricultural biotechnology an exercise in seeking the public good. It is an interesting feature of ethical discourse that those who employ ethical arguments - sometimes even disingenuously - frequently find themselves actually behaving in accord with their statements (Burkhardt, 2001: 143).

However, this is more likely to happen if more scrutiny about the different ways in which particular GMOs are created, who they benefit, and who bears the risks takes place. As I have shown above, GMOs are being created in a scientific and social world marked with inequalities and the disconnections that come with them. There is no evidence that the benefits from GMOs and biotechnology, generally, are likely to be equally distributed. My discussions with scientists engaged in trying to use genetic engineering for purposes they see as important to Colombia and tropical countries suggests that they are struggling to create a more equal distribution of benefits from the technology, but in a context that makes this difficult. As my discussion of the different scientific capital that tropical or orphan plants have compared to temperate, industrial grown plants, as well as the differences in the availability of funding and intellectual property rights demonstrates, this is not an easy task. Biotechnology and genetic engineering have been billed as the upcoming 'gene revolution' in agriculture that will provide benefits to the agriculture and therefore the peoples of poorer countries, thus likening the technology to the 'green revolution' of the 1960s and 1970s. Assessments of the green revolution have been mixed and controversial, featuring reports of increased

259 grain production balanced by those of increasing disparity between rich and poor in the countries most impacted by the crops developed during the green revolution (Anderson et al., 1991a; Pottier, 1999). Furthermore, as one of the scientists featured in the previous chapter pointed out, green revolution crops required the expensive (in both the financial and the environmental senses) input of chemicals. Nonetheless, the green revolution was backed by comparatively large amounts of public research funding, was intended to be publicly distributed, and was not hampered by a strong intellectual property rights regime (Parayil, 2003). As Parayil (2003) points out, we have no reason to consider the cases comparable, given that the 'gene' revolution is largely privately funded and access to its discoveries and products are restricted by intellectual property rights. Given that such is the case, how can we understand the willingness of public researchers to be drawn into this area of research? The motivations for participating in plant genetic engineering are complex and may even be somewhat contradictory. I would argue that such contradiction ought to be seen more as examples of the inevitable disjunctures that Appadurai (1996) mentions, which face actors who attempt to assert their agency and shape meaning out of what they do. Furthermore, the complexities are slightly differently expressed in each country. In Canada, research seems to be already more merged with the private system, in the sense that funding, licencing, and intellectual property agreements between researchers and private corporations are common. Even researchers who may consider themselves to be providing alternatives to corporate products may still take research contracts with large multinational corporations. The interest seems to be focused on working within the existing system, which then delivers products for farmers or consumers to buy. For instance, an example of reducing the inputs for Canadian farmers in order to increase the farmer's bottom line was given by a genetic engineering scientist in chapter five. These may be pharmaceuticals or a better canola or soy plant created through genetic engineering. The point is to increase a farmer's competativeness in the marketplace or to create new products for the marketplace. Alternately or concurrently, public researchers may focus on the knowledge that is being created using genetic engineering and trust that such knowledge may be used differently in the future, when our knowledge of plant genetics has expanded. Possibilities created by knowledge are thus of

260 the most interest at this stage of the research, as demonstrated by the Canadian scientist whose narrative is present in the motivations section of the previous chapter. There is a trust that future uses for the technology will be wider than those uses for which the technology is currently employed. In the meantime, while knowledge is being constructed, market forces are believed to be bringing farmers some benefits as a result of the technology. In Colombia, I found enthusiasm for the technology, but market forces are not generally working towards the advantage of Colombian farmers. There is therefore a more unavoidable disjuncture between what is hoped for in the future and what products are now produced using genetic engineering. In Colombia, the strong presence of a development mandate in funding for both CIAT and Colombian GM scientists creates an incentive to turn the trust that broader applications of the technology are possible, into a reality. This disjuncture between the current widespread form of GMOs and what is hoped for from the technology in the future is especially prominent in the Colombian case and therefore worthy of further discussion. I present two possible interpretations for understanding the enthusiasm for using genetic engineering technology that I found in Colombia. First, I suggest that the position of the scientists with whom I spoke can be interpreted as a rejection of the idea that expensive technologies should not be used in resource poor settings. This idea can best be understood through looking at the concept of 'appropriate technology' and its critique. Second, I suggest that an alternate interpretation is that the use of genetic engineering is an example of the technological hype, or hope of salvation through scientific progress, with which development has been historically associated. Paul Farmer (2001) argues in the case of medicine in Haiti, and other poor countries, that the concept of 'appropriate technology' is one that is used to maintain privilege and justify the denial of technology to those in resource-poor contexts. The concept of 'appropriate technology' was originally coined by E.F. Schumacher (1973) to refer to the need for 'appropriate' or 'intermediate' technology in developing countries. Schumacher argued that less expensive technology, created with local materials and within the financial reach of a greater number of individuals, would create economic

261 development. His argument was that extremely efficient, up to date, industrial technology would not effectively generate employment and did not transfer well into labour-rich settings, as such technology was generally designed to reduce manpower hours in labour-poor settings. Schumacher's argument took place soley within an economic context, and Kammen and Dove (1997), for instance, continue to call for the development of more accessible technology, a practice they term 'mundane science'. However, the term 'appropriate technology' soon spread into both developed societies' discussions about the nature of modern society (Winner, 1986) and into the setting of development priorities (Farmer, 2001). It is with the latter that Farmer takes exception, on the grounds that the concept counters the idea of health care as a right to those in poor settings. He maintains that those suffering from AIDS in resource-poor settings want access to hospitals and treatments, not 'cost-effective' prevention programs. One of the first things we should do is listen to those affected with HIV. They are forty million strong and growing, and they are not telling us to concentrate all our AIDS activities on prevention. They are not reminding us that antiretroviral therapy is not cost-effective. They are not arguing that costly therapeutic interventions are not "sustainable" in poor settings, not "appropriate technology" for low-tech areas of the globe. Often enough, they are saying just the contrary, because the destitute sick remind us that sacrosanct market mechanisms will not serve the interests of global health equity (Farmer, 2001: xxiii).

In this context, Farmer argues that treatment cannot solely be the province of the wealthy and that we should be suspicious of public health narratives that claim that all medical interventions need to be 'cost-effective'. "We can no longer accept whatever we are told about "limited resources" ... The wealth of the world has not dried up; it has simply become unavailable to those who need it most." (Farmer, 2001: xxvi). He suggests that deciding whether or not something is an 'appropriate technology' is equivalent to saying that some human beings are entitled to a different level of technology than others. The desire of researchers to act in the face of difficulties and to use a technology that they felt would be advantageous for Colombian agriculture could be interpreted as an act of rebellion against those who would suggest that genetic engineering is not appropriate for those in a resource poor context. Restricting genetic engineering to richer

262 countries suggests a scientific hegemony in this area that does not appear to be accepted by the Colombian scientists using the technology. Their position suggests a desire to enable a wider distribution of benefits from the technology. It challenges the idea that the technology is established in the hands of northern-based, multinational corporations. The question, then, is whether the right to health care and the right to agricultural research and its ensuing agricultural products are comparable? An alternate interpretation of the position of Colombian scientists using genetic engineering is to place their statements within the history of the discourse of development through scientific progress. Arturo Escobar (1995) has suggested that the rise of the discourse of development, as a prominent policy in the post-World War II period, in fact, contributed to massive underdevelopment, impoverishment, and exploitation rather than the economic and social well being of many countries, including Colombia, that were the recipient of development initiatives. A strong belief in the powers of science and technology to bring about societal 'progress' was a key part of development related policies. Scientific progress, in a form of technological determinism, was expected to lead to economic growth and social betterment. The appeal of technology has continued to be associated with more recent neo-classical development initiatives (Yapa, 1996). Escobar's account cautions against the uncritical acceptance of the promise of technology to resolve social and economic problems. A powerful combination is created when the idea of contributing to development through scientific progress is coupled with the professional desire to participate in the cutting edge of agricultural science including all that this implies in terms of increased publications and grants. Idealism, in this sense, could be seen to have triumphed over practicality if one believes that resources would be more effectively used to strengthen research efforts using conventional plant breeding and crop sciences. Within this interpretation, the move away from conventional plant breeding into more popular areas of biotechnology can be seen as part of the 'fad' of molecular biology. As Escobar (1995) has noted in the context of a different kind of research, plant genetic engineering

I use this term here to refer to general dominance in an area, rather than to refer to the more specific concept of cultural hegemony developed by Antonio Gramsci. research in Colombia may contribute to knowledge generation elsewhere, at the expense of Colombian agricultural needs and interests. The "tree of research" of the North was transplanted to the South, and Latin America thus became part of a transnational system of research. As some maintain, although this transformation created new knowledge capabilities, it also implied a further loss of autonomy and the blocking of different modes of knowing (Escobar, 1995: 37).

We therefore see disjunctures and sometime conflict within possible interpretations for why Canadian and Colombian researchers have undertaken the work that they have. In the Canadian case, there is a possibility for the market to bring improved crops to North American farmers, although many hope that the implications of their area of research (genetic engineering) will be distributed more equally, globally. In Colombia, market forces are less interested in servicing the needs of tropical or neglected crops, and yet there is still hope that the technology can be more broadly applied through development intitatives. The conflict is greater in this case, as it pits the fact of scarce research funding against hope for a wider and more equitable distribution of genetic engineering technology. Yet, at the same time, funding for biotechnology used for development purposes, given that this occurs within the frontiers of agricultural research, may be easier to find than support for conventional plant breeding programs. Multiple interpretations over decisions such as scientific research direction are perhaps inevitable, particularly in instances involving technological change, as there is a great deal at stake in such decisions. As Sandra Harding points out, technological change carries with it important questions about the distribution of resources, power, and status. "Moments of scientific and technological change are always sites of struggle over how the benefits and costs of change will be distributed" (Harding, 1998: 5). The barriers to the use of GM in the Colombian case suggest genetic engineering is unlikely to provide a global contribution on any large scale towards problems of hunger while its use is largely monopolized for profit generating purposes. This has echoes for Canadian research which does not fit well into the emphasis of the market on heavily industrialized crops grown in monoculture. The case is one in which, as Burkhardt (2001) has suggested, future benefits or contributions to the 'public good' from a technology cannot be assumed, but must be demonstrated. Therefore, claims made for genetic engineering in

264 the developing world in their extravagent forms are undoubtedly exaggerated. The pertinent question might be to ask how sucessful will be the efforts of the scientists with whom I spoke, who, in their persistance to use genetic engineering on tropical crops, are actively engaged in struggling to change how the benefits of this technology could be more equally distributed. Canadian scientists are caught in a similar web in many ways, since the acceptability of GM use and the funding for such research is directed into particular areas, rather than others. Hope is maintained for a wide range of applications in the future through the belief that the development of basic knowledge and techniques in GM research will aid more equitable distribution in the future and that technology development takes time.

Conceptual Implications

The topic of this dissertation, GMOs, brings together two issues that have been discussed at length in both anthropology and in science studies. How does one study technology and scientific practice, particularly when the technology in question is controversial? And how does one bring the connections over great distances, which are important in the lives of those we study, accurately into the research spotlight, without loosing the important local-situatedness that has been so important to past contributions in ethnography and laboratory case studies? I suggest that this research has made a theoretical contribution in three main areas. First, it has provided an empirical contribution to the study of new technologies, in general, and genetic modification in particular. Examining GMOs as boundary objects suggests that the area of social science research surrounding GMOs requires more nuance. It has been acceptable to treat all GMOs as if they were largely similar up until this point, because many of the commercialized products were fairly uniform. However, examining this topic from the perspective of technological design suggests that such may not be the case in the future. If, as I have suggested, the types of GMOs released and used diversifies as it is predicted to (which is itself a question for empirical investigation that I will address below), then dismissing differences in risks and characteristics between GMOs as 'technical' and therefore of no importance to their social implications, will

265 become negligent in the conceptualization of policy, public, agricultural and other impacts of GMOs, rather than merely an oversight. Second, this research suggests that ethnographic investigation of scientific practice, in both anthropology and science studies as a whole, may need to be more flexible in its conceptualization of the roles, and the link between those roles and the type of knowledge or skill used, that make up the scientific work force. This research suggests that while the distinction between 'head' and 'hands' has a certain socially recognized validity in these settings, closer examination shows a variety of different types of knowledge are important in everyday scientific practice. In other words, deskilling within the scientific work force may simply not function within certain kinds of research settings, where a range of knowledge needs to be engaged so that research can be successful. Additionally, I suggest that the inclusion of the concept of non-human actors, proposed by actor network proponents, such as Callon (1986), has certain advantages when added to an anthropological investigation of the life sciences. Chiefly, it allows us, as anthropologists, to take the biology involved seriously and incorporate it into our work. This is important for two reasons. First, if the scientists with whom we do research are subject, to some extent, to the specific whims of the biology of the organisms on which they work within their research, we need someway to incorporate that into the worldview we are portraying. Second, we are talking about work with living organisms. While agency, in the sense it is ascribed to humans, might be considered inappropriate (Hess, 1997a), they are still entities which rarely react to stimulus with the predictability of chemicals being mixed together in fixed quantities. There needs to be some type of conceptual allowance made for this variability if we are going to provide a meaningful critique of the role of science and scientific developments within society. Third, I suggest that this work has expanded the understandings of globalization within anthropology, simply because scientific sites are uncommon ones for the anthropological study of globalization, which have tended to focus on commodities, migration and symbolic meaning of communication media in order to generate theoretical concepts within this area. While such studies have been extremely fruitful, the application (or perhaps the non-application) of Appadurai's (1996) collection of 'scapes' in connection with GMOs shows that, while the idea of 'scape' is a useful one for

266 showing particular perspectives and raising the possible areas which merit additional scholarly attention, it does not really work as a categorical conceptual system to create a better understanding of the interactions present between the movement of people, ideas, technology, and capital that scientists experience on a daily basis. They are also not sufficient to show us the 'MacGyver-isms' or work-arounds that individuals use to create connections over gaps of inequality that create disconnections between them and the international enterprise of science. Further work on understanding the disjunctives and interconnections of the contemporary world need to be developed in order to create more workable conceptual tools that provide analytical rigor while at the same time helping to create accounts in which people still recognize their experiences. This research also adds to previous anthropological contributions to science studies (Hess, 1997b) in which links are made to important factors outside of the laboratory. I would argue that this can be done without diminishing the account of intellectual and skill work that goes on within social groups. In this sense, anthropological contributions within science studies have put more life into previous network studies, as our disciplinary traditions defy us to create accounts without an awareness of the importance of group cultural and social life in all practices. In addition, such studies have been able to draw in fields that, while outside of the laboratory, have important bearing on understanding the wider implications of the technical issues at hand. In my drawing in of archaeological and ethnographic data on plant breeding, for instance, I am following an anthropological tradition that argues that multiple knowledge traditions can be better incorporated into understanding western science (Nader, 1996) and that these still have pertinence for understanding what goes on in the scientific laboratory.

Future Research Questions and Final Comments

Like most research, my dissertation raises more questions than it answers. I suggest that investigation into several issues would complement the work that has been done here. The first of these is to suggest, following my comments at the end of the last section about alternative knowledge, that more research needs to be done into farmer breeding practices, as well as on understanding how plant breeding practices can complement or where they are in opposition to such practices. As I have commented

267 above, such research has interesting implications, not only for a better understanding of Western scientific knowledge, but also of crucial importance to the maintenance of crop biodiversity. Cleveland (1993) has commented on the lack of knowledge in this area and current research suggests that such knowledge is embedded in other cultural practices and requires careful investigation of gender, as well as local differences (Chambers, 2007). This leads to a question about the way in which trends in plant breeding are affected over time. Longitudinal work in this area would be valuable, because it would tell us the direction in which research develops after the intense attraction surrounding a new technology is gone. For instance, my research suggests that certain tensions exist or have existed between conventional plant breeders and those more enmeshed in molecular biology. How will these two be balanced over time? For instance, will scientists move away from genetic engineering into other areas of biotechnology, such as molecular markers? Such areas allow them similar advantages, in terms of being at the forefront of biotechnological research, but may combine with field-based plant breeding more smoothly and eliminate the political and regulatory barriers associated with genetic engineering. Alternately, will the advent of synthetic biology, combining features of biotechnology and nano-technology, make genetic engineering an important stepping stone into new areas of plant breeding research? The direction that plant breeding as a field takes is important, as it predicts the maintenance or loss of conventional plant breeding knowledge and skills, which have played a key role in feeding us. It is possible that knowledge in this area could be lost in the same way that farming practices that maintain important crop biodiversity are being lost, due to the status placed on biotechnology and the advancement of scientific knowledge over 'mundane science' (Kammen & Dove, 1997). A third issue of importance surrounds the concept of appropriate technology. A member of a non-governmental organization, quoted above, commented on the need to focus more attention on 'wide-tech' rather than 'high-tech'. How could this be better achieved? And when is 'wide-tech', 'mundane science', or 'appropriate technology' an important goal versus a bureaucratic justification for the blocking of access to resources? Given that the average amount of development aid to a Latin American country works out

268 to a negative annual number by the time that debt payments, etc, are subtracted117 (Girvan, 2007), the issue of entitlement to better levels of technological transfer is not a politically innocent one. Finally, a connected area of research is that of north-south connections. My dissertation is an example of research that tries to span this gap, resting neither within the paradigm of development research, nor solely within the investigation of scientific research in better resourced countries, but going back and forth between these two places conceptually and geographically. I suggest that it is important, although more challenging, to examine technological development and also the use of technology in development from a perspective that is grounded in both the north and the south. As Farmer (2001) points out, technology is not used in two separate worlds, why should we study it as if it were? I advocate such a position because it makes it more difficult to ignore the inequalities present in science, which Latour (2005) mentions, but which appear rarely in accounts of new research areas118. Further research along this line could investigate how technological trends differ from one spot to another, how the development mandate is used within research and technology development, and differences in the scientific work itself. More investigation of this kind is needed to ensure that technology 'transfer' from the north to the south has a chance to become more than a public relations angle used by multinational corporations. To conclude, since GMO are understood as heterogeneous by the scientists who create them, it is difficult, if not impossible to assign GMOs a single meaning for genetic engineering scientists. The metaphor of the tool, however, is a fairly commonly used way of expressing this diversity. What is interesting about how GMOs appear to scientists is that in the eyes of plant breeders who do not use genetic engineering, the question is 'how useful or dangerous to conventional plant breeding is that tool?' While the utility of GMOs is sometimes questioned by this group, so too is how negative an impact they may have on knowledge of the conventional practices of plant breeding. The place GMOs eventually settle into within the historical trajectory of plant breeding will depend greatly upon the outcome of the relationship of genetic engineering with other plant breeding practices.

Calculated as net capital inflows less net interest and other investment income paid abroad (Girvan, 2007).

269 As one might predict, funding is important to driving GM projects, but so, too, are collaborative connections, access to linguistic and scientific skills, the increased opportunities for publishing in the novel area of biotechnology compared to conventional plant breeding, and the scientific capital of plants themselves. All of these things, either directly or indirectly, are related to the political will towards scientific research and GMOs. The contexts in which public research takes place are various, which is not surprising considering the varied nature of the term 'public' (Atkinson-Grosjean, 2006). Commercialization intersects with many areas of research in the 'public' sphere (Mirowski & Sent, 2008). As commercial interests in biotechnology are so common, 'purely' public laboratories are rare. Exceptions, such as the Ottawa laboratory retain their independence from private sources of funding precariously. In other cases, helping the commercialization process in agriculture is part of what makes the research 'public', either through technological development to aid later commercial applications or through direct private-public partnerships. Many Colombian and CI AT research projects took place under a mandate that linked economic with social development. This in turn often relies on the availability of out of country funding sources and a concomitant lack of local funding control. Whether this is good or bad for the scientists, the farmers, and the citizens who are the intended recipients of such research is for further study.

A notable exception is Cori Hay den's (2003) 'When Nature Goes Public".

270 Reference List

Abbott, F. M. (2000). Distributed governance at the WTO-WIPO: An evolving model for open-architecture integrated governance. Journal of International Economic Law, 3, 63-81.

Aerni, P. (2005). Stakeholder attitudes towards the risks and benefits of genetically modified crops in South Africa. Environmental Science & Policy, 8, A6A-A16.

Aerni, P. & Bernauer, T. (2006). Stakeholder attitudes toward GMOs in the Philippines, Mexico, and South Africa: The issue of public trust. World Development, 34, 557- 575.

Akerman, A., Granhall, I., Nilsson-Leissner, G., Muntzing, A., & Tedin, O. (1938). Swedish Contributions to the Development of Plant Breeding. Stockholm: Alb. Bonniers Boktryckeri.

Al-Hayani, F. A. (2007). Biomedical ethics: Muslim perspectives on genetic modification. Zygon, 42, 153-162.

Albrow, M. (1997). The Global Age: State and Society Beyond Modernity. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.

Altieri, M. A. (2001). Genetic engineering in agriculture: the myths, environmental risks, and alternatives. Oakland, CA: Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy.

Altieri, M. A. & Rosset, P. (2002). Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect the environment, or reduce poverty in the developing world. In R.Sherlock & J. D. Morrey (Eds.), Ethical issues in biotechnology (pp. 175-182). Lanham, Boulder, New York, Oxford: Rowman & Little Publishers, Inc.

Ambrosoli, M. (1997). The wild and the sown: Botany and agriculture in Western Europe: 1350-1850. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ambrosoli, M. (2003). Random Conservation and Deliberate Diffusion of Botanical Species: Some Evidence out of the Modern European Agricultural Past. In G.Sanga & G. Ortalli (Eds.), Nature Knowledge: Ethnoscience, Cognition, and Utility (pp. 354-385). New York, Oxford: Berghahn Books.

271 American Anthropological Association (1998). Code of Ethics of the American Anthropological Association. http://www.aaanet.org/committees/ethics/ethcode.htm [On-line]. Available: http://www.aaanet.org/committees/etfaics/ethcode.htm

Anderson, R. S., Levy, E., & Morrison, B. M. (1991a). Rice Science and Development Politics: Research Strategies and IRRI's Technolgies Confront Asian Diversity. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Anderson, R. S., Levy, E., & Morrison, B. M. (1991b). Rice Science and Development Politics: Research Strategies and IRRI's Technologies Confront Asian Diversity. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Ando, A. W. & Khanna, M. (2000). Environmental costs and benefits of genetically modified crops - Implications for regulatory strategies. American Behavioral Scientist, 44, 435-463.

Appadurai, A. (1991). Global Ethnoscapes: Notes and Queries for a Transnational Anthropology. In R.Fox (Ed.), Recapturing Anthropology: Working in the Present (pp. 191-210). Santa Fe: School of American Research Press.

Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. Minneapolis & London: University of Minnesota Press.

Aslaksen, I., Natvig, B., & Nordal, I. (2006). Environmental risk and the precautionary principle: "Late lessons from early warnings" applied to genetically modified plants. Journal of Risk Research, 9, 205-224.

Atkinson-Grosjean, J. (2006). Public science, private interests: culture and commerce in Canada's Networks of Centres of Excellence. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Atlas.ti (2007). Atlas.ti - The QDA software, http://www.atlasti.com/index.html [On line]. Available: http://www.atlasti.com/index.html

Baker, G. A. & Burnham, T. A. (2001). Consumer response to genetically modified foods: market segment analysis and implications for producers and policy makers. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 26, 387-403.

272 Baker, G. A. & Mazzocco, M. A. (2002). "Consumer response to GMO foods: Branding, certification, and consumer characteristics.". Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 27, 576.

Bateson, W. (1902). Practical aspects of the new discoveries in heredity. Proceedings of the International Conference on Plant Breeding and Hybridization, Memoirs of the Horticultural Society of New York, Volume 1.1. New York, HSNY. Ref Type: Generic

Bauer, M. W. & Gaskell, G. (2002). Researching the public sphere of biotechnology. In M.W.Bauer & G. Gaskell (Eds.), Biotechnology: The Making of a Global Controversy (pp. 1-17). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press and the Science Museum.

Bauer, M. (2002). Controversial medical and agri-food biotechnology: a cultivation analysis. Public Understanding of Science, 11, 93-111.

Bauman, Z. (1998). Globalization: The Human Consequences. New York: Columbia University Press.

Beck, U. (1992). Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage.

Beck, U. (1999). World Risk Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Beeman, R. S. & Pritchard, J. A. (2001). A Green and Permanent Land: Ecology and Agriculture in the Twentieth Century. Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas.

Bellwood, P. (2005). First Farmers: The Origins of Agricultural Societies. Maiden, MA; Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Belzile, F. J. (2002). Transgenic, Transplastomic and Other Genetically Modified Plants: a Canadian Perspective. Biochimie, 84, 1111-1118.

Bernauer, T. & Meins, E. (2003). Technological revolution meets policy and the market: Explaining cross-national differences in agricultural biotechnology regulation. European Journal of Political Research, 42, 643-683.

273 Boas, F. (1896). The Limitations of the Comparative Method in Anthropology. Science, n.s., 901-908.

Borlaug, N. E. (1997). The Green Revolution: Peace and Humanity: A Speech on the Occasion of the Awarding of the 1970 Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo, Norway on December 11, 1970. The Atlantic Online January. 1-21. 11-26-2003. Ref Type: Journal (Full)

Borlaug, N. E. (2000). Ending World Hunger. The Promise of Biotechnology and the Threat of Antiscience Zealotry. Plant Physiology, 124, 487-490.

Borras, S. (2006). Legitimate governance of risk at the EU level? The case of genetically modified organisms. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 73, 61-75.

Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The Forms of Capital. In J.Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (pp. 241-258). New York: Greenwood Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1997). Pascalian meditations. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.

Bowker, G. C. & Star, S. L. (1999). Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

Brack, D., Falkner, R., & Goll, J. (2003). The Next Trade War? GMProducts, the Cartagena Protocol and the WTO. (Rep. No. Briefing Paper No. 8). London: The Royal Institute of International Affairs.

Brockway, L. H. (1979). Science and Colonial Expansion. New York: Academic Press.

Brookes, G. & Barfoot, P. (2006). Brief 36: GM Crops: The First Ten Years - Global Socio-Economic and Environmental Impacts Ithaca, NY: ISAAA.

Brown, A. D. (2003). Feed or feedback: Agriculture, population dynamics and the state of the planet. Urtecht, the Netherlands: International Books. Bruinsma, M., Kowalchuk, G. A., & van Veen, J. A. (2003). Effects of Genetically Modified Plants on Microbial Communities and Processes in Soil. Biol Fertil Soils, 37, 329-337.

Brunk, C. G., Ellis, B. E., Barrett, S. C. H., Beare-Rogers, J. L., Caulfield, T. A., Fortin, M. et al. (2001). Expert panel on the future of food biotechnology Ottawa: Royal Society of Canada.

Brush, S. (1999). Bioprospecting the Public Domain. Cultural Anthropology, 14, 535- 555.

Brush, S. B. (1992). Reconsidering the Green Revolution: Diversity and Stability in Cradle Areas of Crop Domestication. Human Ecology, 20, 145-167.

Bullock, D. S. & Desquilbet, M. (2002). The economics of non-GMO segregation and identity preservation. Food Policy, 27, 81-99.

Burawoy, M. (2000). Introduction: Reaching for the Global. In M.Burawoy, J. A. Blum, S. George, Z. Gille, T. Gowan, L. Haney, M. Klawiter, S. H. Lopez, S. O Riain, & M. Thayer (Eds.), Global Ethnography: Forces, Connections, and Imaginations in a Postmodern World (pp. 1-40). Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press.

Burkhardt, J. (2001). Agricultural biotechnology and the future benefits argument. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 14, 135-145.

Burton, M., Rigby, D., Young, T., & James, S. (2001). Consumer attitudes to genetically modified organisms in food in the UK. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 28, 479-498.

Busch, L. (2002). The homiletics of risk. Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics, 15, 17-29.

Busch, L. (2007). Comment on: Agricultural Deskilling and the Spread of Genetically Modified Cotton in Warangal by Glenn Davis Stone. Current Anthropology, 48, 87-88. Busch, L., Lacy, W. B., Burkhardt, J., & Lacy, L. R. (1991). Plants, Power, and Profit: Social, Economic, and Ethical Consequences of the New Biotechnologies. Cambridge MA & Oxford UK: Blackwell.

Buttel, F. H. & Goodman, R. M. (2001). Introduction to the scientific, political, and ethical dialogue on genetically modified organisms. In F.H.Buttel & R. M. Goodman (Eds.), Offrankenfoods and golden rice: risks, rewards, and realities of genetically modified foods (pp. 1-13). Wisconsin: Wisconsin Academy of Science, Arts and Letters.

Callon, M. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St. Brieuc Bay. In J.Law (Ed.), Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge? (pp. 196-233). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Callon, M. & Law, J. (1995). Agency and the hybrid collectif. South Atlantic Quarterly, 94, 481-505.

CAMBIA (2008). CAMBIA Homepage, http://www.cambia.org/daisy/cambia/home.html [On-line]. Available: http://www.cambia.org/daisv/cambia/home.html

Cambrosio, A., Young, A., & Lock, M. (2000). Introduction. In M.Lock, A. Young, & A. Cambrosio (Eds.), Living and Working with the New Medical Technologies: Intersections of Inquiry (pp. 1-16). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Canadian Food Inspection Agency (2004). Interim Amendment to DIR2000-07 for Confined Research Field Trials of PNTs for Plant Molecular Farming. http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/plaveg/bio/dir/dir0007ie.shtml [On-line]. Available: http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/plaveg/bio/dir/dir0007ie.shtml

Canadian War Museum (2006). Gallery 1 Battleground: Wars on Our Soil: Earliest times to 1885. http://www.warmuseum.ca/cwm/gallervl e.html [On-line]. Available: http://www.warmuseum.ca/cwm/gallervl e.html

Cartledge, D. (1999). The management of Ensete ventricosum in the Gamo Highlands of Southwest Ethiopia. Culture & Agriculture, 21, 35-38.

Cassaday, K., Fowler, C, Hersey, P. W., & Smale, M. (2001). Benefits from Giving and Receiving Genetic Resources. Plant Genetic Resources, 127, 1-10.

276 Castro, P. & Gomes, I. (2005). Genetically modified organisms in the Portuguese press: Thematization and anchoring. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 35, 1- 17.

Cauvin, J. (2000). The birth of the gods and the origin of agriculture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

CGIAR (2005a). CGIAR Members, http://www.cgiar.org/who/members/index.html [On line]. Available: http://www.cgiar.org/who/members/index.html

CGIAR (2005b). Who We Are - Members - Funding. http://www.cgiar.org/who/membrs/funding.html [On-line]. Available: http://www.cgiar.org/who/membrs/funding.html

Chahal, G. S. & Gosal, S. S. (2002a). Principles and Procedures of Plant Breeding. Pangbourne, UK: Alpha Science International Ltd.

Chahal, G. S. & Gosal, S. S. (2002b). Principles and Procedures of Plant Breeding: Biotechnological and Conventional Approaches. Pangbourne, England: Alpha Science International Ltd.

Chambers, K. J. (2007). From the Kitchen and the Field: Gender and Maize Diversity in the Bajfo of Mexico. In Montreal, Canada: Latin American Studies Association.

Chambers, R. G. & Melkonvan, T. A. (2007). Pareto optimal trade in an uncertain world: GMOs and the precautionary principle. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 89, 520-532.

Chong, M. (2005). Perception of the risks and benefits of Bt eggplant by Indian farmers. Journal of Risk Research, 8, 617-634.

CI AT (2004). CLAT - International Centre for Tropical Agriculture. http://www.ciat.cgiar.org/ [On-line]. Available: http://www.ciat.cgiar.org/

CIAT (2006a). CIAT in Synthesis, http://www.ciat.cgiar.org/about ciat/insvnthesis.htm [On-line]. Available: http://www.ciat.cgiar.org/about ciat/in svnthesis.htm

277 CIAT (2006b). Donors, http://www.ciat.cgiar.org/about ciat/donors.htm [On-line]. Available: http://www.ciat.cgiar.org/about ciat/donors.htm

Clapp, J. (2004). WTO agricultural trade battles and food aid. Third World Quarterly, 25, 1439-1452.

Clapp, J. (2005). The political economy of food aid in an era of agricultural biotechnology. Global Governance, 11, 467-485.

Clark, E. A. (2006). Environmental risks of genetic engineering. Euphytica, 148, 47-60.

Cleveland, D. (1993). Is variety more than the spice of life? Diversity, stability, and sustainable agriculture. Culture & Agriculture, 2-7.

Cleveland, D. (2007). Comment on: Agricultural Deskilling and the Spread of Genetically Modified Cotton in Warangal by Glenn Davis Stone. Current Anthropology, 48, 88-89.

Cleveland, D. & Soleri, D. (2005). Rethinking Risk Management Process for Genetically Engineered Crop Varieties in Small-scale, Traditionally Based Agriculture. Ecology and Society, 10, 9-[online].

Cleveland, D. & Soleri, D. (2007). Farmer Knowledge and Scientist Knowledge in Sustainable Agricultural Development: Ontology, Epistemology, and Praxis. In P.Sillitoe (Ed.), Local Science vs. Global Science: Approaches to Indigenous Knowledge in International Development (New York, Oxford: Berghahn Books.

Cleveland, D. A. & Murray, S. C. (1997). The World's Crop Genetic Resources and the Rights of Indigenous Farmers. Current Anthropology, 38, 477-515.

Cohen, M. (1977). The food crisis in prehistory. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Collier, S. J. & Ong, A. (2005). Global Assemblages, Anthropological Problems. In A.Ong & S. J. Collier (Eds.), Global Assemblages: Technology, Politics, and Ethics as Anthropological Problems (pp. 3-21). Maiden, MA; Oxford, UK; Carlton, Australia: Blackwell Publishing.

278 Comaroff, J. & Comaroff, J. L. (2000). Millennial Capitalism: First Thoughts on a Second Coming. Public Culture, 12, 291-343.

Conner, A. J., Glare, T. R., & Nap, J.-P. (2003). The release of genetically modified crops into the environment: part II overview of ecological risk assessment. The Plant Journal, 33, 19-46.

Cooley, D. R., Goreham, G., & Youngs, G. A. (2004). Practical moral codes in the transgenic organism debate. Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics, 17, 517-544.

Darwin, C. & Wallace, A. R. (1958). Evolution by Natural Selection. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Davenport, B. A. (2000). Witnessing and the medical gaze: how medical students learn to see at a free clinic for the homeless. Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 14, 310- 327.

De Boer, M., McCarthy, M., Brennan, M., Kelly, A. L., & Ritson, C. (2005). Public understanding of food risk issues and food risk messages on the Island of Ireland: The views of food safety experts. Journal of Food Safety, 25, 241-265.

Dean, M. (1994). Critical and effective histories: Foucault's methods and historical sociology. London, New York: Routledge.

Degnen, C. (2006). Softly, softly: Comparative silences in British stories of genetic modification. Focaal: european journal of anthropology, 2006, 67-82.

Denzin, N. K., Lincoln, Y. S., & eds. (1994). Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Dimitri, C, Effland, A., & Conklin, N. (2005). The 20th Century Transformation of U.S. Agriculture and Farm Policy. Economic Information Bulletin, 3, 1-13.

Doing, P. (2004). 'Lab Hands' and the Scarlet 'O': Epistemic Politics and (Scientific) Labour. Social Studies of Science, 34, 299-323.

Douglas, M. (1966). Purity and Danger. London: Routledge. Douglas, M. (1992). Risk and Blame: Essays in Cultural Theory. London: Routledge.

Douguet, J. M. & O'Connor, M. (2003). Maintaining the integrity of the French terrain a study of critical natural capital in its cultural context. Ecological Economics, 44, 233-254.

Downey, G. L. & Dumit, J. (1997). Locating and Intervening: An Introduction. In G.L.Downey & J. Dumit (Eds.), Cyborgs & Citadels: Anthropological Interventions in Emerging Sciences and Technologies (pp. 5-29). Santa Fe, New Mexico: School of American Research Press.

Doyle, J. (1985). Altered Harvest: Agriculture, Genetics, and the Fate of the World's Food Supply. New York: Viking.

Drayton, R. (2000). Nature's Government: Science, Imperial Britain, and the 'Improvement' of the World. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

Drezner, D. W. (2005). Globalization, harmonization, and competition: the different pathways to policy convergence. Journal of European Public Policy, 12, 841-859.

Dumit, J. & Davis-Floyd, R. (1998). Introduction: Cyborg Babies: Children of the Third Millenium. In R.Davis-Floyd & J. Dumit (Eds.), Cyborg Babies: From Techno- Sex to Techno-Tots (pp. 1-18). New York: Routledge.

Edelman, M. (1999). Peasants Against Globalization: Rural Social Movements in Costa Rica. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Ekstrom, K. M. & Askegaard, S. (2000). Daily consumption in risk society: The case of genetically modified food. Advances in Consumer Research, Vol 27, 27, 237-243.

Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (1995). Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

Encyclopaedia Britannica Online (2007). Colombia. http://www.britannica.com/nations/Colombia [On-line]. Available: http://www.britannica.com/nations/Colombia

280 Encyclopaedia Britannica Online (2008). Canada Introduction. http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9359626 [On-line].

Ervin, D. E., Welsh, R., Batie, S. S., & Carpentier, C. L. (2003). Review: Towards an Ecological Systems Approach in Public Research for Environmental Regulation of Transgenic Crops. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 99, 1-14.

Escobar, A. (1995). Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Etkin, N. (2000). Book Review: Cultural Memory and Biodiversity. American Anthropologist, 102, 955-956.

Falcon, W. P. & Fowler, C. (2002). Carving Up the Commons - Emergence of a New International Regime for Germplasm Development and Transfer. Food Policy, 27, 197-222.

Farmer, P. (2001). Infections and Inequalities: The Modern Plagues. (Paperback ed.) Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press.

Fedoroff, N. V. (2003). Prehistoric GM Corn. Science, 302, 1158-1159.

Ferguson, A. & Mkandawire, R. (1993). Common Beans and Farmer Managed Diversity: Regional Variations in Malawi. Culture & Agriculture, 14-17.

Ferguson, J. (1999). Expectations of Modernity: Myths and Meanings of Urban Life on the Zambian Copperbelt. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Fischer, M. M. J. (2003). Emergent Forms of Life and the Anthropological Voice. Durham and London: Duke University Press.

Fitting, E. (2006a). Importing corn, exporting labor: The neoliberal corn regime, GMOs, and the erosion of Mexican biodiversity. Agriculture and Human Values, 23, 15- 26.

Fitting, E. (2006b). The political uses of culture: Maize production and the GM corn debates in Mexico. Focaal: european journal of anthropology, 2006, 17-34.

281 Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making social science matter: why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Foucault, M. (1973). The birth of the clinic : an archaeology of medical perception. New York: Pantheon.

Foucault, M. (1978). The History of Sexuality. New York: Pantheon Books.

Foucault, M. (1979). Discipline and Punish: the birth of the prison. New York: Vintage Books.

Franklin, S. (2005). Stem Cells R Us: Emergent Life Forms and the Global Biological. In A.Ong & S. J. Collier (Eds.), Global Assemblages: Technology, Politics, and Ethics as Anthropological Problems (pp. 59-78). Maiden, MA, USA; Oxford, UK; Victoria, Australia: Blackwell Publishing.

Franklin, S. & Lock, M. (2003). Animation and cessation: the remaking of life and death. In S.Franklin & M. Lock (Eds.), Remaking life and death: toward an anthropology of the biosciences (pp. 3-22). Santa Fe: School of American Research Press.

Friedman, T. L. (1999). The Lexus and The Olive Tree. New York: Farrar Strauss Giroux.

Gaskell, G., Allum, N., Wagner, W., Nielsen, T. H., Jelsoe, E., Kohring, M. et al. (2001). In the Public Eye: Representations of Biotechnology in Europe. In G.Gaskell & M. Bauer (Eds.), Biotechnology 1996-2000: the Years of Controversy (pp. 53-79). London: Science Museum.

Gaskell, G. & Bauer, M. W. (2001). Part I Introduction: Biotechnology in the years of controversy - a social scientific perspective. In G.Gaskell & M. W. Bauer (Eds.), Biotechnology 1996-2000: the years of controversy (pp. 3-11). London: Science Museum.

Geels, F. W. (2007). Feelings of Discontent and the Promise of Middle Range Theory for STS: Examples from Technology Dynamics. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 32, 627-651.

Geertz, C. (1973). Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese Cockfight. In The Interpretation of Cultures (pp. 412-453). New York: Basic Books.

282 Gent, R. N. (1999). Genetically modified organisms: an analysis of the regulatory framework currently employed within the European Union. Journal of Public Health Medicine, 21, 278-282.

Gepts, P. (2002). A comparison between crop domestication, classical plant breeding, and genetic engineering. Crop Science, 42, 1780.

Gieryn, T. F. (1983). Boundary-Work and the Demarcation of Science from Non-Science; Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists. American Sociological Review, 48, 781-795.

Gill, S. (1997). Global Structural Change and Multilateralism. In S.Gill (Ed.), Globalization, Democratization, and Multilateralism (pp. 1-17). Tokyo, New York, Paris: United Nations University Press.

Gilpin, R. (2001). Global Political Economy: Understanding the International Economic Order. Princeton & Oxford: Princeton University Press.

Girvan, N. (2007). Power Imbalances and Development Knowledge http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/57/21/39447872.pdf: The North-South Institute.

Glick Schiller, N. & Fouron, G. E. (2001). Georges Woke Up Laughing: Long-distance Nationalism & the Search for Home. Durham: Duke University Press.

Global Crop Diversity Trust (2006). Artie Seed Vault. http://www.croptrust.org/main/topics.php [On-line]. Available: http://www.croptrust.org/main/topics.php

Global Knowledge Centre on Crop Biotechnology (2004). Global Status: Distribution of Transgenic Crops, by Trait, http://www.isaaa.org/kc/ [On-line]. Available: http ://www. i saaa. or g/kc/

Godwin, I. (2003). Plant germplasm collections as sources of useful genes. In H.J.Newbury (Ed.), Plant Molecular Breeding (pp. 134-151). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

283 Good, B. J. & Good, M.-J. D. (1993). "Learning medicine": the construction of medical knowledge at Harvard Medical School. In S.Lindenbaum & M. Lock (Eds.), Knowledge, power, and practice: the anthropology of medicine and everyday life (pp. 81-107). Berkeley: University of California Press.

Goodman, D. & Dupuis, E. M. (2002). Knowing food and growing food: Beyond the production-consumption debate in the sociology of agriculture. Sociologia Ruralis, 42, 5-22.

Graham, J. E., Mitnitski, A. B., Mogilner, A. J., Gauvreau, D., & Rockwood, K. (1996). Symptoms and Signs in Dementia Synergy and Antagonism. Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders, 7, 331-335.

Graham, J. E. (2006). Diagnosing Dementia: Epidemiological and Clinical Data as Cultural Text. In A.Leibing & L. Cohen (Eds.), Thinking about Dementia (pp. 80- 105). New Jersey: Rutgers University Press.

Graham, J. E. & Ritchie, K. (2006). MILD COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENT: Ethical Considerations for Nosological Flexibility in Human Kinds. Philosophy, Psychiatry & Psychology : PPP, 13, 31.

Gras, C. & Hernandez, V. (2007). Agricultura globalizada, institucionalidad y subjectividades: La tierra como objeto cristalizador de conflictos. In Montreal: Latin American Studies Association Congress, 2007.

Greenpeace (2003). Failings of GE. http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/genetic-engineering/failings- of-ge [On-line].

Griesse, M. A. (2007). Developing social responsibility: Biotechnology and the case of DuPont in Brazil. Journal of Business Ethics, 73, 103-118.

Grossman, M. R. & Endres, A. B. (2000). Regulation of genetically modified organisms in the European Union. American Behavioral Scientist, 44, 378-434.

Gupta, A. & Falkner, R. (2006). The influence of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety: Comparing Mexico, China and South Africa. Global Environmental Politics, 6, 23-55.

284 Gupta, A. (1997). The Song of the Nonaligned World: Transnational Identities and the Reinscription of Space in Late Capitalism. In A.Gupta & J. Ferguson (Eds.), Culture, Power, Place: Explorations in Critical Anthropology (pp. 179-199). Durham, London: Duke University Press.

Haaland, R. (1999). The puzzle of the late mergence of domesticated sorghum in the Nile valley. In C.Gosden & J. Hather (Eds.), The prehistory of food (pp. 397-418). London: Routledge.

Hacking, I. (1990). The Taming of Chance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hacking, I. (2002). Historical Ontology. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Hammersley, M. & Atkinson, P. (1995). Ethnography: Principles in Practice. (2nd ed.) London and New York: Routledge.

Hannerz, U. (2002). Notes on the Global Ecumene (1989). In J.X.Inda & R. Rosaldo (Eds.), The Anthropology of Globalization (pp. 37-45). Maiden, Mass and Oxford: Blackwell.

Hannerz, U. (2003). Being there .... and there .... and there! Reflections on multi-site ethnography. Ethnography, 4, 201-216.

Hansen, K. (2004). Does autonomy count in favor of labeling genetically modified food? Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics, 17, 67-76.

Haraway, D. J. (1997a). Mice into Wormhole: A Comment on the Nature of No Nature. In G.L.Downey & J. Dumit (Eds.), Cyborgs & Citadels: Anthropological Interventions in Emerging Sciences and Technologies (pp. 209-244). Santa Fe, New Mexico: School of American Research Press.

Haraway, D. J. (1997b). Modest_Witness@Second_Millennium. FemaleMan_Meets_OncoMouse. New York: Routledge.

Harding, S. (1993). Rethinking standpoint epistemology: What is strong objectivity? In L.Alcoff & E. Potter (Eds.), Feminist Epistemologies (pp. 49-82). London: Routledge. Harding, S. (1998). Is Science Multi-Cultural? Postcolonialisms, Feminisms, and Epistemologies. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.

Harding, S. (2006). Outside the Lab/Fieldsite. In Final Program for the Society for the Social Study of Science (pp. 243-244). Vancouver, BC: http://www.4sonline.org/4SProg wAbstracts.pdf.

Harvey, D. (2000). Spaces of Hope. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Hayden, C. (2003). When Nature Goes Public: The Making and Unmaking of Bioprospecting in Mexico. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Heath, D. (1997). Bodies, antibodies, and modest interventions. In G.L.Downey & J. Dumit (Eds.), Cyborgs & citadels: anthropological interventions in emerging sciences and technologies (pp. 67-82). Santa Fe, New Mexico: School of American Research Press.

Heath, D. & Meneley, A. (2007). Techne, Technoscience, and the Circulation of Comestible Commodities: An Introduction. American Anthropologist, 109, 593- 602.

Held, D., McGrew, A., Goldblatt, D., & Perraton, J. (1999). Global Transformations: Politics, Economics and Culture. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.

Heller, C. (2001). From risk to globalization: Discursive shifts in the french debate about GMOs. Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 15, 25-28.

Heller, C. (2002). From scientific risk to paysan savoir-faire: peasant expertise in the French and global debate over GM crops. Science as Culture, 11, 5-37.

Heller, C. (2007). Techne versus Technoscience: Divergent (and Ambiguous) Notions of Food Quality in the French Debate over GM Crops. American Anthropologist, 109, 603-615.

Herrera-Estrella, L. R. (2000). Genetically Modified Crops and Developing Countries. Plant Physiology, 124, 923-925. Herrick, C. B. (2005). 'Cultures of GM': discourses of risk and labelling of GMOs in the UK and EU. Area, 37, 286-294.

Herring, R. J. (2007). Stealth seeds: Bioproperty, biosafety, biopolitics. Journal of Development Studies, 43, 130-157.

Hess, D. (1997a). If You're Thinking of Living in STS: A Guide for the Perplexed. In G.L.Downey & J. Dumit (Eds.), Cyborgs & Citadels: Anthropological Interventions in Emerging Sciences and Technologies (pp. 143-164). Santa Fe, New Mexico: School of American Research Press.

Hess, D. (1997b). Science studies: an advanced introduction. New York: New York University Press.

Hess, D. (2001a). Ethnography and the Development of Science and Technology Studies. In P.Atkinson, A. Coffey, S. Delamont, J. Lofland, & L. Lofland (Eds.), Handbook of Ethnography (pp. 234-245). London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage Publications.

Hess, D. (2001b). Selecting technology, science and medicine: alternative pathways in globalization. Niskayuna, New York: David J. Hess.

Hess, D. (2007). Alternative pathways in Science and Industry: Activism, Innovation, and the Environment in an Era of Globalization. Cambridge, MA and London, England: The MIT Press.

Hightower, J. (2004). Frankenfood: Corporate bioengineers tinker merrily and dangerously with the DNA of food. Utne.com [On-line]. Available: http://www.utne.com/2004-06-01/frankenfood.aspx

Hillman, G. & Davies, M. (1990). Measured domestication rates in wild wheat and barley. Journal of'World Prehistory, 4, 157-222.

Hine, C. (2007). Multi-sited Ethnography as a Middle Range Methodology for Contemporary STS. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 32, 652-671.

Hoffmann-Riem, H. & Wynne, B. (2002). In risk assessment, one has to admit ignorance: explaining there are things we can't know could improve public confidence in science. Nature, 416, 123.

287 Holmes, C. (2006). GMOs in the Lab: Objects without Everyday Controversy. Focaal: european journal of anthropology, 2006, 35-48.

Hood, E. E. (2003). Selecting the Fruits of Your Labours. TRENDS in Plant Science, 8, 357-358.

Horlick-Jones, T., Walls, J., Rowe, G., Pidgeon, N., Poortinga, W., & O'Riordan, T. (2006). On evaluating the GM Nation? Public debate about the commercialisation of transgenic crops in Britain. New Genetics and Society, 25, 265-288.

Hospital, F. (2003). Marker-assisted breeding. In H.J.Newbury (Ed.), Plant Molecular Breeding (pp. 30-59). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Howse, R. (2004). The WHO/WTO study on trade and public health: A critical assessment. Risk Analysis, 24, 501-507.

Hutchinson, D. S. (1995). Ethics. In J.Barnes (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to Aristotle (pp. 195-232). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Inda, J. X. & Rosaldo, R. (2002). Introduction: A World in Motion. In J.X.Inda & R. Rosaldo (Eds.), The Anthropology of Globalization: A Reader (pp. 1-34). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

James, C. (2004). Preview: Global Status of Commercialized Transgenic Crops: 2003. IS AAA Briefs No.30 [On-line]. Available: http://www.isaaa.org/kc/CBTNews/press release/briefs30/es b30.pdf

Jameson, F. (1998). Notes on Globalization as a Philosophical Issue. In F.Jameson & M. Miyoshi (Eds.), The Cultures of Globalization (pp. 54-77). Durham: Duke University Press.

Jasanoff, S. (2005). Law's knowledge: science for justice in legal settings. Am.J.Public Health., 95 Suppl l:S49-58., S49-S58.

Jasanoff, S. S. (1987). Contested Boundaries in Policy-Relevant Science. Social Studies of Science, 17, 195-230.

288 Jauhar, P. P. (2006). Modern Biotechnology as an Integral Supplement to Conventional Plant Breeding: The Prospects and Challenges. Crop Science, 46, 1841-1859.

Jensen, N. (1994). Historical Perspectives on Plant Breeding Methodology. In KJ.Frey (Ed.), Historical Perspectives in Plant Science (pp. 179-194). Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press.

Joint FAO and WHO Expert Consultation on Foods Derives from Biotechnology (2000). Safety Aspects of Genetically Modified Foods of Plant Origin Geneva: World Health Organization.

Kammen, D. M. & Dove, M. R. (1997). The Virtues of Mundane Science. Environment, 39, 10-15-38-41.

Karlsson, M. (2003). Ethics of sustainable development - A study of Swedish regulations for genetically modified organisms. Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics, 16, 51-62.

Kearsey, M. J. & Luo, Z. W. (2003). Mapping, characterization and deployment of quantitative trait loci. In H.J.Newbury (Ed.), Plant Molecular Breeding (pp. 1-29). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Keating, P. & Cambrosio, A. (2003). Biomedical Platforms: Realigning the Normal and the Pathological in Late-Twentieth-Century Medicine. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England: The MIT Press.

Keeley, J. (2006). Balancing technological innovation and environmental regulation: An analysis of Chinese agricultural biotechnology governance. Environmental Politics, 15, 293-309.

Kislev, M. E., Hartmann, A., & Bar-Yosef, O. (2006). Early Domesticated Fig in the Jordan Valley. Science, 312, 1372-1374.

Kloppenburg, J. R. (1988). First the Seed: The Political Economy of Plant Biotechnology, 1492-2000. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

289 Knauft, B. M. (1996). Geneologies for the Present. New York and London: Routledge.

Kneen, B. (1999). Farmageddon: Food and the Culture of Biotechnology. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers.

Knight, J. (2003). Crop Improvement: A dying breed. Nature, 421, 568-570.

Knorr-Cetina, K. (1981). The Manufacture of Knowledge. New York: Pergamon.

Kondoh, K. & Jussaume, R. A. (2006). Contextualizing farmers' attitudes towards genetically modified crops. Agriculture and Human Values, 23, 341-352.

Kunkel, J. (2006). What Makes a Good Model System? http://www.bio.umass.edu/biology/kunkel/modelsvs.html [On-line].

Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Lacy, S., Cleveland, D., & Soleri, D. (2006). Farmer Choice of Sorghum Varieties in Southern Mali. Human Ecology, 34, 331-353.

Latour, B. (1983). Give Me a Laboratory and I will Raise the World. In K.Knorr & M. Mulkay (Eds.), Science Observed: Perspectives on the social study of science (pp. 141-170). London: Sage.

Latour, B. (1987). Science In Action. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Latour, B. (1993). We Have Never Been Modern. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Latour, B. (2004). Politics of nature: how to bring the sciences into democracy. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: an introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford, New York: Oxford University press. Latour, B. & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Latour, B. & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. (Princeton Paperback printing ed.) Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Levidow, L. (2002). Ignorance-based risk assessment? Scientific controversy over GM food safety. Science as Culture, 11, 61-67.

Levings III, C. S., Korth, K. L., & Ward, G. C. (1994). Current Perspectives: The Impact of Biotechnology on Plant Improvement. In K.J.Frey (Ed.), Historical Perspectives in Plant Science (pp. 133-162). Ames: Iowa State University Press.

Lewontin, R. (1993). Biology as Ideology: The Doctrine ofDNA. (1st US ed. ed.) New York: HarperPerennial.

Lewontin, R. (2001). Genes in the Food! In It Ain't Necessarily So: The Dream of the Human Genome and Other Illusions (2nd ed., pp. 341-368). New York: New York Review Books.

Lezaun, J. (2006). Creating a new object of government: Making genetically modified organisms traceable. Social Studies of Science, 36, 499-531.

Lindee, M. S., Goodman, A. H., & Heath, D. (2003). Introduction: Anthropology in an Age of Genetics: Practice, Discourse, and Critique. In A.H.Goodman, D. Heath, & M. S. Lindee (Eds.), Genetic Nature/Culture: Anthropology and Science beyond the Two-Culture Divide (pp. 1-19). Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press.

Lofstedt, R. E., Fischhoff, B., & Fischhoff, I. R. (2002). Precautionary principles: General definitions and specific applications to genetically modified organisms. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 21, 381-407.

Lopez, J. J. & Robertson, A. (2007). Ethics or Politics? The Emergence of ELSI Discourse in Canada. The Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 44, 201-19.

Lu, T. (1998). The Transition from foraging to farming and the origin of agriculture in China. Oxford: BAR International Series 774.

291 Lurquin, P. F. (2001). The Green Phoenix: A History of Genetically Modified Plants. New York: Columbia University Press.

Lusk, J. L., Daniel, M. S., Mark, D. R., & Lusk, C. L. (2001). Alternative calibration and auction institutions for predicting consumer willingness to pay for nongenetically modified corn chips. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 26, 40-57.

Lynch, M. (1985). Art and Artifact in the Laboratory. London: Routledge.

Madsen, K. H., Holm, P. B., Lassen, J., & Sandoe, P. (2002). Ranking genetically modified plants according to familiarity. Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics, 15, 267-278.

Maekawa, F. & Macer, D. (2004). How Japanese students reason about agricultural biotechnology. Science and Engineering Ethics, 10, 705-716.

Malinowski, B. (1961). Argonauts of the Western Pacific. New York: E.P. Dutton.

Marcus, G. E. (1995). Ethnography in/of the world system: The emergence of multi-sited ethnography. Annual Review of Anthropology, 24, 95-117.

Marcus, G. E. (1998). Ethnography Through Thick and Thin. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Martin, E. (1997). Anthropology and the Cultural Study of Science: From Citadels to String Figures. In A.Gupta & J. Ferguson (Eds.), Anthropological Locations: Boundaries and Grounds of a Field Science (pp. 131-146). Berkeley: University of California Press.

Martin, E., Oaks, L., Taussig, K.-S., & van der Straten, A. (1997). AIDS, Knowledge, and Discrimination in the Inner City: An Anthropological Analysis of the Experiences of Injection Drug Users. In G.L.Downey & J. Dumit (Eds.), Cyborgs & Citadels: Anthropological Interventions in Emerging Sciences and Technologies (pp. 49- 66). Santa Fe, New Mexico: School of American Research Press.

Mayer, S. & Stirling, A. (2002). Finding a precautionary approach to technological developments - Lessons for the evaluation of GM crops. Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics, 15, 57-71.

292 McAllister, L. K. (2005). Judging GMOs: Judicial application of the precautionary principle in Brazil. Ecology Law Quarterly, 32, 149-174.

McGloughlin, M. (2002). Ten reasons why biotechnology will be important in the developing world. In R.Sherlock & J. D. Morrey (Eds.), Ethical issues in biotechnology (pp. 161-173). Lanham, Boulder, New York, Oxford: Rowman & Little Publishers, Inc.

Ministerio de Agricultura y Desarollo Rural (2006). Trangenicos al Dia. http://www.minagricultura.gov.co/archivos/TRANSGENICOS.pdf [On-line]. Available: http://www.mmagricultura.gov.co/archivos/TRANSGENICOS.pdf

Mintz, S. (1985). Sweetness and Power: The Place of Sugar in Modern History. New York: Penguin Books.

Mintz, S. (1996). Tasting Food, Tasting Freedom: Excursions into Eating, Culture, and the Past. Boston: Beacon Press.

Mirowski, P. & Sent, E.-M. (2008). The Commercialization of Science and the Response of STS. In E.J.Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, & J. Wajcman (Eds.), The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (Third ed., pp. 635-689). Cambridge, Mass.; London, England: The MIT Press.

Mittleman, J. (1997). Restructuring the Global Division of Labour: Old Theories and New Realities. In S.Gill (Ed.), Globalization, Democratization and Multilateralism (pp. 77-103). Tokyo, New York, Paris: United Nations University Press.

Miyoshi, M. (1998). "Globalization," Culture, and the University. In The Cultures of Globalization. In F.Jameson & M. Miyoshi (Eds.), The Cultures of Globalization (pp. 247-270). USA: Duke University Press.

Mody, C. C. (2005). The Sounds of Science: Listening to Laboratory Practice. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 30, 175-198.

Morgan, L. H. (1985). Ancient Society. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

Mosse, D. (2005). Cultivating Development: An Ethnography of Aid Policy and Practice. London, Ann Arbor, MI: Pluto Press. Miiller, B. (2006a). Infringing and trespassing plants: Patented seeds at dispute in Canada's courts. Focaal: european journal of anthropology, 2006, 83-98.

Miiller, B. (2006b). Introduction: GMOs—global objects of contention. Focaal: european journal of anthropology, 2006, 3-16.

Munro, A. (2003). Monopolization and the regulation of genetically modified crops: an economic model. Environment and Development Economics, 8, 167-186.

Murashige, T. & Skoog, F. (1962). A Revised Medium for Rapid Growth and Bioassays with Tobacco Tissue Culture. Physiol.Plantarum, 15, A13-A91.

Murillo, M. A. (2004). Colombia and the United States: War, Unrest, and Destabalization. New York: Seven Stories Press.

Murphy, J., Levidow, L., & Carr, S. (2006). Regulatory standards for environmental risks: Understanding the US-European union conflict over genetically modified crops. Social Studies of Science, 36, 133-160.

Murphy, J. & Yanacopulos, H. (2005). Understanding governance and networks: EU-US interactions and the regulation of genetically modified organisms. Geoforum, 36, 593-606.

Murphy, R. F. & Steward, J. (1956). Tappers and Trappers: Parallel Processes in Acculturation. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 4, 335-355.

Myhr, A. I. & Traavik, T. (2002). The precautionary principle: Scientific uncertainty and omitted research in the context of GMO use and release. Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics, 15, 73-86.

Myhr, A. I. & Traavik, T. (2003). Sustainable development and Norwegian genetic engineering regulations: Applications, impacts, and challenges. Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics, 16, 317-335.

Myskja, B. K. (2006). The moral difference between intragenic and transgenic modification of plants. Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics, 19, 225- 238.

294 Nader, L. (1972). Up the Anthropologist - Perspectives Gained from Studying Up. In D.Hymes (Ed.), Reinventing Anthropology (pp. 284-311). New York: Random House.

Nader, L. (1996). Anthropological Inquiry into Boundaries, Power, and Knowledge. In L.Nader (Ed.), Naked Science: Anthropological Inquiry into Boundaries, Power, and Knowledge (pp. 1-25). New York & London: Routledge.

Napier, T. L., Tucker, M., Henry, C, & Whaley, S. R. (2004). Consumer attitudes toward GMOs: the Ohio experience. Journal of Food Science, 69, R69-R76.

National Research Council (2004). Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods: Approaches to Assessing Unintended Health Effects Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Nazarea, V. (1998). Cultural Memory and Biodiversity. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

Nelkin, D. & Lindee, M. S. (1995). The DNA Mystique: the gene as a cultural icon. New York: Freeman.

Newell, P. & Glover, D. (2003). Business and Biotechnology: Regulation and the Politics of Influence (Rep. No. IDS Working Paper 192). Brighton, Sussex: Institute of Development Studies.

Nielsen, A. P., Lassen, J., & Sandoe, P. (2007). Democracy at its best? The consensus conference in a cross-national perspective. Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics, 20, 13-35.

Nielsen, C. P. & Anderson, K. (2001). Global market effects of alternative European responses to genetically modified organisms. Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv-Review of World Economics, 137, 320-346.

Noussair, C, Robin, S., & Ruffieux, B. (2002). Do consumers not care about biotech foods or do they just not read the labels? Economics Letters, 75, 47-53.

Oberthur, S. & Gehring, T. (2006). Institutional interaction in global environmental governance: The case of the Cartagena Protocol and the World Trade Organization. Global Environmental Politics, 6, 1-31.

295 Pagis, J. (2006). Behind their common struggle against GMOs: Political cultures that divide. Focaal: european journal of anthropology, 2006, 49-66.

Palladino, P. (1996). Science, technology, and the economy: plant breeding in Great Britain, 1920-1970. Economic History Review, XLIX, 116-136.

Palladino, P. (2002). Plants, patients and the historian: (Re)membering in the age of genetic engineering. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Parayil, G. (2003). Mapping Technological Trajectories of the Green Revolution and the Gene Revolution from Modernization to Globalization. Research Policy, 32, 971- 990.

Peel, J. (2006). A GMO by any other name... might be an SPS risk!: Implications of expanding the scope of the WTO sanitary and phytosanitary measures agreement. European Journal of International Law, 17, 1009-1031.

Pellizzoni, L. (2001). Democracy and the governance of uncertainty - The case of agricultural gene technologies. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 86, 205-222.

Perelmuter, T. (2007). El Acuerdo de la OMC sobre Propiedad Intelectual (TRIPs) y el nuevo modelo agroalimentario argentino. Sus incidencias sobre la autonomia de los productores agrarios. In Montreal: Latin American Studies Association Congress, 2007.

Perkins, J. H. (1997). Geopolitics and the Green Revolution: Wheat, Genes, and the Cold War. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Peschard, K. (2007). Between Global Capital and Peasant Autonomy: An Ethnography of Transgenic Seed in Brazil. In Montreal: Latin American Studies Association Congress 2007.

Plahuta, P., Tivadar, B., & Raspor, P. (2007). Slovenian public opinion regarding genetically modified organisms in winemaking. Acta Alimentaria, 36, 61-73.

Poortinga, W. & Pidgeon, N. (2004). Public Perceptions of Genetically Modified Food and Crops, and the GMNation? Public Debate on the Commercialization of Agricultural Biotechnology in the UK (Understanding Risk Working Paper 04-01) Norwich: Centre for Environmental Risk.

296 Poortinga, W. & Pidgeon, N. F. (2006). Exploring the structure of attitudes toward genetically modified food. Risk Analysis, 26, 1707-1719.

Potrykus, I. (2001). Golden rice and beyond. Plant Physiology, 125, 1157-1161.

Pottier, J. (1999). Anthropology of Food: The Social Dynamics of Food Security. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Preston, R. J. (1970). Review of Contributions to Anthropology: Ecological Essays. American Anthropologist, 72, 1471-1474.

Pretty, J. (2002). Agri-Culture: Reconnecting People, Land and Nature. London: Earthscan Publications Ltd.

Puddephat, I. (2003). Plant genetic engineering. In H.J.Newbury (Ed.), Plant Molecular Breeding (pp. 82-133). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Pusztai, A. (2002). GM Food Safety: Scientific and Institutional Issues. Science as Culture, 11, 69-92.

Qvist, H. W., Lundsgaard, FL, & Brandt, J. (2006). GMO neighbourhoods - Will co existence be a geographically realistic possibility? Geografiska Annaler Series B- Human Geography, 88B, 199-213.

Rabinow, P. (1996). Making PCR: A Story of Biotechnology. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.

Reeves, T. G. & Cassaday, K. (2002). History and past achievements of plant breeding. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 53, 851-863.

Rhodus, T. (2002a). History of Horticulture: 18th Century. http://hcs.osu.edu/hort/l8th.html [On-line].

Rhodus, T. (2002b). History of Horticulture: Knight, Thomas Andrew 1759-1838. http://hcs.osu.edu/hort/history/079.html [On-line].

Richards, P. (1985). Indigenous Agricultural Revolution. London and Melbourne: Hutchinson. Rigby, D. & Burton, M. (2006). Modeling disinterest and dislike: A bounded bayesian mixed logit model of the UK market for GM food. Environmental & Resource Economics, 33, 485-509.

Rindos, D. (1984). The origins of agriculture: An evolutionary perspective. Orlando: Academic Press, Inc.

Riseman, A. (1-15-2002). Notes for Biology 443 Plant Breeding and Biotechnology. Ref Type: Unpublished Work

Robinson, R. A. (1996). Return to Resistance: Breeding Crops to Reduce Pesticide Dependence. Davis, California and Ottawa: agAccess and International Development Research Centre.

Rouse, R. (1995). Thinking Through Transnationalism. Notes on the Cultural Politics of Class Relations in the Contemporary United States. Public Culture, 7, 353-402.

Safford, F. & Palacios, M. (2002). Colombia: Fragmented Land, Divided Society. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Schmidt, M. R. & Wei, W. (2006). Loss of agro-biodiversity, uncertainty, and perceived control: A comparative risk perception study in Austria and China. Risk Analysis, 26, 455-470.

Schumacher, E. F. (1973). Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered. London: Blond and Briggs.

Scoones, I. (2002). Agricultural Biotechnology and Food Security: Exploring the Debate (Rep. No. IDS Working Paper 145). Brighton, Sussex: Institute of Development Studies.

Secord, J. A. (1985). Darwin and the Breeders: A Social History. In D.Kohn (Ed.), The Darwinian Heritage (pp. 519-542). Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Seifert, F. (2006). Upper Austria's ban on genetically modified organisms - Predictable failure, unusual alliances. Sws-Rundschau, 46, 409-431.

298 Sheehan, E. A. (1993). The Academic as Informant: Methodological and Theoretical Issues in the Ethnography of Intellectuals. Human Organization, 52, 252-259.

Sheldon, I. M. (2002). Regulation of biotechnology: will we ever 'freely' trade GMOs? European Review of Agricultural Economics, 29, 155-176.

Shepard, C. J. (2005). Agricultural Development NGOs, Anthropology, and the Encounter with Cultural Knowledge. Culture & Agriculture, 27, 35-44.

Shiva, V. (2000). Stolen Harvest. Cambridge, MA: South End Press.

Shostak, S. (2007). Translating at Work: Genetically Modified Mouse Models and Molecularization in the Environmental Health Sciences. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 32, 315-338.

Sider, G. & Smith, G. (1997b). Introduction. In G.Sider & G. Smith (Eds.), Between History and Histories: The Making of Silences and Commemorations (pp. 3-28). Toronto, Buffalo, London: University of Toronto Press.

Sider, G. & Smith, G. (1997a). Introduction. In Between History and Histories: the making of silences and commemorations ( Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Simmonds, N. W. (1993). Introgression and Incorporation. Strategies for the Use of Crop Genetic Resources. Biological Reviews, 68, 539-562.

Simmonds, N. W. (1979). Principles of Crop Improvement. New York, NY: Longman.

Sjoberg, L., Peterson, M., Fromm, J., Boholm, A., & Hanson, S. O. (2005). Neglected and overemphasized risks: the opinions of risk professionals. Journal of Risk Research, 8, 599-616.

Sklair, L. (2000). Social Movements and Global Capitalism (1995). In J.T.Roberts & A. Hite (Eds.), From Modernization to Globalization: Perspectives on Development and Social Change (pp. 340-352). Maiden, Mass: Blackwell.

Skogstad, G. (2003). Legitimacy and/or policy effectiveness?: network governance and GMO regulation in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy, 10, 321-338.

299 Smalley, J. & Blake, M. (2003). Sweet beginnings: stalk sugar and the domestication of maize. Current Anthropology, 44, 675-704.

Smith, B. D. (1995). The emergence of agriculture. New York: Scientific American Library.

Smith, G. (1999). Confronting the present: towards a politically engaged anthropology. Oxford - New York: Berg.

Soleri, D., Cleveland, D., Aragon, F., Fuentes L., M. R., Rios L., H., & Sweeney, S. H. (2005). Understanding the Potential Impact of Transgenic Crops in Traditional Agriculture: Maize Farmers' Perspective in Cuba, Guatemala, and Mexico. Environ.Biosafety Res., 4, 144-166.

Soleri, D., Cleveland, D., Glasgow, G., Sweeney, S. H., Aragon Cuevas, F., Fuentes, M. R. et al. (2008). Testing Assumptions Underlying Economic Research on Transgenic Food Crops for Third World Farmers: Evidence from Cuba, Guatemala and Mexico. Ecological Economics, [In Press].

Spybey, T. (1996). Globalization and World Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Squire, F. A. (1943). Notes on Mende rice varieties. Sierra Leone Agricultural Notes, 10.

Stanford, Q. H. (1998). Canadian Oxford World Atlas, 4th edition. Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press.

Star, S. L. & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional Ecology, "Translation," and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science, 19, 387-420.

Statistics Canada (2001a). 2001 Census of Agriculture: Agriculture-Population linkage data. http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/95F0303XIE/index.htm [On-line].

Statistics Canada (2001b). Farm and non-farm populations, 1921-2001. http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/95F0303XIE/tables/html/agpopl4.htm [On line].

300 Statistics Canada (2005). Population urban and rural, by province and territory. http://www40.statcan.ca/101 /cstO 1 /demo62a.htm [On-line].

Statistics Canada (2007). Canada's population estimates. http://www.statcan.ca/Dailv/English/071219/d071219b.htm [On-line].

Stebbins, G. L. (1994). Biological Revolutions of Thought during the Twentieth Century. In KJ.Frey (Ed.), Historical Perspectives in Plant Science (pp. 3-21). Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press.

Steinberg, M. K. (2001). Valuing Diversity: The role of "seed savers" in in situ crop plant conservation. Culture & Agriculture, 23, 41-45.

Stone, G. D. (2001). Malthus, Agribusiness, and the Death of the Peasantry. Current Anthropology, 42, 575-578.

Stone, G. D. (2007). Agricultural Deskilling and the Spread of Genetically Modified Cotton in Warangal. Current Anthropology, 48, 67-103.

Strand, R. (2001). The role of risk assessments in the governance of genetically modified organisms in agriculture. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 86, 187-204.

Subramani (1998). The End of Free States: On Transnationalization of Culture. In F.Jameson & M. Miyoshi (Eds.), The Cultures of Globalization (pp. 146-163). USA: Duke University Press.

Tait, J. & Levidow, L. (1992). Proactive and Reactive Approaches to Risk Regulation - the Case of Biotechnology. Futures, 24, 219-231.

Tambornini, E. (2003). Biotecnologia: La Otra Guerra. (1st ed.) Buenos Aires, Argentina: Fondo de Cultura Economica.

Taussig, M. (2003). Law in a lawless land: diary of a "limpieza" in Colombia. New York: New Press.

Taussig, M. (2004). My Cocaine Museum. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

301 Thirsk, J. (1997). Alternative Agriculture: A History from the Black Death to the Present Day. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Torgersen, H., Hampel, J., von Bergmann-Winberg, M.-L., Bridgeman, E., Durant, J., Einsiedel, E. et al. (2002). Promise, Problems and Proxies: Twenty-five Years of Debate and Regulation in Europe. In M.Bauer & G. Gaskell (Eds.), Biotechnology - the Making of a Global Controversy (pp. 21-94). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tri-Council Working Group (1998). Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans. http://www.ncehr- cnerh.org/english/code 2/index.htm [On-line].

Tsing, A. (2002). Conclusion: The Global Situation. In J.X.Inda & R. Rosaldo (Eds.), The Anthropology of Globalization: A Reader (pp. 453-485). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Tuhiwai Smith, L. (1999). Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. London, New York: Zed Books.

United Nations Statistics Division (2007a). Country/Area Profile Canada Social Indicators. http://unstats.un.org/unsd/cdb/cdb_country_prof_results.asp?crID=124&cpID=15 [On-line].

United Nations Statistics Division (2007b). Country/Area Profile Colombia Social Indicators. http://unstats.un.org/unsd/cdb/cdb countryjrof_results.asp?crID=170&cpID-l5 [On-line].

University of California Museum of Paleontology & Waggoner, B. (2000). Carl Linnaeus (1707-1778). http://www.ucmp.berkelev.edu/history/linnaeus.html [On-line]. van Meijl, H. & van Tongeren, F. (2004). International diffusion of gains from biotechnology and the European Union's common agricultural policy. Agricultural Economics, 31, 307-316. von Krauss, M. P. K., Casman, E. A., & Small, M. J. (2004). Elicitation of expert judgments of uncertainty in the risk assessment of herbicide-tolerant oilseed crops. Risk Analysis, 24, 1515-1527.

302 Walls, J., O'Riordan, T., Horlick-Jones, T., & Niewohner, J. (2005). The meta- governance of risk and new technologies: GM crops and mobile telephones. Journal of Risk Research, 8, 635-661.

Washington State University Extension (2002). Crown Gall: Gardening in Western Washington, http://gardening.wsu.edu/library/lpro004/lpro004.htm [On-line].

Weaver, S. A. & Morris, M. C. (2005). Risks associated with genetic modification: An annotated bibliography of peer reviewed natural science publications. Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics, 18, 157-189.

Wen, N., Chan-Halbrendt, C, Weatherford, J., & Mak, S. W. C. (2002). "Hawaii public opinion on agricultural products derived from genetically modified organism (GMO) technology.". Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 27, 577.

West Virgina University Extension Service (1999). About the Land Grant System. http://www.wvu.edU/~exten/about/land.htm#what [On-line]. Available: http://www.wvu.edU/~exten/about/land.htm#what

Williams-Jones, B. & Graham, J. E. (2003). Actor-Network Theory: a Tool to Support Ethical Analysis of Commercial Genetic Testing. New Genetics and Society, 22, 271-296.

Wilson, K. (1992). Thinking About the Ethics of Fieldwork. In S.Devereux & J. Hoddinott (Eds.), Fieldwork in Developing Countries (pp. 179-199). New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Winner, L. (1986). The whale and the reactor: a search for limits in an age of high technology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Wisconsin Centre for Education Research, U. o. W.-M. (2007). Transana. http://www.transana.org/ [On-line].

Wolcott, H. F. (1999). Ethnography: A Way of Seeing. Walnut Creek, London, & New Delhi: Altamira Press.

Wolf, E. (1982). Europe and the People Without History. Berkeley: University of California Press. Word Spy (2001). Frankenfood. http://www.wordspv.com/words/Frartkenfood.asp [On line].

Wright, S. (1994). Molecular Politics: Dveloping American and British Regulatory Policy for Genetic Engineering, 1972-1982. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

Wynne, B. (2001). Creating public alienation: expert cultures of risk and ethics on GMOs. Science as Culture, 10, 445-481.

Xue, D. Y. & Tisdell, C. (2002). Global trade in GM food and the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety: Consequences for China. Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics, 15, 337-356.

Yamin, F. (2003). Intellectual Property Rights, Biotechnology and Food Security (Rep. No. IDS Working Paper 203). Brighton, Sussex: Institute of Development Studies.

Yapa, L. (1996). Improved Seeds and Constructed Scarcity. In R.Peet & M. Watts (Eds.), Liberation Ecologies: Environment, Development, and Social Movements (pp. 69- 85). New York: Routledge.

Zerbe, N. (2004). Feeding the famine? American food aid and the GMO debate in Southern Africa. Food Policy, 29, 593-608.

Zeven, A. C. (1998). Landraces: A review of definitions and classifications. Euphytica, 104, 127-139.

Zeven, A. C. (2000). Traditional maintenance breeding of landraces: 1. Data by crop. Euphytica, 116, 65-85.

Zohary, D. & Hopf, M. (2000). Domestication of plants in the old world: The origin and spread of cultivated plants in West Asia, Europe and the Nile Valley. (Third ed. ed.) Oxford: Oxford University Press.

304