Fire in the belly

As I was conducting one of my occasional vain trawls through my hard drive looking at things I've written over the years, I came across this piece from late 2006. It's part of I reckon around 50% of files that haven't made it onto Artful Science or Hammertime's Brog. If you just take science related writings into account, it's more like 90% that haven't made it onto this here blog.

It pleases me that not everything I've written is on one of my blogs. It seems kind of weird to pour everything into those (these) two vessels, kind of like putting all my eggs in one basket. Won't, one day when I get discovered, I want to have items that haven't made it into the public domain? (But hang on, haven't only two people ever read this blog? And didn't they each only read one post, leaving 89% of the blog unread? I really need to build up my readership. At the moment it's a reader flotsam or jetsam) Then I thought of a humourous part from Vicki Cristina Barcelona, where Javier Bardem's poet dad refuses to publish his writing because he hates the world and wants to deprive them of beauty. At the end of the day we can probably file this dilemma under the already overcrowded heading "Things I think too much about".

I wrote this piece in response to an article by Martina Newell-McGloughlin spruiking the benefits of biotechnology and defending it against its critics. While it isn't exactly the kind of writing I envisioned ending up on the blog, I am strangely proud of it, belligerence, earnestness, profanity and all. And in the absence of any regular creative sciwriting spark, I might as well put the dang thing up. Stay tuned for a few more golden oldies from the C drive.

***

Response to “Green genes” (Cosmos Issue 12, p112)

If you want to understand Martina Newell-McGloughlin’s argument, you could do worse than starting with the following comment. I want to be fair to Newell-McGloughlin, so I’ll let her speak for herself.

“Biotechnology has the potential to … improve the volume and quality of food, feed, fibre and biofuels; reduce agriculture’s dependency on chemicals and fossil fuels; diminish overcultivation and erosion; and lower the cost of raw materials – all in an environmentally sustainable manner.”

When put like this, it’s hard to argue. If we are to proceed rationally, we must embrace biotechnology. It almost seems unfair to the world’s suffering to deprive them of this hope. Just like it would be unfair to the world’s poor students to deprive them of untested immune drugs that lead to horrific side effects.

David Suzuki has often pointed out that biotechnology proponents promise the earth. Even the apparently impressive figures quoted by Newell-McGloughlin don’t bear a great deal of scrutiny. Take a step back. If someone tells you that they can solve the world’s problems, and has been telling you this for the last – oh, ten years, and the problems haven’t even come close to being solved… My friend, you see them for what they are. Cranks suffering from delusions of grandeur, with difficulty perceiving their environment accurately.

“Trust me, trust me. I’m a scientist.” This is one of the arguments they like to deliver. There is a distinct lack of humility in these men and women.

I’d like the reader to imagine a day when the great biotech companies are in full stride. When they get what they want. Making billion dollar quarterly profits, products with a worldwide reach. And the clout that comes with money. Power, in other words. We’ll start seeing mergers and acquisitions. Smaller players will get bought out. Do you really think the world’s problems will be solved? Will the poor be fed? Definitely – those that can afford it, anyway.

Are banks with $4b profits making the world a better place? Fuck no.

A considerable problem with Newell-McGloughlin’s opinion is that it is one-sided. Does the author not see any problems with biotechnology, or are they for us to gather elsewhere? From sources the biotech camp has discredited? Can we have a comment from someone without vested interests? Perhaps not, but we can at least pretend to be ‘fair and balanced’. At least pay lip service to counterarguments. Well, let’s see if I can.

Gene technology is amazing. We are learning so much about genes, cells, organisms, environments. It seems we will be able to do so much. Make the hungry full. Make the sad happy. Make the flaccid erect. Make the weak assertive. The feeder of people faces certain fundamental problems wherever they may be. Produce enough food, of enough nutritional value, with as little impact on the environment as possible so as to allow future repetition of the process. There are many ways of reaching this end, and gene technology is one. But it is not the only one, it is not the cheapest one, it is not the safest one, it is not the most effective one, it is not the most efficient one (funny how efficiency’s a virtue and effectiveness isn’t any more) and it is not the most rational one. But it is one.

This kind of reasoning presented in the opinion piece is eerily reminiscent of the way some drugs are presented. We find out a lot about the benefits (essentially it does something, although whether it’s good for you, better than competitors, alternatives, or doing nothing is murky), nothing about the problems. What we need is information about the whole situation, not just the efficacy of one option. We cannot judge the situation without knowing alternatives.

Could there be other ways of feeding people? What about us fatties in the west eat a little less? I forgot, these same companies will solve that problem by letting us eat what we want, and decreasing our set point weight at the drop of a tabsule.

Could there be other ways of reducing emissions? How much energy goes into running laboratories?

Is it really ‘status quo’ versus GM alone? Newell-McGoughlin seems to think so. What the hell’s the status quo anyway?

Are there other avenues of action available to us?

Of course there are. It is our job as a society to think of these alternatives, and to foster the conditions which will lead to creativity. Capitalism is supposed to be creative, but it either isn’t, or what we have isn’t capitalism. Too often the monopoly, the duopoly. The perversion of market forces. The stifling of creativity. It’s quite funny to see leaders, officials, sensible people happily declaring the inevitability of the way society is run. The inevitability of globalism. Of market forces.

An idea doesn’t deserve to exist if it doesn’t make money. This is a wise and useful way to face the future. If we want to go extinct.

It’s a problem JR Saul has noted. When society is made up of interest groups – industry, government departments, non profit organisations, it doesn’t matter – they will fight for their interest, at the expense of other interests. It’s an exciting game, but I wouldn’t want my quality of life to be decided by the outcome of this game. The cards are stacked, even if it is the only game in town.

As mentioned above, Newell-McGoughlin invokes some impressive numbers in biotechnology’s defense. Quoting research just doesn’t carry the weight that it used to. People can quote statistics to justify many ends – in this case the positioning of biotechnology as saviour, without which society will founder. Do these people seriously believe this themselves? Are they surprised when their predictions do not come true? I suppose not, because they can point to statistics like a net farm income increase of $35.5 billion since GM crops were allowed.

Of course this (increase in net income) is the ultimate end which cannot be questioned. More money has been made by farm. Therefore biotechnology is goooood. QED. GDP increases when biotech PR people pollute the airwaves with their ‘information’. Seems like a sensible enough measure of the functioning of society.

It’s kind of like the way technocrats justify their existence and their miserable theories. IMF dude fishes around for some statistics that back her argument up. You’ll always find something. It’s basically how government advertising works.

We are told that “GM may actually be beneficial for animals as well”, owing to the fact that less space will be taken by ‘us’ away from ‘them’. People who think we’ll save species from extinction by using GM crops are kidding themselves. The idea that we’ll feed a forever-growing human population at no cost to the environment is ridiculous. And it’s not really the intention of businescientists. If you care to ask around, people will tell you there is already enough food to feed people. It’s an oh so simple question of political will, one which we are a long fucking way from at the moment. These people make me sick. Let’s try a little honesty. We are out to make a buck and would like you to get off our fucking back, or even better, defend us against our critics.

Biotechnology can be used to extend the climatic conditions at which we can grow food. That’s a great idea – let’s colonise whatever remaining space there is on earth. India and China will need more space in the future. What about the West – if the rest were like the West, we’d need five earths. How is biotech saving our souls here?

I should add a disclaimer that I am not in principle against technological advance aiding and abetting the human race. I just think that agendas exist, and we are kidding ourselves if we don’t question them. Simple question: who benefits? Who pays?

And what’s the real aim? Is it to feed everyone, or develop technology that allows us to survive in the desert for forty days and forty nights on a single pill? If we actually aim to improve the quality of life for the many who do not enjoy much of it, we might consider putting our resources to other more direct efforts.

The final joke of the opinion piece is to equate those in favour of biotechnology as being ‘enlightened’. It’s either that or the strange equating of ‘science’ with biotechnology. Nuclear weapons are based on science. Does that mean we should start developing them?

Enlightened, to me, would mean something like people having control over their own development. It would mean GM companies losing some control over their product. Funny, they’ll sue you if a GM seed accidentally takes in your soil, but they won’t cough up if there are any adverse effects from the business. Which is exactly what it is. A business. Can you predict who’ll bear the cost?

That’s right. You. Us. The government. We the fucking people.
And you better believe they want control. Why have so many millions of dollars been invested in drafting the bizarre TRIPS? In case you didn’t realise, that’s MINE and you cannot use it unless you PAY ME money. That bug. That’s mine. That plasmid. That’s mine. You can have it in fifty years.

Newell-McGloughlin thinks that if we steer clear of genetically modified agriculture, we run risks. No shit. In case you hadn’t noticed, we’re running quite a few risks at the moment. If we hand over control to those few companies touting GM (which is pretty much the way academia operates these days – oh, I’ve found something cool, let’s convert public knowledge into private profit otherwise the public money will be wasted!), we’ll no doubt run few risks too. But to pretend that it’s GM or starve is seriously deceptive and the kind of fear mongering a politician would be proud of.

Of course, on some level people these days know well enough not to trust big business, the government or increasingly ‘experts’ with an education. But it’s that little bit harder to see the full picture when there’s so much damn emotive propaganda out there.

Am I questioning her credentials? Well, she is not industry, right? Well, websites proudly declare her expert ability to create links between academia and industry. And of course, there’s the little matter of her job and through it, her self-worth and security, depending in no small part on public acceptance of GM technology. None of this takes away from arguments that she makes, but I’ll be darned if finding out about someone’s background doesn’t help you discern their agendas.