Moves to patent genes likely to debase our understanding of life

With the advent of biotechnology the human community stands on the threshold of an extraordinary revolution which will have profound…

With the advent of biotechnology the human community stands on the threshold of an extraordinary revolution which will have profound implications for ourselves and our relationship with other creatures. Already a few introductory waves are lapping at our shore.

Three years ago there was no genetically engineered (GE) food in our shops. Today, we cannot be sure. The soyabeans which are found in most processed food may be genetically engineered. This is only the beginning. If giant agribusiness and pharmaceutical corporations have their way, consumers will be hit by a tidal wave of genetically engineered foods and beverages within a few years. Corporations like Monsanto plan to genetically engineer many of the staple foods of the world. Their justification is that genetic engineering will help in the fight against hunger.

The Indian scientist Dr Vandana Shiva rejects this claim. She argues that the solution to world hunger lies more in land reform and equitable global economic and social policies rather in any "miracle" technology.

Some of the fears which people have about GE food, were articulated by ministers Noel Dempsey and Joe Walsh while they were in opposition. In a press release, dated April 26th, 1997, they declared that "Fianna Fail will not support what amounts to the largest nutritional experiment in human history with the consumer as guinea pig".

READ MORE

Others, including scientists, ethicists and ordinary citizens share these misgivings. David Bellamy, a botanist and well-known television personality, admits that "genetically modified products" worry him (The Irish Times, April 4th). Dr Richard Steinbrecher, a geneticist, has repeatedly warned against introducing GE products into the food chain until the risks to human health and the environment have been assessed more thoroughly.

Dr Steinbrecher represents a minority view within the profession, but the British government's inquiry into BSE has learned that minority views can be correct. The concerns expressed by Dr Tim Holt about the possible links between mad cow disease and CJD in humans were dismissed by a senior government pathologist as "unlikely as being struck by lightning" (James Meikle, The Guardian, April 4th, 1998).

Will GE products destroy the lives of Third World people? The livelihood of 70,000 farmers in Madagascar depends on vanilla. The price of naturally-produced vanilla is $1,200 per pound. Genetically engineered vanilla can be produced at a fraction of the cost. But should it be done when we know it will lead to suffering and, possibly, famine?

It would be foolish to underestimate the power of large multinational corporations to subvert such a democratic agenda. They have enormous power and can get national governments and the European Union to dance to their tune.

The Guardian correspondent, George Monbiot, is alarmed at the rapidity with which "a tiny handful of companies is coming to govern the development, production, processing and marketing of our most fundamental commodity: food. The power and strategic control they are amassing will make the oil industry look like a cornershop" (Guardian, September 17th, 1997).

One crucial strand in the corporate strategy to promote genetic engineering is the speedy introduction of a European-wide Directive on patent protection. When the draft Directive on the "Legal Protection of Biotechnological Inventions" came before the European Parliament in July 1997 multinational corporations mounted the "largest lobby campaign in the history of the EU", according to the chair of the Legal Affairs Committee, in favour of the document.

As a result the European Parliament adopted the Directive with 66 amendments. These covered areas such as biopirating. This refers to the attempt by Northern companies to appropriate genetic resources from the South without proper negotiation and compensation. MEPs also called for an ethics committee to examine patent applications. Most of these amendments have been dropped or substantially changed by the Commission in the draft which will come before the Parliament this week. If the draft passes in its present form it will legalise the patenting of life. Until recently it was considered unthinkable to apply for a patent on a living organism. This changed in 1980 when the US Supreme Court allowed an employee of General Electric to patent a genetically engineered microbe designed to clean-up oil spills. The ruling stated that "the relevant distinction was not between living and inanimate things", but whether living products could be thought of as "human-made inventions".

The ethical values which underpin this judgment are contrary to those enshrined in many religions and cultures. Most cultures make a clear distinction between living and non-living reality.

Many people rightly fear that patenting life will debase our understanding of all life. The environmental organisation Voice is mounting a campaign to urge our MEPs to turn back from this dangerous road by rejecting the directive in its present form when they vote on the issue this week.

Father McDonagh is a Columban priest and chairman of the environmental group, Voice and former chairman of Greenpeace Ireland.