- Количество слайдов: 12
Seoul National University – Hokkaido University 4 th Joint Symposium, Oct 21 -23, 2001, Seoul, Korea Political Economy & Sociology of Agricultural Biotechnology Shuji HISANO Graduate School of Agriculture Hokkaido University
Our Viewpoints on Science & Technology 1. Rhetoric of Neutrality embedded in Science & Technology should be Questioned ü Science & Technology are shaped in the context of political economy ü Current development of agricultural biotechnology reflects a decisionmaking process in which various interests are concerned
Consumers’ Concerns Evolving ü Just fear to eat “Frankenstein-foods” ü Concerns about possible adverse effects on environment ü Recognition of institutional failures in risk management (or distrust of regulatory process) ü Recognition of political and market power behind GMO commercialization pushed ahead ü Suspicious about “techno-fix” solution as a means to alleviate world hunger
Choices for Future Agriculture to Address Hunger Problem 1. Expand the area of farmland ⇒ deforestation and loss of biodiversity 2. Increase production in exporting countries to feed the world efficiently ⇒ Expansion and liberalization of food trade have resulted in deterioration of food security in importing countries 3. Increase total farm productivity in the countries which most need the food ⇒ Can GM technology help those countries to increase productivity and improve food security?
Feeding the World is not a Simple Problem ü GM tech may address the amount and quality of food available ü GM tech cannot deal with the issues of access and distribution ü What is the cause of hunger on earth? Ø Production? …. . No (only a few cases Yes) Ø Poverty and Uneven Land Distribution? …. . Yes ü They need Money (vitamin M) to buy food and Land (vitamin L) to farm by themselves for themselves ⇒ GM tech (vitamin A) is not the answer
“Appropriate Biotechnology” Is Possible? ü A Handful TNCs control key techs and resources è As far as poor farmers can’t afford GMOs, they are not TNCs’ customers ü We appreciate some of them for collaborating with researchers to develop poor farmer-oriented GMO è But, their patented tech and strategic resources continue to be available freely or cheaply? ü Public institutions and University are suffering from lack of money and depend on TNCs’ funds è Without changing framework, can “appropriate biotech” be shaped by public support?
“Paradigm Shift” -- Sustainable Agricultural System -Prof. Pretty’s Survey of 208 projects from 52 countries shows; ü Remarkable yield increase ü Better use of locally-available natural resources ü Improved human capital building (empowerment) ü Economically, environmentally, and socially viable and positive to local livelihood èWhy not allocate enough money & resources to such a research and practices?
Our Viewpoints on Science & Technology 2. Limitations of “Sound-Science” Approach and Economic Approach ü ü There remain a lot of uncertainties We don’t know exactly the whole system of DNA, genome, human body, ecosystem, and relations among these sub-systems We don’t know long-term effects of GMOs We don’t have any absolute criteria to cope with and calculate these uncertain risk and/or benefit in terms of money
Our Viewpoints on Science & Technology 3. Democratization of Science & Technology ü Citizens’ involvement in decision-making processes is important ü Because…. everyone is a participant in a global experiment with GMOs ü Decisions must be accomplished through a process of debate and negotiation in which all stakeholders have a voice
Democratizing Process in Consensus Conference Civil society (all stakeholders) Citizen Panel (with diverse backgrounds) Debate & Negotiation Expert Panel Social Interdisciplinary…. scientists ? Company Regulator Journalists NGOs Natural scientists
Conclusion ü Interdisciplinary research to evaluate this new technology or the direction of its innovation ü Informed democratic debate on science & technology in which all stakeholders involved and have a voice ü These are the indispensable steps for us to fulfill our social responsibilities
Bio-Majors Control Everything World Compani Pesticide (mil$, es rank) 1999 World Seed (mil$, rank) US Corn Seed (%, rank) US Bt. OEC Corn / Plant gene D Soy pate relate regist. GMOs in nt d GMO field test patent s 1999 1997 -1999 1996. 6 2000. 8 5, 88 ① 947 ③ 9. 0 ③ 205 46 8 3, 88 ② 1, 70 ② 14. ② 173 43 5 0 0 3, 70 ③ 288 ⑫ 7. 0 ④ 55 22 # 1 Dow 2, 27 ④ 350 ⑨ 4. 0 ⑤ 45 22 # Bayer announced the agreement to acquire Aventis 4 185 27 1, 629 11 346 - 113 Syngen ta Monsan to Aventis -2001. 5