Biotechs Actively Impeding Transgenic Crop Research

If I ran an agricultural biotech company and I wanted to go out of my way to alienate my supporters and lend credence to my conspiracy theory-peddling critics, I think that this is exactly how I would go about doing so. From The New York Times:

Biotechnology companies are keeping university scientists from fully researching the effectiveness and environmental impact of the industry's genetically modified crops, according to an unusual complaint issued by a group of those scientists.

"No truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions," the scientists wrote in a statement submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency. The E.P.A. is seeking public comments for scientific meetings it will hold next week on biotech crops.

...

The problem, the scientists say, is that farmers and other buyers of genetically engineered seeds have to sign an agreement meant to ensure that growers honor company patent rights and environmental regulations. But the agreements also prohibit growing the crops for research purposes.

So while university scientists can freely buy pesticides or conventional seeds for their research, they cannot do that with genetically engineered seeds. Instead, they must seek permission from the seed companies. And sometimes that permission is denied or the company insists on reviewing any findings before they can be published, they say.

Such agreements have long been a problem, the scientists said, but they are going public now because frustration has been building.

I don't think that this has as much to do with biotechs trying to hide anything as it does with the great lengths they'll go through to protect the bottom line. This is a chronic problem facing transgenic crop research and it illustrates once again why university-based research is so important. The fact of the matter is that the biotechs are always going to have their own profits in mind, so they're always going to maintain incredibly restrictive policies about how their crops are used by researchers and by farmers.

Also, they'll continue to focus on underwhelming avenues--particularly crops that are resistant to herbicides or produce their own insecticides--that may be profitable but will do little address the much larger problems of global hunger and malnutrition. This has been a running theme in my past coverage of transgenic crops. So, unfortunately, I think that the only long-term solution here is for researchers to ween themselves off of industry-funded and industry-focused research and instead concentrate on the areas where academia can really make an impact.

More like this

The New Yorker has a fascinating article on Vandana Shiva, a crusader against GMO crops. I'd never heard of her before, but apparently she has charisma and cult-like followers who hang on her every word, and her word is a rather religious opposition to scientific agriculture. Weirdly, I can agree…
The journalist Marc Gunther recently posted a thoughtful article discussing public perceptions of the role of organic agriculture in a future sustainable food system. He found that many consumers believe that there are only two ways to produce food: "The first can be described, depending upon who…
In this week's edition of PNAS, crop scientists at Texas A&M University report the engineering of cotton strains with edible seeds. Now, when I think of cotton, I generally think of clothes, especially the kind that really seem to like getting wrinkled in the drier. Not counting the unrelated…
The online debate at The Economist Magazine continues. Dont forget to vote. My rebuttal is here: I agree with Charles Benbrook that "Bt crops have helped reduce insect feeding damage and lessened the need for toxic, broad-spectrum insecticides, and as a result, helped build populations of…

I think that he has to have countries there which pass besides standards of 'Monsanto', and which are free to exploit seeds, to reappoint them and to sell them.
Everybody is free to examine has his way what check seems to him.

Traduction Reverso:(french) Je pense qu'il doit y avoir des pays qui passent outre des normes de 'Monsanto', et qui sont libres d'en exploiter les semences, de les renommer et de les vendre.
Tout le monde est libre d'examiner a sa guise ce qui bon lui semble.

It is understandable that companies with intellectual property in seeds would limit access to those that are contractually bound to pay royalties, not reverse engineer, sell for seed, etc.

Here in Canada, Monsanto v. Schmeiser went all the way to the Supreme Court. I'm not sure Wikipedia report things exactly the way they went down, my take is, Schmeiser probably knew exactly what he was doing, Monsanto was justified in their suit to protect their rights. The odd thing in my mind is that the court said in effect, 'yeah, he infringed on the property rights of Monsanto, but their was no economic benefit so there should be no costs awarded.' Could this be used to justify experimental use without paying royalty fees, sort of like 'fair use' for copyright?

And don't underestimate herbicide resistance or pest tolerance. I've been growing RR canola for a decade or so, and the decision to smile and pay Monsanto's fees is a no-brainer.

Without the reward, how do you get anyone to develop the technology? Canada had - still has, to some extent - a large public plant breeding program. Canola was developed into a major edible-oil crop by this system. Maybe we need to go back to go forward.