Wow. Read this opening to the article Wanted: GM Seeds for Study:
A battle is quietly being waged between the industry that produces genetically modified seeds and scientists trying to investigate the environmental impacts of engineered crops. Although companies have recently given ground, researchers say these firms are still loath to allow independent analyses of their patented - and profitable - seeds.
The article goes on:
In February 2009, frustrated by industry restrictions on independent research into genetically modified crops, two dozen scientists representing public research institutions in 17 corn-producing states told the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that the companies producing genetically modified (GM) seed "inhibit public scientists from pursuing their mandated role on behalf of the public good" and warned that industry influence had made independent analyses of transgenic crops impossible.
The article describes how scientists used to be able to just go to the seed store and buy seeds if they wanted to test them. With patented genetically engineered seeds, that is not the case:
If a scientist wanted to compare brands of seeds, for instance, or their environmental impact, he or she had to seek permission from each seed company or gene patent holder. Open access to the study's data and the right to publish that data had to be secured, while, for their part, the companies sought to protect their patents and intellectual property rights. Even if the companies did not object, contract negotiations, made on a case-by-case basis, could be extended and onerous. Making things worse was that with fewer public monies available for farm research, scientists, and their universities, found themselves increasingly dependent on the seed companies for funding.
Here's one more important quote:
For 10 years, Shields says, he and his fellow scientists worked around the companies' restrictions. But they felt that too many scientific issues were not being addressed. In particular, scientists could not be certain that multi-year studies would be renewed or that they'd be allowed to follow up on unexpected findings "which reflects the very essence of scientific inquiry." Such uncertainties, says Shields, meant that many experiments were never initiated.
This is an important article. The end of the article goes on to describe a new development - a voluntary agreement with no enforcement mechanism that the seed companies will loosen up and allow more independent research to take place. There are several catches to this agreement, however. For example, seeds only fall under the agreement AFTER they are commercialized. Thus, there will still be little (if any) independent testing of GE seeds before they are legal. That seems incredibly foolhardy, for obvious reasons. What will be the bigger impact of this agreement: allowing for independent research or merely creating the appearance that there is independent research taking place? |
