from the technology-for-all-not-just-the-rich dept.
Senior Associate BryanBruns reports "A well-written white paper on Transgenic Plants and World Agriculture argues that farmers in poor countries need better access to plant biotechnology. A working group from the US National Academy of Sciences the Royal Society of London, and scientific academies in other nations prepared the paper. (See also stories in the Washington Post and NandoTimes). This paper offers good examples of thinking through how to steer technology so it can benefit farmers and others in poor countries, not just commercial interests in wealthy countries. The report encourages better sharing of intellectual property. The whole report is worth reading, if you are interested in preparing society for advanced technologies, but if you're pressed for time you could look at the summary and the chapter on intellectual property".Read More for Bryan's full post. Senior AssociateBryanBruns writes "
A well-written white paper on Transgenic Plants and World Agriculture argues that farmers in poor countries need better access to plant biotechnology. A working group from the US National Academy of Sciences the Royal Society of London, and scientific academies in other nations prepared the paper, (see also stories in the Washington Post and NandoTimes). This paper offers good examples of thinking through how to steer technology so it can benefit farmers and others in poor countries, not just commercial interests in wealthy countries.
The report encourages better sharing of intellectual property. The whole report is worth reading, if you are interested in preparing society for advanced technologies, but if you're pressed for time you could look at the summary and the chapter on intellectual property.
It's worth considering what nanotechnology R&D could learn from the controversies about biotech, especially the current debates on genetically modified food plants. Here are few possible lessons:
It's important to highlight potential benefits from nanotech, such as alleviating material poverty, and cleaning up and preventing environmental pollution. Not just assuming they will occur, but being proactive about how they can be promoted.
Discussion of risk assessment should be framed in terms of the problems which are occurring and will occur without the technology. (The report authors clearly are trying to refute "precautionary principle" criticisms, in a constructive way.)
It's better to promote competition and availability of non-commercial alternatives, rather than only monopoly business models. The paper doesn't mention open source, but does discuss public domain and the need for special arrangements for the poorest, (such as allowing farmers to re-use seeds if they want,) and more generally reversing current trends towards overly broad and sometimes inconsistent intellectual property regimes.
Avoid complacency about critics. Biotechnology started off carefully with the research moratorium, broad discussions, guidelines, etc. However it seems like Monsanto and other companies were so convinced they were doing good by helping to feed the world, that they didn't take criticisms seriously enough. Now their public image, prospects, and stock prices have been hammered. Reports like this are trying to undo the damage and encourage prudent development of agricultural biotechnology.
Last, but not least, analysis and publicity about the potential benefits, and ways to reduce risks, provide lots of justifications for more research funding :-)"
