The control of information in Science - A One World Essay on Biotechnology.

The control of information in Science

A One World Essay on Biotechnology by:

Nikita Malik 10R

As President Roosevelt once said, “There is nothing to fear but fear itself.” In today’s society, however, not only do we have a lot to fear about, but we have plenty of reason to be fearful itself. What is unsettling is that the discovery and practice of biological weapons can destroy the lives of millions of people in a matter of mere seconds, and further disturbing is the fact that the key decisions made about the use of this technology is placed in the hands of someone else. That, to me, is something to be scared about. But science and its discoveries, unfortunately, play a major part in the making of our present and future anxieties.

“Molecular bio-technology will transform agriculture, energy production, health care, and microelectronics; however, it will also pose significant military and strategic challenges.” (Venter, ) One of the main problems we are facing today is the utilization of biological weapons. A boundless debate goes on about whether or not the use of this technology should be restricted. By controlling bio-technology, less developed countries will miss out on several opportunities, for this equipment can eradicate poverty, lack of crops, serve as assistance after natural disasters (or for that matter, after social or economic disasters), and remove most human suffering in ELDCs by providing genetically and biologically modified (GBM) food to the poor. (No author, http://clinton1.nara.gov) However, if this technology is free for all, we will live amongst that constant threat that this recombinant DNA technology will be turned into weapons of mass destruction. (Venter, )

Even in this day and age, the question we should be asking ourselves is whether society is responsible enough to handle such technology. We are not even civilized enough to sort out global problems in a peaceful manner, in fact, it has been quite evident in the past 2 years that conflicts between countries can go completely out of hand and produce quite horrific results (one of the perfect scenarios of this situation would be the War in Iraq).

Biotechnology is controlled in several ways. Although a search on a google website with the words “molecular biotechnology” will produce 130,000 sites, many of which give detailed drawings and technical discussions about how these weapons are created (Marburger, www.ostp.gov) a certain amount of technical skill and resources would be necessary in order to produce actual weapons. Further, specific details within these discussions are withheld. Therefore, it is impossible for ordinary citizens (and furthermore, illegal) to produce such arms; however, completely different circumstances are in place for governments of rich and powerful nations, which in most cases have both the supplies and ability to produce BWs (biological weapons).

“Because of their tremendous potential destructive power and their relatively small size, they (biological weapons) remain high on the list of security concerns. Everyone agrees that nuclear weapons technology should remain highly classified.” (Marburger, )

Nevertheless, Eric Croddy writes that “it is actually quite difficult to kill huge numbers of people using chemical or biological warfare (CBWs) agents… in fact, it is a considerable challenge to use microbes and biological toxins as weapons of any scale.” (Croddy, Chemical and Biological Warfare, An Annotated Bibliography)

This is because protein toxins and bacteria are quite delicate, for they are sensitive to UV radiation from the sun and acidic solutions, further, they are also unstable when heated. (Venter, ) Biological agents not only need to survive the environment, but it is also very difficult for them to stay alive within the human tissue and endure the antigen and antibody reaction once within the human body. (Venter, )

The only way that a biological agent can survive the body defenses is if it enters through the lungs. Anthrax is therefore a perfect biological agent because it has the ability to form into an aerosol and can then attack the bodies own defenses. Russia has also experimented with a type of anthrax that can survive against antibiotics. (Venter, )

So, to avoid living against the constant threat of being killed by anthrax in case a war or terrorist attack occurs - is it a good idea to put patents on the drug to avoid other countries or terrorist groups from recreating the germ? On the other hand, if patents are put on biotechnology, they also have to specify whether this can extent to the genetic and biological modification of food.

This is a preview of the whole essay

However, to continue with the debate of biological weapons, is it such a good idea to put restrictions on molecular biotechnology in order to stop the development of weapons? In a way, yes. By putting patents on molecular biotechnology, hopefully the use of weapons of mass destruction by terrorist groups will decrease. Take the case of anthrax, for example. Anthrax fits into the description of a BWs, and in its “ability to form an aerosol, this bacterium on infection attacks the body’s own defenses.” (Venter, ) Furthermore, there is also not a completely effective antibiotic for anthrax, therefore in the case of terrorist attacks, in which masses of population would be affected; sufficient antibiotics for large populations might not be readily available. (Venter, ) To make matters worse, Russia has developed a form of anthrax which does not react to antibiotics. Anthrax is, in short, the “perfect” weapon, and Iraq seems to possess great amounts of it. (Venter, ). “During the 1990-1991 Gulf War, Iraq had large quantities of anthrax …with the intention of using it in Israel”

By putting patents on anthrax, it would be much harder for terrorist groups to develop or get hold of BWs. But will patents stop countries from getting their hands on this technology? The answer is no. Countries have incredibly different standards for themselves and for what they put out to the world. If we have a look the events in 1986, before Iraq and the United States broke relations, in which the United States would send supplies of anthrax to Iraq in order to test these samples on relevant “bodies” – who were told that it was needed for research on “antibiotic regimens” (Venter, ).

“The number that will produce and stockpile weapons of mass destruction may decrease if diplomatic efforts, arms control treaties, nonproliferation regimes, and security strategies are effective.” (No author, )

When the War in Iraq broke out, the United States turned around and said that Iraq had plenty of BWs in their country. Of course they did – since the United States had been the ones supplying them with the BWs in the first place.

Along with supposedly having large amounts of biological weapons in their country, Iraq also has another biological weapon that is just as toxic, botulinum toxin. (No author, ). If botulinum toxin (more commonly called Botox) appears in large scales in the human body, the effect could be deadly. “It takes only an extremely small dose of Botox to kill by respiratory paralysis… botulinum acts faster than anthrax and is preceded by flu-like symptoms. Although scientists are aware of the end result, not enough is known about botulinum to describe the sequence of events in detail.” (Venter, ) In my opinion, it is hard to settle on which is more deadly – anthrax or botulinum.

“Nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons pose the most serious threat to the US and its foreign interests… ballistic cruise missiles, aircraft, covert forces, and terrorist groups are considered possible means of delivering these weapons of mass destruction. Then total number of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons stockpiled throughout the world is decreasing as the major powers scale back their inventories, but some additional countries and groups are still trying to acquire these weapons.” (No author, )

The quote above explains that although CBWs are all over the world, the most constant threat is whether terrorist and other small groups will get hold of the information and start recreating their own CBWs. It also states that as the larger powers are taking back their supplies from less developed countries, the number of CBWs around the world are decreasing.

However, is that really fair? Because more developed countries will always have a supply of chemical and biological weapons (whether or not they will admit it is another matter altogether) than developing countries, they will always have a greater sense of power. Further, by continuing with advancing technology, EMDCs will have more supplies, more money, and more people to create these weapons, while less developed countries will have to heavily rely on developed countries to supply them with weapons (which is a complete controversy, if I may add, since neither countries are supposed to have these weapons at all, let alone supply them to each other).

Of course, access to biotechnology should not be free, because then developing countries and small terrorist groups would all have CBWs. However, should this extend to food that has been modified through biotechnology (BF)? Should developing countries, which need this food the most, have to continue to pay hefty prices for this food, because they cannot recreate a cheaper version of it in their own country – due to patents? It is true the development of this food would require a lot of money and technology, which these developing countries do not have. The case being argued, however, is should the information in order to make this food be kept from ELDCs?

On around March 1997 the European Union developed patents on biotechnology, which are patentable if “they concern a product consisting of or containing biological material or process” for producing such material even if the material previously existed in nature. (Perry, ) Further, “inventions which concern plants or animals shall be patentable if the technical feasibility of the invention is not confined to a particular plant or animal variety.” (Perry, ). Therefore, biotechnology is already being controlled; nevertheless, another problem is arising.

Although patents are being put on new biotechnology plants (for example, the case of the brazzein which biotechnology companies wanted to develop into a gene that could be introduced into several fruit and vegetable products - making them taste sweet but contain less calories) the farmers that produce the gene in its original form – the brazzein is a berry- are caught in a losing scenario. (Franck Seuret, www.gene.ch) They know all about the plant, and have used it before; further, their farming practices have helped to ensure its survival. Nevertheless, the firms and universities wanting to develop the plant have taken out patents on the brazzein without the consent of the parties concerned, and do not offer any financial consideration in return for using the plant. (Franck Seuret, ).

Because of the case discussed above, it is not a good idea to have patents on biotechnology because it prevents the original farmers in Africa who farm the brazzein plant to continue with their work, for the brazzein is now being exploited by science. However, because biotechnology is so vast, the brazzein is also being used for the benefit of society to develop better plants and vegetables. Although the technology might benefit in the long run, it is more difficult for the African farmers to understand the benefits of the future (the brazzein is just one of the several cases in which biotechnology companies have banned the use of plants in order to develop them) the main question is, will society even use these genetically modified products?

“Although "biotechnology" and "genetic modification" commonly are used interchangeably, GM is a special set of technologies that alter the genetic makeup of such living organisms as animals, plants, or bacteria. Biotechnology, a more general term, refers to using living organisms or their components, such as enzymes, to make products that include wine, cheese, beer, and yogurt.” (No author, )

Many developing countries have been offered genetically and biologically modified products in the past, almost all of them have declined. Further, hardly any countries prefer to eat genetically modified food because of several issues, and the selling of this food has just recently started being sold in the supermarkets, in which it has to be labeled and specified. (No author, )

“In addition, the 2001 poll found that a majority of Americans -- 52 percent -- believe genetically engineered foods are unsafe, according to the survey. 57 percent say they'd be less likely to buy foods labeled as genetically engineered. And while only five percent of Americans say they'd be more likely to buy foods with "genetically and biologically modified" labels, 52 percent say they'd be more likely to purchase foods with an "organic" label.” (No author, www.thecampaign.org)

In this way, food made by biotechnology might not even be accepted by society. This also brings forth several moral and ethical issues as related to science. People want to know what they are eating, so genetically modified food has to be labeled in supermarkets, and there are several concerns that this modified food might not be “safe”. Therefore, although science has contributed a lot to society by developing this food, it is not being received by the public because of the potential health impact- GM foods might cause allergens, people are worried that world food production will be dominated by a few companies (the ones that have enforced patents), increased dependence of EMDCs (who develop this technology) by ELDCs, and new advances may be skewed to interests of rich countries. (No author, ).

Therefore, the way that science has been integrated into society has not been very effective. Society wants safe organic food, and is not ready to accept “scientific” food as yet. However, it seems to me that soon this food will be one of our last resources since our environment will soon not be able to feed our ever-growing population. This is a case of culture versus science, in which science will win through time and time alone. Soon society will grow to accept this food, and just like the development of the Internet, or the television, scientifically modified food will soon be embedded into our lives.

Therefore, by putting patents on biotechnology, poor countries will not be able to develop this food by themselves (and they are the ones who are truly in need of the food) and will have to wait for contributions from developed countries, which will just increase their dependence. In a way, by removing the patents on the development of food by biotechnology (these patents have usually been enforced by large biotechnology companies) the poorer countries will be able to make this food themselves. However, developed companies and governments are reluctant to do such a thing because biotechnology can also be used to develop biological weapons, and EMDCs are not willing to take such a big risk. Further, without patents on biotechnology scientists will not be paid, and therefore not be encouraged to develop more genetically modified food.

Although this technology is not being widely accepted, this should not limit advances in the field. Without scientists, we would not have a foreseeable future and it is science which will be one of our only resources in the future. This highlights the importance of how science is integrated into society today, although several moral and ethical issues arise because of advances, we will still always need it because it will somehow be a necessity – and as the world population is supposed to be 8 million people by 2025, we will need GM food to feed the poor. (No author, ) “In the decades ahead, technology will be required to feed and provide energy for a growing world population while minimizing impact on the integrity of soil, water, air, forests, and other natural resources.” (No author, ) Sad as it may seem, science seems to be one of the only ways that we will survive in the future.

Although it is arguable that without patents, the money that go to scientists will decrease, and they will not be encouraged to do more work in advances in biotechnology and genetically modified food, there must be some other way to provide money for scientists rather than patents. It is true that advances in this field are necessary, but this will have to proceed at the expense of the development of poor countries. Is that a price that we will have to pay?

The debate that biotechnology should be “free” is an argument that crosses over several moral and ethical issues. By putting patents on biotechnology, poorer countries will have to rely more heavily on richer countries to get food that they need the most, which will just increase the EMDCs power. Is that actually moral? Should we not give where it is need most?

“The panel notes that the commercialization of biotechnology, including Genetically and Biologically Modified Food, is currently being pursued mainly by major corporations, which, understandably, seek to maximize profits. “This is one of the reasons why the poorest and most vulnerable groups have not benefited from genetic engineering and are unlikely to do so unless important conditions are put in place,” the report says.” (FAO, www.fao.org)

However, on the other hand, these developing countries might use the technology to develop weapons. Although it might sound immoral, once we face reality, developing countries have the right to have CBWs. Should they not have the right to protect themselves? If tomorrow a war is started between a developed country and a developing country, the developed country will definitely have CBWs (even though they will not announce this fact because it is actually against several treaties), and should the developing country not be able to defend their own country by having their own supply of CBWs?

Take the case of North Korea and the United States. When the United States attacked Iraq, they knew that Iraq had no biological weapons because they had done several checks on the matter, and one of their claims to start war in the first place was because Iraq had CBWs. Nevertheless, within the war itself, the United States naturally had more power because they themselves had a huge supply of CBWs. When North Korea announced that they had stepped out of the Non Proliferation Treaty, they were openly announcing that they had CBWs. However, America did not attack them. And this was because America knew that North Korea would be able to defend themselves.

“Although Iraq’s biological weapons program is under the microscope of those seeking to halt BW proliferation, the Wall Street Journal wrote that this “diverts Western attention away from the broader problems of chemical and biological weapons…”

Now, the above statements might be very controversial. Further, they may or may not even be accurate, according to the opinions of some people, because they happen to be based on my own individual theory. Nevertheless, the point remains that the developing countries should have a right to defend themselves if a war situation arises.

To conclude, I would like to ask that in the case of biotechnology, or in the case of scientific technology itself, should developing countries always be the ones to rely on the more powerful countries? In the case that patents continue to be placed on biotechnology, developed countries will always have more power than ELDCs. How long will the developed countries keep lending ELDCs a hand? How often will this have to be done? Time alone can tell. But what should ELDCs do until such a time comes? Until then, the best place for the ELDCs to find a helping hand will have to be, unfortunately, at the end of their own arm.

Bibliography

Venter, Al J. Keeping the Lid on Germ Warfare. [Online]. Available: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/plague/readings/venter.html July 3rd 2003.

No author. Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Weapons and Missiles: The Current Situation and Trends. [Online]. Available: http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/RL30699.pdf. .