13 ms·

If only we could use GM crops without handing control of the food supply to hostile corporations. It's only the irrational fear of GM that is strong enough to s

by deogeo 7y ago

If only we could use GM crops without handing control of the food supply to hostile corporations. It's only the irrational fear of GM that is strong enough to stand up to their lobbying - with the unfortunate side-effect of stopping all GM crops as well. But without that fear, the same misaligned incentives that result in tractor DRM and novel-length EULAs will be written into the DNA of the plants we need to live, while competitive forces will bankrupt those that stick with traditional seeds.

Merrill 7y ago
With the newer DNA editing tools becoming available more widely, perhaps there can be a "Free and Open Source Genetics" movement that will curtail the power of corporations to control genetic modification.
maxerickson 7y ago
There's lots of GM crops in use already, they aren't being stopped. It's not just corn and soy either: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/fdcc/?set=Biocon https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/fdcc/?set=Biocon
coenhyde 7y ago
The Federal Government could purchase the patents for GM crops after they've been developed and proven to be safe. Then make the crop freely available. You'd probably want some kind of purchase agreement where the crop developer gets annual payments based on how much the crop is used over a period of time.
Causality1 7y ago
Personally I think the idea of applying IP rights to living things is perverse and despicable.
chadlavi 7y ago
This. I'm all for the science, but don't trust corporations further 'n I can throw them.
- weberc2 7y ago
  The alternative is the government, right?
  - hannasanarion 7y ago
    How is government ownership of food patents worse than corporate ownership of them?
    - refurb 7y ago
      It’s not worse. But is it better? I can think of several instances where the federal govt gave sweet-fuck-all about human rights or what’s best for society.
      - mcv 7y ago
        It should be. Governments are supposed to represent the people and be accountable to them. Corporations are far too often only accountable to their shareholders. Reality is often different, of course.
      - hannasanarion 7y ago
        Government decisions are made democratically, by the people or officers appointed by them, to do what they believe is best for the people. Corporate decisions are made autocratically, by the owners or their appointed officers, to do what they believe makes the most money. How is the former not categorically better than the latter?
        weberc2 7y ago
        In theory they are better, but in practice “what makes them the most money” is often “what is best for the people” and governments and elected officials are often inept or corrupt. This doesn’t apply for every government or corporation on every issue, so we need to be nuanced in who we entrust which issues to. Specifically we want to look at the severity of the issue, the incentives, and the corruption and the competence of the government in question.
ZhuanXia 7y ago
Absent patent rights, none of that would matter. Patents are grotesque rent seeking and responsible for all these ills.
- davidf18 7y ago
  Patents are very important for wealth creation. Investors need returns on their investment, otherwise they will not make investments in the research and development necessary to develop the product. Without the limited time monopoly created by patents, investment cannot be recuperated and there will be no funds available for creating and productizing innovation.
  - pmoriarty 7y ago
    I wonder if something like the Kickstarter model could be applied to this sort of research. Novel investment models and the increased accessibility of bioengineering technologies to individuals have the potential to revolutionize the field in the future. Witness the blossoming fields of biohacking and citizen science. The fruits of individual, independent experimentation and development may get out in to the wild, if they haven't already, and no patent is likely to stop them.
  - deogeo 7y ago
    Yet golden rice was made mostly through state funding - patents aren't the only way.
    - makomk 7y ago
      One of the slightly unfortunate things about golden rice (and there are quite a lot of them) is that the state funding it was developed with required them to patent it and sell the patent to the private sector. Though not patenting it would've been of limited help due to the thicket of patents covering the technologies they used.
      - rndgermandude 7y ago
strainer 7y ago
The fear is not inherently irrational either. Its clearly a very powerful field on the confoundingly complicated biological domain, and with more power and complexity comes greater potential for serious error. It can be fair to disagree about the safety and wisdom of various GM applications, but the charge that it is all irrational is really just divisive rhetoric. I don't approve of novel GM in agriculture, I encourage naturalistic development for mass production in the environment and especially the materials we routinely put into our body. Poor nutrition is caused by poor politics, culture and economics over and above all of the existing foods which are already available to solve it. I think GM will best be limited to acute medical challenges and containable research and emergency uses, until we have actually developed a strong command of diseases and natural (evolved) systems. Our agriculture should be as contingent as possible with natural history and existing species in our already very disturbed sphere of ecology.
- deogeo 7y ago
  That's true - while I mostly don't buy the 'frankenfood' scare, I worry about the dangers to the ecosystem. For example a GM crop that is fungus/insect resistant, but the resistance is due to a herbicide/pesticide it was engineered to synthesize, that is later found to harm some key species (the way neonicotinoids were found to harm bees). Only recalling it will be much more difficult, especially if the genes spread to other species (such as by horizontal gene transfer). All the while the corporation selling the crop has every incentive to try to hide the ill effects.
  - strainer 7y ago
    I question why doesn't some amoeba just maximize its fitness and so turn into effectively a bioweapon that eats all the mammals on the planet? It has some sort of intelligence that restrains it from wiping out its food source? I do wish for Genetic Science and all relevant fields to take that mystery very seriously and solve it securely before its confident to mass replicate novel species in the huge system. Species which have evolved somehow over ages to not be routinely in massive flux between champion species. The microbial world could liquidate swathes of the phylogenetic tree repeatedly, if all it needs is a chance mutation to create a new alpha species. What stops an experimental GMO containing such an over-competitive mutation, or a precursor to such? There is so much yet not known or controllable in microbiology, it does worry me that the prevailing attitude is so confident with the little that is known and doable. Its alarmist and uncertain, but so is the foresight that significantly increasing ghgs through the whole atmosphere is too dangerous, or filling the sea with more plastic waste than there are fish left in it is not worth the price and risks. Hopefuly culture is on the verge of accepting these concerns have had rational basis. It needn't result in the end of modernity, but in the appreciation and protection of some older things.
jammygit 7y ago
I’ve been reading a sci fi book called the windup girl. The setting is a future where agri-tech companies and bioweapons proliferated until some conflict happened that led to almost all crops on earth being wiped out, and only innovative new produce could survive the engineered diseases, so the agri-tech companies have incredible power since the world depends on them for its survival. I would like to think it’s unlikely to really happen, but I’ve read news in the last 2 years about the USA researching tech that could lead one day to these types of scenarios[1]. There was also agent orange etc in Vietnam, showing a willingness to use such tech even in less serious wars (eg, compared to ones that endanger your cities). [1] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/10/181009102511.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/10/181009102511.h...
- gimmeThaBeet 7y ago
  That's also roughly the backstory of Niander Wallace in Blade Runner 2049. He creates synthetic farming methods to avert a global famine, which then gives him the clout to get the ban on replicants overturned. Windup Girl came out in 2009, perhaps some inspiration was acquired for BR2049...
  - C1sc0cat 7y ago
    Does raise the question is how Wallace manged not to just get his methods expropriated by the government or other Zaibatsus. Cyber Punk Dystopias are not big on Due Legal process, quite big on extra judicial solutions :-)
    - mcv 7y ago
      That reminds me of the time Monsanto bought Blackwater. (It's unclear to me whether they actually did, though I do remember it being reported. Online, reports are all over the place, with Monsanto denying it, others claiming it's true, and some sources claiming Monsanto merely hired Blackwater or bought only the intelligence arm of Blackwater under a different name. But it seems likely there's some relationship at least.)

by deogeo 7y ago

Merrill 7y ago

With the newer DNA editing tools becoming available more widely, perhaps there can be a "Free and Open Source Genetics" movement that will curtail the power of corporations to control genetic modification.

maxerickson 7y ago

There's lots of GM crops in use already, they aren't being stopped. It's not just corn and soy either: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/fdcc/?set=Biocon https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/fdcc/?set=Biocon

coenhyde 7y ago

The Federal Government could purchase the patents for GM crops after they've been developed and proven to be safe. Then make the crop freely available. You'd probably want some kind of purchase agreement where the crop developer gets annual payments based on how much the crop is used over a period of time.

Causality1 7y ago

Personally I think the idea of applying IP rights to living things is perverse and despicable.

chadlavi 7y ago

This. I'm all for the science, but don't trust corporations further 'n I can throw them.

weberc2 7y ago
The alternative is the government, right?
- hannasanarion 7y ago
  How is government ownership of food patents worse than corporate ownership of them?
  - refurb 7y ago
    It’s not worse. But is it better? I can think of several instances where the federal govt gave sweet-fuck-all about human rights or what’s best for society.
    - mcv 7y ago
      It should be. Governments are supposed to represent the people and be accountable to them. Corporations are far too often only accountable to their shareholders. Reality is often different, of course.
    - hannasanarion 7y ago
      Government decisions are made democratically, by the people or officers appointed by them, to do what they believe is best for the people. Corporate decisions are made autocratically, by the owners or their appointed officers, to do what they believe makes the most money. How is the former not categorically better than the latter?
      - weberc2 7y ago
        In theory they are better, but in practice “what makes them the most money” is often “what is best for the people” and governments and elected officials are often inept or corrupt. This doesn’t apply for every government or corporation on every issue, so we need to be nuanced in who we entrust which issues to. Specifically we want to look at the severity of the issue, the incentives, and the corruption and the competence of the government in question.

ZhuanXia 7y ago

Absent patent rights, none of that would matter. Patents are grotesque rent seeking and responsible for all these ills.

davidf18 7y ago
Patents are very important for wealth creation. Investors need returns on their investment, otherwise they will not make investments in the research and development necessary to develop the product. Without the limited time monopoly created by patents, investment cannot be recuperated and there will be no funds available for creating and productizing innovation.
- pmoriarty 7y ago
  I wonder if something like the Kickstarter model could be applied to this sort of research. Novel investment models and the increased accessibility of bioengineering technologies to individuals have the potential to revolutionize the field in the future. Witness the blossoming fields of biohacking and citizen science. The fruits of individual, independent experimentation and development may get out in to the wild, if they haven't already, and no patent is likely to stop them.
- deogeo 7y ago
  Yet golden rice was made mostly through state funding - patents aren't the only way.
  - makomk 7y ago
    One of the slightly unfortunate things about golden rice (and there are quite a lot of them) is that the state funding it was developed with required them to patent it and sell the patent to the private sector. Though not patenting it would've been of limited help due to the thicket of patents covering the technologies they used.
    - rndgermandude 7y ago

strainer 7y ago

The fear is not inherently irrational either. Its clearly a very powerful field on the confoundingly complicated biological domain, and with more power and complexity comes greater potential for serious error. It can be fair to disagree about the safety and wisdom of various GM applications, but the charge that it is all irrational is really just divisive rhetoric. I don't approve of novel GM in agriculture, I encourage naturalistic development for mass production in the environment and especially the materials we routinely put into our body. Poor nutrition is caused by poor politics, culture and economics over and above all of the existing foods which are already available to solve it. I think GM will best be limited to acute medical challenges and containable research and emergency uses, until we have actually developed a strong command of diseases and natural (evolved) systems. Our agriculture should be as contingent as possible with natural history and existing species in our already very disturbed sphere of ecology.

deogeo 7y ago
That's true - while I mostly don't buy the 'frankenfood' scare, I worry about the dangers to the ecosystem. For example a GM crop that is fungus/insect resistant, but the resistance is due to a herbicide/pesticide it was engineered to synthesize, that is later found to harm some key species (the way neonicotinoids were found to harm bees). Only recalling it will be much more difficult, especially if the genes spread to other species (such as by horizontal gene transfer). All the while the corporation selling the crop has every incentive to try to hide the ill effects.
- strainer 7y ago
  I question why doesn't some amoeba just maximize its fitness and so turn into effectively a bioweapon that eats all the mammals on the planet? It has some sort of intelligence that restrains it from wiping out its food source? I do wish for Genetic Science and all relevant fields to take that mystery very seriously and solve it securely before its confident to mass replicate novel species in the huge system. Species which have evolved somehow over ages to not be routinely in massive flux between champion species. The microbial world could liquidate swathes of the phylogenetic tree repeatedly, if all it needs is a chance mutation to create a new alpha species. What stops an experimental GMO containing such an over-competitive mutation, or a precursor to such? There is so much yet not known or controllable in microbiology, it does worry me that the prevailing attitude is so confident with the little that is known and doable. Its alarmist and uncertain, but so is the foresight that significantly increasing ghgs through the whole atmosphere is too dangerous, or filling the sea with more plastic waste than there are fish left in it is not worth the price and risks. Hopefuly culture is on the verge of accepting these concerns have had rational basis. It needn't result in the end of modernity, but in the appreciation and protection of some older things.

jammygit 7y ago

I’ve been reading a sci fi book called the windup girl. The setting is a future where agri-tech companies and bioweapons proliferated until some conflict happened that led to almost all crops on earth being wiped out, and only innovative new produce could survive the engineered diseases, so the agri-tech companies have incredible power since the world depends on them for its survival. I would like to think it’s unlikely to really happen, but I’ve read news in the last 2 years about the USA researching tech that could lead one day to these types of scenarios[1]. There was also agent orange etc in Vietnam, showing a willingness to use such tech even in less serious wars (eg, compared to ones that endanger your cities). [1] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/10/181009102511.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/10/181009102511.h...

gimmeThaBeet 7y ago
That's also roughly the backstory of Niander Wallace in Blade Runner 2049. He creates synthetic farming methods to avert a global famine, which then gives him the clout to get the ban on replicants overturned. Windup Girl came out in 2009, perhaps some inspiration was acquired for BR2049...
- C1sc0cat 7y ago
  Does raise the question is how Wallace manged not to just get his methods expropriated by the government or other Zaibatsus. Cyber Punk Dystopias are not big on Due Legal process, quite big on extra judicial solutions :-)
  - mcv 7y ago
    That reminds me of the time Monsanto bought Blackwater. (It's unclear to me whether they actually did, though I do remember it being reported. Online, reports are all over the place, with Monsanto denying it, others claiming it's true, and some sources claiming Monsanto merely hired Blackwater or bought only the intelligence arm of Blackwater under a different name. But it seems likely there's some relationship at least.)