The Ethics of Agricultural Biotech: Lessons for Nanotech?

Jeffrey Burkhardt

Ethics & Policy Program

Institute of Food & Agricultural Sciences

University of Florida

Why AgBiotech Ethics?

• Nature of the technology

• Use of the technology has consequences

• People have different values & priorities

• Conflicts & arguments

Ethics explains/critiques arguments

Arenas of Ethical Discourse/Debate

• Intrinsic arguments

• Consequentialist arguments

• Rights/consent arguments

• Structural/ Procedural arguments

Intrinsic Arguments

Biotech is unethical because of what it is

• Biotechnology is “playing God”– Interfering in God’s design is wrong

• Biotechnology is unnatural – Crossing species boundaries is

wrong

– Creating life-forms nature could not have made is wrong

Counter: Biotech is no different than plant breeding, etc.

Consequentialist Arguments

Biotech is unethical because of its effects

Human Health:

• Risks to human health – chronic problems, acute allergic reactions, synergistic interactions

• We owe it to people not to harm them or place them at risk

Counter: Biotech is safe• The benefits outweigh any risks

Consequentialist Arguments

Biotech is unethical because of its effects

Environmental:

• Risks to species, ecosystems, potential damage to agriculture itself

• We owe future generations (or nature itself) to not place ecosystems at risk

Counter: Biotech is better than alternatives

• The benefits outweigh the risks

Consequentialist Arguments

Biotech is unethical because of its effectsSocial:• Threatens small farms, developing nations• Harming small farms and indigenous

agricultural systems is unfair

Counter: Biotech is better than alternatives• Benefits outweigh the harms• New technology leads to “structural

adjustments”

Rights/Consent Arguments

Biotech food violates people’s rights• Biotech (GM) foods have been “smuggled”

into the food system• Some people object to GM foods• People have a right to choose what they

eat• We must respect people’s rights

Counter: Biotech food is safe• It is “unreasonable” to object to GM foods

Structural/Procedural Arguments

BIO: The SYSTEM of R&D, tech transfer, intellectual property, etc. is unethical

• BIO is global and growing in power

• BIO is an increasingly concentrated enterprise (monopolized)

• BIO has co-opted public sector research

• BIO is out of democratic control

Counter: The SYSTEM is working

Current Structure of AgBiotech

Concentration of World Ag Inputs Market

• 10 multinationals control 85% ag chemicals

• 10 multinationals control 40% commercial seed industry

• 4 multinationals control 80% of world grain trade

• Same companies are in seed/chemicals and biotechnology

AgBiotech Patents

Figure 1.AgBiotechnology Patent Ownership -- 2003

DuPont13%

Syngenta7%

Bayer4%Other

Private33%

Unknown2%

Public24%

Monsanto14%

Dow3%

Source: Graff et al., 2003

Control of Global Maize Market

Figure 2Global Maize Seed Market Share -- 2002

DuPont27%

KWS3%

Dow5%

Syngenta7%

Limagrain3%

Monsanto38%

Advanta3%

Other14%

Source: ETC Group, 2005

What Have We Learned?

• Ongoing debates have not been resolved

• Debates are not resolved via “facts”

• Reasoned ethical critique has been met with sloganeering and PR campaigns

Example of BIO’s response to ethical arguments

Example of BIO’s

response

to ethical

arguments

What Have We Learned?

• BIO has been unwilling to engage in systematic self-critique

• Government is unwilling to engage in ethical examination beyond “risk-benefit” analysis

• Technology marches on unfettered by a priori considerations of

right & wrong

What Have We Not Learned?

How to internalize and institutionalize discussion of ethical issues and concerns before

• Inventions are disclosed

• Products are patented

• Products are licensed for commercialization

• Technology is adopted

• Consequences (good and bad) become apparent