"The ultimate source of happiness for human society very much depends on the humans spirit, on spiritual values. If we do not combine science and these basic human values, then scientific knowledge may sometimes create troubles, even disasters"
The Dalai Lama
Pedalling around New Zealand I have two books. One on Buddhism and Science and Colin Tudges 'Good Food for Everyone Forever'. Beleive it or not in the last couple of days both authors touched on the same topic, one which I have been pondering for a while..
They both point out that science is a wonderful thing. In the past, science was an almost religous art. It has brought us many advances that improved the well-being of the whole planet.
We could be using advances in modern science and technology to create a better world. However, to a large extent we are now deploying science and high-technology with the aim of advancing short-term profit and human greed. Science has become dominated by that 20th century monster. The Corporate Interest.
Thats just the way the world is. Profit is king. Its true. But is there not another way? Where is our scientific moral compass?!
In the context of agriculture I beleive that in the right hands, modern advances in science; understanding soil biology, genetics, plants and animals could help us to feed the 9 billion by 2050, if that was the we set out to do. However, in the increasingly complex global market, it is not as simple as that.
Nowhere is this more apparent than in the field of genetic engineering. We are continually told how we will all starve without them. I do beleive that modifying plant varieties, by transgenetics, gene marking or something we havent thought of yet, could potentially support a chemical free agriculture, help improve yields nutrition or food security (although technology on its own is not a silver bullet) if such research and technology was in the right hands, independently owned and funded and publically available. However, such science and research is an expensive endeavour. Someone has to pay. And as it stands, less than 10% of the research into GM crops is independent.
As such, manipulation of a life form warrants ownership not only of the research, but of life itself. Of genetic codes, seeds and organisms, and the rights to use them can then be sold to farmers.
The vast majority of research and development in Agriculture is funded by corporates, directly or indirectly. Most of it can be traced back to the likes of Syngenta, KWS and Monsanto. It is pretty much impossible for the British farmer to access truly independent research these days. Even if they think it is independent (I had a hard time convincing Dad of this until he found out that trusty old ADAS has long since been privatised on the quiet!)
So science has to pay for itself. The objective of the scientific endeavour becomes about creating products.
As such, lets be honest, modern agricultural research and development is primarily with the intention of generating ongoing profits. Hybrid seeds will not regerminate, and even if they do, you better pay your royalties or face a huge fine if they are found in your field! High yielding varieties improve productivity, but ensure that farmers buy the required cocktail of agricultural chemicals to make them grow into 'healthy plants'.
We know very little about what is happening in our soils and yet they are one of the mainstays of civilisation. Rarely do we talk about soil biology in mainstream agriculture. Modern agricultural science sees the soil as a blank canvas to add chemicals to. If farmers know too much, they might not need to buy so many expensive products. Thats no good!
If the advancement of science and genetic technology lies solely in the hands of companies whose prime aim is making a profit, without any kind of moral regulation, that is clearly putting ourselves in a hugely vulnerable position. I fear, like the Dalai Lama, that with profit as the main (and pretty much only) objective of science. With corporate interests literally owning life. Then we will create a disaster.
But what is the solution?
We need truly independent research, publically available, open-source and transparent. Truly compassionate science, whose main objective is the greater good of mankind and the planet.
We need deeper understanding of soil biology, plant and animal genetics and to be able to share information freely with farmers. Colin remembers fondly that in the 1970s Britain had over 30 government-supported research stations and Experimental Husbandry Farms providing new insights into all aspects of agiculture, developing new crops and finding new ways of doing things. It was all shared directly with Britains farmers. In the 1980s they were closed down or privatised. Revitalising them could be a powerful way of reliquishing a bit of control!
 |
| Farmer led research in Nepal with local drought resistant rice |
On a recent trip to Nepal I was impressed by the work of LIBIRD (http://www.libird.org/), who (in partnership with CGIAR and Bioversity International) conduct on farm research into local knowledge and agricultural biodiversity and actively work to its protection, promoting seed diversity and farmer-to-farmer knowledge sharing.
The Soil Association, funded mainly by its members, has an interesting programme of on-farm research and funds some academic research into soil preparations such as Biochar. At the Oxford Real Farming Conference I was delighted to meet John Letts, who has field trials of ancient landraces of wheat and proving (excuse the pun) that they make an excellent loaf!
Of course farmers themselves are also always experimenting on their own farms and sharing knowledge (and seeds where they are allowed!). Despite the fact they are all essentially in competition, at every opportunity; out of tractor door, at the cattle market or even on the internet, I have seen how they are always keen to share learnings and better ways of doing things with each other. As in Nepal, this knowledge could be documented, formalised.
The challenge is credibility. Its all too easy for the other interests to dismiss such 'anecdotal' research, or refute studies such as those linking cancer with GM. These studies need much more funding.
If we can't change the legislation to protect life from patents, then public research could create public or 'open-source' patents. Patents that can only be used within certain social criteria. To enable seed sharing, open use of science and technology advances. Farmer-to-farmer learning.
Its a huge challenge. But I think it is doable. We just need to put the soul back into science!
No comments:
Post a Comment