Social and historical tensions in the global debate over GMOs and agricultural biotechnology

Lisa Weasel, Portland State University, Department of Biology

Abstract
Contemporary global attitudes toward genetically modified organisms (GMOs), genetically modified (GM) food, and agricultural biotechnology differ dramatically, ranging from U.S. consumers’ passive acceptance to Europe’s moratoria and conciliatory labeling laws in the face of WTO threats. Developing nations’ policies towards GMOs are also often caught in the crossfire of this debate, from Zambia’s continuing rejection of GMO food aid to controversies surrounding Bt cotton and patenting of rice in India, to the widespread unintentional contamination of genetically modified varieties of papaya across Thailand’s agricultural regions. Additionally, within a given country or geographical context, different stakeholders, such as scientists, industry representatives, government policymakers, farmers and NGOs can often be stubbornly polarized around this issue. What accounts for these differences and divisiveness in global public attitudes towards genetic engineering and agricultural biotechnology?
Comparative ethnographic research suggests that while on the surface, different stakeholder groups’ motivations in varying geographic locations may be framed around similar ethical intentions, such as solving hunger, improving health, or reducing environmental damage, the epistemological, philosophical, and social frameworks that each of these groups utilize to understand and approach the issue of GMOs differs widely. While scientists and industry may view the issue in terms of dispassionate “facts” and chastise their opponents for being overly emotional or “thinking with their gut,” those opposing GMOs may view the role of emotions and values as valid in the knowledge making process. Differing attitudes and philosophical beliefs about the role of nature, its relationship to humans, and the nature/culture divide also exist beneath the surface of these debates and can be tied to unresolved conflicts arising at the birth of modern science, and extending through the spread of Western science at the expense of local and indigenous knowledge traditions. Finally, the social application of GMOs in cases such as food aid and agricultural labor systems can also be understood differently byvarious stakeholders, dependent upon their social, cultural and geographic locations.
Generally speaking, many of these differing frameworks can be traced back to unresolved historical and cultural tensions regarding the role of modern science in both Western and colonial/postcolonial contexts. This paper will present findings from comparative ethnographic research on the debates concerning agricultural biotechnology in India, Thailand, Switzerland, Zambia and the United States to illustrate the varying epistemologies, philosophies and social frameworks that different groups utilize in their understanding of and approach to GMOs. By further exploring the varying knowledge claims, ethics and values issues, and equity outcomes of GMOs and agricultural biotechnology in differing contexts worldwide, the social application of biology can better be approached and understood.

Not available

Back to Abstract