The vote on Prop 37, a proposed California law struck down in the November elections, was not the last debate over the legislative treatment of genetically modified organisms. Later this month, GMOs will face the Supreme Court, whose justices will hear a case that has drawn the attention of higher education’s research establishment. The University of California’s support of the Monsanto Company — a big-league provider of GM agricultural products — in this court case neglects the basic mission of research universities. A decision in favor of Monsanto will impede research more than facilitate it, encourage fraudulent research, and support the degenerative practices of corporate monopolies.
The key issue on both sides of the argument in Bowman v. Monsanto is the scope of Monsanto’s patents on its GM foods. The UC Board of Regents and a handful of universities want to uphold the strictest interpretation of these patents because they fear companies will be reluctant to allow scientists to conduct research on their technologies after a court precedent has loosened patents’ authority. This will affect research not just in the food industry, but also in critical research areas, like stem cells, bacterial strains and organic computers. This is especially applicable to research at UCSD, with many of its divisions and schools mingling with biotechnology, including the UCSD School of Medicine, the Center for Marine Biotechnology and Biomedicine at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, the Jacobs School of Engineering and other basic science departments.
First, here is a brief explanation of GMOs. Scientists in the 1940s discovered that DNA could transfer between organisms. They used this discovery to alter genes in foods to produce desirable traits, such as a delayed ripening process to achieve a longer shelf life, or an increased resistance to weed killers, insects and environmental stresses. As these techniques were developed, biotech companies also began patenting these genetically altered foods. That’s right — corporations took intellectual ownership of food (GMOs now comprise 80 percent of conventional processed food in America). This is especially worrisome, because production of these foods is controlled by corporate monopolies like Monsanto, Bayer, DuPont and Dow.
The monopolization of seed production has several disturbing consequences. First, GMOs promote pesticide usage, harming the environment. Second, the reduction and elimination of conventional seeds gives farmers little choice but to buy GMO products. Third, high prices of GMOs and their accompanying pesticides harm farmers financially: In 2010, farmers spent twice the historic norm on seeds, despite their decreasing revenues. Fourth, Monsanto’s strong-arm tactics target smaller seed production companies, prohibiting a competitive market and slowing scientific research. Findings by the U.S. Department of Agriculture showed that when more companies were involved in seed production, more research was conducted. This is the nature of competition: Fewer competitors means less scientific innovation. These are clear indications that monopolies wielding their patents — like Monsanto — are a degenerative presence in the U.S. market. They constipate competition and research, and research universities should not support them.
The University of California’s stance in Bowman v. Monsanto is disappointing: They are prioritizing cash flow over independent science. For example, Monsanto insists on the right to block the publication of researchers’ findings, which is a huge red flag for anyone expecting the truth on GMOs. According to a 2009 statement by 26 university scientists protesting to the Environmental Protection Agency, strict patents prevent scientists from conducting truly independent research on critical questions relating to the technology in question. Upholding strict patents not only permits the continued exploitation of farmers; it also encourages inaccurate research: When strict patents allow companies to block publications and supervise research, scientists are discouraged from producing negative results, and they do not produce truly independent research. We need independent research so that public policy is not grossly misguided, and so that billions of federal dollars are not wasted by a snowballing system of publishing and referencing fraudulent science.
The fact is this: Consumers have the right to know. Universities need to support independent research, not the special interests of affluent businesses. Corporations don’t have ethics unless they have an economic or legal incentive, and in this case, this incentive is absent, hence the harassment of farmers, the suppression of independent scientific inquiry and possibly even the deliberately misguided public policy. Supporters of Monsanto — indirectly or not — are overlooking the basic scientific principles of research universities, and our stance on these issues needs to be reevaluated.
The Supreme Court decision on Bowman v. Monsanto is expected by July of this year.
