☼       Do not assert ownership over species or their genetic codes; they are not ours to claim. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many of today’s environmental crises, from global warming to overpopulation, have their origins in the 19^th century or even before.  This precept, however, concerns a genuinely new problem in our relationship with the Earth.  With the development of DNA sequencing technology about 25 years ago, corporations began to assert ownership over basic genetic information and to seek patents on living organisms.  These genetic codes developed over millions of years without human knowledge or contribution. It is as if a guest, upon arriving at an elaborate feast, pushed the host aside, locked up the kitchen, and forced the other guests to buy the food at monopolistic prices.

To gain some perspective, consider:  what is more perfect than a seed?  It contains all the tasks of life within it:  to endure, to take root, to grow, and to produce more of its kind.  Like sleeping babies and our fondest dreams, seeds have the piercing beauty of perfect potential, and it is impossible not to love them.

At least, that’s how it seems to me.  But for a different point of view, we can turn to biotechnology companies like Monsanto.   For these corporations, seeds are simply “gene delivery systems,” and their potential is a little too perfect, thank you very much.  To gain control, the companies are researching ways to patent and then to sterilize genetically-altered crops.  This would protect corporate interests by forcing farmers to buy more seeds every year, rather than saving some for replanting.

These efforts have caused an uproar of criticism.  The biotech companies have responded by claiming that such measures are needed to justify their investment in beneficial new crops.  But are these new crops truly beneficial?  Most bioengineered plants are suitable only for the mechanized, chemical-intensive monocultures that are the most ecologically damaging form of agriculture.

In the face of the innumerable gifts of the biosphere, the assertion of ownership over nature is unspeakably foolish and staggeringly ungrateful.  However, the problem with patenting genetic material is not simply its profound ingratitude.  Patent rights, and the profits they promise, are the fuel driving the whole genetic engineering enterprise.  Withdrawing that fuel is the best way to regain control over this deeply problematic activity. 

Genetic engineering risks catastrophic environmental damage, as it could release upon the world organisms that lack all natural checks and balances.  It also raises social issues that we have only begun to imagine. For example, consider the possibilities of genetic engineering in medicine.  Few would argue against a genetic “fix” for, say, diabetes.  But would such a process be the patented property of a corporation?  Would it be denied to poor people without health insurance?  And what about genetic engineering of embryos for enhanced intelligence, or beauty, or athletic ability?  That could be very profitable – but again, who would benefit, and who would pay?

Our responsibility to the Earth and our respect for our fellow human beings dictates a halt to this uncontrolled experimentation with life itself, at least until we have developed a far better understanding of what we are doing, and of the possible consequences.

Next week, we’ll look at the necessity to hold corporations to a high standard of environmental responsibility, if we are to preserve a healthy biosphere.  Until then, this is Pepper Trail.

▲ TRANSCRIPT LIST