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 effects Social: 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

Control of Global Maize Market

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