Advertisement

Development

, Volume 62, Issue 1–4, pp 121–127 | Cite as

Exterminator Genes: The Right to Say No to Ethics Dumping

  • Mariann Bassey-OrovwujeEmail author
  • Jim Thomas
  • Tom Wakeford
Local/Global Encounters

Abstract

The scientific-industrial complex is promoting a new wave of genetically modified organisms, in particular gene drive organisms, using the same hype with which they tried to persuade society that GMOs would be a magic bullet to solve world hunger. The Gates Foundation claims that GDOs could help wipe out diseases such as malaria. Powerful conservation lobby groups claim GDOs will protect engendered species. Not only are the benefits from GDOs based, like their predecessors, on flawed ecological thinking, but they are backed by the same agri-business interests that have devastated agroecological farming systems. The rights of communities to say ‘no’ to new genetic technologies is being eroded, despite United Nations agreements, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity, which call for the free, prior and informed consent of affected communities to be respected. By exporting their field trials to countries with weak regulatory regimes and lowering of the standards of consent the Gates Foundation’s Target Malaria project has already been guilty of ethics dumping. These developments demonstrate the urgent need to democratize the development of new technologies.

Keywords

Genetically modified organisms Gene drive organisms Ethics dumping Convention on biological diversity 

Notes

References

  1. Courtier-Orgogozo, Virginie, Baptiste Morizot, and Christophe Boëte. 2017. Agricultural Pest Control with CRISPR-Based Gene Drive: Time for Public Debate: Should We Use Gene Drive for Pest Control? EMBO Reports 18 (6): 878–880.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Dressel, H. (ed). 2019. Gene Drives: A Report on Their Science, Applications, Social Aspects, Ethics and Regulations. Critical Scientists Switzerland, Bern. https://genedrives.ch/report/. Accessed 12 Sept 2019.
  3. Enserink, Martin. 2008. Tough Lessons From Golden Rice. Science 320 (5875): 468–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. ETC Group. 2018. Blocking the Chain: Industrial Food Chain Concentration, Big Data Platforms and Food Sovereignty Solutions. https://www.etcgroup.org/content/blocking-chain. Accessed 12 Sept 2019.
  5. Kuruganti, Kavitha, Michel Pimbert, and Tom Wakeford. 2008. The People’s Vision: UK and Indian Reflections on Prajateerpu. Participatory Learning and Action 58: 11–17.Google Scholar
  6. Perryer, S. 2019. Medical research is conducted in developing countries to avoid ethics legislation. New Economy, 10 June 2019. https://www.theneweconomy.com/strategy/medical-research-is-conducted-in-developing-countries-to-avoid-ethics-legislation. Accessed 12 Sept 2019.
  7. Schroeder, D., J. Cook Lucas, F. Hirsch, S. Fenet, and V. Muthuswamy. 2018. Ethics Dumping: Case Studies from North–South Research Collaborations. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for International Development 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mariann Bassey-Orovwuje
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jim Thomas
    • 2
  • Tom Wakeford
    • 3
  1. 1.Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa (AFSA)AbujaNigeria
  2. 2.Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration (ETC Group)Val-DavidCanada
  3. 3.Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration (ETC Group)LondonUK

Personalised recommendations