Who knew that vitamin A would be the center of an all-out science war? The question is not of whether one side wants a vitamin deficiency; but one of securing priorities. The problem is not of the “bad” guy versus the “good” guy, but one of dominant Cartesian thinking as it looks to solve individual symptoms. Western society is often fixated on a single coordinate; failing to take a step back and misses the next problem lurking in its neighboring quadrant. Golden rice is a perfect illustration of this issue. I have no doubt that Ingo Potrykus had good intentions during his hours in the lab. To him, rice, a known staple of the Indian diet, was a good medium to solve the vitamin A deficiency which ailed the health of Indian citizens. Similarly, resistance against golden rice does not imply a “bad” or “good” decision, but just a well-intentioned opinion based on tradition showing their ancestors had lived healthy lives free of vitamin A deficiencies for centuries past.
This is not to say that good intentions always remain protected in purity from outside influences. Corporate motive is a tempting partner, one that breeds selfishness into an idea. Golden rice is currently owned by Syngenta Seeds AG, the third largest commercial seed manufacturer based in Germany. Germany, like many other European countries, currently has a ban on genetically-modified crops. Clearly, they must have some reason (albeit, hidden, since there is no “proof” yet that it is harmful for human health according to Triforce) for refusing GM foods. Yet they still push for golden rice as the “miracle cure” for vitamin A deficiency in India; all this without reconsidering their own ban against GM foods. This is a case in which motives is overshadowing innocent thought process. Syngenta seeds ought to be able to respect India’s decision to refuse the cultivation of golden rice based on their own thought process for their strict ban against GMO foods. But they don’t; instead they polarize the issue by framing opposition as the ignorant people who fail to take advantage of their “life-saving” technology.
I sincerely think that ideas on their own are built upon good intentions. Whether it be for GMO foods, for the invention of heavy isotopes, or for grass-fed beef, I believe that individuals were driven by the pursuit for a better humanity. Unfortunately temptation (corporate motives, politics, economics) ultimately lures us into taking a bite out of the forbidden apple; tainting good motivation; and polarizing one idea into two opposing dualisms for following generations to argue.
I think that your message is important when looking at the golden rice example. In my blog post I touched on a similar topic that it was a quick technological solution that solves individual symptoms. This is a nice blog post that looks at the golden rice topic from multiple interests, perspectives and underlying motivations. Also, looking at this as an outside temptation rather than the good versus bad is interesting to think about.
ReplyDeleteWHERE is 'outside'? For Latour, there isn't any. THis issue (and Jeehye's frame) always needs to define a standpoint. From the standpoint of vitamin deficiency, GMO rice with beta carotene is a clear good. From the standpoint of modified agricultural practices and the impact of monoculture, a lot less clear.
ReplyDelete