“Unraveling the Double Helix:

‘Truth’ & Power in Agbiotech”

Hillary Violet Lehr

Advising Professor: Laura Nader

Department of Anthropology

UC Berkeley

AmazonHilly@gmail.com

May 1, 2006

“Unraveling the Double Helix:

‘Truth’ & Power in Agbiotech”

Table of Contents

Contents Acknowledgements Preface Introduction: An Alternative Double Helix

o Science: Evolution of a Truth Machineo The Social Power of Scientific Ideaso Focuso Methodology

Ch. 1 Legitimation of Scientist’s Authority to Manufacture Truth o The Rise of the Specific Intellectualo Reign of (and Reins on) the Specific Intellectualo From the Green Revolution to the Gene Revolution

Ch. 2 The Apparatus of Truth: University Labs o Current University Climateo Beggars Can’t Be Chooserso Patent or Perisho Knowledge (Production)o McDonaldization of the Labo Mcjobs Off Campuso Knowledge (Reproduction)

Ch. 3 In the Name of Science o Bad Science or bad Science?o The Need to ‘Educate the Public’ o The Public: Anti-Agbiotech or Anti-GMO?

Ch. 4 Good Science, Good Development o Food, Health, Hope®o Nailed Bootstrapso Imagine®

Conclusion Appendix Bibliography

2

[Acknowledgements]

Over this school year, I have learned so much about my topic, the

writing process, and myself! Firstly, I would like to thank my

sponsoring professor, Laura Nader, for encouraging me to turn my final

paper for Anthropology 139, “Controlling Processes,” into a thesis.

Thank you for applying anthropology where it is most relevant. In doing

so, you have inspired so many students in your courses to understand

how best our bodies and minds can throw wrenches into trim tabs.

Thank you to Laura Nader and Professor David Winickoff for helping me

to formulate ideas, learn of helpful sources, and challenge me to focus

in specific areas. Professor Winickoff, thanks for letting me borrow

Visvanathan for practically all of last summer! To all of the brilliant

authors and essayists whose works I encountered, I am amazed at your

ideas and challenges to the status quo. Jason Delbourne, thank you for

paving social analysis right into the College of Natural Resources. Keep

fighting! And lastly, I must thank Foucault. Foucault! I will never forget

the late-night dash to City Lights- the only bookstore in San Francisco I

could find open at 11pm on a rainy Saturday night.

Over the course of the year, I learned so much from the people I

interviewed. Thank you to all of the Berkeley Agbiotech scientists,

farmers, lecturers, social scientists, Monsanto employees, and

ecologists who made time for me over the semester: Ignacio Chapela,

Percy Schmeiser, Vandana Shiva, David Winickoff, Mike Freeling, Peggy

Lemaux, Jaswinder Signh, Greg Guisti, Charlie Schwartz, Martin

Lemon, and Toni Voelker. While my end result may be surprising to

some of you, this honest response is out of respect for your intent and

in the hopes that the better world we want for all may be closer (rather

than further) from being realized. Thank you for your warmth, your

3

reflection, and your openness. I would be honored to continue these

conversations with you.

To the Monsanto employee who could not, under contract, give me his

opinion on GMO controversies because I may have used his response

for “anti-Monsanto” purposes, thank you. Your silence was more

illuminating of the difference between public and private research than

any of my other interviews. I am afraid this may indeed be an anti-

Monsanto paper. Imagine®.

I have so many people I am grateful to have in my life. Their support,

smiles, tea, and backrubs got me through the most tumultuous of

revisions, the longest nights, and the moments of uncertainty. Thank

you to my partner and friends and everyone who helped with reading

over my drafts. Adam, Brittany, and Kate, you are amazing! Thanks to

discussions with friends, classmates, and everyone in my co-op who

shared unique ideas and perspectives as we questioned the food we

snacked on in the kitchen.

4

[Preface]

Brief Encounters of an Imperial MindIn the fall semester of 2004, I was one of twenty students that

traveled to Mo’orea, French Polynesia to conduct tropical biology

research at the UC Berkeley Gump Biology Station as part of a 13-unit

course for the semester. Part of the uniqueness of the program is that

students are encouraged to create their own research projects based

on their own interests. As a Conservation & Resource Studies major

focusing on Political Ecology, I was drawn to the agriculture of the

island, specifically the traditional methods of farming subsistence

crops that have evolved over centuries. I developed a proposal to

study taro, a root crop, and possible explanations for planting at

different phases in the lunar cycle. I had a few hypotheses: the

tapunas (elder priests) planted taro at full moons to have less insect

predation and at new moons if they wanted the taro to grow quickly. It

wasn’t implausible that the predatory insects oriented themselves to

light and flew upwards toward the full moon instead of chomping down

a fresh plant, nor that the slight increase in gravitational pull

responsible for higher tides at the full moon may influence the apical

meristem's gravitational orientation at a slightly stronger level.

Whatever the reasons, I will never know, because my research

proposal was immediately disregarded as “not real science”. A

prominent Berkeley biology professor said my research interests were

“like a 7th grade science fair project where you play music to plants”

and “I know that your experiment will not show anything.”

I found this puzzling. Simply trying to put a different cultural

phenomenon into scientific terminology and inquiry had met profound

resistance. I found it difficult to see how a scientist so well trained in

objectivity and disciplined to draw conclusions based on careful study

could disregard an idea that had no evidence at all. Even more

alarming were his dismissals of the lunar planting cycle and traditional

knowledge overall. “We don’t want to insult these people and tell them

that they are wrong” implied to me a presupposition that ‘we’ are

always right, even without the scientific evidence to back it up.

Two problems were at play here. First, was a presupposition that

Western science is always right and traditional knowledge is eternally

inferior. Secondly, and perhaps most alarming, is the profound neo-

colonial racism that manifests itself not only in scientists’ behavior

towards non-Westerners, but in the staunch refusal of some Western

scientists to even ask certain questions. How did this happen?

At risk of failing a 13-unit course, I eventually settled on a project

that used repetitive insect sampling to study the dynamics of an

invasive species of aphid (indigenous to Texas, ironically) on taro crops

around the island. This process involved requesting permission from

local Tahitian farmers to sample in their taro fields. Several of the

farmers asked me for a pesticide to stop the aphids and I, in my

embarrassing ignorance of native Tahitian and stammering imperial

French, promised to do my best. After nine weeks on the island I baked

cookies from imported flour and M&M’s and thanked each farmer

individually for their assistance. One farmer, a Tahitian man in his

seventies, asked me for the pesticide. I replied to a friend who

translated to French to the man’s daughter who translated to Tahitian

that I had no pesticide, but I knew that the aphids preferred one

sweeter variety of taro. The man shook his head, said, “Of course they

do” in Tahitian and walked away.

It was at that moment that I realized the conflict here was not a

linguistic barrier and was not a an error of understanding, but that the

farmer’s frustration was over the failure of yet another continuous form

of imperialism to help him in any way at all. This was the result of

imperialism of ideas, of the biased approach of biologists towards the

6

island and its inhabitants. Year after year, this research program

returns to the island with the same professors, only one of whom

speaks some French, to tell the local Tahitians our version of how their

island functions. The Tahitians have stated that they well aware of how

their island functions without our graphs and tables, but most of the

biologists on the program have never even considered that this could

be the case.

The problem on Mo’orea is two-fold. One, we are not asking the right

questions. Students are directed to study abstract biological nuances

and discouraged from interacting with locals to even ask how they

could be of aid during their stay in “paradise”. Secondly, American

biologists are perceived as but a slight variation of the French

colonizers that first began to control Tahitians’ everyday life under the

violent, paternal assumption of their own intellectual superiority. This

hegemonic process seems to be caught up in a whirlwind of assertions

of who knows best.

It was here that I became interested in the problem of Truth.

7

[Introduction]

When we imagine the slender curves of the infamous double helix, we

are drawn not only to the aesthetics of the geometry, but to the

elegant structure we are told holds the key to our own destiny. DNA:

the blueprint of life. There is a mysticism within this silent structure

that holds great power in the cultural imaginary. Part of this

sacredness is DNA’s intangibility, its inaccessibility to the common

person.

When one examines a history of science (or of anthropology), many

interesting social climates become evident.1 From scientific racism to

social Darwinism, the line between context and certain ’obvious’ truths

becomes blurry. Similarly, when we look critically at the role of science

in today’s society, many contemporary values and structures become

clear. The space we perceive between ourselves and the helix coding

our destinies is similar to the space between the individual and the

massive structures of power in contemporary globalized West. This

culture is said to be guided by reason and rationality, based on the

principles of sound science. Our destination is fixed upon a linear road

of Progress. However, historical context complicates this

understanding:

The closer historians of science look at the great achievements of

science, the more difficulty they find in distinguishing science from

pseudoscience and from the political, economic, and ideological

contexts. Scientists’ philosophical views about nature, man and society

appear to play a very important part in the formulations of the

substance of major scientific ideas… Science is much more like the

messy world of social and political intercourse than working scientists

care to believe, or are willing to concede.”2

1 Coleman, 1971: 92-98; 3-152 Young, 1972: 103-104

8

If we were to pause time and review society from a less immersed

perspective, we would probably list Science as one of the major belief

systems of contemporary society. It teaches us how to understand

where we came from, how to survive in the present, and seems to fuel

where we are going. Its methods empower individuals to use reasoning

to standardize results approximating Truth. Science accepts and

pursues Truth. If we were in fact able to pause time, we may also

notice that the winding staircase we climb towards Truth looks

surprisingly like a strand of DNA. And opposite, we see a parallel

structure. What is this complementary helix connected to the Truth?

We must trace the social nucleotides, the interlocking social and

political pieces connecting these two structures. If we did, perhaps we

would find that this double helix is made up of Truth and Power.

Though pristine and elegant as the double helix appears, if we were to

peek through a ‘messy’ lens of social and political influence, we might

see an inseparable connection between the pursuit and progress of

Science and the structures of Power to which it is linked.

It is important here to quickly distinguish between Truth and

Knowledge and its relation to Science (with a little help from Foucault).

Knowledge is statements, what can be known, information that can be

produced and used. Scientists/intellectuals produce knowledge.

Truth is more abstract than knowledge. What we call Truth is filtered

through what society accepts as real or true. In this sense, Truth can

be obtained through navigating a system of ordered procedures for the

production, regulation, distribution, circulation and operation of

knowledge/statements. Positivism and essentialism (characteristic of

most current hard and soft sciences) hold that there is a singular Truth

which can be discovered. Scientists and some philosophers believe in

the Truth.

9

Science: Evolution of a Truth Machine

The scientific process evolved as a form of observation supplicated by

experiment to test observations and answer questions.3 Upon the

entrance of the European Enlightenment, science took on a new

cultural role. Countering the prevailing deeply religious political and

cultural climate, science was used to usher in new secular ideologies

and provide substantial, popular challenges to indoctrinations and

controlling ideologies of self and purpose. From this historical turning

point, European philosophers were perched to begin to challenge and

redefine the idea of God, divinity, and Truth.

Currently, Science is a powerful form of knowledge-making. It has the

privileged role of viewing and explaining the Truth in our society. The

scientific method formalized in 1686 lent itself to the addition of

concepts of controlled conditions, controlled variables, and

reproducibility of experiments. 4 Standardizing scientific methods led to

a greater network of innovation that served to propel Europe into the

Industrial Revolution.5 As the culture of “the West” moved into a new

political economy, so did prevailing discourses and ideology: the big

move to Modernity. Thus Truth took on its own ‘political economy.’

Foucault points out five points regarding such a ‘political economy of

Truth:’

1) “Truth is centered on the form of scientific discourse and the institutions which produce it;

3 Egyptian and Babylonian records of experiments predate increasingly standardized forms of observation streamlined by Aristotle, Pythagoras, and other Greek and Roman philosophers. When the dark ages hit Europe around 700 A.D. much of inquiry-based forms of knowledge-making were preserved in the Islamic empire, and often by women.? As the story goes, upon Europe’s break from experiments in Judeo-Christian religious fundamentalism, science emerged as an objective pathway to the Enlightenment.? Relative to the Dark Ages, indeed it was. Science liberated Europe from an oppressive, non-tolerant ideology that governed people’s choices, lifestyles, and activities.4 Machamer, p. 375 Hart, lecture. 2-14-05; A. Smith: 1776, p. 112; Browne: 1996, p. 107

10

2) It is subject to constant economic and political incitement (the demand for truth, as much for economic production as for political power);

3) It is the object, under diverse forms of immense diffusion and consumption (circulating through apparatuses of education and information…);

4) It is produced and transmitted under control, dominant if not exclusive, of a a few great political economic apparatuses (university, army, writing, media);

5) It is the issue of a whole political debate and social confrontation (“ideological” struggles).

Truth does not simply exist. It is ‘found,’ and found/created for specific

reasons. These reasons are shaped by culture and social systems.

Societal (and therefore economic) effects upon scientific theory and

process are evident in even the most widely accepted theories, which I

will discuss throughout this chapter.

Evolution of Evolution: A Primordial Theory Stew‘Eco,’ the root word of both ecology and economy is derived from the

Greek oikos, meaning ‘household.’6 While today we view economics as

the globalization of Western hegemony, many see ecology as a more

universal understanding of natural processes.7 The common origin of

the terms since bifurcated into a human-based model of material

exchange and a human-absent model of nature. The space between

the two concepts leaves room for politics.

For instance, one such overlap occurs when the eco model employing

broad concepts of scarcity slips into a resource-based analysis of the

other. Most scholars and economists today describe Malthus’ treatise

that the human population will outstrip resources as pessimistic and

bourgeoisie.8 But Malthus' conclusion is interesting because he blended

scientific and ecological evaluations with economics. Beyond a startling

wake-up call that humanity was not as independent from nature as

6 The term oekologie was coined in 1866 by the German biologist Ernst Haeckel.7 V. Shiva, 1993: p. 98 Hart, lecture 1-28-05; Malthus, 1798.

11

they wished, Malthus influenced the most important theory of the 19th

century: evolution. Darwin built the theory of evolution upon one

crucial point: scarcity. In his autobiography, he states:

"In October 1838, that is, fifteen months after I had begun my systematic inquiry, I happened to read for amusement Malthus on Population, and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence which everywhere goes on from long- continued observation of the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The results of this would be the formation of a new species. Here, then I had at last got a theory by which to work."9

So we see Darwin’s ground-breaking theory was heavily generated by

a concept of scarcity those arose from the cultural and economic

climate of early capitalism. It is no surprise to us that Darwin’s theory

of evolution is highly competitive and individualistic. One might even

venture to ask if it was Darwin or a leading factory owner who first

articulated “survival of the fittest.” His theories are riddled with

phrases that echo the economic paradigms of early capitalism

permeating an industrializing Europe: mass production through

factories and industrialization coupled metaphorically with a specified

mass production of offspring to leave favorable traits to be least likely

to be naturally selected in the marketplace of phenotypes.10

This concept of a possible social root in the theory of evolution may be

startling to some, and it is no wonder. Today’s science culture is ready

to embrace Lamarck or Galileo or any other ground-breaking scientific

revolutionary that may be ‘contextualized’ today but was nonetheless

valuable to science as a whole. It involved no profound reevaluations

or terrifying questions to note that scientists can be right or wrong,

given a safe distance in the historical past. But it is much more difficult

to realize that we are not insulated from this imperfect process. In fact,

9 Darwin, 1876.10 V. Shiva, discussion 4-25-05.

12

it is still happening all around us. Within the other double helix, we

must look at connections between our systems of Truth and systems of

Power.

The Social Power of a Scientific Idea

Evolution is groundbreaking and indeed incredibly significant to

Western concepts of nature, ecology and biology. However, we see the

theory’s ideological offspring, social darwinism, propelling itself into

the latest nexus of scientific pursuit, biotechnology. For example, Troy

Duster has analyzed the ‘prism of heritability’ in which genetic traits

are sought to explain societal variation in crime, intelligence, addiction

and other conditions and behaviors.11 He explains the danger of these

explanations is that they subvert investigation of social experience of

inequality in favor of a biological explanation. Genetic hypotheses of

racial difference (a social construct) have surfaced in academia, such

the highly controversial assertions made by the authors of “The Bell

Curve.”12 According to the president of one of the West’s most

distinguished institutions, it is “innate [biological] differences” that

bring about male survival in the sciences. 13 These pseudo-scientific

statements and hypotheses use the language of science to articulate

socially constructed categories. Foucault states in Truth and Power:

“The stormy relationship between evolution and the [economists], as

well as the highly ambiguous effects of evolutionism (on sociology,

criminology, psychiatry, and eugenics, for example) mark the

important moment when the savant [the ‘specific’ or expert

intellectual begins to intervene in contemporary political struggles in

the name of a ‘local’ scientific truth.”

11 Duster, Troy. “The Prism of Heritability and the Sociology of Knowledge”12 Devlin, 1997, p.1413 Dr. Larry Summers, statement at Harvard University. 1-16-05

13

The local scientific ‘truths’ being sought in genetics are highly

significant. While a complete investigation of all of these is too

extensive for any one paper, it is worth noting that as fields become

more specialized, so does the lens with which experts view and explain

the world around them. The increasing specificity of genetics has

narrowed the search for understanding to what can be attributed to a

strip of DNA. As the sciences have replaced much of religion’s role of

providing knowledge about the world around us, the common

understanding of Truth takes on a scientific dogma. Today, the Truth is

one of testable hypotheses and objective theory. In doing so, it rejects

other forms of knowledge and risks losing the ability to recognize its

own ‘locality.’14 Science, in becoming a universalized method in pursuit

of Truth, risks loosing perspective on its own subjectivity. Just as

Darwin’s theory shaped and was shaped by societal experience,

today’s evolutionary and genetic theories hold an aura of mystic

revelation steeped in social assumptions. While unraveling a small but

mighty molecule, scientists may be overlooking the social world that is

affected by the results of their careful study. In doing so, scientists

may gather predominant discourses in a society, discourses linked to

systems of power. “Since there are many ways of conceptualizing

reality, what becomes accepted as Truth depends on the intimate

association of knowledge and power.”15 I contend that Truth and

Power are like two strands of a double helix: interwoven and

mutually dependant. Without reflexive questioning, the greatest

efforts of wonderful minds are swept up into use by various political

and economic entities. Laura Nader states in Naked Science:

“The politicization of science is unavoidable, not only because

politicians, corporations, and governments try to use what

14 Such as I experienced on Mo’orea. Also, Jasanoff, 1995, Harding 1998, Shiva, 1989. Latour, 1994. Pratt 1992, 15 Nader, 1997, p.721

14

scientists know, but because virtually all science has social and

political implications.”16

There seems to be an aversion of many scientists to ‘messy’ social

systems.17 This distaste can function as an imaginary

disembeddedness, a lack of reciprocal influence between science and

the ‘less objective’ worlds of politics, economics, and culture. I argue

that in this darkness, scientists passionately conduct their research,

but do so without full recognition of the complex functioning of social

ecosystems where the effects of their research end up. This shady

fertile ground for the planting of political and economic seeds which

eventually grow into the exercise of Science as political power. When I

refer to ‘big S’ Science, I am referring to the politically influenced,

economically incorporated, institutionalized practice of ‘little s’ science,

the practice of inquiry. The practice of Science is a pursuit up the helix

of Truth. However, this helix is forever encircling the helix of Power.

Currently, the knowledge produced by the scientific elite determines

what society sees as Truth. The specialization of scientists creates

blinders to the horizontal connections they share to Power. Science’s

‘objective’ Truth is entirely subjective to Power. Gieryn clarifies, “Truth,

far from being a solemn and severe master, is a docile and obedient

servant.”18

The Truth Machine, the Double Helix, and Manifest Destiny: My Focus

Some examples of the social and political implications of evolutionary

and genetic knowledge have been introduced. This paper will focus

explicitly on the subtle evolutionist flavor of social and political

influences on agricultural biotechnology (institutionalized as

16 Nader, Laura. p.17 see “The Apparatus of Truth: University Labs” chapter18 Gieryn, 1995, p. 18

15

Agbiotech) research.19 In Chapter 1, I trace the rise of the expert, the

‘specific intellectual’ amidst trends of specialization and technological

expertise. I will focus on how the increasing specialization of Agbiotech

research eliminates alternative discourses of consequence and how

the isolated lab setting and conditions of research facilities allow for

influence and encouragement from limited sources (namely

corporations and other Agbiotech apparatuses) in Chapter 2. Chapter 3

examines how dissent regarding GMO’s and arguments about

Agbiotech and power are dismissed or ignored using the elitist nature

of specialized Scientific knowledge and anti-ecological definitions of

‘good science.’ Lastly, Chapter 4 introduces the way the Agbiotech

apparatus produces (and depends upon) faith in a singular Truth which

overlaps with Western notions of Progress and international

Development.20 I argue that the hegemonic social and political

influences on Agbiotech are inseparably linked to discourses of

power structures currently dominating global society.

19 I will borrow two important definitions from Jason Delbourne’s thoughtful dissertation on performance of academic dissent at UC Berkeley: Agricultural biotechnology is the science and practice of manipulating agricultural organisms at the genetic level with the tools of molecular biology. This includes genetic engineering/modification (the addition, subtraction, or modification of sequences of DNA at the molecular level), transgenic organisms (organisms with splices of DNA from another species), genetic screening/selection (the analysis of cells or organisms on the basis of specific sequences of DNA), DNA sequencing (the production of ordered lists of nucleotide bases of portions or all of an organism’s genome), and cloning (the insertion of one organism’s genome into the nucleus of another cell to create a new organism with nearly identical DNA to the donor). Agbiotech is more than an abbreviation for the science of agricultural biotechnology. It speaks to the social promoters of this science and includes boutique research firms, transnational corporations, public and nonprofit organizations that promote the use of agricultural biotechnologies, and individuals involved in the chain of research, product development, marketing, distribution, and management.20 Definitions of development & Development attributed to Gillian Hart and Alberto Escobar (see Good Science, Good Development chapter. ‘Big D’ Development is a historically singular experience, the creation of a domain of thought and action (largely by the Truman administration and the UN in 1949) with the purpose of spreading Western economies and institutions in the context of the cold war. Postmodernly, Development refers to forms of subjectivity fostered by this discourse, through which people came to recognize themselves as developed and underdeveloped.? ‘Little d’ development as the uneven development of global capitalism.

16

Methodology

I began my research as a student interested in the above issues. I took

a variety of courses aimed at discussing a variety of issues surrounding

genetics. Meanwhile, I was a student in the College of Natural

Resources during several controversies involving corporate funding of

research and questionable rejections of academic publications

threatening corporate interests. Familiarity with these issues allowed

me to probe the various opinions of faculty and researchers through

my experiences in lectures, seminars, interviews, and publications.

Frank discussions with researchers and students allowed us to get our

values onto the table until it was clear where we all coming from when

we took a side on these issues. All of the geneticists I spoke to were

friendly, helpful, and excited about their work. Though this paper may

point to ignored effects of their research, it is not to diminish the intent

of their work. I feel it is important to share an honest understanding of

the broad social and political structures I have been privileged to

encounter as an interdisciplinary student amongst the contemporary

collapse of less profitable university fields. The best way for students

to give back to universities is to question and challenge the institutions

that helped us think analytically in the first place.

“Controversies over the sciences should not be polarized and polemics

should not be reduced to asserting a glorified science or a despicable

science.”21

It is more telling to learn from the roots of various perspectives within

the conflict. Thus, I am building upon my own vivid interest in GMO

issues to make an ethnographic inquiry into the social understandings

of various Agbiotech researchers I heard from as a student in the

21 Laura Nader, “Naked Science” p. 21

17

College of Natural Resources at UC Berkeley. It would by hypocritical of

me to behave as if I had no opinion on the matter, nor will I try to hide

it from any of the readers of this paper. However, the purpose of this

paper isn’t to convince you of my opinion on the issue of GMO’s, it is to

convince you that the production of Truth is inevitably linked to

systems of power. I will make this connection through my research of

Agbiotech on the UC Berkeley campus.

18

[Chapter 1: Legitimation of Scientists’ Authority to

Manufacture ‘Truth ’ ]

In this chapter, I will explore the technical and social reasons that the

specific intellectual is enlisted produce knowledge, and how that

knowledge is shaped by deceptively political versions of Truth. I begin

with the rise of the specific intellectual in today’s economic-political

climate. Next, I compare two specialized intellectuals, Dr. Robert

Oppenheimer, the ‘father’ of the atom bomb, and Dr. Norman Borlaug,

the ‘father’ of the Green Revolution. I describe how the knowledge

produced by these two ‘brilliant experts’ was manipulated by political-

economic interests. Applying some of Foucault’s principles of specific

intellectuals to my own research of the subsequent ‘Gene’ Revolution, I

will examine the effect of placing the manufacture of Truth in the

hands of those in highly specialized fields.

Rise of the Specific Intellectual

Western intellectuals are instilled with specific roles in society. Their

purpose, knowledge and understandings change as the subjects of

their study change. In Truth and Power, Foucault differentiates

between the ‘universal’ and the ‘specific’ intellectual. He describes the

universal intellectual as “the jurist or notable, and finds his fullest

manifestation in the writer, the bearer of values and significations in

which all can recognize themselves. The ‘specific’ intellectual derives

from quite another figure… the savant or expert,” in a person that has

accrued status through specialized knowledge in one field. Foucault

contrasts the transition of intellectuals from ‘universal’ to ‘specific’

over the past two centuries amongst social, political and economic

climates.22 An earlier discussion explored the social influence of/on

22 Foucault 1980, p.20

19

Darwin’s ideas. Foucault presents Darwin as “the point of inflection in

the history of the Western intellectual” in which the social ripples of a

scientific concept reach far beyond the specialized field in which it was

developed. Next, he traces scientific experts/specific intellectuals and

the social environments they influence -and are influenced by- to

Robert Oppenheimer, the ‘father’ of the atom bomb. He purports that

as technologies become more specialized, more expensive, and more

expansive in their impacts, the power of those who develop that

technology increases. This power is linked with its creator’s

understanding of Truth.

“It’s with Darwin or rather, with the post-Darwinian evolutionists

that this figure [of the specific intellectual] begins to appear

clearly... Perhaps it was the atomic scientists (in a word, or

rather in a name, Oppenheimer who acted as a point of transition

between the universal and the specific intellectual. It’s because

he had a direct and localized relation to scientific knowledge and

institutions that the atomic scientist could make his intervention;

but since the nuclear threat affect the whole human race and the

fate of the world, his discourse could be at the same time be the

discourse of the universal..”23

Reign of (and Reins on) the Specific Intellectual

The example of Oppenheimer embodies the diabolical effects of

powerful technology in the hands of specialized experts: those who

have been trained to focus inward instead of outward, who know more

and more about less and less. Oppenheimer recruited a team of

specialized experts explaining that the U.S. government needed their

help to defeat Communism and ‘save the world.’24 These scientists

were isolated in a jovial environment in Los Alamos, New Mexico while

23 Foucault 1980, p. 2124 Else, The Day After Trinity, 1991.

20

they enthusiastically assembled the most murderous weapon in human

history. Dissent of some scientists upon the realization of this

technology’s actual potential was cast aside and considered unpatriotic

and naïve. It was easily silenced by military officials eager for results.

Only after witnessing ‘a thing of terror conceived in a moment of

beauty’ did many scientists feel what consequences originated from

their fingertips.25 Some never did.

“Under the rubric of [his work], which concerned the entire

world, the atomic expert brought into play his specific position in

the order of knowledge. And for the first time, I think, the

intellectual was hounded by political powers, no longer on

account of a general discourse which conducted, but because of

the knowledge at his disposal: it was at this level that he

constituted a political threat.”26

Examination of the social understandings of the people responsible for

the atomic bomb provides a good background from which to analyze

how subsequent specific intellectuals have put their knowledge to

powerful political ends. I would add Norman Borlaug, the ‘father’ of the

Green Revolution to the list of scientists that list universal principles as

the purpose behind their work. Borlaug aimed to ‘fight world hunger’

and ‘improve agriculture of developing countries’ in the 1950’s. His

Green Revolution focused on increasing average yields of crops

through use of Western agricultural methods including certain

pesticides, exported capital and ‘scientifically developed’ dwarf

varieties of subsistence grain crop varieties. The Green Revolution was

a substantial part of a larger international project to ‘develop’

decolonized countries following World War II. The Western impetus for

25 Quote from a Manhattan Project scientist: Jungk, 1954, p. 26226 Foucault 1980 p.22

21

development was largely an economic competition in the struggle for

political power during the Cold War.

Many critiques of Borlaug’s Green Revolution exist.27 Most point to the

disastrous effects of exporting Western techniques of agriculture that

aimed at maximizing yields and industrial development instead of

supporting smaller yield, diverse subsistence and local trade crops.28

The Green Revolution often led to fatal levels of soil and groundwater

pollution, soil degradation, species loss, deforestation, and watershed

disturbance.29 Critiques also point to the social consequences of

displaced farmers ‘freed up’ to work in urban factories, the loss of

traditional location-appropriate methods, crop variety, and cultural

starvation. Borlaug’s ideals of aid through technology is blemished by

the neo-colonial rhetoric of development that is inseparable from the

political, economic and social conditions that helped to enslave

decolonized countries by exporting capital-heavy, chemical intensive

technologies in the name of agricultural transformation.30

Like Oppenheimer, Borlaug had the best of intentions. Both scientists

worked with the U.S. government to develop technologies that were

used to various strategic ends. Both scientists at a specialized nexus

found it difficult to conceptualize the consequences they created in the

less familiar areas they affected: political economies and non-Western

societies. The political forces encouraging their research made no

effort to examine these consequences because it wasn’t in their best

interest. Thus, these experts were isolated intellectually from various

discourses. They were encouraged and supported by political and 27 Friedmann (1982), Kloppenburg (1988, ), Barraclough (1991), Constantino (1988), Johnston & Kilby, 1975), Rothschild (1976), Shiva (1981, 1989, 1993), Lappe & Collins (1993), Swaminathan (1983), Myers (1979), U.S. Department of State (1982), Yeatman et al. (1985), Wolf (1986).28 Freidmann, S26029 Kloppenburg, 1988, p.40-41, Barraclough, 1991, p. 20-39; Conway, 1995, p. 87-96.30 For an examination of current neo-colonial legacies in world agriculture, see the “Good Science, Good Development” chapter.

22

economic entities that emphasized the charitable aspects of the

knowledge they produced, but steered away from questioning the

uneven political terrain in which these technologies were actually used.

“At all events, biology and physics were to a privileged degree

the zones of formation of this new personage, the specific

intellectual. The extension of technico-scientific structures in the

economic and strategic domain was what gave him his real

importance… He, along with a handful of others, has at his

disposal, whether in the service of the state or against it, powers

which can either benefit or irrevocably destroy life. He is no

longer the rhapsodist of the eternal, but the strategist of life and

death.”31

Borlaug and Oppenheimer worked in specific, elite fields. Both

scientists tried to put their expertise to work for the well-intentioned,

universal goals. However, their efforts had significant effects on people

who never have had input or access to the decision-making process,

from the victims of Hiroshima to the taxpayers funding the research

being done within national borders.32 I believe that this ‘silence from

below’ was interpreted as consent, a misunderstanding that continues

today. As specific intellectuals become more specialized in

technological fields, they are necessarily distanced from dialogues with

the lay public.

The impetus to use necessarily elite technology is traceable to funding

put into research & development for the war effort and increasing

University-Industrial Relations -UIR’s in the 20th century.33 The

specialized intellectual greeted new technologies pushed in to

institutions. Through increasing possible outcomes and products, work

31 Foucault, 1980 p.2132 Miller, 2003. p.180-207 33 Noble, America by Design, p. 167-170

23

styles changed and often required more lab time. Expertise and

specialization led to diversification of technical roles- also known as

compartmentalization. There were two comforts of assembly-line

workload. Firstly, there was the idea of purpose, of membership to

some larger effect aiming to help something (though that ‘something’

and its consequences are increasingly distant). The second comfort

was of status, of holding public trust as an elite specific expert; an

identity as a uniquely literate specialist with universal values, a seeker

of Truth, a stoic man of faith in the West’s modern religion of Science,

Technology and Progress.

While many similarities exist between Oppenheimer and Borlaug’s

constructions of Reality and purpose, there are a few telling differences

between the two, some of which evidence changes in the institutions

that housed both scientists. First, of course, is the nature of their

creations. An atom bomb is visually much more evident of destruction

than a corn field. Hiroshima and Nagaski killed a specific number of

people and was a singular event in history. The global adaptation of

Western agriculture is a subtle and linear process, though no less a

signifier of the use of science in power systems. In one case,

technological expertise was convened by the military in the name of

patriotism. In the other technological expertise was commercialized by

industry in the name of Development. I have no authority to say that

atom bombs and GMO’s are equally destructive. What I am questioning

is who does. Who would or would not make this comparison and why?

Our answers to these questions place us on scales of faith in

Objectivity and in Science and how immersed we are in Western

ideologies.

Conclusion: From the Green Revolution to the Gene Revolution

24

Experts use technology to delve deeper than ever into atoms and

molecules, but as a consequence may understand less of the large-

scale impacts of their tinkering. Specific knowledge and a working

ignorance of political and economic strategy can leave experts

vulnerable to be controlled by themes of patriotism, aid, and overtones

of a ‘universal good.’34 We see bits of social influence adding gusto to

important decisions of these experts, but questions of purpose in

scientific discourse have become swept up in the language of Progress.

On the Agbiotech giant Monsanto®’s website, Dr. Norman Borlaug

states,

“The green revolution and now plant biotechnology are helping meet

the growing demand for food production, while preserving our

environment for future generations.”

Today, the Green Revolution is commonly described as the root of the

Gene Revolution. The Gene Revolution is viewed as the next

technological step in to ‘improve’ agriculture. Justification follows

similar discourse of ‘aid’ for ‘developing’ countries and has adopted an

added bonus of being better for the environment by reducing chemical

pesticide use.35 Again, two camps of evaluation exist. People either

think that both G. Revolutions were/are beneficial or they were/are

terrible.36 Some dialogue has occurred between these two fields, but

again falls into disputes of method and specificity, of which kind of

science can tell us the Truth the best.37 Experts in conflict over the

fields they affect but have not mastered throw up their hands, say they

are arguing different points, and by doing so, agree to disagree. They

34 Nader, Controlling Processes, Naked Science, Barriers to New Thinking About Energy35 Reduced exterior pesticide & herbicide use is attributed to a Monsanto® GM technology called RoundUpReady in which an ‘ecologically benign’ chemical (glyphosate) is sprayed and kills any plant that had not been genetically modified to be ready for RoundUp. www.monsanto.com36 Shiva (1989, 1996, 2002), Conway (1995, 2003), Serageldin, (1995, 2000), Visvanathan, (1997)37 More on ‘sound science’ and who defines it in “The Name of Science” chapter.

25

both proceed with their own agendas and values, parallel in the goal of

public good, but opposite in the road they believe will take the public

there. The predominant Agbiotech sciences support the Gene

Revolution. Currently, scientists are courted by (or married to)

Agbiotech industry as the link to distributing the agricultural

biotechnologies they create. Specific intellectuals have now been

almost completely absorbed into a system of modern global capitalism.

It is often seen as the only way to continue their research and

distribute its results. The processes involved in the creation of such a

world-view will be the subject of the next three chapters.

“It seems to me that what must now be taken into account is in

the intellectual…. whose specificity is linked, in a society like

ours, to the general functioning of an apparatus of truth.”38

38 Foucault 1980, p.26

26

[Chapter 2: The Apparatus of Truth]

“Scientific workplaces are useful contexts for understanding how

science culture operates to legitimate vested interests of

industries, utilities, banks, mining companies, and governments.”

Laura Nader

Much of the Agbiotech research put to use commercially is produced at

public universities. As state-funding has steadily decreased, the

function of the university has transitioned to often-conflicting roles.

This trickles down into the structure of science research on campus. As

funding dwindles the non-commercial sciences are hardest hit but the

profitable research fields have an opportunity to secure private

corporate funding. With this opportunity come many questions and

even more conflicts. While the most overt criticism of private funding is

corruption of research, the example of Oppenheimer shows that

government funding also comes with a particular agenda. This chapter

explores how privatization of university research creates vertical and

horizontal change for the specific intellectual- vertical movement in

their role of creating profit, patents, publishing, and specialization, and

horizontal movement across their links between Truth and Power. The

purpose of this chapter is to describe some of the professional

everyday experiences of Agbiotech researchers and how they affect

constructions of reality. I use my interviews, lectures, and experiences

as a student to question the changing subjectivities of university

scientists in their pursuits of Truth amongst changing social, political,

bureaucratic, and economic climates.

The Current University Climate

27

In America By Design, Noble traces the rise of university-industry

‘cooperative’ programs at the turn of the 20th century. Often arising in

the engineering fields, the “ideal of the college” was “linked to the real

of the factory” through programs, internships, info-shares, and

funding.39 University administrators applauded the transition of

educational focus to develop “not only the mentality but also the

character, personality, and physique of its students. We are anxious to

prepare them for the conditions as they are, so that they will waste as

little time as possible in adjusting themselves to the needs of

industry.”40 The technical expertise required of graduates by industry

became the goal of university education. Since, technology has

become only more and more specialized, standardized and expensive.

Majors for the highly technical and engineering fields have

skyrocketed.

Meanwhile, social majors and institutions have struggled to stay afloat

during university budget cuts and direct political attacks while

attempting to retain students. A current example is the UC Institute for

Labor and Employment which carries out "an array of applied and

policy research and outreach programs addressed to critical

contemporary problems of labor, employment, and the workforce in

the 21st-century California economy."41 The ILE had its’ budget slashed

by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger after being ‘accused’ for having union

ties.42 "The ILE has a right in a free society to promulgate its anti-

capitalism views," railed the free-market think tank Pacific Research

39 Stated by Magnus Alexander, director of educational programs of the Lyn works of GE, 1908.40 Stated by A.A. Potter, Dean of Purdue University, 1902.41 Statement by former director of the ILE, James Lincoln 3-22-0642 Among the activities that raised conservative ire: a 2001 research paper on union-only agreements for construction projects; a 2002 grant award of $19,973 for a study on "Making People Pro-Union: Exploring Social Movement Dynamics in Labor Organizing"; reports on living-wage laws and the bottom-line costs of Wal-Mart workers' reliance on state safety-net programs; and a range of workshops, conferences, and other forms of leadership training.

28

Institute, "and to fund research that strikes at the heart of a basic

economic freedom in America — the right of employers and employees

to freely negotiate compensation. But why should taxpayers be forced

to bankroll ILE's pro-union agenda?"43 Clearly, pro-industry, not pro-

union agendas are what’s considered acceptable for the UC. With this

conservative turn on university campuses, the environment of open

dialogue is outsourced for study time, grades, and resume-building.

Student fees increase each semester, sending students in search of

jobs and internships to get through school and into the high-paying job

many families expect the student to return with.44

Beggars Can’t Be Choosers

Former Chancellor Robert Berdahl euphemizes the loss of state and

federal funding as the university becoming a “state-assisted

institution.” Public funding for universities is at an all time relative low,

which leads to a need for funding from sources independent of the

state.45 This affects university research budgets in several ways.

Faculty members receive less department funding, and have to spend

more time searching for grants, and often choose research topics most

likely to be funded. Much of the research of the faculty I spoke to was

funded by the National Science Foundation, though several faculty

complained that since the war in Iraq began, NSF funding for plant

biology has weaned.46

Grants are sometimes described as a faculty member’s obligation to

the department. At UC Berkeley, one PMB researcher explained, “As

long as I bring in bread –grants- the department loves me. Same thing

43 Pacific Research Institute, 2003 press release44 UC student fees have increased every year for the past 6 years. Data from UC Office of the President. www.ucop.edu; Also see Robert Dynes comment on mid-year budget cuts.45 National Science Foundation statistics available in Appendix A and Bibliography46 P. Lemaux, discussion. See Appendix A.

29

as papers, don’t bring them in, loose status and respect. See, the labs

are all based on money.”

Department cuts to research budgets have led to the creation of

Fundraising Teams that utilize University Extension Cooperative

Programs and search for multiple sources of funding. This money is

used administratively, academically, to keep research ‘competitive’

with private universities, and (in the case of the College of Natural

Resources, CNR) even for building updates and retrofits. Deals with

private funding sources at the department level have been rippled with

controversy.47

In November of 1998, Novartis (a Swiss biotech giant) signed a 5-year,

$25 million deal with the Plant & Microbial Biology department of CNR

at UC Berkeley. In exchange for funding 1/of the department’s

research, the company would gain two of the five seats on the

Research Committee and first rights to patents and licenses resulting

from the department’s research.48 Then-Dean Gordon Rausser

explained the necessity for funding at CNR, “Without modern

laboratory facilities and access to commercially developed proprietary

databases…we can neither provide first-rate graduate education nor

perform the fundamental research that is part of the university’s

mission.” As Truths manufactured by Science become dependant on

technology and specialization, ailing university facilities must step

beyond the safety of state funding to continue. Uproar began

regarding demands for faculty not to speak to the press about the

deal, the lack of student and faculty input, and the general increase in

privatization of research at UC Berkeley. Later, Rausser was met with

vegan pies at a press conference when he announced the deal.

47 Eaton: 2004, 165-190; Washburn: 2005, p. 4-6.48 Washburn: 2005, p. 3.

30

The controversy polarized the staff of CNR between those to sought to

disembed the missions of public universities and private interests and

others who believed that the deal did no harm to academic integrity

and improved the quality of research. Said one PMB researcher,

“The Novartis deal per say was the most benign, innocuous UIR

[University-Industry Relation] I’ve ever encountered, and I have

had other contracts that were much more defined. It was so non-

invasive! They never did anything, they never said anything. It

was great, we were free.”

She continues,

“It was what people tell me scientific research used to be like.

You’d have some wild idea and then just say, hey I want to do

that, and you’d just go do it. Now, if you apply to any

government agency you have to have your work practically done

and then go in and apply and hope. [The Novartis deal] was

great, because you could do whatever you wanted and nobody

ever said you can’t do that. The Novartis thing was an anomaly.”

Several researchers insisted they were in full control of their research,

even when their research is privately funded with specific stipulations.

An anonymous researcher put it like this:

“Sure. I’ll take Monsanto’s money. I’ll sign whatever they want.

And then you know what I do with the contract? I rip it up and

throw it away. And they’ve never said a thing. What are they

going to do about it, sue me?”

Indeed many geneticists expressed skepticism that their work was

relevant or even highly profitable for corporations, even when specific

contracts were signed. In some scientists’ realities, they are the ones

in control of their research, pimping corporate funding for their own

sassy interest. Corporate money (especially from the Novartis deal)

meant not having to refine topics to what is more likely to receive a

31

grant from NSF, etc. Corporations were purportedly throwing money at

the public sector.

Other researchers opposed to private funding point out conceptual

discrepancies in this benign interpretation of corporate funding. They

compare the fierce, corporate model of Monsanto with its black-suited

legal armies and iron-gripped private labs to some university scientists’

interpretation of Monsanto as a bumbling giant that tosses out funding

like Mardi Gras beads to any geneticist who will accept corporate

funding. One of only three scientists in PMB to refuse Novartis funding

called the contract a “a contract with the devil.”49

It is difficult to measure the direct and (especially) indirect impacts of

private funding based on what is or is not said in contracts, though this

can sometimes be the issue itself. The researcher who praised the

Novartis deal claimed,

“I think at a place like Berkeley, we can set whatever we want to

do and get a company to agree to it. But I do have concerns

about small universities. They might be willing to agree to

anything… They have to put things in their agreements we would

never do here. In terms of publication, someone having control

over whether you publish or not. UC Berkeley would never do it. I

mean, you can see the diversity of opinion, people say whatever

they want here. It has never been an issue in anything I’ve been

involved in.”

Yet, when I asked her why a company would delay publication, she

said,

“For patent issues, and I think this was true with Novartis too, we

would make a disclosure, their legal people would have 30 days

to decide if they wanted to put a patent on it. Then after that you

49 Kaplan, Donald. Statement, January 2003.

32

could do whatever you want, publish, or whatever. Other

contracts may have 60 days. I never had this happen, but people

say if you do something that gets an answer that they don’t

want… the university said ‘you can’t publish that.’ There is

pressure not to publish things.”

It is interesting that Lemaux, seemed to feel so safe in the deal, even

though publication delays were in fact part of the deal. A general sense

of the benign nature of the Novartis deal may be related to the

analysis of only direct impacts of private funding. Igncacio Chapela

explained the indirect impacts of outside funding as limit creavitity and

freedom to research controversial topics, such as those that can upset

industries funding research:

“Over here in microbial biology, it is important to look at where

money is available first, and then decide what you are going to

do. It is important to… keep up with what is fashionable, that is

what gets funded, what gets published. You can publish a

fashionable paper immediately but if you publish a controversial

paper than it is orders of magnitudes more difficult to publish, to

get funding, to attract students to help with the research. So in

many ways it is harder to be creative, to be original.”

In 2004, a Michigan State University sociologist led an external review

of the Berkeley-Novartis deal.50 The report found that the worst fears of

corrupted research were unrealized but that Novartis’ (now renamed

Syngenta) hopes for the patents and royalties were viewed as

disappointing. Not surprisingly, Syngenta did not renew the deal.

Busch, the MSU report leader, commented on the changing and

conflicting roles of universities, "There's been a mission creep that has

occurred among public universities as they see all kinds of funds

50 An internal review was completed by the Vice Chancellor’s Office for research in January 2003. It was conducted by many of the same actors who brokered the deal in the first place.

33

declining.” University roles may vacillate between an “’engine of

growth,’ a ‘source of societal betterment’ and a ‘generator of new

knowledge.’" Busche concluded, as would Noble, that the predominant

model at UC Berkeley was the ‘engine of growth.’

Patent or Perish

Even that ‘innocuous’ deal between Novartis and PMB allowed a delay

on publication to prioritize patents. Intellectual property has steadily

grown in universities since the passage of the Bayh-Dole Act in 1980

paved the road to profit from patents. It allowed universities to enact

intellectual property rights (thus, licensing royalities) on research

results from federal funds. Money-strapped UC has been at the front

lines of the University-Industry Relation (UIR) patent field. One

researcher put it plainly, “University scientists want to offer their

patents up because they get money for it. It’s a source of income.”

Social controls of prestige, possibly salary increase(was insinuated by

some faculty but officially unavailable), office/lab space, and

competition push faculty to ‘publish, patent or perish’.

Inc. Magazine recently praised UC Berkeley as one of the “Five

Universities You Can Do Business With.” The article begins, “To look in

on university research is to see the subatomic structure of modern

entrepreneurial capitalism.” You just have to read this…

“Despite the traditional symbiosis between markets and academia,

however, university research is not flowing today as fast as it should to

entrepreneurs who are eager to embrace and exploit new ideas. Only a

handful of universities produce a steady stream of inventions with

commercial potential. Fewer still have a track record of working well

with businesses to bring these ideas to market.

Just five schools, in fact, constitute the elite of the technology transfer

34

world. They are Berkeley, Caltech, Stanford, MIT, and Wisconsin. The list

of universities reporting new discoveries changes from one year to the

next, but each of these five schools consistently garners around 100

patents per year. Not every patent becomes the basis of a business, of

course, but some do.

And what is remarkable about the five schools above is that, in addition

to producing new ideas, they consistently rank at the top of the list of

universities in terms of how many businesses are built around

technologies created in their labs. Along with teaching and doing

research, they seem to be in the business of inventing companies. In

contrast, many schools with great research reputations never seem to

turn anything into a business.

So what do the prolific schools do that's special? First, they treat

businesspeople as allies and equals. Researchers at these schools are

generally open to and ready for interaction with companies (even start-

ups) so long as the entrepreneurs are capable and serious. They also

encourage students to think about the business potential of their

academic research. Faculty support is vital because students are in a

better position than tenured professors to follow an idea out of a lab and

to a start-up.”

I would never be able to give a sense of the jovial attitudes buzzing

around university and industry ‘partnerships’ better than this article. It

so adequately echoes the optimism of the knowledge/power generated

by university/industry relations traced by David Noble in America By

Design. A sense of optimism, destiny, and Progress ice the article.

Efficiency groupthink regarding the marriage of industry to university

research gives a rosy aura to these business deals. UC Berkeley

facilitates these arranged research deals through the Office of

35

Intellectual Property & Industry Research Alliances. IPIRA was created

in 2004 under the Vice Chancellor of Research:

“to provide a "one-stop shop" for industry research partners to

interact with the campus. IPIRA's mission is to establish and maintain

multifaceted relationships with private companies, and thereby

enhance the research enterprise of the Berkeley campus. These

relationships include sponsored research collaborations, and

intellectual property commercialization.”

The convenient IPIRA website contains a database of the research

interests of every UC Berkeley faculty member, a template partnership

agreement, and a success stories log. IPIRA connects the business

deals which furnish researchers with the equipment used in their labs,

their budgets, and often, their research topics. By buying into a reality

of the marketplace as the means to diffuse the solutions brewed up in

the lab, faculty surrender much of the content and distribution of the

products they produce. One begins to wonder how faculty members

interpret this reality. Explains one geneticist,

“In our fields, we can’t take anything to market. We don’t have

the money. If you ever wanted that to go to market, you’d have

to partner with a company. That’s a real departure from the way

agricultural crop development was in the past. It was just a

matter of breeding and that didn’t cost very much money, but

now the regulatory costs are just phenomenal. For any one crop

variety with one trans gene in one place, [bringing that crop to

market costs] a half million to 3 million dollars. So you can

imagine going to your dean with this… The university doesn’t

have that kind of money.”

The reality for this faculty member is shaped by the fact that anything

they create that they want to distribute/take to market will have to go

36

through an extensive patenting and licensing process, even if that

innovation/product was made with entirely public funding. Since the

Bayh-Dole Act, University administrations have compensated for

declining public funding by securing licenses and patents. In doing so,

they have chiseled down perspectives of how to distribute the ‘the

public good’ to the marketplace.51 Often, what is researched is sought

to be a profitable process or product or at least commercially relevant.

Then, start-ups, licensing, or royalties can help to ensure funding for

the researcher. Both abstract discovery research and applied research

are steered enthusiastically into product development or end up

there.52 This commodified perspective has various effects on the

specific intellectual. ‘Intellectual property’ implies that the specific

intellectual’s purpose is to create ‘specific intellectual property.’ This is

a subtle but significant departure even from the previous scavenge of

specialized knowledge by the military-industrial complex. Here it

becomes clear that it isn’t simply corporate dictatorship of laboratory

research that affects the scientific process, but the process of

commercialization of the university and the commodification of

Knowledge at large.53

Knowledge®

(production)

The production of Knowledge becomes a regulated, segmented, and

quantified process as it begins in the researcher’s mind. The process

has a specific purpose, a direct outcome, and a clear path by which to

arrive at that Knowledge. That path is laden with bureaucratic hoops,

contracts, and Western paradigms of property, political economy, and

Truth. Walking along this path requires faith that Science aids Progress

51 D. Greenburg, 2001. J. Fujimora, 1992.52 Interview, Mike Freeling.53 Washburn: 2005, 16. Also, The Kept University; D. Bok, 2003; J. Basinger, 1998;

37

and the Knowledge they produce will remain ‘pure’ as it is packaged

for sale first in the marketplace of ideas, and secondly (for Agbiotech)

in the global marketplace of seeds. This marketplace is seen more as a

structuring of reality than a structure of Power. Faculty certainly

acknowledge the power of the corporations, and often express their

frustration with the entire apparatus. However, a

prevailing/conditioning attitude that there is no alternative has left

many faculty hopeless to alternatives, but determined to assert their

individual agency as a specific intellectual in reforming the process.

Some faculty members are resisting certain constraints on Knowledge

(translated to capitalist terminology as Intellectual Property). One

biotechnologist who had been in the field since the 1980’s reiterated

her support for PIPRA: Public Intellectual Property Resources for

Agriculture

“PIPRA is like a public sector toolbox. Don’t patent the tools. Let

the tools be used by everyone. Patent the product. That’s what’s

hampered the whole thing, people don’t have the freedom to

operate without all the tools.”

She emphasized the scientific importance of sharing tool technology,

the processes that aid the creation of products.

“We’ve developed transformational technologies. So in

California, we don’t particularly care about soybeans or corn

because there are not major crops here. PIPRA says, ok, give that

away but keep it for persimmons, artichokes, and [small-acreage

crops] like that because the companies are never going to do

that stuff anyway, it’s too small. They’ll never make their money

back.”

This model is fascinating because it is giving away information

profitable for companies in order to preserve patents researchers

38

create working on local, less profitable crops. Not only has the

language of profit permeated the scientific process from its inception,

it dictates the creation and ownership of Knowledge. Power as

exercised for profit widens democratic discrepancies, and researchers

are engulfed by a reality of dependency upon patents for profit in order

to sustain their research. Researchers are controlled by laws and

regulations which dictate what Knowledge they can create (by whether

or not they can find funding), who will own that Knowledge, and how

that Knowledge will be used.

‘McDonaldization’ of The Lab

Agbiotech scientists I spoke to often referred to their relationships with

the technology used in their work. As with most machine-dependant

work, the model of division of labor prevails. Agricultural biotechnology

has distinct research tasks that are easily steered into specific

problems and focus areas. Sequencing, one of the most common jobs

in genetics labs, is seen as easy and monotonous. One researcher

explained, “Genome sequencing is a lot like working at McDonald’s.

Everything is routinized and scripted. You repeat an identical process

and try not to fall asleep until they fire you.” This often leaves

laboratory workers distant both geographically and conceptually from

the fruits (or grains) of their labor. The effect of research

compartmentalization has been outlined in great detail by George

Ritzer and others.54 He describes several dimensions of the

‘McDonaldization’ of the workplace, including: emphasis on efficient

performance of simple tasks, task time quantification, predictable

work, and extended use of nonhuman technology. I found that,

although there is rigorous competition for genetic sequencing jobs

(and very little to flip burgers), many effects of the standardized

workplace were the same. The process is scripted, and workers are

54 Ritzer, 1998. p.122

39

trained to repeat a process they didn’t develop. One notable difference

for Agbiotech is in the exclusivity of the field. Because of the elitist

nature of Agbiotech jobs, turnover rates are lower since necessary

training is more extensive and pay is higher. Sequencers explained

they are more willing to stick with routine tasks because they want to

be able to ‘work for a good company’ that provides high salaries and

benefits. I observed in labs and from my interviews include a general

optimism of working for a good cause, a sense of achievement to be

selected to work in a lab (and a resume boost for a looming

competitive job market), a camaraderie with lab partners in a common

fascination in the process and alchemistic nature of transgenics, but a

marked distance spatially and experientially from the place and

conditions from where their results are used.

Most geneticists are indeed aware of the elitist nature of technological

expertise, though it was often referred to with positive connotations,

most often as an achievement. I gathered varying degrees of

excitement from students regarding the actual topics being

researched. But In nearly all of the responses I gathered to questions

about earning a living in the field, I was told, “This is where the money

is,” and “There are a lot of jobs that I can get with this degree.”

Groupthink patterns of success, financial stability, and a vague sense

of paternal aid bear a direct relationship to the behaviors ingrained

into a Molecular and Cellular Biology/Pre-Med student at UC Berkeley.

Many students in this field have agonized over perfect grades, strong

test scores, and becoming memorization machines for the past four

years. The major emphasizes competition over open-ended analysis.

Students are taught to sacrifice personal growth for the later

gratifications of a secure, high-paying job at the end of the road. The

social and humanitarian importance of student’s training is discussed

in courses, but seldom holistically or with socio-political grounding.

40

McDonald’s Labs Off-Campus

I spoke with several Agbiotech scientists who had experience working

in private research labs, outside of the university. There were

interesting similarities, and a few telling differences. Agbiotech

scientists explained that in private labs, the direction is clearer. The

development of a product is the goal. Ignacio Chapela, an outspoken

university scientists that formerly worked in the private sector of

Agbiotech made this comparison:

“In some ways, being an employee (at least back in my day) was

simpler, it was much clearer. There was no doublespeak. You are

there, you know why you’re there, who know who you’re working

for, you know what their interest is: producing revenue for the

owners and stockholders of the company. There aren't questions

about it, nobody raises an eyebrow over that. It’s making

money.”

A researcher in a private Monsanto lab in Davis, California told me that

the hierarchical, top-down process is “very efficient”. There are

different constraints on ethics, topics are already selected and

equipment is provided. A Monsanto representative described how in

their labs, scientists are put into teams that work in “big comfortable

spaces. We encourage a lot of walking, and talking between teams.”

The camaraderie of the private workplace is seen as more open than

the universities because there are no needs for secrecy of research

due to competition for patents, publication, and status that is

commonly complained of in university settings. One private-sector

sequencer explained, “As a Monsanto scientist, the knowledge I

produce is owned by Monsanto. I don’t have to worry about patents, or

publishing for that matter.” This Monsanto scientist enjoys being

liberated from paperwork and negotiation that wastes time that could

be spent in the lab. Chapela compares this to the university, where

41

researchers “write grant proposals and couch it in some kind of public

good terms, but in many cases its really empty. You really simply want

to do what brings money to you, which is producing more papers, more

publications, getting more prestige.”

Knowledge

(Reproduction)

The distribution of Knowledge to students varies with teaching style.

Usually, a professor’s politics, methods, research interests, and views

on the university at large become clear to students over the course of

a semester. Dialogue and critical thinking is welcomed in most

classrooms, if not highly encouraged. I have observed several classes

at UC Berkeley’s College of Natural Resources that support widely

divergent views on GMO’s and Agbiotech. Each of these courses has

been structured in a way to provoke criticisms in different areas,

thereby reproducing and restructuring what we accept as Reality. In

every instance, the political and personal relationship of the researcher

to GMO’s is departed as their Truth, with varying degrees of reflexivity.

Criticisms and opposite views/realities are always mentioned in a

context of “decide for yourself” though all PMB professors I spoke to

insist their students “know the science” before they do so.

‘Steps Ahead to Feed the World’

In Environmental Science, Policy and Management 100, a course

required for all Conservation & Resource Studies majors at UC

Berkeley, guest speakers rotate each lecture, speaking about their

related work and the joys and challenges thereof. Students are

encouraged to ask questions, to find specific areas of interest and to

understand the complexities of environmental problem-solving. I was

enrolled in ESPM 100 on October 13, 2005, when two PMB geneticists,

Peggy Lemaux and Jaswinder Singh gave a lecture entitled, “Steps

42

Ahead to Feed the World.”55 Professor Singh began the lecture by

stating, “Right off the bat, it is a fact that we need agriculture. We

cannot survive without agriculture.” The next slide listed the Green

Revolution as the “Greatest Contribution of the 20th Century.” Slide 3

was “at a Glance” a Malthusian world population graph from 1750-

2150, divided into “Less Developed Countries” and “More Developed

Countries.” “Food Needs of the World” was divided into “For developed

countries: maintenance of Green Revolution products, improved quality

products, healthy foods and healthy lives, develop crops for

economical and less polluted agriculture, food for specific needs” and

“For developing countries: higher quantity of major food grains” and

“nutritionally enhanced food grains.” Singh’s only directly

acknowledged political statement was about testing and regulation.

10-17 year time frame for variety development and testing was stated

to be unacceptable, that new GM varieties must be easier to take to

market. Next, the “Vision of Dr. Borlaug About the Modern Technology”

quoted Dr. Borlaug (the ‘father’ of the Green Revolution):

“Genetic Engineering is the only technology that must be

embraced by countries whose food supply is threatened by the

inequalities of the world…The new tools of genetic engineering –

if scientists are permitted to use them- can permit accelerated

development of food crop varieties with greater tolerance to

drought, heat, cold, and soil and mineral toxicities; greater

resistance to menacing insects and diseases; and higher

nutritional quality levels.”

The rest of the lecture slides were devoted to the ‘hows’ of tapping in

to the power of genomics: mapping, Marker Assisted Selection,

hybridization, introgression of exotic genes from unrelated organisms,

‘gene knockout’ using transposable elements (first found by Barbara

55 The mentioned slides from this lecture are available in the Appendix

43

McClintock as she battled other ‘tacit assumptions’ in science56),

inducing over-expression of genes, etc. The PowerPoint presentation

ended with “Identification of value added traits has direction

application in biotechnology” for “Food Crops: shelf life, quality,

nutrition, health; All Crops: tolerance to drought, salt, disease, UV light;

Synthetics: modified fiber quality- oil content/composition; and

Bioremediation: removal/breakdown of environmental toxins and

another slide claiming the “Science Behind the Green Revolution is

Under Threat” in front of a picture of a farmer in a drought-parched

field overlaid by a scientist using a tool to (apparently) sample or

fertilize a grain.

The lecture ended up being too long for the students to ask many

questions, but a few were asked. Students (many from the

environmental activist perspective) began to ask where this research

was implemented and how it was tested for effectiveness over time.

Others asked who decided that countries needed to develop. Professor

Singh replied, “We are doing this to feed people. I deal with the

science, the how’s not the why’s.” The discussion began to intensify.

Two other students asked about who owned the technology used to

produce the genome maps and if its products were licensed. Professor

Lemaux spoke up about the importance of tool kits (the PIPRA concept

I would later discover) and said, “Look, we’re trying to feed those

people in Africa. If you know a better way I’d like to hear it.” The

course professor intervened to say class time had expired.

Singh’s reasons for genetic engineering reflect several social

constructions of Reality amongst genetic engineers. The realities of

hunger, of global inequality, of the increasing pressures of population

and resource exploitation were employed to dispel any skepticism that

GMO’s were indeed necessary without ever discussing the political and

56 Keller, 1983.

44

economic origins of these problems. It was assumed that students

accepted the Truth of GMO’s capacity to increase yields, provide

nutrition and food, reduce pesticide use and aid development. To

actually accept this Truth is a leap of faith that requires a suspension

of skepticism, a surrender of evidence from beyond the laboratory

environment, and a consumption of the discourse of Development.

Students were expected to agree (actually, not agree, to know) that

GMO’s function as engineered and pose minimal risk of unknown

environmental and health effects. To ground this belief in a historical

trajectory, GMO’s are linked as successor of the Green Revolution.

Another unquestioned Truth was that of Progress as seen in Singh’s

division of the world into ‘Developed’ and ‘Developing’ countries.

Development itself was never questioned as a political device or as a

manifesting destiny, much less as an imperialist or hegemonic

concept.57 Nor were the reasons all “those people in Africa” were still

starving after the salvation of the Green Revolution over 40 years ago.

There was a clear assumption that scientists were adequately capable

of solving agricultural problems, but that political and economic

structures were inefficient and skewed result distribution. Regulation

was listed as the biggest problem toward getting solutions to the

needy. Reform was urged to aid the spread of ‘scientific solutions,’

usually through lowering testing and regulatory processes that take

‘valuable’ time.

‘Genetic Revolutions’

Mike Freeling has a lab in PMB and maintains that private funding for

research has never affected his research ‘whatsoever’. He compares

himself as a scientist to an artist, in love with ideas and discovery.

Professor Freeling teachers a lower-division PMB course entitled,

57 See ‘Good Science, Good Development’ chapter.

45

“Genetic Revolutions.” The course is aimed at providing a liberal arts

approach to this technical science. In one of the classes I sat in on,

Prof. Freeling asked students to go around, state their major and why

they chose to take the class. The class had a diverse mix of students of

all disciplines. Reasons for taking the class included:

-“I think biotech is cool.”

-“I’m Christian and I want to inform myself.”

-“I really like the liberal arts approach to science.”

-“I have a genetic skin condition, a deathly allergy to dairy, and

one short finger” to which Freeling replied, “All of us would be dead

without modern medicine.”

The conversations in class often focused on a controversy around

genetics. Eugenics, GMO’s and RoundUpReady were some of the first

topics.58 Prof. Freeling provided enthralling stories of his history in the

field, including a time when he gave a paper as a grad student at a

conference and was approached by a Monsanto talent scout who

“looked like a shark. She was dressed to kill and stood out in the

conference in a black power suit and high heels…She offered me

$1million dollars and flew us back to Berkeley right then and there.”

Unable to broker a deal at the Vice Chancellor’s Office, she “stormed

out” and “didn’t even look over at me waiting in the lobby”. Of this tale

of corporate solicitation Freeling summarized, “This still goes on today.

I would have taken her money and done exactly what I wanted. I knew

who I was dealing with… I wanted the money.”59

Another enthralling Monsanto tale revolved around his expert

testimony regarding gene transfer technology the corporation had

stolen the RoundUpReady construct of one of their collaborators, a $68

million ruling against the company. He described being able to easily

58 Define eugenics, RUR GMO59 Freeling, lecture, January 30, 2006.

46

point out the fierce Monsanto lawyers that were “all at least 150

pounds overweight and in all black. Except for one very skinny woman

-the skinniest woman you’ve ever seen- also in black, who would bring

them coffee. Somehow the lawyers already knew that the judge didn’t

like loud ties.” His distaste for the corporation was clear to students,

especially when he smiled at students and stated, “and it really was so

much fun, getting the evil empire under the gun like that.” He went on

to explain the economic realities of the power of the company. “The

overall landscape didn’t change much [after the ruling]. The stocks

didn’t even drop…It doesn’t matter to investors whether or not their

info was stolen.” Freeling’s charming disdain for Monsanto was clear,

but he also pointed out that given the Reality of his time, he would not

refuse funding from them, nor would that affect his research.

Regarding RoundUpReady, Freeling stressed that RoundUp “taken out

of context, is a truly nice, non-toxic chemical,” but that “you shouldn’t

buy it and support Monsanto.” In explaining how RoundUpReady kills

anything with chlorophyll, he used cultural metaphors to show an

EPSPS enzyme catalyzes a reaction, “this bridges them together in a

fast rate, like a matchmaker in many societies.” Freeling stressed the

importance of knowing ‘the Science’ of GM, and ended with a

discussion of how a gene was found by a small company and bought

out by Monsanto.

Aware of social and philosophical theories of science, Freeling often

would engage the class in discussions about controversies and

maintain his perspective on the issue as a scientist. He discussed his

views and role in the Chapela-Quist controversy at length (discussed in

this paper in the “In the Name of Science” chapter). Freeling justified

the preeminence of good science above any social controversy and

exclaimed, “In Science, the Truth exists. We just find it.”

47

Conclusion

In all of my interviews with faculty, I admired their fantastic interest in

their subjects. However, this pull into highly specified fields has driven

the secondary tasks of faculty (gathering funds, grants, etc.) to take

funding from wherever it can be procured to continue research. As we

see with the decline of state and federal funds, private funding has

become essential. University administrators is also ready to accept this

reality in order to ‘stay competitive.’ While they insist no direct

influence has been had by corporate funding, the course of research

has changed gradually toward topics that are likely to be funded,

attract lab space, students, and prestige. Some comparison to private

labs cast light on how the university mission of the ‘public good’ is

becoming confused with the language of ‘profit’ as universities become

more like ‘engines of growth.’ We know see how the corporation has

become married to the public university, not simply because of its

dowry of knowledge, but because of the vows of Progress, the

specialization of technology, and the devotion to the marketplace as a

means of distribution of the ‘products.’ Successful professors turn

around and teach their strategy and version of Science to students,

institutionalizing their acceptance of no alternatives to the

marketplace. Dissent often comes from less specified fields that have

no say in the development of Agbiotech and are steadily declining

because of their unprofitability. This form of deviance is discouraged

by controls including loss of professional status, funding, research

grants, publication refusal and revocation, and peer disdain. Often

these controversies surround what is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ science, the topic

of the next chapter.

48

[Chapter 3: In the Name of Science]

When scientists ascend the spiral staircase toward Truth, there are

parallel steps intertwining with power. Scientists vary in their

acknowledgement of subjectivity to power structures in society. They

often recognize the functioning of power in the institutions that house

them, in the factors that affect funding and direction of their research.

But to what extent to scientists recognize the subtle exercise of Power

in shaping the definitions and directions of science? In this chapter, I

will examine how the concept of Science itself has been used by

economic interests in society. I will look at how declarations of ‘good’

and ‘bad’ science are appropriated and how these evidence power

systems in the linear production of knowledge, a Groupthink process

described by Vandana Shiva as a ‘monoculture of the mind.’ I examine

how specificity of today’s intellectuals has starved more holistic

outlooks on the products of their research, and lastly, how the public is

viewed by Agbiotech.

Definition: Science vs. science

“Little s science is the practice of questioning, and the process of

understanding. The big S labels the practice of power, of political

power [through adopting industrial definitions of acceptable

science].”60

Bad science or bad Science?

In 2001, a Berkeley professor and graduate student published a paper

in Nature evidencing GMO corn contamination of native maize fields in

Oaxaca, Mexico.61 The results were startling because this area of

Mexico is where maize was first cultivated ten thousand years ago.

60 Ignacio Chapela, interview, 3-23-06

Mexico had banned GMO corn since 1998. Daniel Quist and Ignacio

Chapela’s paper had undergone regular extensive peer review

methods, but were challenged by a group of students and professors at

UC Berkeley. An all-out attack began on the basis of ‘good’ and ‘bad’

science. Mike Freeling, a geneticist in PMB, the department that

contracted a $25 million deal with Novartis, explained on a radio

program,

“I was part of this group that criticized Quist and Chapela

because my grad student Nick Kaplinsky read the article in depth

and found bad science. He said, hey, this is bad science, and I

supported him as his mentor. I had no choice.”

He continues by stating: “22% of my lab is supported by private

industry. Most of that is through a grant [from Novartis] to my college,

UC Berkeley” but fervently rejects that any of the sources of funding

affect his definitions of good and bad science, or what he researches.

In his undergraduate course, “Genetic Revolutions” Freeling broke

down the science used by Chapela and Quist and showed the critiques

of his grad student. He explained the social controversy that followed

with a tone of surprise at Chapela and Quist for not admitting their

scientific ‘goof’ because “they wanted to prove a point.”62 Freeling

explained this as a hiccup of the process of science. He expressed that

undue concern over PMB’s partnership with Novartis made those who

didn’t know ‘the science’ believe that the Chapela case demonstrated

academic freedom was in jeopardy “when it actually wasn’t at all.

What was at stake was what we accept as good science.” He said,

“Whole groups of people were arguing past each other… it had nothing

to do with science. Scientists care more about getting science right

than social justice.”

61 David Quist, Ignacio Chapela. “Transgenic DNA Introgressed into Traditional Maize Landraces in Oaxaca, Mexico,” Nature, 414, 2001: 541-543.62 Michael Freeling lecture

Chapela and Quist maintained that their methods were legitimate and

the point was proving itself: results unfavorable to industry were

disputed with personal attacks and/or attacks on the legitimacy of the

science. There was no dispute over the paper’s first point that actual

GM contamination had occurred. The disputed point was in a second

finding, that the GM sequence was ‘jumping around’ in the corn.63

Nonetheless, the dispute overshadowed the significance of the

findings. Freeling’s group had actually petitioned for a full retraction of

the article. Nature magazine, for the first time in it’s 133-year history

published an editorial comment telling readers to judge the findings for

themselves because the ‘evidence was not sufficient to justify’ the

claims. In a guest lecture in Spring 2005, Professor Miguel Altieri

pointed to the last quarter of Nature magazine. It was full of ads for

product, most produced by biotech corporations like Monsanto. He

questioned how the helix of power cast a shadow even upon the

shining staircase of Science reaching toward Truth.64 The controversy

escalated when, Chapela had to file a lawsuit after he was (after being

approved by faculty 32 to1) suspiciously denied tenure by a budget

committee in the College of Natural Resources. At least two of the

members of this smaller committee had ties to the biotech industry.65

After finally being reinstated and tenured, Chapela stated that personal

attacks would not stop his pursuit of using science to prove the

negative effects of GMO’s. He explained to me,

“Power is exercised by denying what you just said. People have different realities, different truths, and that will immediately be challenged the moment you say it in most places. [Scientists] will say, you can delude yourself as much as you what, but I know what they truth is. And therefore what I say is privileged. And

63 Ironically, the ‘jumping genes’ in maize were first discovered by Barbara McClintock, who’s ‘feeling for the organism’ met profound skepticism from her male scientist counterparts. After winning the Nobel Prize for her findings, McClintock criticized the ‘tacit assumptions’ of some scientists, assumptions we see repeatedly falling into mainstream but subjective definitions of scientific legitimacy.64 Professor Miguel Altieri. Guest lecture: Bioethics, UC Berkeley. 2-17-05.65 Washburn, 16. Chapela, interview.

this is a political statement more than anything else. ‘I have power to make decisions, you might not understand why I am making those decisions. That power comes, to me from my understanding of truth that you don’t have.’”

This claim to legitimacy has everything to do with who defines what is

good science and therefore, who is legitimized to articulate Truth. This

is obviously connected to the helix of power. What forms of science are

recognized and legitimated are the basis for policy and regulation.66

Unfortunately, the definition of good science is following the trend of

specialization and thus, is more elite. Martin Lemon, an outreach and

collaboration specialist from Monsanto Corporation broke down his

definition of science like this:

“My opinion of science is more restrictive. I consider clinical trials

Science, controlled labs Science, plant and animal tests in the field

Science (so we know what we’re dealing with). I have more faith in this

kind of Science than epidemiological studies and questionnaires and

such. That’s just correlation versus cause and effect.” [capitalization of

Science mine]

This form of Science is more specified and technical than other forms,

particularly ecological models that can only correlate and infer from

observation because it necessarily takes place outside of controlled

environments. Lemon and Freeling hold the positivist belief that

science, done properly, can elucidate an objective truth about a

subject. What Freeling does not take into account is how industry and

technology have ushered in new standards for good and bad science

that favor his specific areas of expertise, and thus rule out models of

knowledge that root outside the laboratory, in the broad chaotic world

where the results of his research eventually end up.67

66 Jasanoff, 1990, p. 229-25767 Speaking of ‘proper science,’ while Freeling told his Genetic Revolutions class that a subsequent study by the Mexican government found no evidence of GM contamination, his PMB colleague Peggy Lemaux published an article which stated

While moral and economic reasons are pirated from predominant

discourses to legitimize accelerated Agbiotech research, the study of

real effects of that research are done in other fields. The working

studies of ecology, politics economics, agriculture, ecosystem science,

and social systems examine the implementation of GMO’s from a

variety of analytical perspectives. Coincidently, these interdisciplinary

fields that combine studies of are the ones considered furthest from

“good science” by the predominant industrial standards.68 These are

also the fields that have the least funding in departments and no

practical input into the production of the products whose effects they

encounter. Rigid technical definitions of ‘good science’ emphasize

reproducibility and rely of falsification, on the ability of conflicting

evidence to silence a theory. These definitions are essentially anti-

ecological, since repetition depends on controlled variables that are

more often found in a lab reality than in a dynamic, ever-changing

ecosystem.

Dominant definitions of ‘good science’ support technology, industry,

and standardization. They seem rather careless in their tendency to

treat risk assessment as a predictable, controlled procedure instead of

an examination of the interaction of an inquiry into the nature of an

introduced variety on a dynamic ecosystem. Risk is often equated with

public fears, as we will see in a later discussion of scientists’ skepticism

regarding the precautionary principle. Vandana Shiva criticizes the

“fragmented linearity of the dominant knowledge [which]

disrupts the integration between systems… Dominant scientific

knowledge breeds a monoculture of the mind by making a space

that “most plant biologists concede, and the Mexican government has molecular evidence, that transgenes did move to Mexican landraces and that this likely traces to transgenic corn that was being illegally grown in Mexico.”? It seems that the disconnect in scientific discourse is highly fragmented, even amongst Agbiotech scientists in the same building.68 Jasanoff, 1990, p. 229-257; Gieryn, 1995, p.18-19

for local alternatives to disappear, very much like monocultures

of introduced plant varieties lead to the displacement and

disruption of local diversity.”

Shiva is claiming that in scientific discourse, the understanding of a

singular Truth depends upon the negation of dissent or alternative

findings. In the face of routine, industrial assessments of risk, actual

experiences of contamination like Chapela’s are dismissed

(necessarily) as ‘bad science.’ This is linked to the power systems that

use science to assert dominance through their scientific claim to Truth.

Scientists are manipulated into a Groupthink of safety and imagined

control as they cultivate one variety of evidence to support

standardized expectations of results. The scientists that perform GM

are often in different institutions, counties, states, or even countries

from those who conduct ‘controlled’ field experiments of the actual GM

crop.69 This division of labor creates geographic and conceptual

distance from holistic understandings and feedback, save for what the

corporations developing the product share with the geneticists. This

fragmented process creates a linear path of scientific purpose on which

scientists are not able to adequately act upon dissent or alternative

feedback on experiences in reality which conflict with standardized

expectation.

For instance, Percy Schmeiser, a canola farmer in Canada was sued by

Monsanto for having fields contaminated by a Monsanto GM canola. In

1998, Schmeiser received a lawsuit in the mail stating that he was

being sued for growing a Monsanto strain of GM canola without a

license.70 Schmeiser decided to fight back. In court, the first ruling

stated that regardless of how GMO’s get into a farmer’s field, once

there, the farmer is responsible for paying licensing fees. When

69 Interview, Martin Lemon of Monsanto Corporation.70 Schmeiser, Percy. Presentation: UC Berkeley. December 1, 2005. Also see percyschmeiser.com for more info or make a donation to help with his enormous legal bill.

appealed to Supreme Court in 2000, Schmeiser eventually won the

ruling but had to pay all of his own court fees. In a presentation to UC

Berkeley students last fall, Schmeiser discussed his experiences of

being dismissed by scientists citing their own studies of contamination

risk. Of academia’s perception of the ‘reality’ he advises, “Any

professor that says, ‘yes you can contain it’ had better go start

farming.”

The Percy Schmeiser case uses Monsanto’s own research to validate

the contamination hypothesis of Chapela. The entire controversy that

ensued in the Chapela debate was about the ‘quality’ of scientific

product: knowledge accepted as Truth. This knowledge was being used

to ask bigger questions, but the controversy succeeded in making sure

that the bigger questions were never asked. So much time was spent

defending methods (and later even keeping Chapela’s position), there

was no space to discuss the undisputed evidence that GM

contamination had actually occurred, contrary to industrial science’s

claims of risk assessment. The double movement of power will ‘correct’

any definitions of Truth that do not correlate to the structure of power.

Science, in imagining it is not influenced by power, becomes

susceptible to the greatest manipulation by industry: manipulation of

standards, methods, and purpose.

“We should admit that power and knowledge directly imply one

another; that there is no power relation without the correlative

constitution of a field of knowledge, nor any knowledge that does

not presuppose and constitute… power relations.”71

The science of Ignacio Chapela and the experience of Percy Schmeiser

are alternative forms of knowledge that were necessarily rejected by

71 Foucault, 1980, p.27

the monocultured definitions of science in Agbiotech. These realities

are no less legitimate, but power is exercised in the suppression of

these alternatives. In these case, power donned the mask of Science in

order to legitimate versions of Truth conducive to vested economic

interest. Science was all too willing (and dependant) to be a form of

knowledge reciprocating to power. What is ‘good science’ and ‘bad

science’ cannot be separated from what is ‘good’ and ‘bad’ for

industry. But what about non-scientific opinions of those affected by

Agbiotech?

The Need to’ Educate’ the Public

The role of the public comes into play at a time when decisions

regarding GMO’s are largely out of voter (and consumer) hands.72

Specific intellectuals often treat public concern or criticism of the

products of their knowledge as a lack of education or understanding.

This is certainly the case in Agbiotech.

University scientists I spoke to repeatedly referred to the ‘need to

educate’ the public. Peggy Lemaux is a geneticist in the PMB

department of UC Berkeley. She worked with Greg Guisti to provide ‘a

scientific perspective’ during the 2004 Mendocino country Measure H

movement, which banned GMO agriculture.73 She feels that Science

must serve as the basis upon which the public makes decisions:

“A lot of times, my feeling is, if it weren’t for the fear factor,

these ordinances would have never gotten on the ballot. It’s

when they say all these outrageous things about people dying

and toxins and whatever that made people upset. And I guess

that’s how our society works but it makes me sad because it

makes people worry about eating things that are good for you.”

72 Jasanoff, 1990, p. 39-57, 229-25273 Lemaux, August 11, 2005.

To help ‘spread the Word,’ Lemaux works with the UC Cooperative

Extension Program on public outreach regarding biotechnology. When I

asked her to compare her views to the public’s, she stated, “In general,

scientists are more fact-based and are willing to go to sites like

knowgmos.org or the scientific literature and find out what tests have

been done and make a decision.” She described a commonly voiced

preference amongst scientists for clear answers:

“In science there is a right and wrong, and in ethics there isn’t.

And that makes scientists uncomfortable. We think we should

have one… So there’s this problem for scientists to go into this

realm of social science where its not as cut and dry as bench

science where you can say there’s a 75% chance that’s

something’s allergenic… but at least it’s a number. In the social

sciences you can never usually have that.”

Lemaux’s distaste for ambiguity is understandable. Questioning

purpose and net effect is never an efficient process. It is interesting to

note how many Agbiotech scientists lump all social and political

concerns over their work into a vague ethics category that can be

marginalized to one of many peripheral discussions or a singular

PowerPoint slides. A common perspective I gleaned from interviews

and educational materials was that it’s the Science that is

important to understand. The public needs to know the Science

before they could hold a legitimate opinion on GMO’s. Those

pesky, ambiguous ethical issues must be separately

considered from how the actual processes of GM work.

Lemaux’s need for quantitative results is symptomatic of a technical,

monocultured version of scientific analysis. Many social scientists don’t

rely on numbers because they instead question the origin, meaning

and implication of those numbers. They often (or should) look at the

power and subjectivity of those numbers, not just the abstract

quantities they approximate.

The Public: Anti-GMO or Anti-biotech?

Many farmer’s concerns about GMO’s are not only rooted in the

environmental and health disasters of Green Revolution technologies,

but are also resistance to monolithic corporations like Monsanto. As

agribusiness promoter Jim Peacock acknowledged, “Many of the

arguments that are used against GM crops are really arguments

against the misuse of power by the large multinational companies that

advocate them.” Lemaux and most of the other university scientists I

spoke to on the Berkeley campus were aware of this dimension of

social resistance. This consciousness of consumer and citizen

resistance has been interpreted as a need to educate the public ‘about

the science.’ The goal is to separate critiques of social, political, and

economic realities from genetic ones. Says GM scientist Andy Coghlan,

“I think that it is madness to abandon GM for what are essentially

political, economic, and ideological prejudices.”74 From the perspective

of a scientist, this makes perfect sense. But similarly, it is like saying it

is madness to develop an atom bomb simply because a government

might actually drop it.

To the lay public, the knowledge scientists create is forever subjective

to how it is used.75 However, scientists prefer to retain their own

standards for science in the lab and also to study risk, but only from

controlled conditions. This disconnect between theory and reality

fissures in the marketplace. Scientists ally with industry in the

promotion of agricultural biotechnology. Industry uses media and

propaganda to bestow authority upon Agbiotech scientists to

74Arntzen, 2003.75 Pew Initiative, 2005; Center for Food Safety, 2004.

‘independently’ produce Truth. Since the knowledge Agbiotech

scientists produce holds a reciprocal relationship to commerce, the

Agbiotech becomes a crusade to convince the public of the soundness

of the Science. This crusade is paraphrased by industry from scientists’

statement “GM foods are safe/good for you” to “Buy GM foods.

They are safe/good for you.” Scientists join the crusade because

they want the public to understand the Science (and assume this

knowledge will allow the public to make consumption choices that

democratically speak for choices they were denied as citizens).76

In an April 2000 presentation entitled, “Agricultural Biotechnology: Its

Past and Future,” for the large Agbiotech company Asilomar, Peggy

Lemaux explained to/for industry how scientists are

addressing/combating public concern. “

“It seems that the perceptions of these “risks” depend on who is

making the assessment. For example in the food safety arena, there

have been issues raised by consumer groups as to the possibility of

creating new allergens through the process of genetic engineering.

While this issue is being raised, $cientists counter with their

perspective that such technologies can and are being used to remove

allergens from foods that cause problems for human consumers, like

peanut and wheat. The same is true of the nutritional quality issue.

While one group argues that genetic engineering might result in foods

with decreased nutritional quality; $cientists demonstrate that

nutritional quality can be improved through genetic engineering as

76 Recently, the WTO ruled that the EU’s precautionary ban on GMO’s was ‘illegal.’ Much of the ruling was based on what was defined as ‘sound science.’ Since GMO’s weren’t seen to be any more harmful than regular crops, that the ban was in violation of free trade. The ‘expert’ testimonies accepted are up to discrimination of the judges. Selection of WTO judges also brings up questions of democracy and legal empiricism. As for the fate of consumer choice, labeling of GM foods is also finding its way into court. On grounds of ‘sound science’ showing no difference, the necessity/right to label is being disputed. See Jasanoff & Winickoff in bibliography for more.

shown with the new golden rice varieties.”[Capitalization of $cience

mine]

In this statement, neither the legitimacy nor the reign of biotechnology

is ever questioned. The issues raised (dissent/heresy) are countered by

specific experts, and dismissed while industry applauds. The role of the

public is to demonstrate their own illiteracy, not to be considered as

peers or valid critics. While universities feel an obligation to educate,

corporations simply dismiss those dwarfed by the corporate shadow. A

Monsanto representative explained anti-GMO science: “There’s a

mainstream scientific community. Of course there are fringe groups.

It’s not that they are wrong or invalid. But they hold opinions that the

mainstream doesn’t have.”

As far as industry goes, the mainstream is what matters. Fringe groups

aren’t immediately dismissed as ‘bad science,’ ironically. This implies

that in Agbiotech, conforming to ideology is more important than

actually being right or wrong. Economic power holds more importance

than Truth. Nonetheless, the Monsanto representative returned to the

importance of science’s ability to justify and create Truth:

“What’s the truth about GMO’S? From a business standpoint, it is

reproducible, peer-reviewed science.”

So long as industry can use Science to legitimate its version of Truth,

the double helix will persist. His statement holds that Truth is Science

(from a business standpoint). Similarly, Lemaux sets up a paradigm of

Truth/Science as a basis for policy. She sees science’s historical role in

policy formation as a precedent that superseding public concern, a

symptom of scientific illiteracy. Further in her Asilomar talk, Lemaux

states,

“Of the concerns mentioned above, most have been raised by groups

other than scientists or regulators. Environmentalists and other activist

groups have been very vocal in opposing the application of

biotechnology to agriculture. As they articulate their concerns, it is a

fear of the unknown; we do not know enough about the technology to

take a long-term view and know what issues need to be addressed.

How can we predict the long-term consequences of consuming GM

foods or growing GM crops in our fields. Many ascribe to the

precautionary principle, which embraces the "guilty until proven

innocent" paradigm, a situation that is opposite to the way in which

food policies have been shaped in the U.S. in the past.”

The precautionary principle is frowned upon as ignorant cowardice in

the face of Progress. In free trade, the precautionary principle is a top

lobby priority to counter. In science, tests and certainty were seen as

essential to regulation. In Science, the precautionary principle is seen

as superstitious and backward. One geneticist explains,

“Only fools would be paralyzed by fear. You are cautious, you

have science-based policy and review, and you proceed forward

like a human being, not like a mouse.”

Thankfully, someone knows how we should all behave! I’m so glad this

expert is going to make these decisions for me, what a relief. Luckily,

scientists also treat their work with a similar god-like omnipotence of

its effects:

“In my research I pretty much know what every nucleotide is

that I move around in the plant. (A nucleotide is one of the four

building blocks of DNA). I don’t know everything, but I know

pretty much, I can make some informed guesses as to what the

consequences will be.”

In Science, informed guesses are more important than precautionary

principles. If this Knowledge were not profitable, would this be the

case? The expert continues:

“The alternative would be to make messing with Mother Nature

illegal. And that would of course cause you to lose the entire

technology and all of its power. And in fact there would be no

genetic research that’s powerful anymore.”

I agree. This statement coincides Foucault’s perspective on Science’s

claim to Truth and it’s manipulation by Power:

“It is necessary not to think of the political problems of

intellectuals not in the terms of ‘science’ and ‘ideology’ but in

terms of ‘truth’ and ‘power.’”

Let us consider the role of scientists in producing and adding

legitimacy to a particular Truth as Foucault expands:

“’Truth’ is linked in a circular relation with systems of power

which induces and which extends it. A ‘regime’ of truth [that is]

not merely ideological or superstructural, it was a condition of

the formation and development of capitalism.”

Thus, when scientists, entrusted by society to find and report ‘Truth’

are immersed in a specified field forever linked to (and dependent

upon) industry, we find discourses of power coming out of the mouths

of those pious believers in objectivity. These discourses are veiled in

terms of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ Science. This linear thought pattern is

described by Vandana Shiva as a ‘monoculture of the mind’ and leaves

scientists deaf to dissent articulated in anything other than the

language of mainstream science.

Conclusion

The legitimation of Agbiotech through the invocation of ‘good’ and

‘bad’ science involves a subtle but thorough form of Groupthink.

Isolated lab settings along with the division of labor serve to distance

specialized experts from the realities of the products they create. The

linear process of technical, specialized science has made a routine in

which scientists no longer study the implementation and cultivation (or

contamination) of the GM crops they sequenced in the lab. This leads

to responses of disbelief when alternatives to expected results arise,

such as in the cases of Chapela and Schmeiser. When an alternative

science discourse of Truth is used, dominant standards of Science race

up the spiral helix of Power to silence it. In Agbiotech there is a

definition of ‘good’ Science complementing technical experiments and

repeatable cause-effect relationships. This process of inquiry is

nurtured by the relationship of Science and industry. Trust and

dependency blur amongst optimistic, humanitarian discourses of

purpose. Industrial outsourcing of testing and feedback ensure that the

isolated scientists doing sequencing and GM are distanced from

legitimate concerns of risk. The specialization and technical language

of the field limits public participation and leads to a dismissal of public

concern as a symptom of scientific illiteracy. Most alarmingly, broad

social, political, and ethical questions are lumped together,

marginalized, and ignored due to pro-Agbiotech membership of

prestigious, competitive labs.

“Although, in the wake of modern engineering, corporate

industry has taken on a scientific aura and capitalism has

assumed the appearance of reason itself, the engineers have no

more replaced the capitalist than science has replaced

capitalism.”77

77 David Noble, America By Design. p. 322

[Chapter 4: Good Science, Good Development]

“Development… gives rise to an apparatus that systematically relates forms of knowledge and techniques of power.” A.E.

“It seems to me that what must now be taken into account is in the intellectual….whose specificity is linked, in a society like ours, to the general functioning of an apparatus of truth.” M.F.

“Well of course I want to feed those people in Africa. If you know a better way [than GMO’s] I’d sure like to hear it.” –UCB Geneticist

The development discourse referred to by scientists and industry

representatives follows a paradigm of economic industrialization, the

expansion of Western styles of democracy and governance, and the

establishment of institutions to promote Progress. Implicit in the

promotion of the adaptation of GMO’s in other countries is the

acceptance of global capitalism in its most current form: free trade.

The marketplace is the distribution stage for the solutions made by

science. The increasing specificity of today’s intellectual has led to

constructions of reality that often exist solely within an acceptance of

global capitalism and the frameworks that ensue, namely that of

international development. Thus, when the specific expert is called

upon to speak the ‘Truth’ they are speaking in the language of

hegemony. The worst translations of this language are audible when

discourses addressing world hunger are employed to justify

I find that the highly technical laboratory nature of Agbiotech has

carved reality to revolve around tangible ‘scientific’ results that aid

notions of Progress. Like Oppenheimer and Borlaug, the increasing

specificity of scientists has set up an ideology in which ethics and

political concerns are peripheral to a comfortable dialogue of concrete

64

facts and scientific evidence. What results are created -and what

questions are asked- are formed with little input from the socio-

economic sphere in which these results are implemented. The

institutional focus on the individual scientist as Truth-Maker and

Knowledge-Builder has insulated against alternative understandings of

reality. Alternative understandings include anti- and post-development

critiques which reject the manifest destiny of global capitalism and

favor alternative methods of economy and political systems. Elitist

science lacks dialogue and understanding of constructivist critiques.

The overlap of industry and public sector Agbiotech is driven by

discourses of development because the illusion of unity in service of

public good. It is here that public good becomes confused with global

capitalism, much the way the power of the citizen is entrusted as the

power of the consumer. Instead, I offer one of many definitions which

allow us to begin to unravel some of the assumptions within

development ideologies.

Definition: Development as a historically singular experience, the

creation of a domain of thought and action, by analyzing the

characteristics and interrelations of three axes that define it: the

forms of knowledge that refer to it and through which it comes

into being and is elaborated in to objects, concepts, theories, and

the like; the system of power that regulates its practice; and the

forms of subjectivity fostered by this discourse, through which

people came to recognize themselves as developed and

underdeveloped.78

78 Escobar, 1995, p.10; There are entire graduate Geography courses at UC Berkeley that spend the entire semester defining development. To accept one definition is to loose sight of Development as a discourse. Nonetheless, as far as understanding development, Gillian Hart makes an important distinction. She defines ‘Big D’ Development as “a post-second world war project of intervention in the ‘third world’ that emerged in the context of decolonization and the cold war” (the aid of the Green Revolution) and ‘little d’ development, of the development of capitalism as a geographically uneven, profoundly contradictory set of historical processes. (2001, p. 650)

65

These are problems with Power and Knowledge that we recognize as

part of the alternative double helix. Analysis of development discourse

is quite relevant when considered as a controlling process that extracts

productivity from Agbiotech scientists. The knowledge they produce is

connected to the systems of power. We can see an this in the WTO’s

recent use of ‘sound science’ to rule the EU’s ban on GMO’s ‘illegal.’

Food, Health, Hope®

“The problems of the developing world are great, but the potential for

human ingenuity to solve them is even greater.” Bill Gates

“The green revolution and now plant biotechnology are helping

meet the growing demand for food production, while preserving

our environment for future generations.” Norman Borlaug

‘Helping countries to develop’ is usually justified as a means of fighting

poverty and hunger. Gordon Conway, president of the Rockefeller

Foundation, uses the hot new neocolonial buzzword Sustainable

Development in his 1997 book, The Doubly Green Revolution.

Sustainable development is now the latest fashion in Development

discourse at the WTO, the IMF, the WB, and (sadly) with most

international NGO’s.79 Conway claims the Doubly Green Revolution

(using GMO crops and updated Green Revolution technologies) will

enhance food productivity while protecting natural resources. The

forward to the book, written by Ismail Serageldin (the Vice-President of

Environmentally Sustainable Development at the World Bank), called

the original Green Revolution a “splendid achievement.” 72 pages

later, Conway describes how the Green Revolution’s over-use of

79 Serageldin: 1996, p.2

66

pesticides increased local mortality rates by up to 250%.80 Yet he

claims, “the growing interconnectedness of the world- the process

commonly referred to as globalization- holds the promise of alleviating,

if not eliminating, poverty and hunger.” Thus, the Gene Revolution will

magically pick up where the Green Revolution fell short. Unfortunately,

many post-development critics see Conway’s globalization as a

euphemism for corporate global capitalism, a problem which to date

has worsened the condition.81 Conway’s doublespeak, an unbridled

optimism, holds that simply upgrading the version of development will

eventually relieve the many problems colonialism and later

Development created. This sentiment is echoed throughout much of

the literature in the UN and (of course) at the WTO and World Bank.82

Strangely, this problem-solving approach doesn’t seem to take into

account its own subjectivity. Many economists and social scientist hold

that every famine in human history has been caused by political

powers, not by crop failure.83

Nailed Bootstraps

In “Under the Banner of Development” Majid Rahnema counters

Conway’s zealous enthusiasm:

“for both colonialism and development, there is indeed a universal

model of life that represents the ultimate any society can hope to

attain to…the model remains that of the white man. Development

defines it more specifically in terms of economic and socio-cultural

advancement: a systematic increase in GNP’s, in the production and

the consumption of goods and services, in the overall capacity of a

country to meet the needs of the economy, the more and more of

everything.”

80 Conway, 1997, p. 87-90.81 Shiva, 1989, p. 3-14; Escobar, 1995, p.2682 Serageldin, 1996, p.1-1783 Barraclough, 1991, p. 43-50, 87-97;Constantino, 1988, p.3-13; Sayre, lecture; Hart, lecture 2-22-05.

67

Rahnema’s explanation begins to make sense when a transnational

corporation, which depends specifically on these transitions, uses their

website to compile an aesthetic set of film clips from scientists and

farmers around the world stating the significance of Monsanto to their

livelihoods.84

A representative from Monsanto emphasized the charitable attitude

Monsanto holds towards the developing world,

“In other parts of the world, things are so screwed up, you can’t

even talk about it. They might not even have the cultural norms

for work, women do all the work and the men just sit around.

They have a lot to work on. Socially, culturally, economically, you

name it. They don’t have money, so our business model won’t

work out there…”

Monsanto’s slogan recently changed from the humanitarian-esque

“Food, Health, Hope” to “Imagine” which focuses more on the

possibilities of industrial uses for agriculture. The representative

explained that the company is focusing less and less on developing

countries.

“Down there, they can’t pay for chemicals. They don’t know how

to do agriculture the way we do, they have it the old-fashioned

way. We are not even going to try to make money, so we bring in

scientists from these countries to our labs, and teach them how

to do genetic transformation.”

On the implementation of Western agricultural methods, the Monsanto

representative described an encounter he had in Mexico with a

barefoot man spraying incorrect amounts of a pesticide on his crops.

“They don’t have anyone telling them how to do it right.” This actually

correlates with the disastrous realities of the implementation of

84 www.monsanto.com

68

Development ideologies. Again, we seem to be hearing the same

paternal rhetoric from those most deeply entrenched in the workings

of industry and world commerce. These (coincidentally) all-white men

deplore the wrongs of previous efforts and pledge that ‘this time’ will

be different.

Imagine®

Most geneticists I spoke with cited the success of the Green Revolution

in aiding development, and how GMO’s will be the next step in that

direction. One geneticist hailed Norman Borlaug’s Green Revolution to

be the “Greatest Contribution of the 20th Century.” His lecture

consisted of the technological science behind the Gene Revolution, yet

provided little doubt of his faith in what would be the greatest

contribution of this century. GMO’s to help with higher yields were

supposed to help with subsistence and increase GDP.

Mike Freeling, a UC Berkeley geneticist used a neo-Malthusian rhetoric

for increasing food supply capabilities:

“I personally have an opinion which is that right now, we don’t need

more food. Right now we need other things in society … But one day, if

the population goes up by another 50% or if it doubles, god forbid, we

are going to be dealing with changes in water supply, and top soil

quality supply, salinity especially water…. We are going to be pressed

to feed those people, and especially to grow in land that’s been

trashed by human beings. That means that the sweet crops that have

been domesticated by indigenous peoples to fit particular areas of the

earth won’t grow there any more because human beings have trashed

them. And that’s where genetic upgrades may well be needed. And I

work more for that long term, to understand plants well enough to

upgrade them so that they can grow in higher salt or with less water so

that they can still produce food.”

69

Freeling made no connections were made between the power

dynamics of which humans have ‘trashed’ the environment (a

reference to the environmental degradation resulting from the Green

Revolution) and the same groups of humans promoting this ‘upgrade’

of the same model. How these ‘upgraded’ plants will be distributed to

those who ‘need’ them the most is still in question. But, as our former

Chancellor Berdahl described our ‘state-assisted institution,’ “We are in

the production business, not the distribution business.” Population-rise

is practically seen as a disease of the Third World. The above-quoted

scientist discussed the controversies over GMO’s, most of which he

considered to be “scientifically invalid”. The fourth reason, however,

was “buying GMO seeds is to buy into global capitalism. Global

capitalism has a certain vision: this is what we do and this is how you

are going to do it. You will live by our standards and our economic

principles.” In this sense, the geneticists, even from their professionally

isolated positions, are aware of the relationship of global capitalism

and the products they create. This is more reflexive than the

Oppenheimer environment that precipitated the atom bomb. However,

none of these scientists are ceasing to produce GMO’s. They fault the

troubles (past and present) of Agbiotech in the industry and regulatory

spheres, and choose individual agency as their means of preserving

trust in their abilities.

One geneticist described her distrust in transnational corporations to

ever deliver results to developing countries, “It is possible that things

developed by companies will be useful to developing countries, but I

don’t know how useful. What’s more useful is, I think, the responsibility

of academic scientists to become involved with this instead of

companies.”

This highlights an important perspective. In this case, the geneticist

probably held more views in common with people in need of ‘help’ (a

70

conceptualization of poverty and world hunger commonly referenced

as “those people in Africa”, an interesting term latent with its own

racial baggage). The complex inner workings and constructions of

poverty within development discourse arise from the very messy

social fields some scientists choose to avoid. Without knowing the

roots of the problem, scientists set out to find answers. One PMB

geneticist working directly with an African student to develop a sorgum

crop that is drought-resistant and contains more vitamins. It is here

that the questions seem to become more fuzzy. Working outside of the

corporate framework, one sees an argument that GMO’s could actually

help when developed for people, not profit. But in the age of patents

and privatized research, is it even possible to do any research that

doesn’t at least indirectly further the corporate enterprise? In “The

Golden Rice Hoax’, Vandana Shiva describes how a well intentioned

rice variety genetically engineered to produce Vitamin A met deep

cultural resistance. People did not trust this bright orange rice. Shiva

maintains that these varieties threaten the security of variety diversity

that has evolved over thousands of years of agriculture. She sharply

described the assumptions of paternal scientists using more science to

solve problems: “Perhaps scientists suffer from a from a worse form of

blindness” than the condition they were trying to solve through Golden

Rice.85

Most geneticists I spoke to shared her distrust of transnational

corporations. Though many identified the prevailing paradigm as such,

none considered it a good enough reason to stop what they were

doing: spreading technology’s perceived benefits. In this sense, the

idea of development’s failures was appropriately placed on the greed

of large companies, but was not seen as a reason to discontinue the

highly technical levels of research even though it is this eliticism of

85 Shiva, v. 2003. Of similar interest is a response from our own Gordon Conway to the Rockefeller Foundation Shiva criticized. Cultural clashes leap off the page.

71

knowledge that disempower so many of the world’s farmers in the first

place. I asked geneticists why they wanted to work on technological

solutions instead of the more traditional sustainable farming methods

(such as permaculture to fight pests, etc.). They stated that it was “not

my field” and often voiced that they liked the challenge of their

specific work.

When I asked geneticists how they could test the actual success of

GMO’s in delivering the promises of higher yields and increased GDP

outside the laboratory, they retreated into the specificity of their field. I

often heard, “I’m not an economist, I don’t know.” While economic

reasons are borrowed from predominant discourses to legitimize

research, the study of real effects of that research are delegated to

other fields. Coincidently, these interdisciplinary fields that combine

studies of political ecology, economics, and social systems are the

ones considered furthest from “good science” by the predominant

industrial standards.86 These are also the fields that have the least

funding in departments and no practical input into the production of

the products they study.

“We should admit that power and knowledge directly imply one

another; that there is no power relation without the correlative

consititution of a field of knowledge, nor any knowledge that

does not presuppose and consitute… power relations.”87

In a March 29, 2006 article in Business Day, Bruce Chassey, the

associate executive director of the Campus Biotechnology Center at

University of Illinois published an article upon his return from a trip to

South Africa. “As a public-sector scientist who has devoted a 40-year

86 Jasanoff, 1990, p.229-250. and Martin Lemon, interview 3-28-06.87 Foucault, 1980, p.27

72

career to research in biotechnology to advance the public good, it was

disappointing to hear some South Africans equate advances in science

with corporate greed and callous disregard for human welfare… For

starters, there are five or six major corporations in the biotech seeds

business: hardly a monopoly.”

While this may make sense to a business major at the University of

Illinois, I wonder if is equipped (reflexively and historically) to

understand the skepticism his answer must have met from South

Africans. He expands upon the importance of biotechnology to

development until he hits a climax upon the capitalism-means-free-will

paradigm,

“We ought to let these farmers decide their own fate by allowing them

access to improved seeds.”

He continued to list the monetary and development benefits of GMO’s,

and claimed, “One would have to be a dedicated anticapitalist to deny

that biotechnology has delivered value to farmers around the world.”

Indeed.

73

[ConclusioN]

I have described the relationship between Truth and Power that I have

found in Agbiotech as an alternative double helix. These two social

helices intertwine structurally, connected through interlocking

nucleotides of institutions, individuals, knowledge, and the production

thereof. When we fully understand the structures of Truth and Power in

our society, we can begin to pull apart this double helix and modify as

needed. It is my hope that this description can serve to bridge

dialogues over the science wars, from mud slinging to shared soil. This

affects all of us.

“However firmly the protagonists of this story (or their

contemporary successors) convinced themselves that they

served the interests of society as a whole, the in reality served

only the dominant class in society, that class, which, in order to

survive, must forever struggle to extract labor from, and thus to

control the lives of, the class beneath it.”88

The problem I am addressing isn’t capitalism-at-large, a topic far, far

beyond the scope of this paper. I am addressing the faith that

scientists have placed in capitalism to deliver the products of their

efforts. This is a multi-layered set of assumptions that begins with trust

in multi-national corporations and ends with the hegemonic

assumption that development is the way to solve the world’s many

problems. In this movement of faith, scientists confuse capitalism with

destiny, and do so without consulting the rest of the world.

The specific intellectuals may be so far removed from the complexities

of implementation and distribution of the products they create, they no

longer contemplate the legitimacy of alternative Truths to that which 88 David Noble, America By Design, p.324

74

they ‘know best.’ Even more dangerously, the alternative discourses

(in this paradigm most often voiced as protest to that which is already

happening) are dismissed as ‘uneducated’ as a signifier that people

must be made to accept the dominant paradigm: a basis of scientific

validity.

Scientific validity, a Western concept with a notorious history of

embeddedness with power, has been repeatedly used to subjugate

others.89 Since Truman’s notorious introduction of the imaginary binary

of Developed and Underdeveloped countries, Science has been hailed

as the keystone of the ‘sacred mission of civilization.’ It is a set of

beliefs parallel with and reciprocal to the assumptions of Development

that have unfolded with and responded to dominated of the Rest by

the West. When Peggy Lemaux sends “Know GMO” informational

bulletins to Africa, she may be redefining how Africans see their

bodies, their environment, their ‘underdeveloped’ or sovereign

country, and, most importantly, their voice (or lack thereof) in how this

technology will influence their lives.

This technology is already happening. Your country will

develop. Science can help. Your country will adopt this

technology (or already has). Science says it’s good for you.

Any fears you have are a result of your lack of education and

obsolete religious notions of superstition and magic.

What scientists are not sensitive to is that science is another set of

beliefs, understandings, and explanations used by humans to

understand and affect the world around them. Science is not the path

to Truth. It is one of many paths to many truths. It is time for us to

89 Shiva, Staying Alive, p. 15-25; Visvanathan, A Carnival For Science, p. 11-14; Nandy (ed) Science, Hegemony, and the State, p. 527-88.

75

question how much a corporation responsible in part for the atom

bomb, Agent Orange, and now terminator seed technology is able to

influence those given the role of ‘Truth-Maker in today’s society. I am

sad to see that because many experts are so specialized, alternative

double helixes are not acknowledged and thus continue to reproduce

themselves and mutate with capitalism. The inherent predatory nature

of science follows the Judeo-Christian tendency to dominate (and be

used to dominate by the powerful groups of society). Just as out

previous belief system eradicated ‘obsolete’ pagan faiths by saying

“There is no other God before me,” Science eradicates other truths and

realities by saying, “There is no other Truth besides what can be

tested, reproduced, and peer-reviewed.” Meanwhile, the increasing

specificity of today’s intellectual creates a conceptual distance from

this ideological atom bomb. It is my hope that if we all point to bent

trees in the social landscape, they will make a sound.

76

[Appendix]

Appendix A: National Science Foundation Statistics on University Research Funding

Appendix A. Percentage share of Federal S&E support to academic institutions going to R&D activities, by Funding agency: FY 1971–2000                 

Fiscal Year

All agencie

s HHS NSF USDA DOD DOE EPA NASA1971……………………. 67 66 58 35 100 95 63 961972…………………… 73 71 75 37 100 95 76 951973……………………… 78 76 85 37 100 94 67 951974…………………. 77 75 86 37 100 99 78 931975…………………… 82 84 86 38 100 99 87 931976……………………… 83 86 89 38 100 100 89 901977…………………… 85 87 88 41 100 98 97 941978……………………… 86 88 89 45 100 99 94 961979………………………. 87 89 90 46 100 97 91 951980……………………….. 88 89 89 48 100 97 94 941981……………………….. 88 89 89 49 97 97 95 951982……………………….. 89 91 95 48 95 99 95 951983……………………… 89 91 96 50 97 98 90 941984……………………….. 87 91 94 47 87 99 91 941985……………………… 88 90 95 47 86 100 95 951986………………………. 88 91 95 48 87 100 96 941987…………………….. 87 92 93 54 86 100 90 951988……………………… 87 92 91 52 87 100 97 941989………………………. 87 92 91 51 86 100 90 951990……………………… 87 92 91 52 89 100 93 921991…………………….. 86 92 88 54 87 99 90 901992……………………… 87 93 91 56 87 99 90 861993………………………. 88 93 90 55 87 98 93 841994………………………….. 87 93 88 54 85 99 93 891995…………………………. 87 93 88 54 87 97 90 871996……………………….. 87 93 86 51 90 99 87 891997…………………………. 88 93 87 56 89 99 91 89

77

1998…………………………. 87 93 86 49 90 99 91 861999…………………….. 87 92 84 53 94 99 91 882000………………………….. 88 93 88 52 91 100 90 86KEY: HHS = Department of Health and Human Services; NSF = National Science Foundation; USDA = Department of Agriculture; DOD = Department of Defense; DOE = Department of Energy; EPA = Environmental Protection Agency; NASA = National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

NOTES: R&D support includes support for both the conduct of R&D and R&D plant. S&E support includes both R&D support and "other S&E support" (facilities and equipment for S&E instruction; fellowships, traineeships, and training grants; general support for S&E; and other S&E activities).SOURCE: National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics, Survey of Federal Science and Engineering Support to Universities, Colleges, and Nonprofit Institutions, as reported in WebCASPAR data system (<http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/stats.htm>).

78

Appendix A

AAAB

79

[Bibliography]

Allen, G.E. 1999. “Modern Biological Determinism: The Violence Initiative” in The Practices of Human Genetics. Netherlands: Kluwer Nijhoff Publishers.

Arntzen, C.J. 2003. “GM Crops: Science, Politics, and Communication.” in Nature Reviews/Genetics.

Basinger, Julianne. “Increase in Number of Chairs Endowed by Corporations Prompts New Concerns.” in Chronicle of Higher Education, April 24, 1998, p.A51

Barraclough, Solon. An End to Hunger? The Social Origin of Food Strategies. 1991. London, Zed Books.

Berdahl, Robert M. 2003. “The Privatization of Public Universities.” Speech delivered at Erfurt University: Erfurt, Germany.

Bok, Derek. 2003. “The Purely Pragmatic University: The Costs of Commercializing the Academy,” Harvard Magazine, May-June 2003.

Blumenstyk, Goldie. 2004. “Peer Reviews Give Thumbs Down to Berkeley-Novartis Deal” in Chronicle of Higher Education. July 30 issue.

Busch, Lawrence, Richard Allison, et al. 2004. External Review of the Collaborative Research Agreement Between Novartis Agricultural Discovery Institute, Inc. and the Regents of the University of California. Institute for Food and Agricultural Studies, University of Michigan.

California State Legislature, Senate. 2000. “Impacts of Genetic Engineering on California’s Environment: The Role of Research At Public Universities (Novartis/UC Berkeley Agreement)” Joint Hearing, Committee on Natural Resources and Wildlife, Senate Select Committee on Higher Education, California State Legislature. Sacramento.

Campell, Donald. 1969. Ethnocentrism of Disciplines and the Fish-Scale Model of Omniscience, in Interdisciplinary Relations. Ed. M. Sherif and C.W. Sherif. Chicago: Aldine Publishing.

CavalliIbid,Sforza, Luigi Luca. 2000. Genes, People, and Languages. New York: North Point Press.

Chapela, Ignacio and David Quist. 2001. “Transgenic DNA Introgressed into Traditional Maize Landraces in Oaxaca, Mexico,” in Nature. Vol. 414: 541-543.

Chassey, Bruce. “Biotech Vampires and Other Tall Tales” in Business Day: March 29,2006

Chomsky, Noam. 1977. The Cold War and the University: Toward an Intellectual History of the Post-War Years. New York: New Press.

Cohen, J.I. 2005. Poorer nations turn to publicly developed GM crops. Nature Biotechnology 23: 27-33.

Coleman, William. 1971. Biology in the Nineteenth Century: Problems of Form, Function, and Transformation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Commission for Environmental Cooperation of North America. 2004. Maize and Biodiversity: The Effects of Transgenic Maize in Mexico: Key Findings and Recommendations. Secretariat Article 13 Report

Commission on International Property Rights (UK). 2002. Integrating Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Conway, Gordon. 1998. The Doubly Green Revolution: Food for All in the 21st Century. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Constantino, Letizia and Renato Constantino. 1988. Distorted Priorities: the Politics of Food. Quezon City: Foundation for Nationalist Studies.

Delbourne, Jason. 2005. Pathways of Scientific Dissent in Agricultural Biotechnology. Dissertation: Science & Society Division, College of Natural Resources: UC Berkeley

Devlin, Bernie, ed. 1997. Intelligence, Genes, and Success: scientists respond to The Bell Curve. New York: Springer.

Doyle, Jack. 1985. Altered Harvest: Agriculture, Genetics, and the Fate of the World’s Food Supply. New York: Viking Books.

Dresner, Simon. 2002. The Principles of Sustainability. London, Earthscan Publications.

Duster, Troy. 1996. "The Prism of Heritability and the Sociology of Knowledge," in Laura Nader, ed., Naked Science: Anthropological Inquiry into Boundaries, Power, and Knowledge, New York: Routledge, 119-130

__, 2004. “Feedback Loops in the Politics of Knowledge Production,” in Nico Stehr, ed., The Governance of Knowledge, New Brunswick and London, 2004, 139-160

Dynes, Robert C. (UC President). “Statement on Mid-,Year Budget Cuts.” U.C. Office of the President. November 23, 2003.

Eaton, Margaret. 2004. “Novartis-UC Berkeley Research Collaboration,” in Ethics and the Business of Bioscience. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

81

Editorial: “Is the University-Industry Complex Out of Control?” Jan. 11, 2001 in Nature. Vol. 409(6817) p. 199

Else, John. “The Day After Trinity.” Chatsworth, California: Image Entertainment, 1981.

Escobar, Arturo. 1995. The Development Dictionary: A Guide to Knowledge As Power. London: Zed Books Ltd.

__, 1995. Encountering Development: The Making and the Unmaking of the Third World. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

__. “Imagining a Post-Development Era.” in The Power of Development. J. Crush, editor. London, Routledge, 211-270.

Feyerabend, Paul. 1978: Science in a Free Society. New York: Schocken Books.

Fleck, Ludwik. 1979. Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Flynn, Kara. 2003. “Americans’ Knowledge of Genetically Modified Foods Remains Low and Opinions on Safety Still Split” Press Release: Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology.

Foucault, Michel. 1980. Power/Knowledge: selected interviews and other writings, 1972__,1977. New York: Pantheon Books.

__, 1972. An Archeology of Knowledge. New York: Pantheon Books.

Freeling, Michael, and Nick Klapinsky, David Braun, Damon Lisch, Angela Hay, Sarah Hake. “Maize Transgene Results are Artefacts” in Nature. Vol. 416(6881). April 11, 2002.

Fuchs, Stephan. 1992. The Professional Quest for Truth: A Social Theory of Science and Knowledge. Albany: SUNY Press.

Fujimura, Joan. 1992. Crafting Science: Standardized Packages, Boundary Objects, and “Translation.” in Science as Practice and Culture, ed. Andrew Pickering. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Furner, Mary. 1975. Advocacy and Objectivity: A Crisis in the Professionalization of American Social Science, 1865__,1905. Lexington, University of Kentucky Press.

Gieryn, Thomas. 1995. “Boundaries of Science.” in Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Editor: Jasanoff et. all. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications.

Goodman, Nelson. 1978. Ways of Worldmaking. Hackett Publishing.

82

Gramsci, Antonio. 1971. Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. Ed. & translated Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith. New York: International Publishers.

Gray, John. 1998. False Dawn. New York: New Press.

Greenburg, David. 2001. “The Ethical Erosion of American Science” in Science, Money, and Politics: Political Triumph and Ethical Erosion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Hackworth, Cheryl. 2005. “California Counties Have a Love-Hate Relationship with GMO’s” in Berkeley Science Review, Issue 8

Harding, S. 1986. The Science Question in Feminism. Ithaca: Cornell University

Press.

Janis, Irving. 1982. “Groupthink Syndrome” in Groupthink: Psychological Studeis of Policy Deciscions and Fiascoes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Jasanoff, Sheila.1990. “The Political Function of Good Science” in The Fifth Branch: Science Advisors as Policymakers. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, p.229-252.

__. “Product, Process, or Programme: Three cultures and regulation of biotechnology.” in Resistance to New Technology: Nuclear Power Information Technology and Biotechnology. Editor: Martin Bauer. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Jungk, Robert. 1958. Brighter Than a Thousand Stars. Middlesex: Penguin Books.

__. 1954. Tomorrow is Already Here. London: Rupert Hart-Davis.

__. 1979. The Atom Staat (The New Tyranny). New York: Warner Books.

Keller, E.F. 1983. A Feeling for the Organism. New York: W.H. Freedman.

Kleinman, Daniel Lee. 2003. Impure Cultures: University Biology and the World of Commerce. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Kloppenburg, Jack Ralph. 2004. First the seed : the political economy of plant biotechnology, 1492-2000. Madison : University of Wisconsin Press,.

__, in cooperation with the American Association for the Advancement of Science. 1988. Seeds and Sovereignty: The Use and Control of Plant Genetic Resources. Durham: Duke University Press.

Krimbell, Andrew and Joseph Mendelson, ed. 2005. Monsanto vs. U.S. Farmers. Washington, D.C. Center for Food Safety.

Kuhn, Thomas. 1972. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

83

Hart, Gillian. “Development critiques in the 1990s: culs de sac and promising paths” Arnold, 2001.

Lal, Deepak. 1985. “The Misconceptions of ‘development economics.’” Finance and Development, Vol. 22.

Latour, Bruno and Steve Woolgar. 1986. Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Lemaux, Peggy. UCB. 2000. "Agricultural Biotechnology: Its Past and Future", given at the Asilomar 25th Anniversary Meeting, Pacific Grove, CA, on February 16, 2000.

__. 2005. "Contemporary Food Fights in California: Food and Environmental Safety Issues with GMOs" presented at the Partnership for Plant Genomics Educations' Introduction to Agricultural Biotechnology at Galivan College August 11, 2005, in Gilroy, CA.

__. 2005. "Do We Need Genetically Modified Foods to Feed the World? A Scientific Perspective", given at The Future of Food: Legal and Ethical Challenges" conference at Santa Clara University, Santa Clara, CA April 15, 2005.

__. 2004. "Will Lack of an Effective Outreach Effort Impact Our Research Agendas?" presented at the Barley CAP conference on November 14, 2004 in Minneapolis, MN.

Machamer, Peter and Lindley Darden, Carl Craver. 1999. Thinking About Mechanisms. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Metz, Matthew, and Johannes Fütterer. “Suspect Evidence of Transgenic Contamination.” in Nature. Vol. 416(6881). April 11, 2002.

Miller, Arthur. 2003. Introduction to Ecology, Ecoethics, and Economics. Rowman and Littlefield.

Nader, Laura. ed., Naked Science: Anthropological Inquiry into Boundaries, Power, and Knowledge, New York: Routledge

__. 1995. “Controlling Processes: Tracing the Dynamics of Power,” Mintz Lecture, Current Anthropology. Vol. 38(5), p. 791-937.

__. “Science, Magic and Religion Revisited.” in “Naked Science: Anthropological Inquiry into Boundaries, Power, and Knowledge, New York: Routledge

National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resource Statistics. 2004. “Federal Funds for Research and Development, Research to Universities and Colleges by Agency and Field of Science: Fiscal Years 1973__,2003.” Arlington, VA. Also available at http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/nsf04332/start.htm

Noble, David. 1977: America By Design: Science, Technology, and the Rise of Corporate Capitalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

84

Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology Issue Brief: December 2005. U.S. vs. EU: An Examination of the Trade Issues Surrounding Genetically Modified Food. Pew Institute on Food and Biotechnology.

Rabinow, Paul. 1996. Making PCR, A Story of Biotechnology. in Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Rahnema, Majid. and Bawtree, V., editors, 1997: The Post-,Development Reader. London: Zed Books, Ltd.

__. “Under the Banner of Development.” 1986. Development: June issue of journal from the Society for International Development.

Ritzer, George. 1998. “McJobs: McDonaldization and the Workplace.” in Seeing Ourselves: Classics, Contemporary, and Cross-Cultural Readings of Society. Ed. J. Macionis and N. Benokraitis p 121-125. Inglewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Sachs, Jeoffry. 1998: The Development Dictionary: a Guide to Knowledge as Power. London: Zed Books, Ltd.

Shiva, Vandana. 1993. Monocultures of the Mind. New York, Zed Books.

__. 2000. The Golden Rice Hoax: When Politics Replaces Science. Norwalk Genetic Information Network.

__. 1988. Staying Alive: Women, Ecology and Development. New Delhi: Kali for Women and London: Zed Books.

__. 1991. The Violence of the Green Revolution. Third World Network, Penang and London: Zed Books.

Schramm, Charles. 2006. “Top 5 Universities You Can Do Business With” in Inc. Magazine, February issue, p.23

Teitel, and K.A. Wilson. 1999. “Hijacked Dinner” in Genetically Engineered Foods.

Vackimes, Sophia. 1996. “Science and anti-science at the Smithsonian Institution.” in Essays on controlling processes. Ed. Laura Nader, Kroeber Anthropological Society, p. 87-105.

Vaidhyanonthan, Siva. 2001. Copyrights and Copywrongs: The Rise of Intellectual Property and How it Threatens Creativity. New York: New York University Press.

Visvanathan, Shiv. 1997. A Carnival For Science: Essays on Science, Technology and Development. Calcutta: Oxford University Press.

Washburn, Jennifer. 2005. University, Inc. The Corporate Corruption of American Higher Education. New York: Basic Books.

__. and Eyal Press. 2000. “The Kept University” in Atlantic Monthly.

85

Webster, Andrew. 1998. “Strategic Alliances: Testing the Collaborative Limits,” and “Toward a Theoretical Analysis of Academic-Industrial Collaboration” in Capitalizing Knowledge. Ed. Henry Etzkowitz, Andrew Webster, and Peter Healy. Albany: SUNY Press.

Williamson, J. 1993: Democracy and the Washington Consensus. World Development, Vol. 21(8). p.1329-36.

Winickoff, David. 2003. “Governing Population Genomics: Law, Bioethics, and Biopolitics in Three Case Studies.” in Jurimetics Journal: Vol. 43, p. 187-228.

Wolfsy, Leon. 1986. “Biotechnology and the University” in Journal of Higher Education. Vol. 57(5): p.477-492.

Wu, F. and Butz, W.P. 2004. The future of genetically modified crops: Lessons learned from the Green Revolution. Rand Report.

Yoon, Carol. “Journal Raises Doubts on Biotech Study.” in New York Times, April 5, 2002.

Young, 1972: 103-104

Zinn, Howard. 1984. The Twentieth Century: A People’s History. New York: Harper and Row.

Zoll, Daniel. “The Selling of the UC System.” in San Francisco Bay Guardian. Vol 35(25), March 21-27, 2001.

86