13.07.2015 Views

The world according to Monsanto : pollution, corruption, and

The world according to Monsanto : pollution, corruption, and

The world according to Monsanto : pollution, corruption, and

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

134 the <strong>world</strong> <strong>according</strong> <strong>to</strong> monsan<strong>to</strong>Roundup, Paul Berg succeeded in “recombining” DNA—that is, putting <strong>to</strong>gethertwo fragments of DNA from different species in<strong>to</strong> a hybrid molecule.A little later, his colleague Stanley Cohen announced that he had succeededin transferring a frog gene in<strong>to</strong> the DNA of a bacterium able <strong>to</strong> reproducethe intruder in large quantities. <strong>The</strong>se discoveries, which broke a law thathad been considered inviolable, the impossibility of crossing what wasknown as the “species barrier,” created great excitement, along with deepconcern, in the international scientific community. <strong>The</strong> worries turned in<strong>to</strong>an uproar when Paul Berg announced his intention <strong>to</strong> insert a carcinogenicvirus, SV-40, from a monkey in<strong>to</strong> an E. coli cell, a bacterium that colonizesthe human digestive tract. Some scientific authorities, such as Robert Pollack,a cancer virus specialist, worried: “What will happen if the manipulatedorganism inadvertently escapes from the labora<strong>to</strong>ry?” 4 <strong>The</strong> generaloutcry led <strong>to</strong> a temporary mora<strong>to</strong>rium on genetic manipulation <strong>and</strong>, on February25, 1975, the first international conference on recombinant DNA. Fortwo days at Asilomar, a Pacific seaside resort in California, leading figures inthe rising discipline considered the risks of genetic engineering, focusingthe debate on experimental safety <strong>and</strong> the formulation of rules, such as measures<strong>to</strong> contain manipulated organisms. But at no point did they broachethical questions, which were excluded from the outset. It was as thoughthe biologists had already decided <strong>to</strong> “limit the involvement of the public<strong>and</strong> the government in their affairs <strong>to</strong> the minimum.” 5 <strong>The</strong> message wassoon received loud <strong>and</strong> clear by the future <strong>world</strong> leader in biotechnology.After the Asilomar conference, genetic engineering experiments proliferatedin the United States—the National Institutes of Health recorded morethan three hundred in 1977. While attempts <strong>to</strong> place legal restrictions onthese extremely hazardous new scientific activities were buried one after theother—in 1977 <strong>and</strong> 1978, sixteen bills were proposed in Congress, but nonepassed—start-ups <strong>and</strong> risk capital companies were flourishing, particularlyin California, where another promising technology had just given birth<strong>to</strong> Silicon Valley. Companies such as Calgene <strong>and</strong> Plant Genetics Systemswere established by biologists who had previously worked in universities <strong>and</strong>who, carried away by an extraordinary burst of research activity <strong>and</strong> theprospect of huge financial rewards, plunged in<strong>to</strong> the economic arena, raisingmillions of dollars on the New York S<strong>to</strong>ck Exchange or taking shares in <strong>and</strong>joining the boards of private companies.This veritable “race for genes” brought about an unprecedented associa-

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!