IS GENETIC ENGINEERING A BIOTECH (REVOLUTION)?

Tee Rogers-Hayden*
Geography and Health Development and Policy,
University of Waikato, Private Bag 3105, Hamilton.

Abstract

Genetic engineering (GE) is said to be the defining technology of this period - a biotech revolution. This technology is seen by GE proponents as representing technology per se and therefore progress. Consequently, those opposed to GE are seen as Luddites. A critical analysis of both the technology of genetic engineering and of the literature on the websites of Dupont and Monsanto reveal an adherence to the enlightenment values of faith in science, technology and rationality leading to the inevitable universal goal of social and economic progress. Thus, progress is seen as leading to social change. However, the theories of Stephen Hill and Langdon Winner suggest otherwise. Hill utilises the term cultural text to describe the context within which a technology was developed and the discourse it embodies. The cultural text of GE relies on the green revolution, which made agriculture into big business. Genetic engineering increases the amount of off farm inputs required, and introduces the ability to substitute agricultural products with non-agricultural products. The work of Winner can be used to analyse the politics embodied by GE. GE increases the dependency of agriculture on agro-chemical companies, and decreases the need for agriculture in food production. Reductionist GE therefore embodies a specific form of power and authority - the continued domination of industrialised world over the majority world. GE is not a biotechrevolution but a continuation of the cultural text of the green revolution.

IS GENETIC ENGINEERING A BIOTECH(REVOLUTION)?

Genetic engineering, or GE, as it is known, features in all manner of academic journals and popular literature, including extensive coverage in the media. Part of the reason we hear so much about it is the fact is that it merges technology and science to the point of inseparability and as such "plays a major role in reshaping both nature and culture." (Busch et al, 1995, p.10). As a technoscience (Haraway, 1999; Latour, 1987) GE has a huge potential to impact on our lives - and on our planet. Its possible effects are so wide in scope that GE is now often referred to as the defining technology of this period, a revolution of this time, a biotechrevolution. Sorj and Wilkinson (1994) suggest that "biotechnology, along with microelectronics, has been at the forefront of prospective technology studies in recent years. They propose that the amount of prospective literature on GE probably equals all the retrospective literature published on the green revolution. This body of research on the green revolution, they propose, "served as a point of comparison and contrast, facilitating identification of the issues at stake" (p.85). The early prospective studies (1970’s to early 1980’s) are thought to have been influenced by the revolutionary characteristics of GE, in particular it’s ability to move genes between species. They were also said to have been influenced by the potential impact GE may have on the majority world (otherwise known as the third world) in regard to it’s radical ability to supplement traditional crops.

Contemporary work on GE also encompasses the effects it may have on the environment, and human and animal health, as well as possible social, political and economic impacts. Some critics of GE such as Mae-Wan Ho have gone as far as to predict that GE has the potential to bring about the end of much life on our plant (1998). Proponents of GE, on the other hand, view it as merely an extension of selective breeding. Boyens, (1999) describes how GE is seen by some as

"the next logical step in agricultural ‘progress’…. After all, the new technology allows scientists to more effectively increase short-term productivity by engineering efficiency right into the genetic code of a species" (p.164).

Therefore, prospective technology studies that view GE as negative, such as those supported by consumer groups, are viewed as anti-progress and anti-technology.

In order to explore the proposition that GE represents a revolution of agriculture, in our time, I will briefly touch on the arguments used against GE critics. I will then explore the use of the green revolution as a point of comparison to GE, before evaluating GE as a biotechrevolution.

Opposition to Genetic Engineering

"My letter that biotechnology will help solve Third World starvation drew the standard heartless Luddite backlash" reads a line in the editorial section of the Waikato Times (Mallett, 2000). The author of this, like so many other similar correspondents, is referring to the comments of fellow letter writers who failed to see how GE food would rectify structural inequalities to improve the lives of those living in the majority world. It is not even necessary to deconstruct the editorial comment, the suggested lack of caring of submitters is attributed to their presumable loathing of technology. They are modern-day Luddites.

Consumer concern over GE food is the most common target for accusations of anti-technology agendas. For example, Japan has begun genetically engineering its staple food crop, rice, to place Japan at "the forefront of a technological revolution" (Takada, 2000, p.1). The ‘problem’ is that farmers are unwilling to plant the crop due to consumer resistance to GE. A spokesperson from their Ministry of Agricultural proposed that "consumers will eventually see that they have misunderstood the technology and will not be afraid to eat GM foods." (ibid.).

In particular, groups that represent consumers are often considered reactionaries. In an interview with J. Scott Cameron, assistant dean of the agricultural school Washington State University, it was suggested that "[a]lthough some praise the saboteurs as modern Robin Hoods, destroying corporate crops to save the planet, Cameron sees a more sinister motive: abandonment of technology and its conveniences" (Denson, 2000, p.4).

The same discourse is also utilised by Henery Miller (cited in Monsanto, a), a senior research fellow at Stanford University, to describe those opposed to GE. His comments can be found on Monsanto's Biotechnology Knowledge Centre webb page. Here Miller (ibid.) describes both Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth as 'antitechnology extremists' who "are not engaged in a good-faith effort to advance the public interest" (ibid.).

The technology of genetic engineering is seen therefore to represent technology per se - 'progress'. Despite some twentieth century scepticism among academics that ‘progress’ is the "social manifestation of reason, knowledge and technology" (Abercrombie et al.1988, p.196) leading to improvements in living standards, the notion that any technology for industrialisation is positive for all societies persists.

The failings of nineteenth century faith in 'progress' as a theory of social change are well documented. Abercrombie et al. (1988), summarise the questions left unanswered by progress as the theory of social change into three questions. Which groups are going to benefit? Who defines what is to be included and excluded from the definition? Finally, who decides what is an acceptable ratio of social and personal costs to the ideal of progress? In this paper I will seek to address these questions in relation to GE.

Technological and Social Change

Theories concentrating on the role of technology in social change are central to the debate on the social impact or revolutionary nature of GE. It has been suggested that for every technological change there is also a corresponding social change, that the two are separable only conceptually (Busch et al. 1995). These changes brought about with new technologies are often interpreted by people as inevitable, but technology itself is a cultural product. As such, the incorporation of technology into society, and the apparent corresponding social change, relies on culture. Stephen Hill (1988) utilises the term ‘cultural text’ to describe the cultural context in which a technology is developed and the discourse it embodies.

He compares a technology’s cultural text to a written text. As such, it can be deconstructed in a similar way as literature. Just as Derrida (1978) is well known for analysing the underlying values, assumptions and omissions in a written text, Hill (1988) proposes that technologies can be analysed for their cultural power. This is found in the values, assumptions and implied knowledge that lie behind the physical technology. This cultural power he suggests has its historical context in the alignment between cultural values and technological systems in the eighteenth century. In particular it is the values, and norms incorporated into our ‘cultural text’ through industrialisation that allow the accumulation of technological applications in our lives. So-called individual applications of technology rely on the technologies that have previously been allowed entry into our culture. They also support values that work corresponding with the technologies, and as such Hill (1988) proposes that it is assumed that the technologies per se brought about social change.

The soft technological determinism purported by Hill (1988) is pushed further by Langdon Winner (1999), who suggests that the technologies themselves embody politics. Winner (1999) acknowledges that it may appear ridiculous to suggest this, as people not objects are known to have political influences. Moreover, this concept appears to be blaming objects rather than addressing oppressions and injustices. However, Winner (1999) proposes two approaches to explain in what way objects and /or technologies "embody specific forms of power and authority" (p.28). The first approach describes how technical arrangements can act as forms of order. Here the author describes how a belief that technologies always provide an increase in efficiency is mistaken. Instead, she extends the concept of technologies as items used for social goals, to objects created to "enhance the power, authority, and privilege of some over others" (p.32). The example given by the author is the planning and building of low height motorway over-bridges around Long Island. These over-bridges were designed to be only nine feet tall so that buses would not be able to service the area. The over-bridges therefore created a situation in which ethnic minorities were on the whole excluded from the area as they generally relied on public transport. The over-bridges therefore embody racism.

The second approach Winner (1999) describes as inherently political technologies. Such technologies either require or are compatible with political social relations. An example of a technology, which requires a certain political environment in which to operate, is nuclear power. It is believed that nuclear power requires a "techno-scientific-industrial-military elite"(p33). Solar energy on the other hand is said to be compatible with decentralised systems both technically and politically. This is because it enables communities to manage their own affairs.

The theories of Hill (1988) and Winner (1999) will be utilised to examine the discourse of genetic engineering and the politics this technology embodies. In accessing the cultural text of genetic engineering it is necessary to explore the technology that has gone before it, the agricultural revolution of the 1960s, the so-called green revolution.

The green revolution

The term green revolution, like the term biotechrevolution, relies on the concept of radical change. Revolution whether used in the sense of a political revolution or intellectual revolution relies on this connotation. Political revolutions are said to be both rare and historically important because they occur when " …an entire social and political order is overturned, usually by violent means, and reconstructed on new principles with new leaders" (Marshall, 1998). In everyday language a revolution can be characterised as "[a] period or instance of significant change or radical alteration of a particular condition, state of affairs, etc" (Brown, 1993). Moreover the synonyms: transformation; upheaval; change; reform; and uprising are some of the words used in the thesaurus for the word revolution (Microsoft Word, 2000).

Similarly, an intellectual revolution is thought to be a transformation of the dominant ideas in society. The work of Kuhn (1970) on paradigm shifts can be seen as describing the changing of dominant thought. He describes the dominant scientific paradigm as one in which some scientific community utilises past scientific achievements as the foundation for its further practice. Els Wynen (1996) utilises the work of Kuhn, on scientific paradigms, to discuss agricultural paradigms. Wynen states that science is conducted within the existing dominant paradigm, and this "limits the nature of acceptable solutions and the steps by which they are to be obtained" (p.4). In regards to agriculture the author describes chemical agriculture as "based on the principles established within the current scientific paradigm, while organic farming does not enjoy such a base (as yet?)"(p.6). The commonality between the sociological and everyday definitions of revolutions means that the green revolution and the biotechrevolution can be analysed for their transformative power; the extent to which they have changed the prevailing systems of power relations and/or dominant school of thought.

The green revolution is often cited as the basis of genetic engineering as it was these developments in the 1960s and 70s that made agriculture into ‘big business’ (Boyens, 1999). However, even the characteristics of the green revolution are disputed. It is a widely held belief that the ‘Green Revolution’ was a new hyperefficiency in agriculture brought about by new hybrids combined with mechanisation, chemical pesticides and fertiliser (ibid.). Busch (1997) states that the green revolution "certainly resulted in increased yields of [some]… grains but it did not represent a scientific or technological breakthrough" (p, 245). Instead, he suggests that it involved the modification of existing technologies into new conditions and locations. In contemporary academia the debate as to just what, if anything, the green revolution accomplished continues (Busch, 1997). Griffin (1979), proposes that the term ‘Green Revolution’ does not represent a revolution at all. Instead Griffin (1979) suggests that the expression ‘green revolution’ is a loaded term, a political slogan. It suggests there has been a major breakthrough in agricultural production, that this has been done in a peaceful context without the need for institutional reform, and indeed, that technical change is an alternative for political change (p2).

Moreover, the is said to be a revolution that failed (ibid.) in at least one of its major aims, as in general the majority world have not experienced the expected growth in agricultural production. Busch et al. (1995) have attributed part of the failure of the green revolution to the structure of decision-making that took place. This meant that "[p]roponents of the green revolution decided, independently of the concerns of poor farmers, that higher-yielding production systems could be developed for the third world" (Busch et al, 1995,p.7). The higher-yielding agriculture mindset also drove the increased demand for fertiliser, irrigation equipment, pesticides and additional agricultural inputs (ibid.).

Despite scepticism that the green revolution revolutionised agriculture, what did occur was a social transformation that accompanied the agricultural change. An analysis of the discourse of the new farming methods reveals that behind the new inputs required for the green revolution lay a new dependence on the industrialised world. The hybrid seeds for example were part of a system in which farmers who traditionally saved seeds from the previous year, were required to purchase imported seeds. This process of undermining the cycles of agriculture by transforming them into discrete elements for industry is called appropriationism (Goodman et al. 1987). Appropriationism is about ‘industrial capitals’ minimising the role of nature in agriculture. It also means transforming "the secrets of biological production into scientific knowledge and industrial property" (ibid., p.3). These technologies of the green revolution therefore embodied the industrialisation of agriculture and in particular the continued dominance of the industrialised world over the majority world. Thus although the green revolution may not have revolutionised agriculture through new technologies or increased yields, it did represent a radical change in social relations between the majority world and the industrialised world based around agriculture. The green revolution therefore was a revolution in regard to social relations. The green revolution provided the cultural text for the ‘Gene Revolution’.

Genetic Engineering

It is the cultural text of the green revolution that has ‘allowed entry’ of GE into agriculture. Genetic engineering is often referred to as the ‘Gene Revolution’, and even the ‘Second ’ - which emphasises its roots in the green revolution. Despite the on-going debate about the potential for greater yields, it has been suggested that crop improvements are unlikely to replicate those achieved through the green revolution (Boyens, 1999). However, it has also been suggested that there are already indications of the extent to which the consequences of GE will outweigh those of the green revolution. (Khalil & Juma, 1992). As noted earlier, prospective studies of GE have traditionally focused on the aspect on gene splicing, and of socio-political impacts particularly on the majority world. Through exploring the values that underlie GE and the politics it embodies it can be seen that the reductionist science of GE and the socio-political effects of GE, in particular on the majority world, are inseparable. I will, deconstruct the technology of GE and then deconstruct the literature surrounding GE to, evaluate whether the developments in GE represent a departure from its basis in the green revolution or merely an extension of the initial industrialisation of agriculture.

The development of GE "constitutes a generalized advance in the capacity of industrialised capitals to manipulate nature" (Goodman et al. 1987, p.98). This is because the potential of this technology’s appropriationism and substitutionism is radically increased. Appropriationism is described previously in regard to the green revolution, while substitutionism is the increasing substitution of agricultural products by non-agricultural components.

Vandana Shiva (1993), a renowned critic of genetic engineering, begins her analysis of the affects of GE on the majority world by analysing the politics embodied by GE. It is the same values of reductionist science that enable GE that are also found in the social ramifications of GE. Instead of viewing crop production as part of a holistic inter-related life-cycle, reductionist science enables the production of plants to be viewed as isolated processes, of which knowledge of parts of the system are seen as representing the whole.

[It] is at the root of the growing ecological crisis, because it entails a transformation of nature that destroys its organic processes and rhythms and regenerative capabilities (p.25).

The genetic engineering of crops, with the incorporation of genes from life-forms not possible through selective breeding, and the ability to create sterile seeds further transforms a free resource into a commodity (ibid.). Through the creation of sterile seeds, farmers who traditionally saved their seeds from their previous crop for planting must now purchase seed. Seed creation is divorced from the traditional creation on the farm. Seeds are designed to no longer self-generate, instead they become a "mere raw material for the production of a commodity " (ibid. p.29-30). The GE seed however, has not been created from nothing, but instead has been developed from genetic material developed through selective breeding through thousands of years by peasant farmers. As Pat Mooney has observed, ‘the argument that intellectual property is only recognizable when performed in laboratories with white lab coats is fundamentally a racist view of scientific development.’ (ibid. p. 31). This GE seed is then patented and ownership and profits belong to the agro-chemical company. Along with the advent of GE, the use of patenting has expanded. One of the values it embodies is the ownership of life. Before GE, animals and plants were excluded from patents (ibid.).

The concepts of owning life and racism will work to further aggravate the North-South polarisation in regard to genetic diversity (ibid.). This is because the industrialised world will privatise the genetic material they gain freely from the majority world. Patent laws and intellectual property rights act to privatise genetic material.

The cycle of regeneration, of biodiversity, is therefore supplanted by a linear flow of free germ plasm from farms and forests into laboratories and research stations, and of modified uniform products as cost-bearing commodities from corporations to farmers (ibid. p.29-30).

This means the transformation of an indigenous resource into a global commodity owned by transnational corporations in the industrialised world.

Goodman, Sorj & Wilkinson (1987), identify this process as the continuation of appropriationism, in which genetic material traditionally developed by farmers is taken off the farm and sold back to the farmers. The effect of this appropriationism is the increasing control over land by industrial capital. The second aspect of appropriationism Goodman, et al. (1987) identify as a result of GE of seed, is the increased link between agro-chemical inputs and production. The GE crops developed, such as the most widely planted crops - the herbicide resident crops - ties the farmer into purchasing the herbicide produced by the same company. These crops reduce the ‘influence of land quality’, and correspondingly are used to plant on marginal land.

At the same time as increasing farmer dependence on agro-chemical companies through greater appropriationism, GE acts to decrease agro-chemical companies' reliance on farmers through increased substitutionism. The food industries dependence on agriculture is reduced as alternatives to land based products are developed. A number of authors (Goodman et al. 1987; Shiva, 1993), have discussed the radical substitution effects GE may have on the majority world. For example the development of artificial sweeteners and high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) - has led to a decreased reliance on the traditionally majority world crop of sugar cane. As Goodman, Sorj & Wilkinson (1987), suggest the primacy of these ‘agricultural environments’ may be challenged in the future by industrial biotechnologies, albeit selectively, transposing these chemical reactions to the factory (p.124).

Genetic engineering, through substitutionism, means not only a decreased reliance of industrial capital on agriculture but of the industrialised world on the majority world in this respect. GE therefore represents both appropriationism of genetic resources, and substitutionism of agricultural products. It also represents the reduction of food into isolated components. The discourse of GE is the further marginalisation of the peasant economy and the increasing size and scope of industrial capital. GE represents reductionist science, whereby the production of food is not viewed as an interdependent whole for sustaining life, but is divided into isolate processes and commodified. Reductionist science, Shiva (1993) suggests, is not neutral but rather

…reductionism is a response to the needs of a particular form of economic and political organization. The reductionist world-view, the industrial revolution and the capitalist economy are philosophical, technological and economic components of the same process. Individual firms and the fragmented sectors of the economy, whether privately or state owned, are concerned only with their own efficiency and profits; and every firm and sector measures its efficiency by the extent to which it maximizes its profits, regardless of the maximization of social and ecological costs. (p.24).

Looking at the cultural text of reductionist science means, using Hills' (1988) term, that genetic engineering has cultural power in our society. GE embodies the politics that are dominant in the industrialised world. The discourse of GE is about: reducing organisms to their components; taking genetic recourses from the South; patenting life; and selling these resources back without acknowledging majority world intellectual property rights in the way of selective breeding by farmers. It is about increasing the dependence of agriculture on agro-chemical companies, and creating agricultural needs, in the form of new inputs, in pursuit of their profit. It is also about; creating organisms in the industrialised world that can replicate those produced in the majority world. An analysis of the discourse around GE reveals that GE is about reducing the need for the majority world in this respect.

These values explored through deconstructing genetic engineering as a technology can also be examined through deconstructing the literature provided by the life-science companies involved in genetically engineering agriculture. The websites of Dupont and Monsanto provide the written text I will examine for the values, assumption and omissions within them.

The enlightenment values of faith in technology, science, rationality and progress leading to social change are found in both the websites of Dupont and Monsanto. Dupont’s faith in reductionist science enables them to genetically engineer. Dupont’s website states that "[a]s with any new technology, questions arise. Dupont acknowledges that we don't have all the answers." (Dupont, a).newsroom/fs_foodsafety.html). With a faith in reductionist science Dupont can view GE as an isolated technique divorced from context. A firm belief in inevitability of technological developments allows Dupont to create and market GE products despite not having the answers to exactly what will result from it, and what effects GE will have on human health and the ecosystem

Dupont ‘s website also supports a link between science and progress. They propose that

[i]n a long line of scientific advances, biotechnology represents the next step forward, allowing researchers to incorporate into plants one or many beneficial traits from a wider variety of sources'. (ibid.).

The ability to move genes between species is seen as an inevitable extension of agricultural processes, in which each successive technology builds on the next, creating the next step forward - progress.

Monsanto, specifically identifies progress as a goal in their discussion on how GE crops will help the majority world. Focusing on economic growth and the majority world they state that "[t]hese are people stuck in a cycle of poverty; breaking it is essential to progress." (Monsanto, b). Progress is pursued through the advancement of (GE) technology in the industrialised world. Its utilisation in the majority world will apparently led to fulfilling majority world social and economic goals. According to the Monsanto website, progress is attainable through 'sustainable development'. Defining 'sustainable development' does not appear to be necessary, as a faith in science seems to be the only precursor. Rick Stonard, a Monsanto Business Co-leader, suggests that "[t]he laws of physics will move us inexorably toward more sustainable behaviours" (Monsanto, c).Or as Harry Laes, Monsanto’s Operations Manager, ponders "[s]ustainable development is complex,…, "but we're defining it as we go at our chemical facility…." (Monsanto, d). Sustainable development for agro-chemical companies does not mean sustainable agriculture in its common usage. These terms commonly refer to the development of a holistic system in which the health of the soil is restored so that pest infestations are prevented from occurring and the soil can sustain future generations. This system operates as part of the existing local social culture.

Through glancing at Monsanto's sustainable development webpage and Dupont's Miracles of Science webpage, we see sustainable agriculture as meaning GE companies can "[m]ake food grow where food can't grow" (Dupont,b In Brazil sustainable development means for Monsanto encouraging farmers to use Roundup. Describing Brazilian farms Monsanto states that "many of them [are] on highly erodable hillsides" (Monsanto, c). Monsanto's form of sustainable agriculture is achieved by replacing tillage on land that cannot otherwise sustain it, with Roundup. Questioning the ecosystem, and human body’s long-term ability to sustain Roundup seems to be outside Monsanto's understanding of the sustainability discourse. Moving into ‘Monsanto-style sustainable development means opening up entire new markets for Roundup. Crop Team Leader for Monsanto, Henry Schneider, suggests that "what we're leaning in Brazil can apply as well in Africa, India, Southeast Asia, and Central America". "We're working to make sure that happens. It's the right thing for global agriculture, and it's the right thing for our bottom line." (ibid.).

Monsanto's experience in Argentina is an example of what sustainable agriculture means to Monsanto.

The creation of Argentina's organization of no-till framers was made possible in part by Monsanto support. No till hectares in Argentina are increasing by about a third each year. Local sales of Roundup are mirroring this growth. In fact to help meet the demand for Roundup for various uses, Monsanto plans to build a new manufacturing site in Zarate, Argentina this year….We're a case study on the value created in sustainable agriculture… and value for our shareholders comes from more Roundup sales.(ibid.).

The system of expanding Roundups use includes the use of the GE Roundup ready crops such as soybean, cotton and corn. Together these products make the value created in majority world agriculture worthwhile for Monsanto to pursue. Genetic engineering has led to increased appropriationism in the majority world. Selling farmers Roundup ready seeds and tying them to Roundup use is a complete package. A critical analysis would suggest that the success of sustainable agriculture could be measured in decreased reliance of the majority world on the industrialised world rather than in increases in Roundup sales.

The discourse analysis of the Dupont and Monsanto websites reveals their adherence to enlightenment values. This means that these companies will carry out genetic engineering with a faith that science will bring about both economic and social progress and sustainable agricultural practices not to mention profits.

Through analysing the discourse of GE as a technology and the discourse that surrounds GE, we can see that this biotechnology is not about transforming the structure of agriculture and the structure of society. GE reinforces the models of agriculture put in place during the green revolution and upholds the dominant values of industrialised society. GE extends the dependence of majority world farmers on transnational corporations from the industrialised world through increased appropriationism and introduces substitutionism. While Monsanto claims GE is a technology that is used to fulfil presumably universal social goals, its use however "enhance[s] the power, authority, and privilege of some over others" (Winner, 1999, p.32). Thus genetic engineering is not a new (biotech)revolution but a continuation of the green revolution with its entrenched support for agro-chemical companies and resultant power structures.

Conclusion

In conclusion, genetic engineering is seen as representing technology per se. This highlights the legacy of rational, objective, scientific, technological advances leading to social change. This means that anyone speaking out about their concerns about GE is seen as a Luddite. Their believed loathing of technology is portrayed as standing in the way of 'progress'. Technological change is seen as leading to social change. However, the theories of Hill and Winner however suggest otherwise.

The work of Hill can be used to see GE as a technoscience that relies on the green revolution as providing its cultural text. The same discourse of the green revolution can be seen operating for GE. Although the green revolution may not have been a revolution of crop yields, it did represent a revolution it its transformation of Industrial world and majority world agricultural relations. In turning agriculture into 'big business', the majority world has again become the site for appropriationism. This cycle of appropriationism will be further expanded with GE, and combined with the radical potential GE has for supplementing what are traditionally majority world crops. The gene revolution is an development of the green revolution's cultural text, not a departure from it.

Similarly, the work of Winner can be used to see GE as political. It is a technology that acts as a form of order embodying a specific form of power and authority. GE's reliance on reductionist science means viewing organisms and processes of seed development as their components separate from the culturally embedded processes in which traditional agriculture is embedded. Reductionist thinking allows agro-chemical companies to genetically engineer without having full knowledge of their actions' possible consequences, and by viewing processes in isolation means that they fail to acknowledge the contribution majority world farmers have played in seed development. An analysis of the technology of GE and of the websites of Dupont and Monsanto reveals their adherence to enlightenment values. This means that these companies will carry out genetic engineering with a faith that science will bring about both economic and social progress It allows agro-chemical companies to strive for profits at the expense of a widening gap between the industrialised and majority world, by relying on a faith that technoscience leads to progress with economic and social enhancement as natural consequences. The values embodied by GE, are those of the dominant industrialised world. It embodies the expanded domination of the industrialised world over the majority world

Moreover, it does not offer a revolutionary agriculture: it does not represent a new or bio(revolution) but merely extends the agro-chemical industrialised structural relationships set up by the green revolution. To conclude, Boyens (1999), in discounting the revolutionary potential of genetic engineering, proposes that

[u]nlike other revolutions, where the control of the state is seized from the faltering hands of the dominant class, this one is being forged by the business class for the sake of corporate and shareholder profits. (p.6-7).

References

Abercrombie, N.; Hill, S.; Turner, B. S. 1988: "Dictionary of Sociology".

Penguin Books, London.

Boyens, I. 1999: "Unnatural Harvest". Doubleday, Ontario; Canada.

Brown, L. 1993: "The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary". Oxford

University Press, Oxford.

Busch, L.; Lacey, W. B.; Burkhardt, J.; Hemken, D.; Moraga-Rojel, J.; Koponen;

de Souza Silva, J. 1995: "Making Nature Shaping Culture: Plant Biodiversity in Global Context". University of Nebraska, Lincoln.

Busch, L. 1997: Biotechnology and Agricultural Productivity: Changing the Rules  of the Game? In A Bhaduri and R. Skarstein eds, "Economic Development and Agricultural Productivity" (pp.241-254). Edward Elgaar.

Denson, B. ‘Saboteurs Target High-tech Crops’. The Oregon. owner-ge@naturallaw.org.nz (2000 February 10).

Derrida, J. 1978:. "Writing and Difference". University of Michigan Press, U.S.A.

Dupont, a: "Biotechnology Newsroom" The Miracles of Science

http://www.dupont.com/biotech/ 22 April 2000

Dupont, b: "1. Make Food Grow Where Food Can't Grow."

The Miracles of Science http://www.dupont.com/corp/whats-new/newsfile/todo/food/food.html). 22 April 2000

Goodman, D,. Sorj, B.& Wilkinson, J. 1987: "From Farming to Biotechnology". Basil Blackwell, New York:

Griffin, K. 1979: "The Political Economy of Agrarian Change". Macmillan Press, London.

Haraway, D. 1999: Modest_Witness@Second_Milennium. In D. Mackenzie and J

Wajcman "The Social Shaping of Technology". Open University Press, Buckingham.

Hill, S. 1988: "The Tragedy of Technology: Human Liberation Verses Domination in the Late Twentieth Century". Pluto Press, London, U.K.

Ho, M. 1998: "Genetic Engineering: Dream or Nightmare?" Gateway books, Bath, UK.

Khalil, M., H. & Juma, C. 1992: Biotechnology and Multination Corporations in

Developing Countries. Advanced Technology Assessment System, Winter,9 Pp 250-254.

Kuhn, S. 1970: "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Latour, B 1987:. "Science in Action". Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

Mallett, G. 2000: March 4; Luddite Backlash. Waikato Times, Pp 6.

Marshall, G. 1999:. "Dictionary of Sociology". Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Monsanto, a: "Combating Pathological Opposition To Gene Splicing".

BiotechnologyKnowledgeCentre4Feb2000 http://biotecknowledge.com/showlib.php3?2841 10 March 2000

Monsanto, b: "Economic Growth"

http;//www.Monsanto.com/Monsanto/about/sustain_97/economic_growth_growth.html 23 April 2000

Monsanto,c:"Product Impact"

http://www.Monsanto.com/Monsanto/about/sustain_97/product _impact.html 23 April 2000

Monsanto, d: "Product Creation"

http://www.Monsanto.com/Monsanto/about/sustain_97/product_creation.htm

23 April 2000

Shiva, V. 1993: Reductionism and Regeneration: A Crisi in Science. In H. Norberg-

Hodge, P. Goering and S. Gorelick (Eds.), "The Future of Progress: Reflection on Environment and Development". (pp. 23-35). Green Books, Devon.

Sorj, B, & Wilkinson, J. 1994: Biotechnologies, Multinationals, and the Argrofood

Systems of Developing Countries. In A. Bonanno, L. Busch, W. H. Fieldland, L. Gouveia. & E. Mingione eds."From Columbus to Congra: the Globalization of Agriculture and Food" .Pp.85-104. University Press of Kansas, Kansas.

Takada, A. "GE: and the nominees are…", (2000, February, 11). ‘Japan heads for laboratory in rice war’. Reuters. owner-ge@naturallaw.org.nz (12 Feb. 2000)

Winner, L. 1999: Do Artifacts Have Politics? In D. MacKenzie and J. Majcman eds. "The Social Shaping of Technology". Open University Press, Buckingham Pp. 28-40.

Wynen, E. (1996)." Research Implications of a paradigm Shift in Agriculture: The

Case of Organic farming". Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, Australia National University, Canberra. 

tr5@waikato.ac.nz