<< Nov/Dec 2014 <<
January 2015 <<
February <<
March <<
April/May
<< July <<
August <<
September
<< July <<
August <<
September
<< June <<
July <<
August <<
September
<< July <<
August <<
September
<< June <<
July <<
August <<
September
<< June <<
July <<
Aug/Sept
<< Part I
(June/July)
<< Part II
(August)
<< Part I & Part II Bibliography
<< Part III
(September)
<< June <<
July <<
August <<
September
<< June <<
July/August <<
September
<< June << July << August << July/Aug
Bibliography <<
September
<< Part I
(June/July) << Part II
(August) <<Part III
(September) << Bibliography
<< August <<
September
* * *
Click here to read about the summer's FEATURED ARTISTS!
Visit the site's GUESTS page.
Click here for site NEWS.
* * *
* * *
|
|
2004 Essays -
Part III (September)
"SEEDS, INDUSTRY GERMINATION AND CALIFORNIA ROOTS: A TASTE OF
THE GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS DEBATE, PART III"
*This essay series began
in June with a feature on the basics of genetically modified (GM) food, or
"frankenfood" as it is sometimes called by its critics. [Click here to read
Part I, "Genes, Beans and Greens: A Taste of the Genetically Modified
Foods Debate."] It continued in Part II with a discussion of some of the
products of genetic modification - some successful and some not - such as
tomatoes, papaya, rice and wheat. That issue concluded with a look at the
promise of and hopes for agricultural biotechnology in solving problems of
hunger and malnutrition in developing countries. [Click here to read
Part II, "The Products and the Promise."] The third and final essay of
this series will begin by examining some of the foundations of the
biotechnology industry and finish close to home with a focus on
California.*
*As with Parts I and II,
Part III will be interactive in the sense that the reader can go back and
forth between the essay text and the links embedded within it. By clicking
a link you can read more about the particular topic being discussed, then return to the
essay. (The links are included for information purposes only. No guarantees are
made as to the accuracy of the materials presented on the sites, although
every effort has been made to search out reliable and respected sources of
information.) Please note:
some links have changed since 2004 or are no longer in existence.
Where it is possible, they have be updated to reflect the changes. Changes which have been made are not
included in the body of the text but are noted in the "Links List" at the bottom of the page. Footnotes and a bibliography are also
included at the end for anyone wishing to learn more about the subject.
The materials represented here are only a small fraction of what is
available on this very complicated issue. The glossary link below has been
provided as a reference for use as needed. Click here to reach the
glossary.*
Have you
ever seen a purple carnation? How about a lavender one? Think hard - and
flowers that have had the color sprayed on don't count. A decade or two
ago the colors would have been impossible, since carnations (and many
other flowers) don't carry the gene coding for blue hues. However, an
Australian company has now created carnations in that color range and made
them available commercially -- another of the "firsts" in agricultural
biotechnology. [Click here, then
on "products" to view photos of the flowers.]
When the initial segment of this essay series debuted in
June, it began with a look at the current status of agricultural
biotechnology as applied to food products - genetically modified (GM) or
transgenic food. In less than ten years, about 80% of the soybeans and 40%
of the corn grown in the U.S. have come to be grown from transgenic
seeds.(n1), and
by some estimates as much as "70% of the human food products in the
marketplace"(n2) today contain
some ingredients made from these crops.
Although this may seem like a short time span for such
rapid emergence of GM crops, the initial seeds were the products of
decades of research. The first transgenic plant was produced in 1982 (n3), and the
first field trials of transgenic plants began in 1987 (n4), well before
the wide-scale plantings of the crops which began in 1996 (n5). In order to
understand how the debate over GM food has reached its current status,
this series will finish by taking a step back and looking at foundations
of the biotechnology industry itself. Finally, since the first GM food
product available commercially, the Flavr Savr tomato (see Part II), was
developed by a (then) California company, the series will conclude close
to home with a brief look at California agriculture and the state of the
industry here.
The Creation of
an Evolving Industry
"A number of applications for
patents on recombinant DNA techniques are accumulating. None has yet been
granted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for organisms. The
Patent Office apparently believes that it does not have the mandate under
present law to allow patents on living bacteria created for these
techniques . . . This position has put the Patent Office in conflict with
the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, which had twice held that forms
of life are patentable under present law. The dispute is at present before
the U.S. Supreme Court, which announced in October 1979 that it would
accept the issue for review in the current session."
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Science and Technology, Subcommittee on Science, Research and
Technology, 1980 (n6)
The discovery of the double helix structure of DNA by
James Watson and Francis Crick in 1953 set in motion an era in science
which has led to today's modern biotechnology industry. The first
biotechnology company ever formed was the California firm Genentech
(1976). One of its founders, Herbert Boyer of the University of California
San Francisco, was one of the original inventors of the recombinant DNA
technique along with Stanley Cohen of Stanford. In this same mid- to
late-1970s period, several "small entrepreneurial firms [began forming] in
the U.S. specifically to build on the growing body of fundamental
knowledge in molecular biology." (n7)
A seminal year for the industry, however, was 1980. In
that year the landmark Supreme Court decision (alluded to in the quote
above) was issued, and two key pieces of legislation were passed by the
U.S. Congress. In Diamond v. Chakrabarty (447 US 303) the Supreme Court
allowed for the patenting of a genetically modified bacteria stating that
"anything under the sun that is made by man" is patentable. In addition,
both the Bayh-Dole Act (Public Law 96-517, 94 STAT 3019) and the
Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-480, 94
STAT 2311) were enacted into law.
The Patent and Trademark Law Amendments Act, more commonly
referred to as the Bayh-Dole Act, allowed for universities and
small businesses to patent and license inventions made using
federal funds. Prior to the passage of the Act, "discoveries made by way
of federally-funded research, if not simply dedicated to the public, were
owned by the government with only a non-exclusive license available to
private industry. As a result, companies lacked the incentive to undertake
the financial risk to develop a product based on such research. . . The
Bayh-Dole Act and [later] amendments thereto have provided the basis for
current university technology transfer practices, which often involve
co-development and commercialization by academic institutions and private
industry." (n8). The
Stevenson-Wydler Act, among other things, also facilitated the transfer of
federally owned and originated technologies to the states and the private
sector.
In that same year, the initial public offering of
Genentech stock (based presumably on the value of the patents it was able
to hold) set a record for the fastest price per share increase (in the
pre-dotcom era), from $35 to $89 in 20 minutes. (n9) By the end of
1981, between 70 (n10) and 80 (n11) new biotech
firms had formed, including Amgen (1980), Calgene (1980) Chiron (1981) and
Genzyme (1981). (n12) By 1983,
more than $500 million had been raised in the U.S. public capital markets
by these new biotechnology firms. (n13)
In the following years, several other pieces of
legislation, though not directly targeted to biotechnology, furthered the
growth of the industry. These included:
-
The
Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-502, 100 STAT
1785) - This authorized government labs to enter into Cooperative
Research and Development Agreements (CRADAs) for publicly-funded
technologies
-
The
National Competitiveness Technology Transfer Act of 1989 (Public Law
101-189, 103 STAT 1674), part of the National Defense Authorization Act
of 1990 - 1991, Division C, Part C
-
The
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (Public Law
104-113, 110 STAT 775) - This amended the Stevenson-Wydler Act with
respect to inventions made under CRADAs
-
The 2000
Technology Transfer and Commercialization Act (Public Law 106-404, 114
STAT 1741)
The numbers of scientific discoveries and advancements
also continued swiftly during this same period, shaping and defining the
direction of growth in the biotechnology industry. Foremost among these
was the 1990 initiation and recent completion of the Human Genome Project
for mapping all the genes in the human body. Since many of these
advancements fall in the realm of medical biotechnology they will not be
covered in the context of this essay. Suffice it to say that the pace of
overall advancement has been so rapid that a popular principle know as
"Monsanto's Law" was coined. This "law" states that "the ability to
identify and use genetic information doubles every 12 to 24 months." (n14) However, as
the number of gene patents have proliferated and the number of
university-industry/public-private partnerships and collaborations have
grown, distinct views and criticisms of the system have
emerged.
Photograph "Sydney University Courtyard" ©
1985 Dorothy A. Birsic
Of Patents and
Partnerships
Despite refinements of the patent laws which have taken
place since the Diamond v. Chakrabarty decision was issued, among some
groups "the patenting of genetic inventions still raises questions of an
ethical, legal and commercial nature. . . The most influential critics . .
. are not against intellectual property rights, technological change and
scientific advances in principle, but they feel a certain reticence about
genetic inventions. For some, the issue is mostly ethical, a dislike of
associating property rights with biological materials, especially if they
are human. To others, genes are part of the 'common heritage of humanity'
and should only be public property. . . Other argue that DNA sequences are
not simply chemical compounds but also strings of information and that the
genome should be viewed as a huge database whose information should be
available to all." (n15)
In addition to the more philosophical concerns regarding
patents on genetic material, practical concerns continue to be expressed
on many levels that "by allowing genetic information to be patented,
researchers will no longer have free access to the information and
materials necessary to perform biological research." (n16). These
"access" concerns generally fall under one of "three headings: 'research
issues,' where access to information or material by third-party
researchers [may be] impeded as a consequence of protection;
'commercialization issues,' where access by those who would develop other
commercial products [may be] impeded; and 'clinical use issues,' where
protection [may have] impeded access to information or materials in a
clinical setting." (n17). The
discussion of Golden Rice in Part II of the series provided an example of
issues falling within the first two of the categories listed
above.
Few would disagree that the ability to patent genetic
material has formed the basis of and is a necessity for the attraction of
investment capital to private biotechnology firms. These companies,
especially if small (entrepreneurial) start-ups, would be hard-pressed to
attract the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars necessary to bring a
product to market without the ability to profit from the investment(s). As
a result of this and the rapid pace of new genetic invention, "the number
of patents granted has risen dramatically in the last decade. In 2001,
over 5000 DNA patents were granted by the USPTO, more than the total for
1991 - 1995 combined." (n18)
Unlike many other industries, "biotechnology owes much of
its growth to academic science." (n19) Even from
the early 1980s, "states hoped to attract and retain dedicated
biotechnology companies as well as major pharmaceutical, chemical and
agricultural corporations" by creating biotechnology expertise in the
university systems. (n20) One 1988
document said of California that "the strength of the University of
California (UC) system has been the instrumental force in establishing a
healthy biotechnology industry in California. The climate, the large
venture capital pool and expanding markets are additional inducements to
industry." (n21)
There are few better illustrations of how the laws,
patent protection and business realities have interacted in the growth of
the biotechnology industry than in California. The state is home to more
biotechnology companies than any other state in the nation. Although there
are companies scattered from north to south, the two primary clusters of
companies are in the San Francisco Bay area and around the University of
California San Diego in the La Jolla/San Diego area. One
biotechnology-oriented website, www.biospace.com, has designated these as
two "hotbed" areas and provides stylized maps with links to biotechnology
company profiles and product information. To view the "Biotech Bay" (San
Francisco area) map, click
here. To view the "Biotech Beach" (Southern California/San Diego) map,
click
here.
If anything, the ties between industry and the campuses
of the UC system have only grown closer in the last two decades. On one
page of a UC website, it is stated that:
-
1 in 4
biotech companies is within 35 miles of a UC campus
-
1 in 3
California biotech companies was founded by UC scientists
-
85% of CA
biotech companies employ UC alumni with graduate degrees (n22)
In general, Bayh-Dole has "revolutionized"(n23)
university-industry relations. However, one criticism that has emerged
over the years is that the legislation and ensuing practices have also
blurred the traditional lines between the public sector's goal of
"expanding knowledge for the benefit of science and humanity" (n24) through
basic (not profit-motivated) research, and the private sector's role in
applying and commercializing the research for profit and to "maximize
returns." (n25)
Even in the early days following the passage of the 1980
legislation there was debate about what effect the laws would have on
science and industry. Some viewed Bayh-Dole as "essential to provide an
effective exploitation of the research base, . . . [and] critical to our
national well-being in an increasingly competitive world marketplace." (n26) Others
said, "To the long familiar military-industrial complex a fraternal twin
has been added: an academic-industrial complex through which American and
multinational corporations siphon the publicly created resources of our
Universities and thereby convert publicly financed research into private
gain."(n27)
These issues came to the forefront in California in the
year 2000. In May of that year hearings were held in the California
legislature on "The Impact of Genetic Engineering on California's
Environment: Examining the Role of Research at Public Universities."(n28) One
particular segment of the hearings concerned a $25 million agreement
between UC Berkeley and the Swiss multinational Novartis, a producer of
pharmaceuticals and genetically modified crops. The agreement had gained a
certain amount of notoriety as it was spotlighted in March of the same
year in a cover article in Atlantic Monthly magazine entitled "The Kept
University."(n29) At that
time, the fact "that the University had the backing of a private company
was hardly unusual. That a single corporation would be providing one third
of the research budget of an entire department at a public university [was
what] had sparked an uproar."(n30)
Proponents of the Berkeley and similar agreements argue
that such funding is a necessity due to the "changing economic realities
of [the] educational system." (n31) Part of
this "changing reality" is the fact that while "the rate of growth in
federal support [for academic research] has fallen steadily over the past
twelve years, . . . the cost of research, particularly in the cutting edge
fields of computer engineering and molecular biology, has risen sharply.
State spending has also declined." (n32) In that
same twelve-year period, the percent of UC Berkeley's overall budget
supplied by the State of California decreased from 50 to 34 percent. (n33) Corporate
giving grew "from $850 million in 1985 to $4.25 billion less than a decade
later, . . . [spurred in part by] generous tax breaks for corporations
willing to invest in academic research."(n34) Statistics
supplied by UC for the hearings show, however, that "excluding the
UC-managed national laboratories, in fiscal year 1999 the federal
government supplied 71 percent of all UC's external research funding as
opposed to 9 percent for industry. Federal-funded basic research comprised
almost two-thirds of all research conducted at UC [campuses]."(n35)
Photographs © 2008 Dorothy A. Birsic
Seeds of
Change
The discussion so far has primarily concerned the growth
of the biotechnology industry via the new companies which have formed its
base. Equally important, especially in agricultural biotechnology, is the
consolidation which has taken place in the seed industry specifically, and
more generally in the structure of world agriculture at every stage of the
food chain. (n36) The Swiss
company Novartis, discussed in the previous section, is a pertinent
example of this.
Novartis was
formed in 1996 by the merger of two Swiss life science giants, Ciba-Geigy
and Sandoz. Sandoz brought to the merger Northrup-King, a brand name
company acquired in 1976 that was well-established in field crops,
especially hybrid corn and sorghum. Northrup-King's own position in the
market was the result of its past acquisitions of field seed companies,
including Pride Seed Company, Stauffer Seeds, and Coker Pedigreed Seed.
Ciba-Geigy also contributed to the merger with a long list of previously
acquired seed companies. . . The merger gave rise to a new . . .division
called Novartis Seeds, which controlled 7 percent of the seed market for
major crops in 1997. In 1999, after operating as a complete life sciences
company for only 3. 5 years, Novartis announced plans to merge its
agricultural business with the Swedish/English pharmaceutical giant
AstraZeneca which had been formed only 6 months earlier. The agricultural
spinoff, Syngenta, became a global leader in both seed and pesticide
sales. According to the most recent sales figures from Merrill Lynch,
Syngenta is only second to Pioneer with $1.2 billion in annual seed sales,
and first in pesticide sales with more than $7.0 billion in annual sales.
(n37) Novartis
also currently owns the Gerber baby food company.
Similar activity took place in the United States with the
Dupont Company's acquisition of Pioneer Hi-Bred (the largest player in the
corn seed market) (n38), and
Monsanto's transition from a chemical, then pharmaceutical, company to a
company "based on seeds and traits that deliver[s] solutions to
farmers."(n39)
These consolidation trends also had their roots in the
1980s. First, there was a period of stagnation in the chemical industry
during which "the sale of chemical units. . . freed up capital for
diversification into new industries."(n40) Second, the
processes involved in the emerging biotechnology industries "required
understanding of both chemical and biological processes. . . For chemical
companies already involved in agriculture, seed companies were logical
acquisitions because of complementarities between their chemical inputs
and new genetically engineered traits."(n41) This
activity prompted talk of an emerging "life sciences" industry "organized
around the development of such products as agricultural chemicals, seeds,
food and food ingredients and pharmaceuticals based on related research in
biotechnology and genetics." (n42) The
industry in still in the process of transition, however. Given the rapid
pace of change it is impossible to say what it may look like even 5 or 10
years from now.
An understanding of the concerns surrounding the
consolidation of the seed industry would be incomplete without a brief
look at the overall changes which have taken place since the early 1900s.
At that time, "most U.S. farmers depended on seed saved from the previous
[year's] crop and did not purchase significant quantities of seed from
commercial sources." (n43) This is a
practice which still continues in some parts of the developing world. In
the early 1900s, better-yielding hybrid varieties (especially of corn)
began to be developed. One characteristic of hybrid seeds is that they do
not breed true in subsequent generations, so seeds need to be purchased
regularly in order to maintain uniform production characteristics.
Following the passage of the Plant Patent Act of 1930 (which gave
protection to asexually or vegetatively reproduced plant varieties as well
as hybrids), "approximately 150 companies formed to produce hybrid corn
seed," (n44)
By 1965, "over 95% of American corn acreage was planted with hybrid
seed."(n45)
The
Green Revolution, ushered in at about this time (see Part II), brought
with it dramatic improvements in agricultural productivity based not only
on superior seeds, but also on "modern plant breeding, improved agronomy
and the development of inorganic fertilizers and pesticides." (n46) In the
developing world, many of the improved strains of crops came as the
products of research and development in international and public
organizations. After new strains of crops were developed, "adapted local
varieties were . . . replicated by national seed companies and given away
to farmers. Intellectual property rights were not an issue, since
government agencies wanted the seeds to spread as fast as possible. (n47)
In the United States during this time period, two other
intellectual property measures came into force. First, the Patent Act of
1952 "extended patent rights to agricultural innovations under a much more
general category, . . . the. . . broad definition of [which] leaves an
important opening for covering innovations in biotechnology and genetic
engineering." (n48) Second, the
Plant Variety Protection Act (PVPA) of 1970 gave breeders exclusive rights
to market new plant varieties. The stated purpose of the act was "to
encourage the development of novel varieties of sexually produced plants
and to make them available to the public, providing protection to those
individuals who breed, develop, or discover them, and thereby promoting
progress in agriculture in the public interest." (n49) This was
partly accomplished by researchers' and farmers' exemptions incorporated
into the Act.
After the passage of the PVPA, "more than 50 seed
companies were acquired by pharmaceutical, petrochemical and food firms. .
. Many chemical firms entered the U.S. seed market because the
agricultural chemicals market had reached maturity and profits in the
sector were declining." (n50) The series
of mergers and consolidation continued in the 1980s as "companies sought
to offset the high costs of biotechnology R & D." (n51) The net
result of this activity was that many of the "key technologies in the
[agricultural] biotechnology field became protected as intellectual
property and concentrated in the hands of a small number of large
multinational corporations based in North American and Western Europe." (n52) "During the
1996 - 2000 period, 75% of over 4,200 new ag biotech patents went to
private industry." (n53)
Agricultural Biotechnology in California
California is the top agricultural producer and exporter
in the United States. The state's cash income from agricultural production
in 2001 was $27.6 billion, almost double that of the number two state,
Texas. (n54)
The state is also the nation's sole producer (99% or more) of a large
number of specialty crops including: almonds, artichokes, clingstone
peaches, dates, figs, kiwifruit, nectarines, olives, persimmons,
pistachios, dried plums (prunes), raisins and walnuts. (n55). Despite
California's status as a "leader in agricultural innovation, . . . only
cotton, among [the genetically modified] crops, has seen significant
production" here. (n56) According
to USDA statistics for 2004, about 52% of the cotton grown in the state
was from genetically engineered upland cotton varieties. (n57).
As was outlined in previous issues of the essay, the vast
majority of the major GM food crops (i.e. corn, soybeans and canola) are
grown in the midwest farm-belt states. In comparison, only about 75,000
acres of transgenic corn were planted in California in 2001, and most of
it was likely used as animal feed. (n58). The only
other food crop to receive regulatory approval was a squash engineered to
resist viruses. Only about 10 acres of the commercial production of the
squash was in California. (n59)
Despite the minor presence of commercially
available transgenic crops in the state, there are a number of field
trials of potential future crops taking place here. A searchable public
database of genetically modified crop information called Information
Systems for Biotechnology can be found at www.nbiap.vt.edu. [Click here to view the information on
field tests and releases of GMOs.] And why is there such a minor presence
of transgenic crops in California? "Costs are probably one reason the
[overall] market has so far favored biotech crops that are grown on a very
large scale (soybeans, corn, cotton). The economics are less favorable for
California, which grows a great number of small, high-value crops rather
than a few large-acreage crops." (n60) Other
factors have to do with the diversity of species and varieties of the
state's crops, small niche markets for some products, processor and
distribution requirements, and a lack of consumer benefits to develop
demand for the products. (n61)
In contrast to the acceptance transgenic crops have found
in many of the farm-belt states, anti-GM food activism also has been on an
upswing here. As mentioned in part one, Mendocino County recently became
the first in the nation to pass a measure specifically prohibiting the
cultivation of GM crops within the county limits. [Click here to see
the text of the measure.] A few other counties have followed suit with
their own ballot initiatives for the November elections. [To view the
website for the Butte County proposition, click here.]
These county efforts to ban GM products within their
borders may raise the question of what role the state government plays in
the oversight of biotechnology in California. The answer is that "the
State of California, like most states, has deferred to the federal
government for regulation of biotech products." (n62) Last near
in a study prepared for the states's Food Biotechnology Task Force, it was
reported that California "follows federal oversight of biotechnology in
lieu of specific state regulations on the issue. Food derived from GE
sources is regulated under the same rules that govern conventional food.
The state requires no special labelling, special permits, technical review
of genetic engineering production methods, or any special tracking of
movement, sale or planted acreage. (n63) Is this
adequate? The conclusion, arrived at in a Senate Office of Research report
of June 2003, stated that "the appropriate role of the state in the
monitoring and oversight of biotechnology has yet to be clearly defined or
determined." (n64) But
when?
* * *
The biotechnology industry as a whole is one of the world's
newest, and it is in a continuous state of flux and evolution. Although
the pace of change in the medical biotechnology industry continues
unabated, as noted in Part II the rate of commercial introduction of new
products (beyond the transgenic soy, corn, cotton and canola already on
the market) in agricultural biotechnology has slowed. The next generation
of products, including the plant-made pharmaceuticals (PMPs) discussed in
the previous essay, have the possibility of blurring the boundaries
between the agricultural and medical biotechnology fields. Whether the
public will resist or accept these products remains to be seen.
This essay series continued the tradition started last
summer of an in-depth exploration of a topic of current interest for
visitors to the site. Hopefully you've found the series informative and
can end the summer with a better understanding of what biotechnology is
and what the genetic modification of food products means for you. If you
have any questions about the series, or if you'd like to suggest a future
topic, please send an email to 4dorothyb@dorothyswebsite.org.
Thanks and hope to see you next summer!
To return to the top of the
page, click
here.
Photograph "Morning Stroll in Fiji" © 1985 Dorothy A. Birsic
FOOTNOTES - The
following are the footnotes indicated in the text in parentheses with the
letter "n" and a number. If you click the asterisk at the end of the
footnote, it will take you back to the paragraph where you left
off.
n1 - United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Agricultural Statistics
Service (NASS), Acreage Report, Washington D.C., June 2003, pp.
24-25(*)
n2 -
California Council on Science and Technology, Benefits and Risks of
Food Biotechnology, Sacramento, 2002, p. 5 (*)
n3 - USDA,
Economic Research Service, Economic Issues in Agricultural
Biotechnology, AIB-762, Washington D.C., February 2001, p. 4 (*)
n4 - Ibid. (*)
n5 - Ibid. (*)
n6 - U.S.
House of Representatives, Committee on Science and Technology,
Subcommittee on Science, Research and Technology, "Genetic Engineering,
Human Genetics and Cell Biology: Evolution of Technological Issues in
Biotechnology (Supplemental Report III), 96th Congress, 2nd Session,
Serial DDD, August 1980, pp. 32 - 33 (*)
n7 - U.S.
Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), Commercial
Biotechnology: An International Analysis. Washington D.C.: U.S.
Congress/OTA, OTA-BA-218, January 1984, p. 3 (*)
n8 - Judge,
Linda R. "Biotechnology: Highlights of the Science and Law Shaping the
Industry," Santa Clara University Computer and High Technology Law
Journal, Vol.20, November 2003, p. 4 0f 15 in online version or article
from infotrac.galegroup.com. (*)
n9 - OTA,
Commercial Biotechnology, p. 4 (*)
n10 - U.S.
Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), New Developments in
Biotechnology: U.S. Investment in Biotechnology Special Report,
OTA-BA-360, Washington D.C.: U.S. GPO, July 1988, p. 78 (*)
n11 - OTA,
Commercial Biotechnology, p. 4 (*)
n12 - Ibid.,
pp. 67 - 70 (*)
n13 - Ibid.,
p. 4 (*)
n14 - Brand,
Stewart, The Clock of Long Now, as quoted in Bell, James John,
"Exploring the Singularity," Futurist, Vol. 37, No. 3, May/June 2003, p.
20 (*)
n15 - OECD,
Genetic Inventions, Intellectual Property Rights and Licensing
Practices: Evidence and Policies, Paris: OECD, 2002, p. 11 (*)
n16 - Ibid.,
p. 12 (*)
n17 - Ibid.
(*)
n18 - Ibid.,
p. 8 (*)
n19 - OTA,
New Developments in Biotechnology, p. 61 (*)
n20 - Ibid.
and Benefits," Environmental Conservation, 28 (3) p. 251. (*)
n21 - Ibid.
(*)
n22 -
University of California Discovery Grant website, Biotechnology Field,
accessible at http://ucdiscoverygrant.org/fields/biotech.htm, viewed
8/28/04 (*)
n23 - Press,
Eyal and Washburn, Jennifer, "The Kept University," Atlantic Monthly,
March 2000, p. 41 (*)
n24 -
Summers, Teresa M., "The Scope of Utility in the Twenty-First Century: New
Guidance for Gene-Related Patents," 91 Georgetown Law Journal 475, January
2003, p. 4 of 23 in Lexis-Nexis Academic online document. (*)
n25 - Ibid.
(*)
n26 - White
House Science Council, A Renewed Partnership, 1986, as quoted in
OTA, New Developments in Biotechnology, p. 111 (*)
n27 -
Minsky, Leonard, "Greed in the Groves, Part II," The NEA Higher Education
Journal, 1984, as quoted in OTA, New Developments in Biotechnology, p. 111
(*)
n28 -
California Legislature, Senate Committee on Natural Resources and
Wildlife/Senate Select Committee on Higher Education, "Impacts of Genetic
Engineering on California's Environment: Examining the Role of Research at
Public Universities", Senate Publication 1054-S, Sacramento, May 15, 2000
(*)
n29 - Eyal
and Washburn, pp. 39 - 54 (*)
n30 - Ibid.,
p. 40 (*)
n31 -
California Legislature, "Impacts of Genetic Engineering . . .", p. 15 (*)
n32 - Eyal
and Washburn, p. 40 (*)
n33 -
California Legislature, "Impacts of Genetic Engineering . . .", p. 15 (*)
n34 - Eyal
and Washburn, p. 41 (*)
n35 -
California Legislature, "Impacts of Genetic Engineering . . .", p. 15,
Correspondence section, March 10, 2000 U.C. Office of the President
letter, p. 2 (*)
n36 -
Pretty, Jules, "The Rapid Emergence of Genetic Modification in World
Agriculture: Contested Risks and Benefits," Environmental Conservation 28
(3), p. 257 (*)
n37 -
Fernandez-Cornejo, The Seed Industry in U.S. Agriculture: An
Exploration of Data and Information on Crop Seed Markets, Regulation,
Industry Structure and Research and Development, AIB-786, Washington
D.C.: United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service,
February 2004, p. 32 (*)
n38 - Ibid.
(*)
n39 -
Monsanto Company, A Clear Focus: 2003 Annual Report. St. Louis: Monsanto
Company, November 2003, inside cover (*)
n40 - King,
John L., Concentration and Technology in Agricultural Input
Industries, Electronic Report/AIB 763. Washington, D.C.: United States
Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, March 2001, p. 6 (*)
n41 - Ibid.
(*)
n42 -
Fernandez-Cornejo, p. 27 (*)
n43 - Ibid.,
p. 25 (*)
n44 - Ibid.
(*)
n45 - Ibid.
(*)
n46 -
International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Green Revolution:
Curse or Blessing?. Washington, D.C.: IFPRI, 2002, p. 1 (*)
n47 -
Paarlberg, Robert, "The Global Food Fight," Foreign Affairs, Vol. 79, No.
3, May/June 2000, p. 35 (*)
n48 -
Fernandez-Cornejo, p. 19 (*)
n49 -
Fernandez-Cornejo, Jorge and Schimmelpfennig, David, "Have Seed Industry
Changes Affected Research Effort?", Amber Waves, USDA, Economic Research
Service, February 2004, p. 2 of 5 (online document available at
www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/February04/Features/HaveSeed.htm) (*)
n50 -
Fernandez-Cornejo, p. 26 (*)
n51 - Ibid.
(*)
n52 -
Pardey, Philip and Beintema, Neinke M., Slow Magic: Agricultural
R&D A Century After Mendel. Washington D.C.: IFPRI, 2001, p. 1 (*)
n53 -
Fernandez-Cornejo and Schimmelpfennig, p. 3 of 5 (*)
n54 - State
of California, Department of Food and Agriculture, Resource Directory 2002
- California Agriculture: A Tradition of Innovation, Sacramento, CA: CA
Department of Food and Agriculture, 2002, pp. 28 - 29 (*)
n55 - State
of California, Department of Food and Agriculture, California Agricultural
Highlights (brochure), Sacramento, CA: CA Department of Food and
Agriculture, 2002 (*)
n56 -
Bruening, George, "Chapter 4: Spliced-DNA Crops in California," in
California Council on Science and Technology (CCST), Benefits and Risks
of Food Biotechnology, Sacramento, CA: CCST, 2002, p. 85 (*)
n57 - United
States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Briefing
Room: Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops in the U.S., Genetically
Engineered Upland Cotton Varieties by State and United States, 2000 -
2004. Washington, D.C.: USDA, ERS, 2004. Online data available at
www.ers.usda.gov/Data/BiotechCrops/ExtentofAdoptionTable2.htm (*)
n58 -
Bruening/CCST, p. 91 (*)
n59 - Ibid.
(*)
n60 -
Pollack, Daniel, California's Bioscience Industries: Overview and
Policy Issues. Sacramento, CA: California Research Bureau, October
2002, p. 45 (*)
n61 -
Bradford, Kent J. and Alston, Julian M., "Diversity of Horticultural
Biotech Crops Contributes to Market Hurdles," California Agriculture, Vol.
58, No. 2, April/June 2004, pp. 84 - 85 (*)
n62 -
Luscher, David and Steggall, John, "Chapter 6: State Regulations," in
California Council on Science and Technology, Benefits and Risks of
Food Biotechnology, Sacramento, CA: CCST, 2002, p. 123 (*)
n63 -
Vucinich, Nick, "Should California Take a More Active Role in the
Assessment, Monitoring and Oversight of Biotechnology?" Sacramento, CA:
(State) Senate Office of Research, 2003, p. 7 (*)
n64 - Ibid.
(*)
LINKS - The links included in Part III of
the essay series are listed below. (*Please note: some
of the links have changed since 2004 or no longer be valid. Where possible, corrections are indicated.*)
-
Carnations/Florigene Corp. - www.florigene.com
-
Biotech Bay
map - www.biospace.com/hotbed/11/biotechbay_map.cfm. ( Follow the area links at www.biospace.com/biotechhotbeds.aspx.)
-
Biotech
Beach map - www.biospace.com/map_beach_2002.cfm. ( Follow the area links at www.biospace.com/biotechhotbeds.aspx.)
-
Information
Systems for Biotechnology database - www.nbiap.vt.edu
-
Butte County
- www.gefreebutte.org
-
Mendocino
GMO - internal website document reference
To return to the top of the
page, click
here.
To return to the essay archives, click
here.
Follow www.dorothyswebsite.org on TWITTER!
"Like" www.dorothyswebsite.org on FACEBOOK!
Home | 
Essays | Poetry | Free Concerts | Links | 2015 Extras |
About the Site Featured Artists | 2015 Website Special Guests | News
|
|