Bridging the World’s Genetic Divide

Debates over genetically modified (GM) foods engulf every corner of the globe. While many concerns about GM foods are legitimate, these debates mostly reflect the interests of developed countries. But countries facing constant threats to their food supply consider access to new biotechnological techniques as essential to their development. Their hopes of using these technologies safely and responsibly are threatened by environmental and consumer activism in industrialized countries. Because most biotech products are produced and consumed in a few countries - the United States, Canada, Argentina and China - a “genetic divide” has opened up between rich and poor countries. This gap will likely pose serious problems due to the growing importance of biotechnology in agricultural production, health care and environmental management. Prospects for closing the gap will be determined by at least three interconnected factors: · how debates over the safety of genetically�modified (GM) foods are resolved; · developing countries taking responsibility for constructing the basis for engaging in international cooperation in biotechnology research; · industrialized countries sharing technology and expertise with a wider circle of developing countries. At present, these prospects do not look good. A number of industrialized countries are reducing support for international biotechnology research programs to meet the needs of developing countries. Other industrial countries fear approving international biotechnology cooperation programs in fear of a domestic political backlash from environmental and consumer groups. Complicating matters further, international organization such as the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) – created expressly to promote global food security – cannot provide leadership on this issue because of conflicting signals from governments. So the messages coming from these bodies are confused; their actions paralyzed. But blame is not all on one side. Although most developing countries are interested in using biotechnology to meet their food, health and environmental needs, their policies and resources, are not matched to these desires. Only a handful of developing countries (including China, India, Brazil and Argentina) have clear policies on biotechnology. More needs to be done almost everywhere to bring government policies into line with the best global practice. In addition, most developing countries lack adequate regulatory arrangements to guarantee safety, protect foreign investment, and promote international cooperation through strengthened local research. The absence of domestic safety regulations leaves countries vulnerable to external influences, particularly to forces that want to limit the use of biotechnology. Even more significant is the weak institutional and scientific base within developing countries. The time has come for developing countries to review their research infrastructure and re�design universities to serve economic goals. Many universities in developing countries are still geared to primarily producing civil service functionaries even though government employment is in decline. Because there is a worldwide shortage of scientific and technical expertise in a range of fields, developing countries must redirect their universities towards scientific and technical fields. Better use of human resources is also needed. Developing countries bemoan the migration of scientists to the industrialized countries but do little to ensure that these scientists can contribute from wherever they are located. Old ideas about a “brain drain” must give way to more creative approaches to tapping skills in a globalized world. Advances in communication technology, indeed, make it possible to utilize human resources efficiently irrespective of their geographical location. Back home, developing country inventors will soon start to demand that the fruits of intellectual labor be accorded the same level of respect and protection their counterparts in other parts of the world receive. But developing country governments must also ensure that international standards, such as intellectual property protection reflect wider social values as already acknowledged by the World Trade Organization's Agreement on Trade�related Intellectual Property (TRIPS). That may be a tricky circle to square, but the attempt must be made. These attempts can be fulfilled if science is allowed to find its proper, central place in society. Countries that facilitate the flow of knowledge between various sectors in society will be in a better position to make use of advances in biotechnology. Those that fail to reinvent their social institutions will be marginalized from new and important fields. Even if undertaken heartily, all the efforts of developing countries will lead nowhere unless industrialized countries broaden their cooperation with developing countries through building scientific capacity in universities and research institutions in the developing world. Recent decisions by Monsanto to place the rice sequence data in the public domain must be only the beginning of a wider partnership program involving more developing countries. Bridging the “genetic divide” will take a lot of effort among countries. The key starting point is for developing countries to make their policy goals clear and seek to engage in international partnerships with the industrialized countries from a more informed policy position. Any measure that fall short of this basic requirement will only widen the divide.;
  1. Chris J Ratcliffe/Getty Images

    The Brexit Surrender

    European Union leaders meeting in Brussels have given the go-ahead to talks with Britain on post-Brexit trade relations. But, as European Council President Donald Tusk has said, the most difficult challenge – forging a workable deal that secures broad political support on both sides – still lies ahead.

  2. The Great US Tax Debate

    ROBERT J. BARRO vs. JASON FURMAN & LAWRENCE H. SUMMERS on the impact of the GOP tax  overhaul.

    • Congressional Republicans are finalizing a tax-reform package that will reshape the business environment by lowering the corporate-tax rate and overhauling deductions. 

    • But will the plan's far-reaching changes provide the boost to investment and growth that its backers promise?

    ROBERT J. BARRO | How US Corporate Tax Reform Will Boost Growth

    JASON FURMAN & LAWRENCE H. SUMMERS | Robert Barro's Tax Reform Advocacy: A Response

  3. Murdoch's Last Stand?

    Rupert Murdoch’s sale of 21st Century Fox’s entertainment assets to Disney for $66 billion may mark the end of the media mogul’s career, which will long be remembered for its corrosive effect on democratic discourse on both sides of the Atlantic. 

    From enabling the rise of Donald Trump to hacking the telephone of a murdered British schoolgirl, Murdoch’s media empire has staked its success on stoking populist rage.

  4. Bank of England Leon Neal/Getty Images

    The Dangerous Delusion of Price Stability

    Since the hyperinflation of the 1970s, which central banks were right to combat by whatever means necessary, maintaining positive but low inflation has become a monetary-policy obsession. But, because the world economy has changed dramatically since then, central bankers have started to miss the monetary-policy forest for the trees.

  5. Harvard’s Jeffrey Frankel Measures the GOP’s Tax Plan

    Jeffrey Frankel, a professor at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government and a former member of President Bill Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisers, outlines the five criteria he uses to judge the efficacy of tax reform efforts. And in his view, the US Republicans’ most recent offering fails miserably.

  6. A box containing viles of human embryonic Stem Cell cultures Sandy Huffaker/Getty Images

    The Holy Grail of Genetic Engineering

    CRISPR-Cas – a gene-editing technique that is far more precise and efficient than any that has come before it – is poised to change the world. But ensuring that those changes are positive – helping to fight tumors and mosquito-borne illnesses, for example – will require scientists to apply the utmost caution.

  7. The Year Ahead 2018

    The world’s leading thinkers and policymakers examine what’s come apart in the past year, and anticipate what will define the year ahead.

    Order now