I just figured it out. That's what the problem is.
In the progressive blogosphere there is an uneasy alliance among some of the environmental activist types and hunters. There is an interface between them where they touch--both wanting to conserve open spaces and have a clean and productive environment. But there is an area where they clash--why they share those goals, and how they'd use that environment. And I imagine that would be obvious to you.
There are progressive hunters here. People who own guns and shoot them. And eat meat. There are progressive environmental activists would wouldn't ever do any of that and run screaming from the prospect of anyone doing that. Some people acknowledge the contribution of the other side. Some people polarize the debate.
Part of the tension is because of forces like the NRA. I get that. The NRA has actively worked against things that progressives want. But a subset of that gun owning group can actually be allies in environmental conservation. For some enviro and progressive purists it won't matter.
There's a similar issue developing around biotechnology and plants. Of course, it isn't as simple as owning a gun or not owning a gun. But because of some of the polarizing forces in the debate it is difficult to hear what those non-simple issues are.
First, let's address biotechnology. The phrase biotechnologyis very broad, and the techniques of biotech are used in many types of labs. They are also used in plant biology labs. They have helped us make faster progress than ever before on useful improvements in crops like sorghum (which was recently acknowledged in the award of the World Food Prize to Dr. Gebisa Ejeta who led that work). Flood-tolerant rice that can save flooded crops in India and Bangladesh was developed with the aid of biotechnology techniques. Both of these are academic projects, I might add--they DID NOT COME FROM MONSANTO.
The plant biologists involved in this work are hunters. They are gene hunters. In both cases they identified genes that had characteristics that could benefit farmers--in the case of sorghum it was resistance to Striga, in the case of rice it was ability to survive underwater for days. They moved those genes into a new variety that had other useful characteristics (drought tolerance for sorghum, suitable yield and flavor for rice). They used biotechnologyto do it.
These plant modifications might cause some people to call them genetically modified organisms (GMOs). One of the researchers involved with this work explains these modifications and the language around this area--because it is often confusing to people who don't work in this field.
The prey for this work is other plants. In the case of sorghum it was other varieties that had resistance, but not some of the other qualities most useful to farmers. In the case of rice there was a species of rice that was low yielding but survived submersion. Gene hunters need these varieties to be available and they find them, they store them, and they study them. They value them. It is not in the interest of gene hunters to eliminate biodiversity. They support and use gene banks like the Svalbardone that you may have heard about--but there are others as well. They support the production of heirloom and local varieties of plants. Like gun-toting hunters, they could be some of the strongest allies for conservation of biodiversity.
Gene hunters have a lot to offer about understanding plant biology and diversity, and threats to them. These are people who love biology and understand ecology. They do not hatch from a matrix pod inside Cargill, I swear.
Just because they use the tools of biotechnology does not mean they are opposed to organic techniques. In fact, the woman who was on the project to develop flood-tolerant rice wrote a book with her organic farmer husband called Tomorrow's Table that tries to bridge the benefits of biotechnology and the benefits of organic farming. She covers them here in The Boston Globe (PDF).
Just because they use the tools of biotechnology does not mean that they are opposed to other crucial pieces or "BBs" that are necessary to help third-world farmers. Dr. Ejeta recently gave testimony before Congress that spoke to many of those issues. The full testimony is here (PDF), but here are some pieces:
[snips]
...Several constraints limit agricultural productivity and the use of better management of natural resources in much of the tropics. Growing pressure from increasing population and associated energy and water demands continue to worsen problems of resource limitations. As more recent food price crises have shown, these problems have global ramifications. The inherent biophysical limitations brought about by degraded natural resources are further aggravated by changing weather patterns. The variety of pests and diseases prevalent in the tropics are likely to be even more severe and troublesome with advancing climatic change....
....Based on my 30 years of development experience and my knowledge of rural life in Africa, I have come to believe that there are three key essentials needed to bring about sustainable change that could generate needed results for generating sustained impact in the agricultural development of developing nations. These three sets of essentials that must be well orchestrated and addressed in concert are 1) Technology; 2) Institutional and human capacity; and 3) Public policy.....
[snips--there's more, of course, go read the whole thing]
For the planetary crises we face we need many silver BBs, as we have heard from other related spheres. In times of increasing food insecurity and in times of unpredictable climate change the gene hunters may be quite helpful for human survival. The hits keep coming.
People who tell you that biotechnology and organic practices are mutually exclusive are not correct. There are benefits to each.
Monsanto is the NRA in this case. I get that. Plenty of things they do are not helpful to the debate. But people use Monsanto like the NRA uses the second amendment--to create fear and flames and shut down discussion. It is a librul dog-whistle. As a wise kossack said the other day, "So, the Republicans run around telling each other that the government is planning to take their guns away....now we have left-wing nutjobs that want to tell us that Government wants to take our vegetables away?"
The reality of biotechnology is much broader. And you should think carefully about whether it is right to put barriers in front of this important work and remove funding for it as some activists want you to do. And if it pisses you off that Monsanto has so much influence in this area, don't you think it might be better if our pro-science administration helps to fund plant research and education around the world to get it out of the hands of a small group of moneyed interests? Democratizing plant biology could be a very good thing.
You can decide whether it makes sense to participate in polarizing the debate or whether it makes sense to include the hunters.
++++++++++++++++++++
Disclaimer: I do not know Dr. Ejeta or Dr. Roland and they have no knowledge of this diary--this work is my own based on publicly available information sources. I do not now--and never have--worked for Monsanto, Cargill, or any of the other players considered to be BigAg. I am not deriving any income from traffic to any of the links within this diary.