East and Southeast Asian Perspectives on Life Sciences and Biotechnology

Soraj HongladaromDepartment of PhilosophyChulalongkorn University

Outline

Definitions of ‘East Asia’ and ‘Southeast Asia’Existing Perspectives

BuddhistConfucianRoman CatholicIslamSecular and popular

This talk will focus more on the first and the last perspective, focusing also on the conceptual issues involved.

What is East Asia?

Defined by the predominance of Chinese culture.

ConfucianismBuddhism (imported from India, but much Sinicized)Daoism

Countries include: China, Japan, Mongolia, Korea

Varieties within East Asia

The dominance of China was such that all the other countries in East Asia looked toward her as the source of almost all their cultural traits.Nonetheless, there are varieties and indigenous traditions.

Shintoism in JapanTibetan form of Buddhism in Mongolia Others

What is South-east Asia?

Defined by geographyThe area between South and East AsiaCountries include: Thailand, Burma, Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Philippines, Brunei, East Timor

South-east Asia Defined by Culture

A mixture of influences from both China and IndiaSome areas are more influenced by one than the other.More influenced by India

Thailand, Burma, Laos, Cambodia(in the past) Malaysia, Indonesia

More influenced by ChinaVietnam

More influenced by the WestPhilippines

Varieties within South-East Asia

It can be said that the existing varieties of cultural traditions in South-east Asia are much more than those in East Asia.This is perhaps due to the fact that the region has been a meeting place of trades, goods, ideas, and religions for a long time.The spread of Buddhism, Islam and Christianity.

Caveats

These varieties should be borne in mind when the topic of the perspective of a specific region is discussed.It can be done, but with the caveat that the varieties exist.Nonetheless, varieties exist anywhere, so some generalization is necessary.

Focus - Buddhism and Biotechnology

Since the canonical texts of Buddhism do not say anything specifically about biotechnology, any views on this topic are more or less interpretations.Nonetheless, we can view the general picture of what the Buddhist perspective in general should be like.

Buddhism and Biotechnology

Biotechnology is an attempt by human beings to solve their problems through manipulation of life itself.Buddhism in general has nothing against it, only that the action should be performed out of the right motive.That is, if an action is performed out of greed, hatred and delusion, then it is not the right action.

Buddhism and Biotechnology

In Thailand, there is a growing awareness of the problems incurred by the rapid advances in biotechnology.Part of this awareness is reflected in how Buddhism is being viewed as a source of insights toward solving those problems.There are a number of Thai scholars working on this issue.

Buddhism and Biotechnology

One of most respected Thai scholars and monks, Phra Phromkunaporn, says that biotechnological processes and products should be all right, provided that they bring benefits to mankind.However, if they bring harm, then it should be avoided.

Popular Perception

Apart from the works of Buddhist scholars, the awareness of the problems is also reflected in literature.In 2000, a novel entitled “Amata” (Immortal) was published.The novel deals with problems arising from human reproductive cloning.

Amata

The point of the novel is that modern science and technology are always fraught with globalized business interests; they have become tools of the latter to serve the egoistic interests of people at the expense of traditional values.

Controversies on Genetically Modified Organisms

Apart from the awareness reflected in Buddhism and popular literature, there have also been many debates on the suitability of genetically modified organisms.The debate is usually between the NGO group and the government-sponsored research institutes.

Recent Events

A few months ago, the Thai Prime Minister attended a meeting of the National Biotechnology Policy Commission and came out announcing that Thailand would no longer be ‘left out’ of the global advances in biotechnology.More specifically, he announces that from now on genetically modified plants will be allowed to be planted in open fields.Development of GM papaya which is resistant to viral disease.

Recent Events

The announcement created an uproar among agriculturalists and NGOs, who argue that such a move would endanger Thailand’s position as a world leader in organic agriculture.The most telling argument was that Thailand would lose its important markets in Japan and EU should the announcement actually came into effect.

Recent Events

Soon afterwards, the Prime Minister took back his words, saying that what he actually meant was only that there should be a continuation and support of research in the area, and not that GM plants should be allowed in open fields.

Mutual Understanding among Scientists and Business Leaders Vital to the GMO Debate. (Bangkok Post, September 8, 2004)

The Prime Minister's recent announcement that the Government would endorse open field trials of genetically modified plants has rekindled the debate which has seemed to die down somewhat. Chairing the National Committee on Biotechnology, the PM later announced that Thailand must not lag behind other countries who have already embraced the technology and that biotechnology and genetic engineering held a key to prosperity and thus should be further promoted and developed.

Apparently the PM had listened to arguments which had been advanced by the proponents of GM technology—that it is safe, friendly to the environment, and most of all that it has become necessary for feeding the hungry and for creating economic values. Soon after his announcement, however, he heard concerted voices of protests from various sectors, and those who spoke loudest to his ears were the business leaders in agriculture, who said that they would lose millions if the announcement actually came to effect. The reason is that many of these businesses relied on organic farming and the fact that Thailand has prohibited open field trials of GMOs due to an earlier cabinet resolution. Thus if this resolution was revoked—which would mean GMOs could be planted freely, organic agriculture would lose its distinctiveness and finicky consumers in opulent West would find it not to their palates. It seemed, however, that these voices spoke loudest, for the PM has just a few days ago announced again that more studies were needed before the government could take any concrete decision on the issue.

Two things are noteworthy in this debate. Firstly, the voices of the NGOs are seldom heard by the government. This is to be expected of this government, who has never taken them seriously anyway. It is clear that, had it been only the NGOs who protested against the announcement, we would have had the cabinet resolution allowing GMOs right now. But actually those who protested were the business leaders themselves, and perhaps this led to the current hold.

Secondly, and this is related to the first point, those who advocate GMOs to the PM at the National Biotechnology Committee meeting are mostly scientists working for the government, whereas the most effective protesters are the business leaders, as previously mentioned. This is an interesting situation. When compared with the West, advocates of GM technology are usually the business leaders, while those opposing come rather from the public sector and the NGOs.

How are we to understand this situation? Obviously the agribusinesses in Thailand are not advanced enough to embrace GM technology; the selling point of Thai agriculture being that it is 'organic' and 'natural'. It shows, then, that there is very little communication between the bureaucratic scientists and the business leaders. When there is no communication, there is no common understanding. The scientists in the government apparently want to see the country strong in genetic technology, but actually the main engine of growth does not lie in the hands of these scientists, but in those of the business leaders and leaders of the farming organizations who came out in droves to protest again the PM's announcement.

So this is the current situation in Thailand at the moment. Practicing scientists are mostly employed by the government, as university lecturers or as permanent researchers in government funded labs whose agenda are often set by themselves or by the directives of the government, which ultimately come from themselves anyway. In any case their agenda are not driven by competition in the market as are those of the business leaders. Currently the niche of Thai agriculture lies in the fact that the country is still banning GMOs in open fields. But there is no guarantee on this. Since maximizing profits is their aim, these leaders and farmers would be among the first who call out on the government to allow GMOs if their rich consumers in Europe and elsewhere wanted them. Since the agenda of the scientists are not set directly by the market force, they often look at the whole country as one individual unit to be compared with other such units in the international ranking contests (which country grows most strongly, etc.). But the key to economic prosperity is not to look that way, but to focus on particular industries, particular firms to see how they perform against their rivals in the globlalized marketplace. In any case the mindset that takes the whole country as one single unit is presumably what led them to persuade the PM to allow for open trial of GMOs. Since they do not know that resistance against GM food is still strong among the actual consumers of Thai agricultural products, the PM then had to put the brake on, something which he is not quite accustomed to doing

All this leaves the big question of whether GMOs are really safe and friendly to the environment aside. Surely sound and objective research on this vital issue is absolutely needed. But all that matters for us here now is that the agribusiness leaders and the farming organizations fear that they would lose markets to competitors who still ban GMOs in open fields in their countries. The scientists' argument that GMOs are already safe may be sound. But then the market does not function as neatly as the what is happening in a scientific lab. Here economic consideration takes precedence because it is the livelihood of Thais which is at stake.What is needed for Thailand, then, is that the two sides should talk to each other more and to try to understand each other more. The bureaucratic scientists in the leading public research agencies often turn suspicious eyes toward those who do not agree with them, branding them as 'NGOs', a term which has unfortunately gained a negative connotation. But such suspicion takes us nowhere. More importantly, the two sides should collaborate more. We need more scientists working in research and development within Thai business firms, and their research and development should be original and has roots in the distinctiveness of the locality itself.

Soraj Hongladarom currently co-ordinates the ASEAN-EU LEMLIFE Project, a project promoting bioethics funded by the European Union. He is an associate professor of philosophy at Chulalongkorn University.

What Does This Show?

First of all, it shows that there is little communication between the various stakeholders in the biotechnological debate.Secondly, we can infer that the Thai attitude is a pragmatic one - Thais are not as concerned about the morality of biotechnology as much as the practicality of it.

Attitudes in Other Countries

These attitudes are not the same in other cultural traditions. In China, for example, there is much more readiness to accept the new technologies.In Japan, however, the public are more wary.This depends many factors.

The ASEAN-EU LEMLIFE Project

http://www.asean-eu-lemlife.org/