Genetically Modified Organisms as Public Goods:Plant Biotechnology Transfer in Colombia

Christina Holmes and Janice E. Graham

Christina Holmes and Janice E. Graham are with

the Department of Sociology & Social Anthropology

and Department of Bioethics, Dalhousie University,

Halifax, NS, Canada

Abstract

This paper presents an exploration of biotechnology

transfer and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) as

‘‘public goods’’ for Colombia. Plant biotechnology tenders

the promise of providing ‘‘public goods’’ in the form of in-

creased agricultural productivity, economic development,

and food security. However, these each have the potential to

benefit different groups of people. Colombian scientists rec-

ognize this when discussing the uses of genetic modification.

We examine the goals for which Colombian scientists sug-

gest plant genetic engineering has promise as well as the

barriers they encounter using the technology. Research us-

ing genetic engineering is difficult due to a lack of resources,

the need to negotiate intellectual property rights, and

regulatory hurdles. Nevertheless, Colombian scientists sug-

gested that genetic modification by Colombians is

important, as transnational companies would not neces-

sarily develop crops to meet Colombian needs. We argue

that interpretive complexity is necessary to understand the

desire of Colombian scientists to engage with biotechnology.

[Keywords: biotechnology, development, genetically

modified organisms (GMO), public goods, technology

transfer]

Plant genetic engineering is most often described

as driven by the scientific interests and resources of

developed countries. In this account, we present the

concerns and hopes surrounding the transfer of plant

biotechnology to Colombia from the perspectives of

Colombian scientists who use these technologies.

Drawing from discussions with Colombian scientists,

we will explore their perceptions of the challenges

associated with the direct transfer of genetic modifi-

cation1 technology to a developing country2 context,

as well as their reasons for employing genetic

engineering.

We detail how justifications for genetically mod-

ified organisms (GMO) articulate with the concept of

creating scientific ‘‘public goods.’’ In the context of

science and technology, public goods denote items that

benefit the ‘‘public’’ in the sense that they stimulate

national economies, improve food security, or in the

sense that they are commonly owned. Claims for

GMOs are being made for all three of these meanings

of ‘‘public’’ at once, despite contradictions between

them. The deconstruction of the idea of public goods is

useful in considering the benefits of GMOs given the

fact that a ‘‘public’’ good that stimulates a national

economy may not correspond to the provision of a

common resource for the citizens of a nation. The va-

riety of ways in which scientific ‘‘public goods’’ are

interpreted and aligned highlights the question of

whose interests are being served by ‘‘public’’ benefits

surrounding a technology. We therefore suggest that

critical attention to how emerging agricultural tech-

nologies serve the ‘‘public’’ is called for. This is of

particular importance in the case of GMOs given the

claims regarding their contribution to food security.

Colombian scientists who use genetic engineering

are attentive to the nuances surrounding who benefits

from GMOs; they negotiate between the tensions sur-

rounding this topic, the barriers they encounter, and

their hope for the technology. Barriers include the lack

of research funding, intellectual property rights, and

regulation which are set against the technical benefits

of speed and accuracy that the technology provides

and the desire to provide varieties that serve the Co-

lombian agricultural context (including both small

subsistence farmers and large agricultural producers)

by advancing research on neglected tropical crops and

local Colombian varieties. National economic interests

are intermeshed with concerns over food security

within individual researcher’s projects.

Culture & Agriculture Vol. 31, Issue 1 pp. 26–38, ISSN 1556-486X, eISSN 1556-486X. r 2009 by the American Anthropological Association. Allrights reserved. DOI: 10.1111/j.1556-486X.2009.01016.x

Multiple and intertwining interpretations are

needed for understanding individual actor’s motives

for their engagement with GMOs. We illustrate this by

viewing Colombian scientists’ perspectives through

two conceptual fields, that of medical anthropology

and that of development studies. In the medical an-

thropology context, Farmer (2001) critiques the idea

that expensive technologies are not ‘‘appropriate’’ for

resource-poor contexts on the grounds that making a

distinction between the two merely entrenched in-

equalities. A development studies perspective, on the

other hand, such as that proposed by Escobar (1995)

suggests that the role of technology in development is

symbolically important, but overstated in terms of the

material ‘‘progress’’ it provides to populations in

poorer areas. Neither of these two perspectives, the

drive for equality within agricultural science, nor the

false promises of technology to provide progress, are

sufficient on their own for understanding Colombian

scientists’ engagement with GMOs within interna-

tional science and the global economy. We therefore

conclude by arguing that interpretive complexity is

needed to understand scientific practices in this area,

as well as calling for more detailed attention to the

kinds of ‘‘public goods’’ that genetic engineering can

provide and who benefits from them.

We will therefore describe the perspectives of Co-

lombian scientists surrounding genetic modification,

and the barriers and hopes that they see surrounding

the transfer of the technology to Colombia, as well as

detailing two possible interpretations for understand-

ing these perspectives. However, it is necessary to first

provide background on the ways in which the concept

of public goods applies to science and technology and

the current place of GMOs within the global economy

in order to contextualize these scientific perspectives.

Methods

This study was part of a wider ethnographic project

to understand the emergence of new genetic technolo-

gies and biologics within a web of sociotechnical

relations that engage regulation, policy and industry,

as well as science (Bibeau et al. 2007; Graham 2005). This

approach reflects the considerable overlap in the global

emergence of biotechnologies in fields such as health,

agriculture, and the life sciences, providing the sub-

stance for what is now being called ‘‘convergent

technology’’ (Patton 2006). The global political economy

affecting biotechnological platforms is similar across

these domains and includes the predominance of mul-

tinational corporations (in what appears to be a dynamic

of perpetual amalgamations), the increase in private re-

search funding, and ensuing conflicts of interest

(Atkinson-Grosjean 2006; Bibeau et al. 2007; Mirowski

and Sent 2008). By examining the perspectives of scien-

tists working with plant biotechnology, rather than the

farmers who may ultimately use GMOs, this project

followed the anthropological tradition of ‘‘studying up’’

(Nader 1972), in an effort to understand how structural

processes and elite groups (such as agricultural scien-

tists) shape the options from which citizens can choose.

The ethnographic material we analyzed was gath-

ered by Holmes within a multisited ethnography that

followed the practices, aspirations, and views of

(predominantly) publicly funded research scientists who

worked with genetically modified crops in both Canada

and Colombia in 2003–05 (Holmes 2006). Participant ob-

servation took place within two main laboratory sites—

one in a government laboratory in Canada and the other

in an international research centre in Colombia. Addi-

tional ‘‘short-term’’ (i.e. day visits) participant observation

was carried out in two Colombian university laboratories.

Fifty-nine interviews (23 in Canada and 36 in Colombia)

were conducted for the study which included scientists

using genetic engineering (28), plant breeders, and other

scientists not using genetic engineering (18), and mem-

bers of regulatory and nongovernmental organizations

(13). Of the 19 interviews carried out with scientists using

genetic engineering in Colombia, the analysis for this ar-

ticle focuses on the 13 who were working at Colombian

univerisities or national research organizations; the re-

maining six were part of an international agricultural

research centre. Interviewees were chosen after a web-

based search of scientists’ research interests as well as

through suggestions of previous research participants.

No requests for interviews with scientists in Colombia

were declined. Interviews were conducted in the offices

and/or laboratories of the scientists interviewed. Inter-

views were semistructured and were largely conducted

in Spanish with the help of a native Spanish-speaking

research assistant to ensure that no miscommunication

occurred. Interviews and fieldnotes were then coded

thematically.

Background: GMOs, Public Goods, and theGlobal Economy

One of the major justifications for the develop-

ment of genetically modified plants and agricultural

Culture & Agriculture 27 Vol. 31, No. 1 June 2009

biotechnology has been their potential to increase ag-

ricultural production and development, and therefore

food security, in the developing world. This position

has been championed by the Nobel prize-winning

plant breeder, Norman Borlaug (2001),3 among others

(e.g., McGloughlin 2002). The U.S. Agricultural Secre-

tary, Ed Schafer, recently raised biotechnology,

including genetic modification, as part of the solution

to the global food crisis at the June 3–5, 2008, summit

in Rome:

Biotechnology is one of the most promising tools

for improving the productivity of agriculture and

increasing the incomes of the rural poor . . . We are

convinced of the benefits it offers to developing

countries and small farmers. [Doyle 2008: para.

2–3]

Claims that GMOs, and plant biotechnology in

general, will provide societal benefits (Burkhardt 2001)

and will therefore contribute to the ‘‘public good’’ in

countries such as Colombia obfuscate rather than clar-

ify discussion about the uses of GMOs. The ‘‘public

goods’’ resulting (or ‘‘translated’’) from science can be

interpreted in a variety of different ways.

Scientific knowledge came to be seen as a public

good after the Second World War in the United States

(Atkinson-Grosjean 2006; Mirowski and Sent 2008).

The availability of scientific knowledge was thought to

be an economic driver that stimulated national econ-

omies. While scientific knowledge could produce

returns for society as a whole, it was considered too

costly for private parties to produce and obtain a

profit. Instead, it was deemed to be in the national

interest to support scientific research as a ‘‘public

good.’’ During the cold war, the U.S. government not

only supported public research, but deliberately weak-

ened intellectual property rights in an effort to ensure

‘‘public’’ knowledge could be translated from research

and development into the competitive market place

(Mirowski and Sent 2008). Today, however, public

support for research has become intermingled with

private funding in most laboratories, while intellectual

property rights have expanded (Mirowski and Sent

2008).

Participation in the global ‘‘knowledge-based

economy’’ (Drucker 2003) has been of strategic inter-

est to many national governments (e.g., Martin 2001).

Technological innovation is used in new economic

theories as an important component of economic

growth and international competitiveness (Gilpin

2001); knowledge is no longer a free floating ‘‘public

good,’’ but a competitive arena:

Rather than technology being a public good

equally available to all economic actors, in reality

national differences in innovation and utilization

of technology have become vital determinants of

variations in national rates of economic growth,

national competitiveness, and international trade

patterns. [Gilpin 2001:105]

The fostering of technological innovation and sci-

entific knowledge, including that surrounding biotech-

nology and genetic engineering, can therefore be seen as

playing a key role in a country’s future.

Given the degree of mixing between public and

private, how can we understand biotechnology initia-

tives that claim to be for the ‘‘public good’’? ‘‘Public’’

can be interpreted in a variety of ways. ‘‘The public/

private demarcation is a negotiated, discursive space

rather than a fact of the world’’ (Atkinson-Grosjean

2006:13). Therefore, ‘‘public’’ can mean three different,

overlapping, and sometimes conflicting things: (1) the

open and visible space of public life, (2) civic as op-

posed to private concerns or interests, and (3) common

ownership (Atkinson-Grosjean 2006). In the case of

plant biotechnology, we are interested in how the sec-

ond and third meanings are employed, negotiated,

and implied.

Plant biotechnology is an area of research and de-

velopment (R&D) largely driven by the profit interests

of multinational companies4 (Lurquin 2001). Many of

the original and key intellectual property rights for

plant biotechnology are held by corporations or

universities which are primarily based in the United

States or the European Union (Falcon and Fowler 2002;

Parayil 2003; Yamin 2003). Furthermore, biotechnology

research has focused on crops that have large

commodity and export markets. Research and devel-

opment is more advanced for temperate or northern

agricultural crops. For instance, almost all the acreage

currently planted with genetically modified crops is

made up of four crops: soybeans (62%), corn (22%),

cotton (11%), and canola (5%) (Brookes and Barfoot

2006). Over half of these crops are grown in the United

States.

These crops are attractive to corporate interests as

their seeds can be profitably sold to a sizeable market.

Thus, many countries, particularly tropical ones, will

Culture & Agriculture 28 Vol. 31, No. 1 June 2009

not directly benefit from genetic engineering technol-

ogy as it is currently developed. Assuming these

‘‘improved seeds’’ actually will enhance agricultural

production without accompanying unacceptable risks

(a claim that has been contested, see [e.g., Altieri 2001;

Simmonds 1993]), current R&D does not meet the

needs of tropical food production. Since it is unlikely

that tropical agricultural production will increase

through a ‘‘trickle down’’ effect from the initiatives

of multinational corporations (Herrera-Estrella 2000),

this leaves the burden of creating developing country

‘‘public goods’’ from genetic engineering to research-

ers in the public sector. This is not an issue isolated to

biotechnology, as R&D in many developing countries

is disproportionately funded by higher education in-

stitutions and government agencies rather than by

private firms (Cozzens et al. 2008). The public sector is

hampered by the control of intellectual property rights

among private corporations (Parayil 2003).

Most of the crops genetic engineers have worked

on to date are intended for large mechanized farms,

with the traits chosen for their economic value. There

is little likelihood that market mechanisms will trans-

fer the technology to small farmers, particularly those

in tropical countries, who do not have sufficient re-

sources to purchase seeds and other agricultural

commodities, and who are therefore not a profitable

‘‘market.’’

New plants and crops are being developed not to

solve problems of hunger and deprivation, but

mostly to increase shareholder values of compa-

nies that have invested heavily in R&D efforts in

the biotechnology sector. Consumer preferences

are more important than farmer’s rights and in-

terests in the development and diffusion of genetic

agricultural technology, and the trend is to de-

velop technology suited for the interests of large

biotech firms (Parayil 2003:983).

Intellectual and technical property rights have

made common ownership difficult to obtain, thus

making one of the ‘‘public goods’’ unlikely for plant

biotechnology. The question that then arises is in what

public or civic interest is genetic engineering being

harnessed? If the ‘‘public interest’’ is economic devel-

opment, then that is served by the creation of plants

that provide greater yields, export possibilities, new

niche commodity markets and thus increased profit.

Public interests would therefore be served through

market distribution of research results (e.g., high-

yielding seed varieties distributed through private

companies). But is this the extent of possible ‘‘public

interest’’? As Waring (1988) demonstrated, practices

that substantially affect quality of life and contribute to

the economy in nonmonetary ways are often not

counted in economic metric characterizations of a

country. This strictly economic interest may not fit the

needs of small farmers in developing countries (Soleri

et al. 2008).

Colombia has many small-hold farmers who eat a

large proportion of what they grow, in addition to

having large agricultural exporters of cash crops such

as coffee and sugar cane. Much of the population eats

crops such as cassava and plantain, which have com-

paratively small export or commodities markets. This

results in a lower commercial potential and, in turn,

less research funding available for these crops. In this

context, can ‘‘public’’ interests in greater food and

livelihood security be ‘‘counted’’ (Waring 1988) or

measured in terms of economic output? The ‘‘market’’

in this sense, does not include the trading of better

cassava varieties between neighboring farmers

through traditional social networks, something that

could be considered ‘‘public’’ in the sense of common

or shared ownership. Is the public good the forward-

ing of civic interest through economic development?

Does it lie in supporting the common ownership of

small farmers to improved seed stock? Or is the public

good working toward the civic interest to increase

food security? How do researchers working within the

Colombian context configure their work amidst con-

flicts between differing conceptions of the public

good?

Biotechnology is linked to ‘‘a symbology of power

[that] is assigned to DNA and genetics both in the

media and in scientific publications’’ (Fleising

2001:239). This can lead to ‘‘genohype’’ (Holtzman

2001), or exaggerated claims and hyperbole attached

to DNA-related research. Jasanoff argues that ‘‘bio-

technology companies fall short of delivering the

economic miracles expected of them’’ (2005:249) and

therefore cause some skepticism as to their promise.

Nevertheless, biotechnology is still seen as a key path

to the development of a knowledge economy and so-

cial progress. Such an environment encourages the

training of students and the availability of research

funding within this area of scientific research.

The discourse of biotechnology promise can be

powerful in political and scientific arenas (Fleising

Culture & Agriculture 29 Vol. 31, No. 1 June 2009

2001). Latin America has not been immune from the

global political will to foster biotechnological knowl-

edge. Tambornini (2003), for example, argues that

biotechnology is a key way for Latin America to de-

velop and progress economically. This kind of interest

has led to bioprospecting ventures, the collection and

testing of biological materials for useful properties or

genetic traits (see Hayden 2003), as well as other uses

of biotechnology.

There was a general discourse of promise and hope

surrounding biotechnology within Colombia at the time

of Holmes’ fieldwork. Members of Colciencias, Colom-

bia’s major science funding agency, said that

biotechnology (including both the health and the agri-

cultural aspects) was one scientific area in which they

hoped to make Colombia internationally competitive.

While opening the Biotecnologıa congress in Bogota in

2003, the president of a large Colombian university

suggested that biotechnology was a potential method

for confronting the country’s problems. Colombian sci-

entists using genetic engineering operate within a global

enthusiasm for biotechnology that embraces its poten-

tial as an economic driver for achieving social

development. While increased availability of research

funding might direct a researcher into a particular area,

the design of research to forward particular research

interests or goals is still within the control of researchers.

This sentiment is reflected in the way in which scientists

discuss the decisions they made regarding their work.

For example, the following university scientist sees

himself contributing to a nationally strategic approach:

These techniques have a strategic importance for

the development of countries like Colombia, since

we are mega-diverse countries. And genetic engi-

neering is something that can give value to all

genetic resources, as it is possible to capture genes

in whatever biological context and develop bio-

technological processes with them, the result is

that they give value to all genetic resources, no

matter where we are. In this sense, then, I consider

that what I do is a strategic approach.

A strategic economic approach is one of several

ways that were mentioned for using plant biotechnol-

ogy to provide public goods for Colombia.

Two themes recurred in interviews with scientists:

(1) the presence of hope and enthusiasm for what the

technology might achieve, and (2) the barriers that

made the realization of that hope difficult.

Barriers to Using Genetic Engineering inColombia

The possibility of using biotechnology, particu-

larly genetic engineering, to improve the lives of those

in developing countries has been critiqued by many. It

has been challenged by members of civil society (e.g.,

ETC Group 2002, fomerly RAFI; Shiva 2000) and also

by social scientists who question the desirability and

practical benefit of genetically engineered seeds for

small farmers in developing countries (Cleveland and

Soleri 2004; Fitting 2006a, b; Soleri et al. 2005, 2008;

Stone 2007). In addition, scientists have suggested that

genetic engineering will only increase trends toward

harmful monocropping and chemical use, decrease

crop biodiversity, and will cost more than other kinds

of agricultural research (Altieri 2001; Altieri and

Rosset 1999, 2002).

By contrast, Colombian scientists stated that the

technology could have useful applications, but recog-

nized that many barriers exist for successfully

implementing their genetic engineering projects. They

acknowledged that research was expensive, which

made it more difficult to carry out, especially since

competition for research grants was fierce. Further-

more, some researchers commented that external

funding sources were important, because national

funding sources could be uncertain. Indeed, lack of

resources for research was a central barrier mentioned

by practically all scientists interviewed. In the example

below, this Colombian university researcher weighs

off the expenses related to biotechnology with its

future promise.

Biotechnology, in relation to other breeding meth-

ods is expensive for developing countries, because

the equipment to do genetic transformation is ex-

pensive, the reagents are expensive, human

capital, information, etc. are very expensive. But

I think that they are powerful tools to change the

future. I believe that we need to know what we

have, perhaps it isn’t necessary to do genetic mu-

tation, if nature itself has done it for us and we do

not know it. Above all else in the tropics where we

have such biodiversity and interaction between

organisms, the first thing is to know what one has

so as to know how to use it.

Another key issue is that successful use of genetic

engineering demands that intellectual property con-

Culture & Agriculture 30 Vol. 31, No. 1 June 2009

siderations be taken into account. This usually does

not directly affect scientists’ research possibilities, be-

cause licenses to do research using genes and

techniques with proprietary claims are comparatively

easy to obtain. The challenge comes when the research

needs to be translated into the release of plant vari-

eties, when the negotiation of licenses becomes legal

and complex.5

Two potential strategies were employed by Co-

lombian researchers. Material for research was

carefully chosen so that relevant intellectual property

was not proprietary (e.g., CAMBIA 2008). This could

involve securing permission for intellectual property

through collaboration with a public institution that

was working with the gene or process in question.

Alternatively, researchers needed to negotiate access to

material, genes, or technical protocols, often with

multinational companies. Two or three academic re-

searchers stressed that they and their colleagues

needed to know more about how to identify and ne-

gotiate for intellectual property rights, as this was not

usually a part of their training. Given a recent report of

large biotechnology companies (including Syngenta,

Monsanto, and BASF) filing for patents for hundreds

of genes that may help plants withstand drought and

other environmental stresses (i.e., ‘‘climate change’’

genes, Weiss 2008), this is not an issue that will likely

diminish in the near future.

Finally, regulatory testing raised an additional

barrier before a GM variety could be released and

used by the intended beneficiaries. Further funding

would be needed for such tests. This was only men-

tioned independently by one scientist, while others,

when questioned, said that it was a stage so far in the

future that they did not yet need to address it:

In everything, if one thinks about a plant needing

to pass through all the regulations, we’re talking

about many years of work and research and we

have to start somewhere. That is our job: first to

identify what substances can affect ‘‘broca’’ [the

plant pest] and that we could put in the coffee

plant. To work with all the systems of regeneration

and transformation and all that that implies and to

continue with the whole process and if, finally, we

succeed in having something that could be good,

that we can say to the coffee growers ‘‘we have

something good,’’ but from here to thinking about

commercializing a lot of time must pass. However,

we shouldn’t reject the technology yet, as we don’t

know what will happen. We could suddenly have

something really good for them, and if the public

accepts it, it would be excellent because broca

really causes serious problems for Colombian

coffee growers. It’s really, really hard.

Why Use Genetic Engineering to Create PublicGoods?

Despite the costs, the technical challenges in-

volved in the research itself, and the regulatory and

intellectual property hurdles, many researchers com-

mented that it was important to try to use this

technology. Both technical and ‘‘political’’ reasons (or

reasons relating to the creation of public goods for the

country or its citizens) were cited. The technology was

discussed as useful in three ways. First, genetic engi-

neering could offer the ability to do things that other

methods could not. In one example, an institute re-

searcher discussed the ability to know precisely what

characteristic has been added to the plant to ensure it

stays within the new variety:

With genetic transformation there are a range of

possibilities. It is, perhaps, the only tool to obtain

improved varieties efficiently because when ge-

netic improvement is done by simple selection, the

characteristic could be lost with time.

Second, genetic engineering was seen as advanta-

geous insofar as it can allow the use of genes that are

not currently available in closely related plants

(thereby ruling out the possibility of conventional

plant breeding). For example, a researcher who works

on coffee speaks of using this technique to solve a

problem with coffee plants that could not be overcome

with conventional methods:

The problem is that with the pest that we work

with, which is broca del cafe, no resistant material

has been found at this point. Therefore, it is very

difficult to think about traditional methods, al-

though there is a lot of research. The research

centre is doing research in this area to see if con-

ventional genetic crosses can be made, or some

improvement, but it has not been seen yet. So, we

find that we have to resort to research in non-tra-

ditional methods in order to generate what we

want: a plant that can defend itself better against

Culture & Agriculture 31 Vol. 31, No. 1 June 2009

broca del cafe. How do I see biotechnology? I see it

as a tool that can help us create a plant resistant to

the pest that is our problem and that can help the

farmers.

Third, genetic engineering is seen as a method that

will achieve important results for Colombian farmers

more quickly than conventional methods. This was

specifically mentioned for crops that are difficult to

work with, but important to Colombian diets, such as

cassava and plantains:

Hybrid plantain is difficult to breed and this

process can take 40 years. This [genetic transfor-

mation] is a 10 to 15 year strategy, but if it is

compared to traditional crop improvement, a great

deal [of time] is saved. Also, this variety can be

used by small farmers, because plantain is not

important to the multinationals and is a small

producer product. What is focused on, then, is that

small farmers will have access to biotechnology

and the varieties obtained through it.

These technical advantages were to be harnessed

in order to solve particular problems, which would

make enduring the difficulties and expense in using

the technology worthwhile. A researcher from a na-

tional research centre suggests:

For me, genetic transformation is a very specific

technology. It isn’t generic, [but should be used]

where we need it, for what we need it, and when

we need it. [. . .] And the other thing that I would

like to emphasize is that before beginning a big

genetic transformation project you have to explore

all the existent genetic variability [in the plant

you are working with, to rule out conventional

methods] [. . .] The question is if there is a

transgenic variety with important characteristics,

if it’s worth the cost? If it’s imperative, one must

confront it in case [the variety] resolves social and

economic problems.

The social and economic problems that researchers

suggest the technology could address, points to the

complexity of how ‘‘public goods’’ are conceptualized

for biotechnology. It was time and again emphatically

argued that Colombian agriculture existed in its own

unique context and that Colombian scientists needed to

respond to those conditions with appropriate research.

The type of genetic engineering done in developed

countries is logical from the economic point of

view. But [they have] ecosystem conditions differ-

ent from ours. We have a tropical agriculture,

there they have a temperate zone agriculture and

they’re different things. We have a very diversified

economy, including the participation of indige-

nous communities, Afro-Colombian communities,

in our case, up to cultivators such as those in the

Valle del Cauca6 that are global players. In this

sense, then, the logic that I defend is that the type

of science that we do has to respond to our con-

text. It doesn’t mean that we’re doing third world

science, but it’s rather like the processes of glob-

alization, at least as I understand them. It’s to take

those elements and give them a conventional

meaning. So, if one does not develop processes

here that serve all sectors of production, then

those particular types of technology have their

limitations to be appropriated by society. [em-

phasis added]

This university researcher’s comments encompass

different types of ‘‘public good’’ that scientists are trying

to provide. Their references to the ‘‘technical’’ benefits of

genetic engineering illustrate its meaning in terms of

helping coffee growers to develop export crops (and

therefore to create a traceable economic benefit), but also

includes assisting small producers to grow cassava and

plantain, a ‘‘public good’’ which, although more diffi-

cult to measure economically, contributes to food

security. The same researcher goes on to describe how

he designed his research program to advance public

interests by serving both industrial export sectors (and

therefore economic development goals), as well as small

farmers (and therefore food security goals):

What was important to me was to work with a

species that was of national interest and that, be-

sides, was being used by all sectors of production:

from the zone of the peasant economy to produc-

ers oriented towards exportation. And that

fundamentally allowed me to develop processes

of empowerment of the country; [to develop]

knowledge, with respect to genetic resources.

Colombian scientists are attempting to create

‘‘public goods’’ in ways that address gaps in what is

being provided by the world market. As the following

researcher suggests, the major global crops are exten-

Culture & Agriculture 32 Vol. 31, No. 1 June 2009

sively dealt with elsewhere, so it makes more sense to

focus on underserved crops of particular importance

to the Colombian context.

There are things that are better to be bought be-

cause we don’t have time or the money to develop

them. . . . The major crops are in the hands of the

transnationals. It is a fact. But we have other crops,

such as the promising ones [previously men-

tioned], that [the transnational corporations] will

not adopt because they are not interested in the

market. That is what we have to develop our-

selves. But we have to provide information: this

[genetic engineering] is only one more system that

guarantees us a more controlled product, from the

genetic perspective. Before being released, all the

risks have been evaluated, and we have a regula-

tory system that guarantees that the risks have

been evaluated and that it will not affect either

health or the environment.

In some cases, concern over neglected tropical

crops was combined with the desire to make the best

of Colombia’s biodiversity. This was an opportunity to

make a uniquely Colombian contribution:

Colombia is a mega diverse country and if we find

genes that have better adaptation to drought, dis-

eases, pests or [that give the plant] an improved

quality, they can be introduced into native species

in which the multinationals are not interested. If,

as Colombians, we do not do this, nobody will

do it. This is the case of tropical fruit. [emphasis

added]

There was a recognition that genetic engineering

was not applicable in every situation and that different

methods could be more useful in some cases. How-

ever, they were not willing to reject the technology

outright, despite the difficulties and costs inherent in

pursuing it. There was a general sentiment among the

scientists interviewed that the technology held prom-

ise for providing a varied range of ‘‘public goods.’’

GMOs as Technohype or Public Goods?

Colombian scientists’ motivations for participating

in plant genetic engineering are varied and complex,

encompassing conceptions of public good that target

both economic and food security outcomes. In order to

best represent the complexity of their perspectives and

the context in which they operate, we suggest two in-

terpretations for understanding the commitment to

use GM technology. First, we suggest that the position

taken by genetic engineering scientists can be inter-

preted as a rejection of the idea that expensive

technologies should not be used in resource-poor set-

tings. This idea, we argue, can best be understood

through considering the concept of ‘‘appropriate tech-

nology’’ and its critique. Second, we suggest an

alternate interpretation: that scientific use of genetic

engineering is an example of technological hype and

hope of salvation through scientific progress, with

which development has been historically associated.

The concept of ‘‘appropriate technology’’ was

coined by Schumacher (1973). Schumacher argued

that less expensive technology, created with local ma-

terials and within the financial reach of more

individuals, would create economic development. He

argued that industrial technology would not effec-

tively generate employment, as such technology was

designed to reduce human labor. However, the term

‘‘appropriate technology’’ soon spread to a discussion

in developed nations about the nature of modern so-

ciety (Winner 1986) and to the setting of development

priorities (Farmer 2001). Farmer (2001) argues that, in

the case of accessing medicines in Haiti and other poor

countries, the concept of ‘‘appropriate technology’’ is

used to maintain privilege and justify the denial of

technology to those in resource-poor contexts. Farmer

further argues that we should be suspicious of public

health narratives that claim that medical interventions

need to be ‘‘cost-effective.’’ ‘‘We can no longer accept

whatever we are told about ‘limited resources’ . . . The

wealth of the world has not dried up; it has simply

become unavailable to those who need it most’’

(Farmer 2001:xxvi). He suggests that demarcating ‘‘ap-

propriate’’ technologies is equivalent to saying that

some human beings are entitled to a different level of

technology than others.

Herrera-Estrella (2000) has argued that medical

and agricultural research are similar in their lack of

attention to the needs of developing countries. The

desire of Colombian researchers to use genetic engi-

neering in the face of resource challenges could be

interpreted as a denial of the idea that genetic engi-

neering is not ‘‘appropriate’’ for those in resource poor

contexts. Rather than accept the scientific dominance

of temperate agricultural needs, they are attempting

to create a wider distribution of benefits from the

Culture & Agriculture 33 Vol. 31, No. 1 June 2009

technology by applying it to tropical crops and Co-

lombian local varieties. Their position challenges the

de facto concentration of intellectual property rights

and current GMO market distribution in the hands of

northern-based, multinational corporations. In order

to be sucessful, however, genetic engineering technol-

ogy would have to have a chance to tangibly benefit

farmers, including small farmers. This assumption is

contested (Soleri et al. 2005, 2008) on the grounds that

the needs and practices of farmers are not incorpo-

rated into agricultural research priorities. But does this

mean Colombian scientists should not work toward

achieving such ends using biotechnology?

An alternate interpretation of the position of Co-

lombian scientists using genetic engineering is to

consider their views within the history of invoking

‘‘scientific progress’’ in development discourse. Esco-

bar (1995) has suggested that development discourse

arose as a prominent policy in the post-World War II

period. Instead of improving economic and social

well-being, he argues that it contributed to massive

underdevelopment, impoverishment, and exploitation

in countries intended to be development recipients,

including Colombia. A strong conviction in the pow-

ers of science and technology was a key component of

development policies. Escobar’s account cautions

against the uncritical acceptance of technology’s prom-

ise to resolve social and economic problems.

A powerful platform is created when the idea of

contributing to development through scientific prog-

ress is coupled with the professional desire to

participate in the cutting edge of agricultural science.

The hype and accompanying resources (both material

and symbolic) surrounding biotechnology is more ap-

pealing to many scientists than conventional plant

breeding and crop research. The key question, how-

ever, is who does this research serve? Escobar (1995)

suggests that

The ‘‘tree of research’’ of the North was trans-

planted to the South, and Latin America thus

became part of a transnational system of research.

As some maintain, although this transformation

created new knowledge capabilities, it also im-

plied a further loss of autonomy and the blocking

of different modes of knowing. [Escobar 1995:37]

Plant genetic engineering research in Colombia

may contribute to knowledge that is centered else-

where at the expense of Colombian agricultural needs

and interests. As a result, biotechnology could provide

some resources and prestige to Colombian scientists

without providing the public goods they had hoped

for. This potential is exacerbated by resource-related

difficulties involved in using genetic engineering

and biotechnology, as well as the tendency to secure

funding from outside the country which often in-

cludes incorporating the donor organization’s research

goals. However, this is certainly not the expressed

intention of those doing genetic engineering research

in Colombia.

Conclusion

We present two interpretations concerning Co-

lombian researchers’ intent surrounding scientific

decisions and directions. ‘‘Moments of scientific and

technological change are always sites of struggle over

how the benefits and costs of change will be distrib-

uted’’ (Harding 1998:5). Harding points out that there

is a great deal at stake in such decisions, given conflict

over the distribution of resources, power, and status.

The barriers to agricultural biotechnology in the Co-

lombian case suggest genetic engineering is unlikely to

provide a global contribution on any large scale to-

ward problems of hunger, so long as its use remains

largely monopolized for profit generating purposes.

The case is one in which, as Burkhardt (2001) has

suggested, future benefits or contributions to the

‘‘public good’’ from a technology cannot be assumed,

but must be demonstrated. To some extent, whether

genetic engineering will prove useful for Colombian

scientists and farmers is unknowable at this point. The

scientists who inhabit the accounts here, however, are

actively engaged in a struggle to redirect and more

equally distribute the benefits of this technology by

trying to harness it for local Colombian needs of both

small farmers and exporters. By integrating traits to

serve local needs and by using more local varieties

(rather than ones imported by multinational compa-

nies), they are purposefully including local Colombian

needs and uses into their activities in order to serve

both economic and food security ‘‘public goods.’’ Fur-

ther clarification of exactly for whom public genetic

engineering and biotechnology are providing ‘‘public

goods’’ is crucial to create an accurate assessment of

genetic engineering ‘‘benefits.’’ Realistically assessing

the ‘‘public good’’ of genetic engineering is as impor-

tant as assessing its risks. If different goals for genetic

engineering are not distinguished, as the following

Culture & Agriculture 34 Vol. 31, No. 1 June 2009

Colombian research scientist points out, then the

‘‘goods’’ provided will be for profit purposes rather

than civic ones:

If it is used only to support large agricultural pro-

duction, the members of the network for a Latin

America free of transgenics are going to be right in

thinking that it is an instrument of science that

only serves the powerful.

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by the Social Science and

Humanities Research Council of Canada (doctoral fel-

lowship); the Canadian Institute of Health Research

(CIHR Operating Grant: Risk and regulation of novel

therapeutic products: A case study of biologics and

emerging genetic technologies [CIHR MOP 74473],

Principal Investigator: Janice Graham, and an Institute

of Genetics Short Term Research Visit Grant: Science,

Controversy, and Genetically Modified Plants: Partic-

ipant Observation of the Creation of New Genetic

Knowledge and Edible Vaccines, Principal Investiga-

tor: Christina Holmes); and the International

Development Research Centre (Canadian Window on

Development Award: Seeds, scientists, and suste-

nance: engineering value-added crops in Colombia

and Canada [No. 102667-99906075-010]). JG acknowl-

edges the support of the Canada Research Chairs

program. The authors wish to thank the anonymous

reviewers, Fiona McDonald, Mavis Jones, and Russell

Wyeth for their comments on this paper, as well as

individuals who commented on previous versions of

this work at the 2007 Latin American Studies Associ-

ation Congress and the 2007 Society for Social Studies

of Science meetings.

Notes

1. ‘‘Genetic modification’’ and ‘‘genetic engineering’’ will beused interchangeably here to refer to the insertion of DNAinto an organism’s genome.

2. We will use ‘‘developing country’’ throughout this paperto refer to countries that might otherwise be considered‘‘Third World’’ or ‘‘the global south.’’ While this term iscontroversial, as it is tied to larger discourses which privilegecertain countries as ‘‘developed’’ and imply a ‘‘lack’’ on thepart of ‘‘developing countries’’ (Escobar 1995) and which,further, obscures the wide range of differences between thecountries so labeled, it is nevertheless the most commonlyused term (in Spanish ‘‘paıses en vıa de desarollo’’) by the

scientists interviewed in this research and reflects the struc-tural view of much current international agricultural policy.We add ‘‘tropical’’ to this to draw attention to the key ag-ricultural differences found in tropical environments,particularly the (lack of) global research interest given tothe plants that grow well in these environments.

3. Borlaug won a Nobel peace prize for his breakthroughcreation of dwarf wheat and his subsequent role in the GreenRevolution.

4. These companies were originally based in the UnitedStates or Europe, although in a global environment, theymay declare their ‘‘headquarters’’ and therefore their incomein other countries for tax purposes.

5. For a more detailed description of the kinds of challengesfaced at this stage, see (Potrykus 2001) in reference to thegolden rice case.

6. Sugar cane is extensively grown in this area.

References Cited

Altieri, Miguel A.

2001 Genetic Engineering in Agriculture: The Myths, En-

vironmental Risks, and Alternatives. Oakland: Food

First/Institute for Food and Development Policy.

Altieri, M. A. and P. Rosset

1999 Diez razones que explican por que la biotecnologıa

no garantizara la seguridad alimentarıa, ni protegera

el ambiente, ni reducira la pobreza en el tercer mun-

do. Electronic document, http://www.foodfirst.org/

progs/global/ge/altieri-11-99s.html, accessed Jan-

uary 14, 2005.

Altieri, M. A. and P. Rosset

2002 Ten Reasons Why Biotechnology Will Not Ensure

Food Security, Protect the Environment, or Reduce

Poverty in the Developing World. In Ethical Issues

in Biotechnology. Richard Sherlock and John D.

Morrey, eds. 175–182. Lanham: Rowman & Little

Publishers, Inc.

Atkinson-Grosjean, Janet

2006 Public Science, Private Interests: Culture and

Commerce in Canada’s Networks of Centres of

Excellence. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Bibeau, Gilles, Janice E. Graham, and Usher Fleising

2007 Bioscience and Biotechnology Under Ethno-

graphic Surveillance: Where Do Canadian Medical

Culture & Agriculture 35 Vol. 31, No. 1 June 2009

Anthropologists Stand? In Medical Anthropology:

Regional Perspective and Shared Concerns. Fran-

cine Saillant and Serge Genest, eds. Pp. 3–22.

Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Borlaug, Norman E.

2001 Ending World Hunger: The Promise of Biotechnol-

ogy and the Threat of Antiscience Zealotry. In Of

Frankenfoods and Golden Rice: Risks, Rewards,

and Realities of Genetically Modified Foods. Fred-

erick H. Buttel and Robert M. Goodman, eds. Pp.

25–34. Madison: Wisconsin Academy of Sciences,

Arts and Letters.

Brookes, G. and P. Barfoot

2006 Brief 36: GM Crops: The First Ten Years – Global

Socio-Economic and Environmental Impacts.

Electronic document, http://www.isaaa.org/

resources/publications/briefs/36/default.html, ac-

cessed November 5, 2007.

Burkhardt, Jeffrey

2001 Agricultural Biotechnology and the Future Benefits

Argument. Journal of Agricultural and Environ-

mental Ethics 14: 135–145.

CAMBIA

2008 CAMBIA Homepage. Electronic document, http://

www.cambia.org/daisy/cambia/home.html, accessed

January 21, 2008.

Cleveland, David A. and Daniela Soleri

2004 Farmers’ Rights and Genetically Engineered Crop

Varieties. Anthropology News 45(4):7–8.

Cozzens, Susan E., Sonia Catchair, Kyung-Sup Kim, Gonzalo

Ordonez, and Anupit Supnithadnaporn

2008 Knowledge and Development. In The Handbook of

Science and Technology Studies. Edward J. Hackett,

Olga Amsterdamska, Michael Lynch and Judy

Wajcman, eds. Pp. 787–811. Cambridge, MA: The

MIT Press.

Doyle, A.

2008 Biotechnology Seen as a Key to Solving Food Crisis.

Electronic document, http://www.sciam.com/

article.cfm?id=biotechnology-seen-as-a-k, accessed

April 6, 2008.

Drucker, Peter F.

2003 Post Capitalist Society. New York: Harper-

Business.

Escobar, Arturo

1995 Encountering Development: The Making and Un-

making of the Third World. Princeton: Princeton

University Press.

ETC Group

2002 Fix, Nix, & Tricks: The World Food Summit and the

US Government-an ETC Translator. Electronic docu-

ment, http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publi

cations.html?pub_id=209, accessed April 6, 2008.

Falcon, W. P. and C. Fowler

2002 Carving Up the Commons - Emergence of a New

International Regime for Germplasm Development

and Transfer. Food Policy 27: 197–222.

Farmer, Paul

2001 Infections and Inequalities: The Modern Plagues.

Berkeley: University of California Press.

Fitting, Elizabeth

2006a The Political Uses of Culture: Maize Production

and the GM Corn Debates in Mexico. Focaal:

European Journal of Anthropology 2006(48):17–34.

Fitting, Elizabeth

2006b Importing Corn, Exporting Labor: The Neoliberal

Corn Regime, GMOs, and the Erosion of Mexican

Biodiversity. Agriculture and Human Values

23(1):15–26.

Fleising, Usher

2001 In Search of Genohype: A Content Analysis of Bio-

technology Company Documents. New Genetics

and Society 20(3):239–254.

Gilpin, Robert

2001 Global Political Economy: Understanding the Inter-

national Economic Order. Princeton: Princeton

University Press.

Graham, J. E.

2005 Risks and Regulation of Novel Therapeutic Prod-

ucts: A Case Study of Biologics and Emerging

Genetic Technologies. Canadian Institutes of Health

Research (CIHR) Operating Grant (MOP 74473)

Application.

Harding, Sandra

1998 Is Science Multi-Cultural? Postcolonialisms, Femi-

nisms, and Epistemologies. Bloomington: Indiana

University Press.

Culture & Agriculture 36 Vol. 31, No. 1 June 2009

Hayden, Cori

2003 When Nature Goes Public: The Making and Un-

making of Bioprospecting in Mexico. Princeton:

Princeton University Press.

Herrera-Estrella, Luis R.

2000 Genetically Modified Crops and Developing Coun-

tries. Plant Physiology 124: 923–925.

Holmes, Christina

2006 GMOs in the Lab: Objects without Everyday Con-

troversy. Focaal: European Journal of Anthropology

2006(48):35–48.

Holtzman, N. A.

2001 Are Genetic Tests Adequately Regulated? Science

286(4539):409–410.

Jasanoff, Sheila

2005 Designs on Nature: Science & Democracy in Europe

and the United States. Princeton: Princeton Univer-

sity Press.

Lurquin, Paul F.

2001 The Green Phoenix: A History of Genetically Mod-

ified Plants. New York: Columbia University Press.

Martin, P.

2001 Winning the World Over: Speech by the Honour-

able Paul Martin, Minister of Finance for Canada,

to the Canadian Society of New York. Electronic

document, http://www.fin.gc.ca/news01/01-007e.

html, accessed November 5, 2007.

McGloughlin, Martina

2002 Ten Reasons Why Biotechnology Will be Important

in the Developing World. In Ethical Issues in Bio-

technology. Richard Sherlock and John D. Morrey,

eds. Pp. 161–173. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Little

Publishers, Inc.

Mirowski, Philip and Esther-Mirjam Sent

2008 The Commercialization of Science and the Re-

sponse of STS. In The Handbook of Science and

Technology Studies. Edward J. Hackett, Olga Am-

sterdamska, Michael Lynch and Judy Wajcman, eds.

Pp. 635–689. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Nader, Laura

1972 Up the Anthropologist - Perspectives Gained from

Studying Up. In Reinventing Anthropology. Dell

Hymes, ed. Pp. 284–311. New York: Random House.

Parayil, Govindan

2003 Mapping Technological Trajectories of the Green

Revolution and the Gene Revolution from Mod-

ernization to Globalization. Research Policy 32:

971–990.

Patton, John S.

2006 A Historical Perspective on Convergence Technol-

ogy. Nature Biotechnology 24:280–281.

Potrykus, Ingo

2001 Golden Rice and Beyond. Plant Physiology 125:

1157–1161.

Schumacher, E. F.

1973 Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered.

London: Blond and Briggs.

Shiva, Vandana

2000 Stolen Harvest. Cambridge, MA: South End Press.

Simmonds, N. W.

1993 Introgression and Incorporation. Strategies for the

Use of Crop Genetic Resources. Biological Reviews

68:539–562.

Soleri, Daniela, David Cleveland, Flavio Aragon, Mario R.

Fuentes, Rıos L. Humberto, and Stuart H. Sweeney

2005 Understanding the Potential Impact of Transgenic

Crops in Traditional Agriculture: Maize Farmers’

Perspective in Cuba, Guatemala, and Mexico. En-

vironment and Biosafety Research 4(3):144–166.

Soleri, Daniela, David Cleveland, Garrett Glasgow, Stuart H.

Sweeney, Flavio Aragon Cuevas, Mario R. Fuentes, and

Rıos L. Humberto

2008 Testing Assumptions Underlying Economic Re-

search on Transgenic Food Crops for Third World

Farmers: Evidence from Cuba, Guatemala and

Mexico. Ecological Economics 67(4):667–682.

Stone, Glenn D.

2007 Agricultural Deskilling and the Spread of Geneti-

cally Modified Cotton in Warangal. Current

Anthropology 48(1):67–103.

Tambornini, Ezequiel

2003 Biotecnologıa: La Otra Guerra. Buenos Aires,

Argentina: Fondo de Cultura Economica.

Waring, Marilyn

1988 If Women Counted: a New Feminist Economics.

San Francisco: Harper Collins.

Culture & Agriculture 37 Vol. 31, No. 1 June 2009

Weiss, R.

2008 Firms Seek Patents on ‘Climate Ready’ Altered Crops.

Electronic document, http://www.washingtonpost.

com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/12/AR200805

1202919.html?hpid=moreheadlines, accessed June 1,

2008.

Winner, Langdon

1986 The Whale and the Reactor: A Search for Limits in

an Age of High Technology. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.

Yamin, F.

2003 Intellectual Property Rights, Biotechnology and Food

Security. Electronic document, http://www.ids.ac.

uk/biotech, accessed June 15, 2003.

Culture & Agriculture 38 Vol. 31, No. 1 June 2009