Conflict of interest at Irish Times

by david's students - tcd Tue Oct 23, 2007 22:57

You don't know the half of David McConnell's wheels, deals and pulling strokes until you've become his student. He relates to students in one manner- agree with me and humour me for your career sakes.He pushes his dogmatic views down students throats. There are issues of security for student's personal belongings which he ignores and at this stage we are afraid to raise the matter further for fear of destroying our careers in genetics. Genetics is something we all have to consider as a possible means of altering crop yields to support an increasing population but there are better champions than David to allow a reasonable, democratic and consenting debate of the technology and having been his student I am actually worried about the issue of GM foods being bulldozed through as if Ireland were merely an extension of his vice-deanery.
I support the introduction of GM foods......but not a David McConnell led introduction.....everyone has the right to object and it should be a consensus agreement with respect to present world needs and our best guess of the effects of climate change on our future world.
( Please keep my identity safe from the genetics department in TCD)

by arthur Sun Oct 22, 2006 01:59

We should at least require an environmental impact assessment before planting any of the stuff in
the fields. Some thought should be given to waiting for nano technology that is nearer the bottom and a better indication of the way things are organised in the quantum world.
Every issue surrounding this science is being censored by the mainstream media and an opportunity of selling Ireland as a food island will be lost if we go down the GM road.The pole vaulter with his pole for the high jump has a glass stopper on the end to plug the mouth of any concerned voices that might upset the status quo. He seems to be everywhere these days. We need educational meetings to alert some of the stupid farmers that they could be selling their childrens future if they go down the GM route. What use is the opinion of 10 Thousand people if they know nothing of the subject .They could learn something if they read Jeffery Smith's books "seeds of deception and genetic roulette".

by Sheila Thu Oct 19, 2006 18:39

Good to see this issue raised. The connections between NUI and the major corporates is a humungous public interest boil that needs urgent lancing.

Stephen Jackson of the International Famine Centre at UCC is one alternative voice in the NUI pro-GM wilderness. Article from the Irish Times:

Who are the real beneficiaries of GM foods?

The prospects for genetically modified foods helping to feed the world are assessed by Kevin O'Sullivan, Environmental and Food Science Correspondent

The developers of genetically modified (GM) foods always think big. The approach, generally, is to show a graph on projected global population growth (doubling within 40 years), relate it to food output and conclude it will soon be impossible to feed the world.

A white knight is then unveiled: "GM crops . . . it can be done!" With the US biotechnology company, Monsanto, this dominates its global advertising: "Worrying about starving future generations won't feed them. Food biotechnology will."

The technology is radical and persuasive, given its ability to increase production using the same land volumes. Many, including the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, endorse it as vital to future global food production. Within development organisations in the west and Third World, such certainty is largely absent.

In the latter camp, ecological campaigner Ms Vandana Shiva considers it a move to "producing scarcity through one-dimensional monocultures".

But why are biotechnology companies spending billions of dollars on seed companies? Mr. Arnold Donald, Monsanto's senior vice-president, on a recent Irish visit said it was "not a process of buying market access but of buying plant breeding capabilities by way of alliances". Even if Monsanto wanted to own all the seed, it is never going to own all the enabling technology.

Rural Advancement Foundation International (RAFI) is dedicated to sustainable improvement of agricultural biodiversity. It puts seeds buy-up in a broader context: "Access to biodiversity is the lifeblood of commercial biotechnology. The genes from plants, animals and micro-organisms that flourish in the forests, fields and seas of the southern hemisphere are the strategic `raw materials' for the development of agricultural, pharmaceutical and industrial products."

Ms Shiva says we are witnessing the transformation of farmers as breeders/producers of their own seed supply to farmers as consumers of proprietary seed from multinational-owned seed industry - all triggered by a massive scale-up in GM crop production: 30 million acres this year. The first GM food products were resistant to disease, insects or herbicides. The second, within five years, will see GM foods with quality traits such as high starch or ability to produce vaccines. The third, Monsanto predicts, will see crops used as "environmentally friendly 'factories' to produce substances for human consumption". RAFI does not share the optimism, believing biosynthesis (laboratory production) of tropical commodities "will ultimately transfer production out of farmers' fields in the south to bioreactors in the north" with economic havoc left in its wake. Its executive director, Mr. Pat Mooney, says rich companies have never fed poor countries, and he does not believe this is going to change. Looking at traits currently being generated, such as the "flavr-savr" tomato, they are "hardly going to benefit starving people", he adds.

On the issue of GM crops and food supply, Dr. Stephen Jackson, director of UCC's international famine centre, says tackling food shortages is not a simple matter of scaling-up production. "Famines emerge not because there is insufficient food overall, but because certain groups are denied access to the food that there is."

Famines are caused by many factors - wars, political instability, economic oppression, employment crises, with only a secondary contribution from "natural" factors such as drought. Where does that leave GM crops?

"It has been part of the propaganda of certain biotechnology firms to assert that these crops will simply eradicate world hunger on their own", says Dr. Jackson. "This is dangerous fiction and a disingenuous marketing hype."

Dr. Patrick O'Reilly of Monsanto has dismissed suggestions his company has a voracious bent on global domination. He says its feed-the-world advertising is often taken out of context. It merely suggests the technology is a tool for generating higher and better quality food, he says. Traits that extend food shelf-life, "vaccine cuisine", and disease resistance, "are in the interests of developing countries" despite what the critics say. He says Monsanto often imparts technological capability to Third World states through its large "philanthropic budget".

The Panos Institute, a non-governmental organisation in the UK focusing on sustainable development, this week issued its evaluation of GM foods and world hunger issues. Greed or Need concludes it is "too early to know whether either the benefits or the fears will materialise". Meanwhile, "the technology raises new questions of science, law, ethics and economics which should be thoroughly debated around the world".