Wrapped up in this statement is the blatant implicit – and highly questionable – assumption that genetically modifying humans is an inevitable and broadly desirable goal. Biotech Juggernaut discusses the appalling history of the eugenics movement, which led to the forcible sterilisation of tens of thousands of US citizens deemed unfit to reproduce (a disproportionate number of them Black women and Latinas), right up through the 1970s. The authors warn that: “The anticipated genetic revolution could, if left unguided by moral reflection and unlimited by ethical boundaries, encourage a science-spurred version of the same eugenic outcome.” This potential misuse of new genetic engineering techniques is also clearly of concern to CRISPR inventor Jennifer Doudna. She recounts a chilling dream she had in which Adolph Hitler wanted to learn more about CRISPR, presumably to use it for eugenics. Human germline modification raises a raft of serious safety, social, and ethical concerns. These range from the prospect of irreversible harms to the health, wellbeing and identity of children and future generations, to concerns about opening the door to new forms of social inequality, discrimination, and conflict. This is exactly why we shouldn’t be letting scientists alone write the rules on what kind of research is ethically acceptable.
Synthetic biology Biotech Juggernaut also discusses the emerging field of synthetic biology where synbio entrepreneurs seek to create life using computer designed or artificial DNA. As one synthetic biologist characterised it, theoretically bacteria in a vat can now be genetically modified to create anything traditionally harvested from a plant. However, this raises profound ethical issues. As Stevens and Newman observe: “Such hijacking of microbial processes is resulting in vast fortunes for many biocorporations in the industrial north. But for traditional guardians of plantbased economies, chiefly farming and peasant societies in the global south, synthetic biology as practiced destroys livelihoods and communities.” Biotech Juggernaut highlights the importance of society as a whole participating in discussions and decisions about how – and even if – we use new technologies and how they should be regulated. Instead, the very individuals who seek to commercialise dangerous new GM techniques are being allowed to write the rules about how and if they are regulated. Biotech Juggernaught: Hope, Hype, and Hidden Agendas of Entrepreneurial BioScience by Tina Stevens and Stuart Newman is published by Routledge. Biotech Juggernaut is published by Routledge, www.routledge.com Louise Sales coordinates Friends of the Earth’s Emerging Tech Project.
Official channels Brian Martin Sparsnäs, Sweden: Irene Publishing, 2020 ISBN 978-91-88061-44-7 PDF available for free at www.bmartin. cc/pubs/20oc/20oc.pdf Printed copies from www.lulu.com Official Channels – available as a free download – is written by Brian Martin, emeritus professor at the University of Wollongong, and published by Irene Publishing, a non-profit operation, committed to providing works relevant to grassroots social change. Official channels are things like grievance procedures, ombudsmen and courts. They are supposed to resolve problems and provide justice. However, trust in official channels can be misplaced: in many cases they may give only an illusion of a solution. In Official Channels, Martin tells what he has learned about formal procedures set up to deal with problems associated with whistleblowing, sexual harassment, plagiarism, Wikipedia and other issues. He says it is unwise to put too much reliance on official channels and that more emphasis should be put on developing skills, changing cultures and exploring alternatives.
46
Chain Reaction #139
May 2021
Martin writes: “After I became president of Whistleblowers Australia in 1996, I heard from whistleblowers every week. Many of them repeated the same story: grievance procedures and watchdogs (organisations intended to stop wrongdoing) were unhelpful. In the early 2000s, I developed the backfire model. When powerful groups do something seen as unjust, they regularly use a variety of methods to reduce public outrage. One of them is to use or set up official channels, such as government-initiated inquiries, that gave an appearance of providing justice, usually without much substance. In formulating this component of the model, I was influenced by my prior experience with whistleblowers, but soon discovered plenty of evidence that the same methods are used in many other circumstances.” Brian Martin is the author of 20 books and hundreds of articles on dissent, nonviolent action, scientific controversies and other topics. His website is www.bmartin.cc/index.html
