Public Research and Regulation Initiative

From Powerbase
Jump to: navigation, search

Established in December 2004 in the Netherlands, the Public Research and Regulation Initiative (PRRI) is a foundation with the stated aim of involving 'the public research sector in regulations relevant to the development and application of biotechnology'. The implicit concern is that the 'development and application' of Genetically Modified Organisms will be obstructed if regulations are too extensive, too complex or too stringent.

Lobbying for GM

The foundation's focus is not just on national regulations, and how they are implemented, but on the international agreements that influence them, particularly the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, which controls the trade in Genetically Modified Organisms. It is the view of the foundation that while industry and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) were well represented both at the the negotiations that led to the adoption of the Protocol and at the first Meeting of Parties to the Protocol (MOP1 in February 2004), a third group 'the public research sector involved in developing biotechnological applications' should also have been given a voice. The aim of the foundation is to make sure this sector has a bigger say on the Protocol at MOP2 (May-June 2005) and beyond.

The foundation also wants to talk up the benefits of public research into genetically modified crops and, in particular, to counter the 'misconception' that GM crops are 'the exclusive domain of a handful of big, western multinationals.' The foundation contrasts this handful of big companies with a 'public research sector involved in developing biotechnological applications, which includes over a hundred thousand researchers in thousands of governmental, academic and international research institutions in developing and developed countries.'

It is unclear how reliable these figures are, however, particularly as the foundation uses the vague term 'biotechnological applications', which could have relevance to a whole variety of fields (medical, industrial, environmental and agricultural) and to a wide range of biological processes. It seems likely that the number of researchers involved specifically in developing GM crops - the foundation's main point of concern - is a small fraction of the figure the foundation quotes. Moreover, following the launch of the initiative, and in the run up to MOP2, the 'list of public sector scientists and others who support the initiative and wish to be actively involved in the activities' of the foundation amounted to just 113 scientists (as at 19 May 2005).

Links to Industry

The list of those supporting the initiative also undermines the foundation's clear cut separation of public research and private companies. The list includes:

  • Dr. Andrew Bennett of the Syngenta Foundation for Sustainable Agriculture. 3 of the 5 seats on the Syngenta Foundation's board are occupied by directors of Syngenta, the world's largest biotech corporation, and Syngenta's Chairman is the Foundation's President. The Syngenta Foundation has been accused, by Aaron deGrassi of the Institute of Development Studies, of conducting showcase projects that are more about generating useful public relations for GM crops than meeting the real needs of poor farmers in the developing world.
  • Prof. Phil Dale, the Chairman, works at the John Innes Centre, which has benefitted from tens of millions of pounds in funding from big biotechnology corporations.

This public-private convergence can also be seen in the way in which the initiative was launched. The formal launch took place at the Danforth Center in St. Louis, Missouri (3-4 March, 2005), hosted by Roger Beachy, the Center's founding president. St Louis is the home town of Monsanto, and the Danforth Center was, in fact, established by Monsanto 'and academic partners' with a $70-million pledge from the company. Monsanto also donated the 40-acre tract of land, valued at $11.4 million, on which the Center is built.

Similarly, Monsanto and other biotechnology companies have helped to fund the research of the Center's founding president, Roger Beachy. As well as being on the Public Research and Regulation foundation's Steering Committee, Beachy is also co-Chair of the scientific advisory board of the Akkadix Corporation, a global agricultural biotechnology company. He is also on the scientific advisory board of Spacehab, Inc. Beachy is also a consultant to the United Soybean Board which works to 'make U.S. soybeans the world leader' . This clearly illustrates the extent to which a public sector biotechnologist can be enmeshed in a series of private sector interests.

The activities of the foundation are similarly enmeshed. Prior to the formal launch of the foundation, a number of 'awareness raising activities' at events involving public sector scientists were undertaken with the financial support of the private sector. The private sector is also contributing to the running costs of the foundation. The foundation is even administered via a private sector company - Cambridge Biomedical Consultants Ltd.

Conflicting interests also enmesh the prime movers behind the initiative, Willy de Greef and Piet van der Meer, who are on the Foundation's four-member Board as well as being the Vice-Chairs of its Steering Committee. De Greef is currently the Executive Director of his own private consultancy - International Biotech Regulatory Services - but until the end of 2002 he was the Global Head of Regulatory Affairs - Biotechnology for Syngenta.

Syngenta has been a key player in the Global Industry Coalition which has represented the biotechnology industry throughout the Biosafety Protocol negotiations. Although it has been claimed in relation to the initiative that, 'nobody has mobilized these [public sector] scientists before', this is not in fact the case. In 1997 de Greef was part of a panel of 'public researchers' brought in to support the industry's case by the Global Industry Coalition during the course of the Biosafety Protocol negotiations. Although unsuccessful at the time, this attempt to influence the negotiations appears to have provided the model for the Public Research and Regulation initiative - with the crucial difference that the 'public researchers' are now presented as a third party, wholly independent of industry.

De Greef has also been Chairman of the ICC Commission on Biosociety, which has sought to project a positive vision of biotechnology to government and international policy-makers in order to counter what de Greef calls the 'uncoordinated proliferation of international policies and regulations affecting the life sciences'. 'Everybody seems to feel the need to make laws about the life sciences,' de Greef was quoted as saying and this 'threatens the survival of the innovative wave.' From this, it seems that what de Greef was trying to achieve as head of a Commission of '40 senior executives from companies and business associations involved in agriculture, food processing and pharmaceuticals' was strikingly similar to what he is now trying to achieve via the Public Research and Regulation foundation. The critical difference is that there is no ambiguity about whom the ICC (International Chamber of Commerce) represents. (Companies form group to champion biotechnology)

The other main mover behind the Public Research and Regulation foundation, Piet van der Meer, is married to a lobbyist for the Global Industry Coalition. As Laura Reifschneider, Laura van der Meer won notoriety during the Protocol negotiations for the fervour of her lobbying on behalf of the Coalition.

Laura Reifschneider's husband-to-be was also involved in the negotiations, ostensibly as a non-partisan expert chairing the technical terms subworking group in the Protocol negotiations throughout their duration. However, Dr Tewolde Berhan Gebre Egziabher, Director General of the Environmental Protection Authority of Ethiopia and Chair of the Africa Group at the Protocol negotiations, found Piet van der Meer to be very far from impartial. 'Piet was the most unfair of the chairs in the negotiations. Many of our delegates were, understandably, not very fluent in English. He used to make them sound as ridiculous as he could by finding fault with how they said what they said, instead of focusing on the content. He often blatantly disregarded them when they wanted to make interventions. Sometimes he championed ideas, disregarding the fact that he was chairing. For example, he made the issue of protoplastic fusion almost useless by championing that it be considered as a biosafety issue only when the fusion happend accross a taxonomic level above the family.' (personal communication)

Piet van der Meer is also said to have shown a similar bias in the post he subsequently took up in December 2002 as Programme Manager of the United Nations Environmental Program-GEF Projects on Implementation of National Biosafety Frameworks. The aim of these projects was to assist countries to develop national biosafety regulations in line with the Biosafety Protocol but Juan López Villar of Friends of the Earth International, who observed Piet van der Meer in action at a UNEP workshop in Turkey in December 2003, says van der Meer used his UNEP role to implicitely promote 'a fast-track process of creating minimalist biosafety frameworks'. (personal communication)

Funding

According to its website PRRI has "requested and received financial support from governments, national and international organisations and the private sector". Prior to the formal launch of the foundation, a number of 'awareness raising activities' at events involving public sector scientists were undertaken with the financial support of the private sector. The private sector also contributes to PRRI's running costs. The foundation is even administered via a private sector company – Cambridge Biomedical Consultants Ltd.

According to its website, it has received funding from:

Governments

  • Government of Canada
  • Government of Spain
  • Government of Switzerland
  • Government of the United States

Non Governmental organisations

Private sector

Selling the Third World on GM

Some of van der Meer's critics in developing countries accuse him of 'letting industry in to biosafety development' via the UNEP-GEF initiative. They point to the UNEP-GEF Workshop on the Implementation of the National Biosafety Framework of Kenya (April 2003) as a classic example. Here the international panel of 'independent experts' - 'Resouce Persons' - who addressed the Kenyan bureaucrats and others on the issues of GM crops and their regulation at the start of the workshop, consisted of:

Amidst considerable criticism, Van de Meer quit UNEP for private consultancy.

Willy de Greef has also been in the firing line over what is seen as an extreme bias in the way he has sought to promote GMOs. In February 2005 de Greef was invited to address an audience of 'producers and agribusiness representatives from across the United States' at a U.S. Grain Council's Meeting in California. According to a press report, de Greef told his audience that the 'failure of developing countries to accept genetically enhanced crops is a tragedy'.

Referring indirectly to the rejection of GM food aid by Zambia, he is reported to have talked about the need to identify those responsible for the 'outrage' and 'tragedy' of having 'children starve' rather than eat 'genetically enhanced foods': 'How did we get that far; who was responsible for whispering (those) messages to those policy makers… That is something that I would rather sooner or later want to find out, because you're talking about literally crimes against humanity.' In fact, not a single person is known to have died as a result of the Zambian government's decision to reject GM grain. Alternative non-GM supplies were found and there does not appear to have been any kind of 'tragedy', let alone 'crimes against humanity'. In short, de Greef appears to have rewritten history in order to create a compelling argument for GM crop adoption. (Biotech Rejection a 'Tragedy')

The backgrounds and behaviour of those supporting this initiative suggest it would be unwise to take at face value their demands that they should be allowed to 'weigh in' at meetings that help determine biosafety rules on the grounds that they represent a large group of disenfranchised experts who are independent of industry.

At the Meeting of the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety

PRRI was active at the meeting of the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety in Montreal in 2005. It had more than 20 scientists at the talks to put across its views.

Those with PRRI in Montreal include the group's Chairman, Phil Dale, PRRI Steering Committee member, Dr Roger Beachy who is also the founding President of the Danforth Center, which was established by Monsanto 'and academic partners' with a $70-million pledge from Monsanto as well as a 40-acre tract of land, valued at $11.4 million. Beachy is also co-Chair of the scientific advisory board of the Akkadix Corporation, a global agricultural biotechnology company, on the scientific advisory board of Spacehab, Inc. He's also a consultant to the United Soybean Board which works to 'make U.S. soybeans the world leader'.

PRRI founder Piet van der Meer is also in Montreal, as is his wife Laura – a lobbyist for the biotech industry's Global Industry Coalition. Disturbingly, Van der Meer has also had a role within the negotiations this year, as in the past, as an impartial expert but his record in this respect is not a good one. Dr Tewolde Egziabher, Chair of the Africa Group at the Protocol negotiations, has found van der Meer at past negotiations to be the very opposite of impartial. 'Piet was the most unfair of the chairs in the negotiations. Many of our delegates were, understandably, not very fluent in English. He used to make them sound as ridiculous as he could... (and) blatantly disregarded them when they wanted to make interventions. Sometimes he championed ideas, disregarding the fact that he was chairing.'

Best Scientists Money Can Buy

Among other scientists in Montreal with PRRI are:

Contact

Secretariat Public Research and Regulation Initiative
Attn of: Kim Meulenbroeks
c.o. Delft University of Technology, Working Group Biotechnology and Society
Julianalaan 67, 2628 BC Delft, The Netherlands
Phone: +31-15-278-6654
Fax: +31-15–278-2355
Email: kim.meulenbroeks@pubresreg.org
Website: http://www.pubresreg.org/
Retrieved from "https://powerbase.info/index.php?title=Public_Research_and_Regulation_Initiative&oldid=87850"