GMOS
in the Global Political Economy
Institute for Research on World-Systems
University of California-Riverside
Science and technologies both have consequences
for, and are affect by, the global political economy. Though both the sciences
that enable genetic modifications of organisms and the commercial activities
that emerge from the application of these new techniques are unique in many
respects, they also share important characteristics with older innovations and
business sectors, so that a historical and comparative approach to “new lead
industries” can shed light on the present and the future of GMOs in the global
political economy.
Obviously both the overall rates of
economic growth and the spatial distribution of economic growth have
consequences for the funding of basic science and the development of commercial
applications. So biotechnology will be slowed or speeded up depending on the
ebbs and floods of the global political economy over the next few decades.
Stable governance and growth will be favorable, while stagnation and conflict
will slow down biotech science and commercialization.
And biotechnology may itself have an
impact on the trajectories and patterns of international development,
cooperation, competition and conflict. Here we may learn from comparing
biotechnology to earlier new lead industries – e.g. steam power,
electrification, information technology and nuclear energy. New lead industries
have stimulated waves of economic development by fundamentally transforming
processes of production. And they have played an important role in the rise and
fall of leading (hegemonic) national economies such as the United Kingdom of
Great Britain in the nineteenth century and the United States in the twentieth
century. One important question about biotechnology concerns the role that it
will play in a possible future revitalization of U.S. economic hegemony in the
next decades.
Much
of the recent attention paid to the international aspects of agricultural and
medical biotechnology impacts has focused on North/South issues about the
patenting of genomes and the effects of the industrialization of agriculture on
peasantries in the Third World. But there is also a North/North aspect that has
emerged with resistance in Japan, the United Kingdom and Europe to genetically
modified foods. Significant
popular resistance to genetically modified foods could be an important factor affecting
the profitability of food-producing biotechnology. The perception of significant risks, as in the nuclear power
industry, can influence both science and commerce. And to the extent that biotechnology is
perceived as new technology in which the U.S. has a significant advantage,
anti-U.S. sentiment may fuel further resistance to biotechnology. Thus can
geopolitics be an important factor.
It is commonly believed that the high start-up costs of
biotechnology research and development should retard the emergence of
competitors. This has been seen as part of the explanation for why
biotechnology research, development and commercialization in Europe and Japan
have lagged behind the U.S. But there
have been some developments that cast doubt on these characterizations. The
Peoples’ Republic of China began a substantial state-sponsored initiative in
biotechnology in the 1980s and many important products of this program have
been implemented in Chinese agriculture on a huge scale, with allegedly great
beneficial effects. Singapore has also succeeded in establishing a successful
biotechnology sector by targeted investments and the importation of scientific
talent from abroad. These start-ups imply that entry into the biotechnology
industry is not as restricted as had been assumed, and that competition for
shares of world demand for the products of biotechnology will speed up the
product cycle, making it more difficult for particular countries, including the
U.S., to garner technological rents for very long.
In the long run there is little
doubt that biotechnology science and commerce will provide useful outcomes, but
the coming decades may see increasing disputes about biotechnology that will
have important consequences for both science and business. Business cycles and
contentions for world leadership will be important contextual factors, and
biotechnology may itself play an important part in these global processes.