San Francisco

Conway: fears public hostility to GM will harm development. Credit: AP/EDWARD REEVES

Public opposition to agricultural biotechnology in the industrial world could rob developing countries of the fruits of genetic research that are vital to their survival, according to Gordon Conway, the president of the Rockefeller Foundation.

Conway, who came to the foundation 18 months ago from a position as vice-chancellor of the University of Sussex in Brighton, England, is a renowned agricultural ecologist. He urges biotech multinationals to do more to address the ethical, economic, environmental and safety issues posed by crop manipulation, before a hostile public shuts down their operations.

He argues that the genetic engineering of food poses risks — such as outcrossing into wild species and the creation of new viruses — that should be examined more closely. But he also emphasizes the potential benefits.

In an effort to address these issues, the Rockefeller is committing more than $1 million a year to fund projects that foster constructive dialogue. In particular, the New York-based foundation aims to help developing countries become better informed and take a stronger role in policy discussions, so they can decide for themselves what level of risk is appropriate without becoming guinea-pigs for wealthier nations.

For example, the foundation recently gave $260,000 to the African Centre for Technology Studies in Nairobi for a two-year project intended to help six African governments develop their positions on genetic engineering and biodiversity.

Conway says the biotechnology industry has shown a new willingness to respond to argument. Monsanto, for example, recently promised not to develop the ‘Terminator’ technology that would make its seeds sterile and force farmers to buy new ones every year.

In early October, Monsanto's chief executive Robert Shapiro acknowledged the need to find common ground with biotechnology's opponents. He told the Greenpeace Business Conference in London that, until now, Monsanto had “irritated and antagonized more people than we have persuaded”.

Du Pont, based in Wilmington, Delaware, plans to form an advisory group to review its activities in agricultural biotechnology and to provide a critique of the company's performance.

Conway praises these moves as “a good first step”. But he urges the companies to do more, for example by donating enabling technologies to developing countries, by accepting ‘plant variety’ protection instead of seeking patents, and by using part of their profits to assist public-sector research.

Labelling should be considered a ‘freedom of information’ issue, says Conway, in that the public has a right to know what it is eating and to choose whether to buy genetically engineered foods. Companies may decide not to develop certain technologies because of social concerns, he adds. He urges governments, corporations, activists and scientists from the developed and the developing world to pinpoint significant issues and negotiate solutions.

Behind Conway's suggestions is a concern that public opposition to private initiatives could undermine public programmes, such as those financed by the Rockefeller Foundation.

“We are concerned that the public sector science is being constrained on the one end by limited access to the technologies, and on the other by increasing wariness about getting involved because [biotechnology] is so unpopular,” said Gary Toenniessen, deputy director of agricultural services for Rockefeller.

Crop research that could help poor countries is not being pursued by companies, and some of the aid donors are becoming increasingly squeamish about it, he says.

The Rockefeller Foundation has spent more than $100 million on plant biotechnology research, focusing on helping the poor. Scientists receiving its funds recently announced that they had used genetic modification to make rice produce β-carotene (which is converted to vitamin A) and iron, nutrients lacking in the diets of developing countries. After checks on its environmental and human effects, the rice will be donated to developing countries.