Platinum eyes, an iron grip, muscles of steel, and a wooden delivery. Arnold Schwarzenegger truly was The Terminator. In the eponymous film, The Terminator is an abject baddie, a killing automaton from the future sent to extinguish the leader of the rebellious forces by killing his mother before she conceives. Naturally, The Terminator fails in his task, as anyone familiar both with the imperturbable nature of timelines and the conventions governing movie storylines could have forecast. In the sequel, however, the roles would be reversed, The Terminator turning out to be a goodie, a robotic guardian sent back to protect the teenage rebel leader from an adversary of pure liquid metal evil.

The story of the Terminator gene looks set to follow a similar path as one environmental representative tentatively proposes that there may be a role, after all, for genes that limit the fertility of GM crops (see p. 212). Inattentive readers may need to be reminded that the Terminator technology was, in essence, a molecular switch that prevented the germination of seeds. Crops containing the Terminator technology were never marked. However, the mere concept of a gene that rendered plants unable to provide seed was sufficient to foment revulsion in the breast of those already discontented with the idea of GM plants. Gordon Conway, head of the Rockefeller Foundation, argued that it was unethical to deprive developing world farmers of the potential benefits of GM plants in the cause of corporate profitability and called upon the agricultural seed industry to “disavow the use of terminator technology.” Monsanto capitulated to the pressure in October 1999. The 2000 corporate pledge of a born-again and humbler Monsanto affirmed its commitment “not to pursue technologies that result in sterile seeds.” Other seed companies have made similar commitments.

The new Terminator technology, like the robot in Terminator II, would, it is envisaged, be a humbler, kindlier beast. Its role would not be to prevent resource-poor farmers from gaining illegal access to GM crops. It would be an environmental control mechanism—a way of reducing the unwanted spread of transgenes in field situations. English Nature, environmental advisors to the UK, have expressed concerns about the “stacking” of genes for herbicide tolerance in crops, such as oil seed rape. It believes that the environmentally designed GM crops of the future—developments which it favors—may depend on incorporating genetic incompatibility into crops. The genetic constructs may not be those for which DeKalb/Monsanto/USDA still holds a substantial IP portfolio, but with hesitant support from the informed end of the environmental movement, it looks as if the Terminator may well be back.