1.Public Research & Regulation Fraud - GM Watch
2.Biotechnology meeting convenes here - press article
3.Public Research & Regulation Foundation
*Steering Committee.
*Organisation, coordination and further contacts
------

1.Public Research & Regulation Fraud - GM Watch

The article below describes a new initiative - The Public Research Sector Initiative executed by a foundation called "Public Research and Regulation". The initiative is based on deceit.

The biotech scientists involved, who are meeting today and tomorrow, are saying that they represent a third non-aligned group between civil society and industry who should "weigh in" at meetings of the Cartagena Protocol that help determine biosafety rules. They claim "the public research sector has been not able to provide scientific input for the benefit of the negotiations nor to express its views about the effectiveness and workability of the provisions of the Protocol."

Their call for increased leverage for "nonprofit" "public sector" players belies the heavy industrial-alignment of most public sector agricultural biotechnology where there is a long history of involvement with intensive agricultural R&D and of collaboration with agribusiness multinationals, not to mention dependence on industry funding. The effect of this is to generate convergence between private sector and public sector operators.

This convergence means that the "third" group would not be non-aligned but would have interests and an agenda that would all too often be indistinguishable from that of the industry. In other words, biotech proponents would get two bites of the cherry to the rest of society's one.

The problem is apparent as soon as one looks at the detail of this initiative and those that are driving it forward. Although the biotech scientists claim it is a "misconception that modern biotechnology, and in particular its agricultural application, is the exclusive domain of a handful of big, western multinationals", they are actually holding their meeting today at the Donald Danforth Plant Sciences Center in St Louis, Missouri the home town of Monsanto.

This is no coincidence. The Danforth Center was established by Monsanto Corporation "and academic partners" with a $70-million pledge from Monsanto. The company also donated the 40-acre tract of land, valued at $11.4 million, on which the Center is built.
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=200

And don't be fooled when a scientist turned political lobbyist is quoted at the end of the article as saying, "My career would be much better served if I wasn't doing this," and "My dream is to win this battle and go back to the lab full time". For many of the scientists involved in this initiative, their labs, their research and their current careers would simply not exist if it were not for the largesse of the biotech industry.

Take, for instance, Roger Beachy, the Danforth Center President, who is helping to drive forward this initiative and who is quoted in the article. Monsanto and other biotech companies have helped to fund Beachy's research, quite apart from the massive corporate support underlying the Center he heads.

One of the 2 key contacts for the group, and a member of the Steering Committee, is Willy de Greef of the Institute for Plant Biotechnology for Developing Countries (IPBO). Previously de Greef was a leading light of Syngenta the world's biggest biotech corporation. And Beachy and de Greef are very far from alone in their corporate connections - see the list below.

And when the article asks, "Can public-sector scientists become better salesmen?", it misses the point that many of those involved are "salesmen" and often their lobbying is underwritten directly or indirectly by the biotech industry.

Here are more of those who "support the initiative and wish to be actively involved in its activities":

Prof. Klaus Ammann , Botanical Garden, University of Bern, Switzerland
-ardent supporter and lobbyist for GM crops and co-editor of the Bio-Scope, supported by GM industry lobby group Europabio.
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=8
Dr. Gerard Barry , The International Rice Research Institute, Philippines
-former Director of Research, Production and Technical Cooperation at Monsanto
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=294
Dr. Andrew Bennett, Syngenta Foundation for Sustainable Agriculture, Switzerland
-Syngenta directors occupy 3 of the 5 seats on the Syngenta Foundation's board.
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=175
Dr. Joel Cohen , International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, United States
-when at USAID Cohen worked with Monsanto to establish the notorious GM sweet potato project
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=131
Prof. Philip J. Dale, Genetic Modification and Biosafety Research Group, John Innes Centre , United Kingdom
-Dale is on the advisory council of the controversial lobby group Sense About Science which the John Innes Centre also helps to fund. JIC has been involved in multi-million pound research alliances with Syngenta, Dupont and others.http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=67
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=34
Prof. Drew L. Kershen , University of Oklahoma College of Law, United States
-Well known Prakash supporter
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=106&page=P
Dr. Muffy Koch , AgBios, Canada
-highly controversial lobbyist. Part of biotech industry-funded AfricaBio lobby group
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=271
Piet van der Meer , HORIZONS sprl, Belgium
-regarded as "having let the industry in" to biosafety development in the developing world
Dr. James Peacock, Commonwealth Science and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO ), Australia
-collaboration between the CSIRO and Monsanto generated Australia's first major GM commercial crop. According to John Stocker, CSIRO's former chief executive, "Working with the transnationals makes a lot of sense... Yes, we do find that it is often the best strategy to get into bed with these companies. "
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=187
Prof. Ingo Potrykus , Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Institute of Plant Science, Switzerland
-golden rice originator who has happily used it for PR purposes for genetic engineering. Accuses Greenpeace of 'crimes against humanity'
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=105
Prof. Jennifer Thompson , Department of Microbiology University of Cape Town, South-Africa
-board member of the biotech industry-funded lobby groups AfricaBio and ISAAA
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=170
Dr. Florence Wambugu , A Harvest Biotech Foundation International, Kenya
-notorious GM propagandist, trained by Monsanto. A Harvest  Biotech Foundation International is backed by CropLife International.
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=131
------

2.Biotechnolgy meeting convenes here
By Eric Hand
St Louis Post-Dispatch, 03/02/2005
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/sciencemedicine/story/9C9EEC401D3450EA86256FB9001A6BF2?OpenDocument

Can public-sector scientists become better salesmen?

Nearly 50 university, nonprofit and government biotechnologists from around the globe will try at a two-day conference beginning today at the Donald Danforth Plant Sciences Center in Creve Coeur.

Center president Roger Beachy wants them to talk up the benefits of public research into genetically modified foods and crops, an industry where debate so far has largely been between for-profit companies like St. Louis-based Monsanto and environmental activists.

"We think the absence of the voice of public-sector scientists skews the discussion," he said.

Beachy hopes to encourage public-sector scientists to weigh in by attending a meeting in June for the Cartagena Protocol, a treaty that governs biosafety rules.

With Washington University researchers advocating on the stem cell research issue before the Missouri Legislature, some scientists are finding themselves in an unusual position: To get public money or permission, they have to join the political fray.

The Cartagena Protocol took effect Sept. 11, 2003, after 50 nations ratified the treaty. It was named for the Colombian city in which it was primarily negotiated in 1999. The treaty contains safety rules for genetically modified organisms, specifying, for example, that food products must be labeled and that the international transport of any modified organisms must be declared.

To date, 114 nations have ratified the treaty. The United States has not.

The treaty is mute about the benefits of biotechnology, said Joel Cohen, a researcher with the International Food Policy Research Institute, which is based in Washington. He says that's because treaty negotiations included for-profit scientists, representatives from the environmental ministries and non-governmental organization activists, but didn't include public-sector scientists.

"Nobody has mobilized these scientists before," he said. "The meeting in St. Louis is intended to address that void"

Public-sector scientists in 15 countries have genetically engineered 45 crops, according to a paper Cohen published January in the journal Nature Biotechnology.

All but one of the crops - an insect-resistant cotton in China - are stuck in a regulatory pipeline and have not been released commercially. For-profit companies are good at navigating regulatory agencies, but the public researchers need more money for that, Cohen said.

Cohen, who will present his work at the Danforth Center today, says that some environmental organizations have unjustly ignored the potential benefits of public-sector engineered products, which would be freely available.

"They prefer this black-and-white split between right and wrong" he said.

That's not true, said Kristin Dawkins, vice president of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, a nonprofit group in Minneapolis that opposes genetically engineered foods. She says the goals of public-sector biotechnologists are well-intentioned and sincere, but perhaps too hurried.

Dawkins calls for more research into the health and ecological effects of genetically modified organisms before they are released commercially.

Two conference attendees, a regulator from Tanzania and a researcher from Colombia, said that farmers in their countries were less concerned with possible hazards of modified products and more concerned with their potential price tags.

Beachy said that this is where the scientists need to be better salesmen and let people know about products that would eventually be free

He understands the risks of scientists venturing into a political arena.

"There will be accusations, that public scientists are dupes of the big companies and pushing a profit motive" he said.

Washington University professor Steve Teitelbaum knows about becoming an advocate. The bone doctor became the university spokesman on the issue of stem cell research. He has spent many nights dining with state legislators and debating opponents

"My career would be much better served if I wasn't doing this" he said. "My dream is to win this battle and go back to the lab full time."

The Cartagena Protocol

Sets up a biosafety clearinghouse where information about genetically modified organisms is filed and shared after commercial approval.

Requires products to be accompanied by labels and documents that identify the scientific name and characteristics of genetically modified ingredients

Operates under the "precautionary principle" meaning that worst-case scenarios for a genetically modified product can justify banning it, even if no scientific evidence exists of it causing harm

Source: United Nations Environment Programme Convention on Biological Diversity
Reporter Eric Hand
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Phone: 314-340-8250
------

3.Public Research & Regulation Foundation
www.pubresreg.org

Countries and organisations throughout the world have invested considerably in public sector research, and are continuing to do, so in order to develop biotechnological applications that meet a variety of crucial needs...

The extent to which modern biotechnology will be able to achieve these goals will depend to a large extent on the regulatory regimes that apply to biotechnology and on the way in which they are implemented. These national regulations in turn are strongly influenced by international agreements, particularly the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.

This Protocol was negotiated between 1995 and 2000, adopted in January 2000, and came into force in September 2003. The first Meeting of the Parties (MOP1) took place in February 2004 in Kuala Lumpur and MOP2 is scheduled for May - June 2005.

A central aim of the negotiations was to involve all stakeholders. Records of the negotiations show that NGOs and the private sector were indeed well represented.

However, the public research sector involved in developing biotechnological applications, which includes over a hundred thousand researchers of thousands governmental, academic and international research institutions in developing and developed countries, was not represented in any significant or organised way during the negotiations or during MOP1.

As a result, the public research sector has been not able to provide scientific input for the benefit of the negotiations nor to express its views about the effectiveness and workability of the provisions of the Protocol. Another consequence of the absence of the public research sector during the negotiations is the persistence of the misconception that modern biotechnology, and in particular its agricultural application, is the exclusive domain of a handful of big, western multinationals.

The initiative described below proposes to offer a forum for the public research sector to be involved in the forthcoming Meetings of the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety in May 2005 and related meetings.

Approach of the initiative.

The initiative consists of three phases:
Phase 1: Raising awareness among the public research community about the issue.
Phase 2: Involvement of the public research sector in MOP2 ( 31 May 3 June 2005)
Phase 3: Organised involvement of the public research sector in subsequent MOPs.

*Organisation, coordination and further contacts

This initiative is coordinated by a Steering Committee, of which currently the members are:
- Prof. Philip J Dale, former Leader of the Genetic Modification and Biosafety Research
Group, John Innes Centre, United Kingdom (chairman of the Steering Committee)
- Prof. Atanas Atanassov, Director of the AgriBiotech Institute of Bulgaria.
- Dr. Roger Beachy, Donald Danforth Plant Science Center, St-Louis, USA
- Willy de Greef, Institute for Plant Biotechnology for Developing Countries (IPBO) and International Biotech Regulatory Services (IBRS), Belgium (vice-chair)
- Prof. Calestous Juma, Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, USA
- Drs. Piet van der Meer, esq., Horizons sprl, Belgium (vice-chair)
- Prof. Marc van Montagu, Institute for Plant Biotechnology for Developing Countries
(IPBO), Belgium.
- Prof. Paul S. Teng, Nanyang Technological University, National Institute of Education,
Singapore.

The Steering Committee will be further expanded to include public research sector scientists from all regions of the world.

Contact persons for the Steering Committee are Willy de Greef (This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.) and Piet van der Meer (This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.).

For the execution of this initiative, a foundation has been established in the Netherlands with the name Public Research and Regulation, and with the objective to involve the public research sector in regulations relevant to the development and application of biotechnology.

Administrative and logistical support for this initiative is provided, through Delft University of Technology, by Dr. David Bennett and Mrs. Kim Meulenbroeks. Contact references: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., Phone: +31-15-212-7800, Fax:+31-15-212-7111.

Updates of this initiative, including the list of people who endorse it, will be made available on www.pubresreg.org.