Plant breeding in the public interest

[Patrick Foley]

Paul and other leppers,
    Surely you are not asking for a lesson in the dangers of concentrating power in a few
hands? Nor can you be ignorant of the dangers a genetically depauperate population or
cultivar faces. Let us not argue over the obvious.
    There is a serious problem here in social policy with dangers from too much government
interference and from too much business monopoly power. This is especially tragic given the
ancient and wonderful tradition of agricultural diversification that enrichens our human
society and gives the individual farmer a free hand. I believe that government research
money should encourage the ancient tradition rather than extirpate it. If genetically
engineered organisms become too economically attractive, then let us produce some of our
monsters (if not all) in the public domain, and let individual farmers control the future
of agriculture.
    In the absence of a compelling counterargument, my touchstone is the maintenance and
extension of individual freedom, not corporate or government freedom. There are many
occasions when the individual must bow to the group, but why is this one of them? Should
horse breeders retain the license for stud DNA? The usual argument is that innovation
requires risk that needs some incentive. That incentive already exists. Companies already
sell seed. Scientists already experiment with genetic engineering. The aditional incentive
of long-term licenses is attractive to seed companies, but why should I be enthusiastic
about the extension of patent law to cover genetic recombinations. The slippery slope to
the bizarre is obvious given that all life on earth involves genetic recombination.

This is (you may hope and pray) my last public word on this tangential (to Lepidoptera)
subject unless provoked. I hope the provocateurs (Bruce, Doug and Paul so far) enjoy their
chance to have the last laugh and to testify to their faith in the free market.

Patrick Foley
patfoley at csus.edu

Paul Cherubini wrote:

> Patrick Foley wrote:
>
> > But it may be disastrous for the long-term public interest to commit much of our land
> > and harvest into a few hands and a few genotypes.
>
> Can you give us some specific scenarios or models of potential "disastrous"
> consequences? Perhaps examples from other industries long controlled by a few
> hands?
>
> Paul Cherubini