Rather than argue the merits of the case for or against genetic
modification, why not create a Genetic Hazard Reassurance Fund?
Nationally, regionally, internationally?
We are repeatedly reassured that genetically modified food is
completely safe. There is, therefore, absolutely zero risk for those
biotech corporations who hold this view to underwrite a large fund.
To the extent that government shares this view, it could participate
in the fund also.
The fund would only be called upon in the event of proven
hazardous genetic consequences -- when it would be used to
indemnify victims generously. Since there is absolutely zero risk
for the corporations (as proven by their scientists) they should have
no hesitation in guaranteeing indemnification of the order of a million
pounds per person affected, for example -- since according to
them such consequences will never arise. Such underwriting of risk
would be a public relations gesture demonstrating that the
corporations were prepared to place their profits and viability at
risk.
This approach would be better than endeavouring to argue the
case because, as with nuclear power station safety, it is not the
arguments that persuade but the incidents. Biotech is awaiting its
Chernobyl and Three Mile Island incidents. But since for the
biotech corporations there is not the remotest chance of such incidents
happening (as was argued so vigorously by the nuclear power
corporations), why not encourage the biotech establish a large Genetic
Hazard Reassurance Fund?
Those with insurance skills could usefully draft out the terms of
such a fund for comment by biotech corporations -- unless the
corporations care to draft one themselves. The fund might also
envisage the equivalent of the "decommissioning" cost of nuclear
power stations -- namely the costs of removing unwanted genetic
modifications from the environment -- although this situation,
according to them, will of course never arise.
It is time that those patenting innovations should be held
directly responsible for the hazardous consequences of that
innovation -- but without inhibiting initiatives of whose safety they
are convinced. As with large lotteries, the risk is effectively exported to others who should be inidividually rewarded if they become victims of the innovation.
************************************************** Anthony Judge Director, Communications and Research Union of International Associations Rue Washington 40 B-1050 Brussels, BELGIUM Tel:(32 2) 640.18.08 Fax:(32 2) 643 61 99 WWW: http://www.uia.org/ E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] What we need to understand may only be expressible in a language that we do not know **************************************************
