Director Anthony Judge: The concept of creating underwriting for a
large Biotech and Genetic Hazards Reassurrance Fund is an noteworthy
proposal. The problem I can forsee, is the economics of risk spreading
versus economics of risk exposure. Many large corporations would
underwrite such a fund, but the political and economic purpose would not
be to pervent the risk of exposure to the public, but rather to spread
the risk, economically, so that the pool of biotech firms could continue
to produce and distribute the risks to which the public or environment
would contune to be exposed. What is needed of course, is a
multi-national or global set of higher standards, protocols and
regulations adopted by all countries by treaty or compact, that would
pervent the risks in the first place, or create a precedent for punitive
damages, beyond treble damages, to economically punish a transgressing
entity to the point of making it unprofitable to continue to produce
harm and unacceptable risks. I beleive that both the fund, and the law
or international laws are needed, and ought to be developed into a
cohesive unified system. This would permit fair research to further
scientific knowledge, and promote an economic incentive to comply and
also find and fund ways to limit the risk of exposure, rather than just
spread the risks, and pass the cost onto the consumer or public.
Anthony Judge wrote:
>
> 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-
> What we need to understand may only be expressible in a language that we do not know
>**************************************************
--
ROBERT G. LORGE
LORGE & LORGE LAW FIRM
POST OFFICE BOX 14704
MADISON WISCONSIN 53714-0704
TELEPHONE OR FAX: 608-244-0608
http://www.lawfirm.net
MAILTO:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<HR>
<P><B>If you have any questions please <A
HREF="MAILTO:[EMAIL PROTECTED]">e-mail to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A></B></P>
<P><B>Or try my webpage at <A
HREF="http://www.lawfirm.net">http://www.lawfirm.net</A></B></P>
