Home Page Link AgBioWorld Home Page
About AgBioWorld Donations Ag-Biotech News Declaration Supporting Agricultural Biotechnology Ag-biotech Info Experts on Agricultural Biotechnology Contact Links Subscribe to AgBioView Home Page

AgBioView Archives

A daily collection of news and commentaries on
ag-biotech.


Subscribe AgBioView Subscribe

Search AgBioWorld Search

AgBioView Archives

Subscribe

 


SEARCH:     

Date:

July 24, 2000

Subject:

Voting For Biotech?

 

AgBioView - http://www.agbioworld.org, http://agbioview.listbot.com

Date: Jul 25 2000 16:29:25 EDT
From: Andrew Apel
Subject: Voting For Biotech?

Colleagues,

I'm not sure that it's possible to vote for or against biotech in the US
election (with the dubious exception of Nader), but I could be wrong.
Consider:

Red Porphyry wrote:

>Andy, first off, you still haven't given pro-gm foods folks a catchy
label like you've given to the >environmentalists (eco-reactionaries). my
suggestion is "eco-realists". it's both catchy *and* easy for >everyone to
understand. I urge anyone who supports gm foods on this list to refer to
themselves as "eco->realists" from now on.

Red, I call them 'eco-reactionaries' because these people are more than
merely anti-biotech. They are reacting against globalism, capitalism,
government, biotechnology, eating meat, logging, etc., under the banner of
eco-this or eco-that. On the other hand, I'm not inclined to call all
pro-biotech folks "eco-realists," because there are some biotech fanatics
who firmly believe biotech will save the world. While I like the term
'realists,' the realists don't conveniently lump under eco-banners.
They're scientists, economists, corporate officers, investors and all the
rest who make up a nearly unclassifiable biotech menagerie.

Red also wrote:

>Second, i'm heartened to see that, by bringing up Nader, you're finally
>getting down to brass tacks, to wit, the scientific is the political.
clearly,
>no sane person involved in any aspect of ag biotech research can in good
>conscience support Nader and the green party. but we both know there
isn't an
>ice cube's chance in hell that nader can win the u.s. presidential
election.
>the more pertinent question is, can a sane person involved in any aspect
of ag
>biotech research in good conscience support al gore, the presidential
>candidate of the democrats (or is it democRATS? :-) ), and author of the
>best-selling eco-reactionary book "earth in the balance"?



Red, the scientific is only the political if it falls into the hands of
politicians. That said, it is entirely possible that Gore will support
biotechnology. Clinton supports it. Gore's cabinet and the rest of
government
research will inform Gore that biotechnology has benefits for the
environment. Unless you know something about Gore that I don't I think
it's fairly obvious that he won't go anti-biotech unless the Nader
contingent can threaten to split his vote and force certain compromises.
That said, I'm not sure that biotech really hangs in the balance as
between the two main candidates themselves.