麻豆传媒

TO THE casual observer, French farmers might seem to have little in common with Californian vine growers. They operate on different continents and in different political and, arguably, moral environments. But both groups exist in societies that have benefited from rapid advances in technology in the last century. And despite this, both are united in scepticism of the benefits that the biotechnology industry can offer.

Their concerns are a snapshot of a broader phenomenon 鈥� how societies from very different parts of the world are wrestling with the social, moral and economic issues generated by advances in biotechnology, and how these advances are, in turn, shaping the societies themselves. The result is the emergence of a new 鈥渂iosociety鈥�.

Designs on Nature by Sheila Jasanoff, professor of science and technology studies at Harvard University, is a bold attempt to map the contours of this new society and to show how it is being shaped by the life sciences. In a detailed study of Europe and the US, Jasanoff demonstrates how advances in biotechnology are tightly intertwined with political processes.

In situations of flux, however, it is as important to study the sources of change as it is to understand the political context in which it happens. In the case of biotechnology, the industry co-evolved with globalisation. The enhanced mobility of people, goods and ideas; better connectivity through communications technologies; and greater economic interdependence through global trading networks: each has played a part in influencing its spread.

But the initial policies that shaped the industry were influenced largely by the desire of countries to use the emerging technology to increase their competitiveness in the global marketplace. As a result, most of the debate on biotechnology has been influenced by perception of the socio-economic benefits and risks involved. Human health, the environment and ethical values have been mere footnotes.

Countries or communities that perceive short-term loss and long-term gain are more likely to erect barriers to the new technologies. Conversely, countries that envisage immediate benefits are likely to make radical changes in their institutions to help their products onto the global market.

Much of the evolution of biotechnology can therefore be explained in terms of technological incumbency and the desires of less developed countries to catch up with richer ones. The European Union, for example, has invested heavily in an agricultural system that it seeks to protect for a variety of reasons, such as protecting local jobs. It is no surprise that new technologies that could undermine traditional methods of agriculture are perceived in Europe as risky.

Developing countries focus on different kinds of risks: those associated with technological exclusion. For example, the increased use of intellectual property rights is in conflict with the technological aspirations of developing countries. Their response has been to oppose products that are covered by strictly enforced intellectual property rights.

History has some lessons to offer as well. The introduction of margarine, a French innovation, was viciously opposed by the US dairy industry for socio-economic reasons for nearly five decades until the late 1940s, with a greater passion than that of the French opposition to genetically modified products. And it鈥檚 not hard to extrapolate from these examples to future trends. For example, countries such as South Korea that are at the forefront of stem cell research are likely to press ahead with these new technologies while others such as the US fall behind.

The study of the biosociety represents a new line of intellectual enquiry that will help society redefine its relationship with nature in fundamental ways. Designs on Nature is a strong sign that the field is maturing and that a clearer picture of the emerging biosociety is starting to form.