Provocations

Michael LaBossiere

Number Seven: Ownership and Wayward Genes

The genetic modification of food crops has generated a great deal of controversy and concern. One recent court case in this area has raised an interesting ethical issue. Monsanto, the owner of Roundup Ready seed, accused a Canadian farmer, Percy Schmeiser, of planting its modified canola seed on his farm without purchasing a license from the company. Schmeiser countered this charge by asserting that the seed he planted, which belonged to him, had been contaminated by his neighbor's fields or by spilled seed. Hence, there was no legitimate reason for him to pay a licensing fee-the seed he planted was his and it was not his fault that it had been genetically contaminated. Not surprisingly, the judge ruled in favor of Monsanto-how the seed ended up in the fields did not matter. What was important was that Monsanto owned the rights to the modified seed and Schmeiser had not licensed its use from the company.

At first glance, it might seem that the judge simply enforced reasonable property rights. In defense of this, consider the following analogy: Suppose Sue writes a book and copyrights the text. Copies of the book are purchased by Sam's bookstore and a copy, quite by accident, ends up in a nearby bookstore owned by Jack. Finding the book, Jack scans it into a computer and prints copies of his own to sell from his bookstore. When arrested, he tells the judge that the book found its way into his store by accident. In this case it seems quite clear that Jack is in the wrong. He has no moral or legal right to sell the copies he has made, even if the first copy ended up in his store by accident.

While this analogy is appealing, there is a serious problem that makes the analogy fail. The problem is that plants exchange genetic information-this is called gene flow. This gene flow involves genetic information spreading from engineered crops to other plants-most typically closely related plants. For example, if a field of modified wheat is planted near a field of unmodified wheat, it is quite likely that future generations of the previously unmodified wheat will be found to contain the modified genes. After all, pollen transferring insects, seed transferring wildlife and the wind generally fail to respect property rights. That such contamination occurs is shown by a study noted by the May 2002 National Geographic magazine. In this study twenty products sold as being "modification free" were examined. 55% of them were found to be contaminated with modified ingredients and 25% were significantly contaminated. This contamination was accidental and took place despite efforts to use crops that were not modified.

Given this bit of information, another analogy should help clear up the ethics of the situation a little. Suppose that MikeSoft has developed a word processing program, MikeSoft Word. MikeSoft dutifully takes all the needed legal steps to confirm and protect the ownership of the software code. Now, suppose that MikeSoft Word works very well but that parts of its code get distributed via the internet whenever a user is connected. This code integrates itself, virus like, into other word processing programs. It does no damage and, in fact, often adds new and desirable features to the other software. Imagine that a competitor attempts to sell a program called WordAlmostPerfect that has been accidentally contaminated with the code from MikeSoft Word. Learning of this, the CEO of MikeSoft is outraged and slaps the company that made WordAlmostPerfect with a lawsuit for using the code in its product.

MikeSoft does, of course, own the code in question and it would be unethical for another party simply to steal it from the company. This right is recognized by the law in most countries. However, it is ethically irresponsible for MikeSoft to allow its code to contaminate other programs and it would be ludicrous for the company to claim ownership of the software it had infected. To claim otherwise would be like one landowner claiming he owns his neighbor's lot as well as his own because his dog answered nature's call on her lot. In such a case it is obvious that he does not own her lot and is, in fact, obligated to keep his "property" off her lawn.

Thus, while ownership rights do protect the right to the property in question, it would also seem that they obligate the owner to make sure that his/her property does not contaminate the property of others. Unless such protection can be assured, companies that sell modified seeds have no moral grounds for demanding that farmers license their seeds (except in cases where they can show that the farmer actually stole the seed).

Click here to return to the Philosophy Café

Provocations will next be updated early March 2003

Join Our Café mailing list

To receive *very* short messages, letting you know when the Café has been updated, just fill in your email address below - and press submit.

[If you wish to unsubscribe from the mailing list, simply fill in your subscriber email address, select "Unsubscribe", and press Submit.]

Previous Provocations

1. Evolution, Analogy and Complexity
2. Biomimicry
3. Lies - the best medicine?
4. The Unbreakable Skeptic
5. The Case for Nanoweapons
6. Fraud, Science and Ethics