Some areas of their practice definitely aligned with this, with their 'Germplasm Resource Unit' cataloguing, preserving and distributing a huge collection of seed and grain, and helping distribute these to plant breeders, ensuring high quality specimens. However as I read further into the other areas of their advertised research, it appeared like many of their studies seemed concerned with preparing and producing for a worst case scenario, instead of trying to work their way towards a better one.In "Genes in the Environment" we are told that their research "will be critically important for improving the stability of crop yields" in apparently some unavoidable dystopia. By the next paragraph, we are already reffering to ourselves in the present tense as "under the influence of longer term climate change" in what is possibly one of the most defeatest forshortenings during what is currrently potentially the dawn of massive global social to environmental and ecological issues. As a scientific website, this kind of persuasive and threatening writing was a little disquieting, as it felt somewhat like salesmanship in their justification. The description couldve been much better written to suggest this was a necessary precaution in the event of a worst case scenario, whilst inspiring hope for it's ability to contribute more effectively to plant based diets and foods in hot countries, lessening the hunger crisis. Yet instead it felt quite sensationalised, and with an overt emphasis on the climate argument acting simultaneously as carrot and stick for the validity of the work.
If this section of their research had been on slightly uncertain territory for me, the next title made me shudder haha! "Designing Future Wheat". Again there was the same sense that this work was preparing for a worst case scenario. However in this area of their research, it was the vested interests which struck me most strongly. Making the repeated references to the commercial viability of the project throughout was the most obvious factor (even mentioning commercial crop breeders ahead of the actual plant science community when offering their "referenced and accessible" future wheat), as well as the fact I had defied the given order of the different research areas on the home screen and actually read into their Germplasm Resource Unit initially. Clearly in doing this the John Innes Centre could secure the viability of both projects and make them both as likely as possible to secure funding. Not necessarily a sneaky trick in itself if the rest of the work they were doing was on the whole ethical, and that was something only a little digging could discover. The last sentance definitely tickled me, careful usage of "address" the problems facing us in the future, instead of 'solve'. Because the John Innes Centre certainly had begun building their own best case scenario from the potential future worst case scenario of the entire planet!!
So now I had absorbed the formal depiction of the centre, and even that had left me a little disappointed with the way all of their projects seemed to be focussing on the worst possible outcome, Next it was important I see what the internet had to say about the John Innes Centre. After a little searching I happened upon one of the umbrella partners of the centre, "The Ceres Partnership", and immediatly found food for thought in their manifesto, which confirmed a lot of the vested interests I had sensed in the voice of their research descriptions. "The most commercially viable"[...] "technologies that can be exploited through licences, start-up companies and partnerships with SMEs (small/medium enterprises) and large agritech corporations." Only by the very last feature in the very last descriptive paragraph (save for a conclusion about entomology and the institutions involved) was there a mention of environmental concerns, and even then it was only insofar as using less pesticide. I sensed I may have gotten to the bottom of the John Innes Centre with this latest find. I had smelled a rat in their research choices, and now found ample motive for the fact that this centre was principally seeking capital and commercial gain from it's work. All I felt I needed now were case studies of previous projects to just reassure me that this wasn't some new conservative austerity downturn which had forced the centre to turn its interests towards money-making instead of targetted responsible, conscientious research.When googling "The John Innes Centre" an article published the very same day stated 'Region’s top brains creating new AgriTech ‘supercluster’; "The Ceres funding is part of an investment of £67m through Research England’s Connecting Capability Fund in new collaborative projects to drive forward the commercialisation of university research across the country. I mean should we really be driving the bright new minds of our next generation of researchers to only value those projects with commercial viability? In todays world? Surely all areas of research are essential, even those we cannot make profit from? Perhaps those are some of the most important of all?
Another older still article from 2011 stated an anti GM protest had been held at the centre, suprisingly not from environmentalists or left-wing activists, but infact by 60 protestors who were for the most part farmers, even driving a tractor with 20kg of organic potatoes into the facility to leave at the entrance. This struck me, as farmers for the most part are quite practical people, particularly about matters of their land, and would not have the same immediate concerns some with an ecological interest such as myself, they would certainly understand the additional stresses put on food production by lacking land and high demand, and support potential solutions to this.But their quarrel with the work to produce a new genetically modified blight resistant potato, was infact that six other natural varieties already existed. A quick google search also revealed many more pages boasting the effectiveness of the blight resistant varieties and questioning why these weren't utilized more effectively within food production.
http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/politics/city-scientists-win-2-5m-to-make-super-wheat-1-1687956
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/16/uk-green-energy-investment-plunges-after-policy-changes
http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/health/anti-gm-protesters-descend-on-john-innes-centre-in-norwich-1-972864
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2546276/PURPLE-tomato-juice-genetically-modified-fruit-engineered-health-benefits.html
https://www.eastmidlandsbusinesslink.co.uk/mag/finance/lincoln-uni-advanced-agritech-innovation/
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-04/jic-wrd040618.php
No comments:
Post a Comment