Three billion bases of a sequence can be put on a single compact disk, and one will be able to pull a CD out of one’s pocket and say “Here is a human being, it’s me.” (van Dijk 1998: 123)

As frightening as the above quote by the co-founder of the Human Genome Project sounds for the future of human individuality and the control over human destiny, most of us are aware that Walter Gilbert’s vision of the future is surprisingly close to fruition. Advances in biotechnology are coming at a breathtaking rate, and while there is discussion of the role such technologies will play in the ethical framework of society, there is still more to be said about the vast power that biotechnology will give to its holders.

Much of the discussion on the growing role of biotechnology in the functioning of culture has been centered on the Human Genome Project. Indeed, as Jose van Dijk has outlined in his article on the implications of the Project (1998), the Human Genome Project has become “the biological version of the ‘man-on-the-moon’ project” (van Dijk 1998: 119), mobilizing corporations, academic institutions, and governments to invest time, money, and intellectual resources in order to discover the “code” upon which mankind is created. The interest in the human genetic code is not new; however, it is with the advent of advanced biotechnologies that such a project could even be conceived.

With the advent of the Human Genome Project, the biotechnologist has been reframed as not a simple scientist or computer programmer, but rather as a hero who will save mankind from its ailments (van Dijk 1998: 132). In fact, the language used to frame the Project itself — originally arising from the metaphor of the map and discovery — has been manipulated by media: “gene therapy offers all the ingredients of an enthralling medical drama: heroic doctors, desperate innocent victims, a hope for cure, and last but not least, a number of hurdles that doctors have to face on their way to success” (van Dijk 1998: 137). The co-opting of the linguistic framework of the project has then enabled the biotechnology to disappear behind a human face, whereas it is really the technology that is enabling such discovery (van Dijk 1998: 148); the technology then becomes part and parcel of the project, unquestioned, infallible. Carlo Ginzburg shows how medicine has become perhaps one of the most trusted of conjectural sciences (Ginzburg 1990: 118), and the inclusion of biotechnology in the sphere of medicine rather than in the tech world allows for its substantiation.

The emergence of the strength of biotechnology — as well as the ignorance of the actual technologies that power the wave of biological research — has led to a distortion of power which can be characterized as “biopolitics”. A result of the potential for abuse of the results and consequences of biotechnological research, biopolitics emerges as a “form of power that regulates social life from its interior” (Rose and Rabinow 2003: 5). This echoes closely Foucault’s conception of governmentality (Foucault and Rabinow 1984: 68), only the internal regulation within society now not only comes from social norms, but from biological standards. Ultimately, “race, health, genealogy, reproduction and knowledge are intertwined” (Rose and Rabinow 2003: 16) in the conception of a biological identity, which has only become possible through the rise of biotechnology — and thus requiring a closer look on bioethics, biopolitics, and the new framework of power offered through the rise of such technologies.

It is not farfetched, then, to say that the advances in biotechnology will give rise to a new form of colonialism. Just as advances in transportation technology — specifically seafaring — helped initiate early colonialism and advances in marketplace and communication technologies has helped instill what some call an economic or neo-colonialism, the ability to harvest and patent genetic sequences and technologies have all the potential to lead to a form of genetic imperialism (Cunningham and Scharper 1996: 5). Anthropology’s historical tendency for “othering” and “primitivizing” peoples has to be consciously avoided in the debate on biotechnology, particularly when there is a rising sense that genetic patenting could lead to the preservation of “disappearing peoples” (Cunningham and Scharper 1996: 3). Hilary Cunningham and Stephen Scharper argue that questions should be regarding “how indigenous communities and poor nations should be compensated for their DNA resources” (Cunningham and Scharper 1996: 4) particularly when taking into account that there is a frightening trend of people in developing countries being exploited for their natural resources: could exploitation for genetic resources (Cunningham and Scharper 1996: 4) be far behind?

Biotechnology not only has the potential to exert power over our status as individual humans, but in a more immediate issue, has the power to dictate what we eat and how our food is produced. An issue of The Ecologist appearing just over seven years ago outlined the influence of biotechnology companies like Monsanto in food production. Perhaps too alarmist and cynical, various articles in the issue nonetheless addressed important issues such as the monopoly over seed control and local farming (Steinbrecher and Moooney 1998), the dangers of foreign bio-chemicals entering the environment (Prince Charles 1998), and the infiltration of biotechnology companies within high levels of government (Ferrera 1998). Brian Tokar’s look at Monsanto’s controversial history (1998) shows how the company was responsible of the release of dioxins into the environment (Tokar 1998: 255) in the Times Beach incident, but goes on Monsanto has been responsible for other contaminants through its products and bio-chemical production.

One pressing issue regarding biotechnology and its influence on food production is the power that such technologies are giving large corporations over the agriculture industry. With the advent of seeds that do not reproduce themselves in their crops, many farmers — particularly in impoverished areas around the world — will be forced to purchase seeds regularly from large corporations (Steinbrecher and Mooney 1998: page). This usage of biotechnology in the production of crops and seeds gives an unwarranted amount of power to the creators of such products.

Such power over our daily lives through biotechnology may remind some of Hollywood films such as Gattaca and Minority Report. In fact, in Spielberg’s fantastic view of the world where a crime can be prevented before it can be committed, biometrics is the prime method of identification and interaction. Gerard Noiriel, in his look at the rise of the identity card in France (1996) and the treatment of foreigners based on methods of identification, details a procedure where social context and technology both play a role in the need for national identification. On a global scale, biometric technology can now give anyone with an iris scanner and access to a database all the information they need, creating a virtual “health passbook” (Noiriel 1996: 62) that can be used and abused in many ways. Perhaps in the past, such identification could be used for discriminatory practices (Noiriel 1996: 60) — and biotechnology could enable the continuation of such discrimination, additionally based on genetic and biological factors over which the individual has no control — but the real exertion of power was clear in Minority Report, as even the advertisements on the street could scan your iris and target their messages directly to your tastes, interests, and prior behaviors. This is where the power of biometrics and biotechnology is truly daunting.

There is a lot of promise in the growing field of biotechnology: the eradication of disease and suffering, the promise of the continuous availability of food and resources, and the possibility of the reaffirmation of one’s self identity are but a few of the positive outcomes of the growth of knowledge in this field. However, with possibility and hope comes the threat of abuse; after all, biotechnology — and the knowledge obtained through it — is a form and manifestation of power, and any type of power must be regulated and controlled. With the advent of biotechnological power comes the increased need for responsibility and transparency, lest we get lost in a world — previously only conceived of in the futuristic Hollywood horror — where our lives are dictated not by what we do, but by the arrangement of proteins in our bodies.

Sources

Hilary Cunningham and Steven Scharper. “Human Genome Project Patenting Indigenous People.” 1996.

Prince Charles. “Seeds of Disaster.” In The Ecologist 28(5), 1998. pp 252-253.

Jennifer Ferrera. “Revolving Doors: Monsanto and the regulators.” In The Ecologist 28(5), 1998. pp 280-286.

Foucault, Michel and Paul Rabinow, ed. The Foucault Reader. New York: Pantheon, 1984.

Carlo Ginzburg. “Clues: Roots of an Evidential Paradigm.” In Myths, Emblems, Clues. London: Hutchison, 1990. pp 96-125.

Gerard Noiriel. “The Card and the Code.” In The French Melting Pot. Immigration, Citizenship, and National Identity. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996. pp 45-90.

Nicholas Rose and Paul Rabinow. “Thoughts on the Concept of Biopower Today.” 2003. pp 1-37.

Richard A. Steinbrecher and Pat Roy Mooney. “Terminator Technology: the threat to world food security.” In The Ecologist 28(5), 1998. pp 276-279.

Brian Tokar. “Monsanto: a checkered history.” In The Ecologist 28(5), 1998. pp 254-261.

Jose van Dijck. “Biophoria: The Human Genome Project.” In Imagenation: Popular Images of Genetics. Houndmills: Macmillan, 1998. pp 119-145.