Transcript Buddhist Perspectives on Biotechnology

East and Southeast Asian
Perspectives on Life
Sciences and
Biotechnology
Soraj Hongladarom
Department of Philosophy
Chulalongkorn University
Outline
Definitions of ‘East Asia’ and ‘Southeast
Asia’
Existing Perspectives
Buddhist
Confucian
Roman Catholic
Islam
Secular and popular
This talk will focus more on the first and the
last perspective, focusing also on the
conceptual issues involved.
What is East Asia?
Defined by the predominance of
Chinese culture.
Confucianism
Buddhism (imported from India, but
much Sinicized)
Daoism
Countries include: China, Japan,
Mongolia, Korea
Varieties within East Asia
The dominance of China was such
that all the other countries in East
Asia looked toward her as the source
of almost all their cultural traits.
Nonetheless, there are varieties and
indigenous traditions.
Shintoism in Japan
Tibetan form of Buddhism in Mongolia
Others
What is South-east Asia?
Defined by geography
The area between South and East Asia
Countries include: Thailand, Burma,
Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia, Malaysia,
Singapore, Indonesia, Philippines,
Brunei, East Timor
South-east Asia Defined by
Culture
A mixture of influences from both China
and India
Some areas are more influenced by one
than the other.
More influenced by India
Thailand, Burma, Laos, Cambodia
(in the past) Malaysia, Indonesia
More influenced by China
Vietnam
More influenced by the West
Philippines
Varieties within South-East
Asia
It can be said that the existing varieties of
cultural traditions in South-east Asia are
much more than those in East Asia.
This is perhaps due to the fact that the
region has been a meeting place of trades,
goods, ideas, and religions for a long time.
The spread of Buddhism, Islam and
Christianity.
Caveats
These varieties should be borne in
mind when the topic of the
perspective of a specific region is
discussed.
It can be done, but with the caveat
that the varieties exist.
Nonetheless, varieties exist
anywhere, so some generalization is
necessary.
Focus - Buddhism and
Biotechnology
Since the canonical texts of Buddhism
do not say anything specifically about
biotechnology, any views on this topic
are more or less interpretations.
Nonetheless, we can view the general
picture of what the Buddhist
perspective in general should be like.
Buddhism and Biotechnology
Biotechnology is an attempt by
human beings to solve their problems
through manipulation of life itself.
Buddhism in general has nothing
against it, only that the action should
be performed out of the right motive.
That is, if an action is performed out
of greed, hatred and delusion, then it
is not the right action.
Buddhism and Biotechnology
In Thailand, there is a growing awareness
of the problems incurred by the rapid
advances in biotechnology.
Part of this awareness is reflected in how
Buddhism is being viewed as a source of
insights toward solving those problems.
There are a number of Thai scholars
working on this issue.
Buddhism and Biotechnology
One of most respected Thai scholars
and monks, Phra Phromkunaporn,
says that biotechnological processes
and products should be all right,
provided that they bring benefits to
mankind.
However, if they bring harm, then it
should be avoided.
Popular Perception
Apart from the works of Buddhist
scholars, the awareness of the
problems is also reflected in literature.
In 2000, a novel entitled “Amata”
(Immortal) was published.
The novel deals with problems arising
from human reproductive cloning.
Amata
The point of the novel is that modern
science and technology are always
fraught with globalized business
interests; they have become tools of
the latter to serve the egoistic
interests of people at the expense of
traditional values.
Controversies on Genetically
Modified Organisms
Apart from the awareness reflected in
Buddhism and popular literature,
there have also been many debates
on the suitability of genetically
modified organisms.
The debate is usually between the
NGO group and the governmentsponsored research institutes.
Recent Events
A few months ago, the Thai Prime Minister
attended a meeting of the National
Biotechnology Policy Commission and
came out announcing that Thailand would
no longer be ‘left out’ of the global
advances in biotechnology.
More specifically, he announces that from
now on genetically modified plants will be
allowed to be planted in open fields.
Development of GM papaya which is
resistant to viral disease.
Recent Events
The announcement created an uproar
among agriculturalists and NGOs, who
argue that such a move would endanger
Thailand’s position as a world leader in
organic agriculture.
The most telling argument was that
Thailand would lose its important markets
in Japan and EU should the announcement
actually came into effect.
Recent Events
Soon afterwards, the Prime Minister
took back his words, saying that what
he actually meant was only that there
should be a continuation and support
of research in the area, and not that
GM plants should be allowed in open
fields.
Mutual Understanding among Scientists and Business Leaders Vital to the GMO
Debate. (Bangkok Post, September 8, 2004)
The Prime Minister's recent announcement that the Government would endorse open field trials of
genetically modified plants has rekindled the debate which has seemed to die down somewhat.
Chairing the National Committee on Biotechnology, the PM later announced that Thailand must not lag
behind other countries who have already embraced the technology and that biotechnology and genetic
engineering held a key to prosperity and thus should be further promoted and developed.
Apparently the PM had listened to arguments which had been advanced by the proponents of GM
technology—that it is safe, friendly to the environment, and most of all that it has become necessary
for feeding the hungry and for creating economic values. Soon after his announcement, however, he
heard concerted voices of protests from various sectors, and those who spoke loudest to his ears
were the business leaders in agriculture, who said that they would lose millions if the announcement
actually came to effect. The reason is that many of these businesses relied on organic farming and the
fact that Thailand has prohibited open field trials of GMOs due to an earlier cabinet resolution. Thus if
this resolution was revoked—which would mean GMOs could be planted freely, organic agriculture
would lose its distinctiveness and finicky consumers in opulent West would find it not to their palates. It
seemed, however, that these voices spoke loudest, for the PM has just a few days ago announced
again that more studies were needed before the government could take any concrete decision on the
issue.
Two things are noteworthy in this debate. Firstly, the voices of the NGOs are seldom heard by the
government. This is to be expected of this government, who has never taken them seriously anyway. It
is clear that, had it been only the NGOs who protested against the announcement, we would have had
the cabinet resolution allowing GMOs right now. But actually those who protested were the business
leaders themselves, and perhaps this led to the current hold.
Secondly, and this is related to the first point, those who advocate GMOs to the PM at the National
Biotechnology Committee meeting are mostly scientists working for the government, whereas the
most effective protesters are the business leaders, as previously mentioned. This is an interesting
situation. When compared with the West, advocates of GM technology are usually the business
leaders, while those opposing come rather from the public sector and the NGOs.
How are we to understand this situation? Obviously the agribusinesses in Thailand are not advanced
enough to embrace GM technology; the selling point of Thai agriculture being that it is 'organic' and
'natural'. It shows, then, that there is very little communication between the bureaucratic scientists and
the business leaders. When there is no communication, there is no common understanding. The
scientists in the government apparently want to see the country strong in genetic technology, but
actually the main engine of growth does not lie in the hands of these scientists, but in those of the
business leaders and leaders of the farming organizations who came out in droves to protest again the
So this is the current situation in Thailand at the moment. Practicing scientists are mostly employed by the
government, as university lecturers or as permanent researchers in government funded labs whose
agenda are often set by themselves or by the directives of the government, which ultimately come
from themselves anyway. In any case their agenda are not driven by competition in the market as are
those of the business leaders. Currently the niche of Thai agriculture lies in the fact that the country is
still banning GMOs in open fields. But there is no guarantee on this. Since maximizing profits is their
aim, these leaders and farmers would be among the first who call out on the government to allow
GMOs if their rich consumers in Europe and elsewhere wanted them. Since the agenda of the
scientists are not set directly by the market force, they often look at the whole country as one
individual unit to be compared with other such units in the international ranking contests (which
country grows most strongly, etc.). But the key to economic prosperity is not to look that way, but to
focus on particular industries, particular firms to see how they perform against their rivals in the
globlalized marketplace. In any case the mindset that takes the whole country as one single unit is
presumably what led them to persuade the PM to allow for open trial of GMOs. Since they do not
know that resistance against GM food is still strong among the actual consumers of Thai agricultural
products, the PM then had to put the brake on, something which he is not quite accustomed to doing
All this leaves the big question of whether GMOs are really safe and friendly to the environment aside.
Surely sound and objective research on this vital issue is absolutely needed. But all that matters for
us here now is that the agribusiness leaders and the farming organizations fear that they would lose
markets to competitors who still ban GMOs in open fields in their countries. The scientists' argument
that GMOs are already safe may be sound. But then the market does not function as neatly as the
what is happening in a scientific lab. Here economic consideration takes precedence because it is the
livelihood of Thais which is at stake.
What is needed for Thailand, then, is that the two sides should talk to each other more and to try to
understand each other more. The bureaucratic scientists in the leading public research agencies often
turn suspicious eyes toward those who do not agree with them, branding them as 'NGOs', a term
which has unfortunately gained a negative connotation. But such suspicion takes us nowhere. More
importantly, the two sides should collaborate more. We need more scientists working in research and
development within Thai business firms, and their research and development should be original and
has roots in the distinctiveness of the locality itself.
Soraj Hongladarom currently co-ordinates the ASEAN-EU LEMLIFE Project, a project promoting bioethics
funded by the European Union. He is an associate professor of philosophy at Chulalongkorn
University.
What Does This Show?
First of all, it shows that there is little
communication between the various
stakeholders in the biotechnological
debate.
Secondly, we can infer that the Thai
attitude is a pragmatic one - Thais are
not as concerned about the morality
of biotechnology as much as the
practicality of it.
Attitudes in Other Countries
These attitudes are not the same in
other cultural traditions.
In China, for example, there is much
more readiness to accept the new
technologies.
In Japan, however, the public are
more wary.
This depends many factors.
The ASEAN-EU LEMLIFE
Project
http://www.asean-eu-lemlife.org/