Direct Action? Seats at the Table? All of the Above?

Posted by Pete Shanks May 2, 2013
Biopolitical Times

Last week, some 15 French activists in chimpanzee masks disrupted a Forum on Synthetic Biology at the National Center for Arts and Crafts in Paris. This was the first public event held by the "Observatoire de la biologie de synthèse," a body set up by the government to monitor and debate the technology and its social implications. The meeting was effectively shut down. The only reports available are in French (by protesters here, by organizers here) but this placard speaks for itself:

Participer c'est accepter

To participate is to accept

I have to admit, my first reaction to seeing pictures of this protest was to laugh out loud and cheer. It's easy to agree with slogans such as "Non à la Vie Synthetique." (Translation is inexact but that's roughly "No to Living Synthetically.") 

But are they right to claim that to engage in debate over how to implement synthetic biology is to concede the thin end of the wedge — to trade in your principles for a seat at the table — or is this counter-productive flamboyance?

In this particular case, critics of synthetic biology have in fact been part of the private discussions that preceded this public event. I have no idea if they managed to change the dynamic or to raise significant questions in the minds of civil servants, let alone representatives of industry. But the reaction to this disruption might be to drive all discussion away from public view, and it's hard to see how that could be helpful.

Conversely, it is vital that policymakers understand the depth of feeling on the issue. Opinion polls tell a nuanced story, according to research conducted by the Wilson Center (abstract here). The public is skeptical, and capable of making fine distinctions. But that doesn't mean that industry can rely on passive acquiescence by any means. The kind of drama enacted in Paris does show that opposition is not only mild and general but also intense. That's worth something.

The relationship between campaigners and negotiators is often fraught with suspicion, as a couple of other current controversies illustrate. Some of those who worked hard on California's GM labeling proposition last year are skeptical about the value of the new federal labeling bill (which the Center for Food Safety is supporting). Will it "pre-empt anything any of the states will be doing?", one asked me in a private communication. Will the big food companies make sure that "any federal bill passed will be way gutted"? Such cynicism is easy to understand, and important to factor into activist strategizing.

By coincidence, I just received an announcement from the Global Justice Ecology Project (GJEP), which works at multiple levels, nationally and internationally, to stand up for native forests and promote climate justice, among other issues. The latest email was about the Stop GE Trees Campaign, which includes planned public protest at the the Tree Biotechnology 2013 Conference in Asheville at the end of May.

We are kicking off the week with a teach-in on May 27 followed by a mass march to the conference center on May 28th. We are organizing and encouraging affinity group actions throughout the week to ensure the GE tree industry does not get a moment's rest during their stay in Asheville.

Sleep deprivation is presumably not on the actual program of activities. But a combination of education, media-friendly actions, and specifically directed demonstrations seems like a plausible plan. And I hope someone is holding the USDA and others accountable.

Conflicts between principled activists (or radical nutcases) and sensible legislators (or sell-out collaborators) are long-standing and not about to disappear. Nor should they, in my view. We certainly need debate and discussion. We also need to recognize how important these issues are. So perhaps the appropriate response is not to choose: Perhaps we need both direct action and seats at the table.

Previously on Biopolitical Times: