Superwheat and World Hunger

One of the goals of agricultural biotechnology is that of creating a strain of wheat that can grow in drier climates. This would allow currently non-arable areas of the globe to be used for crop growth and food production. The increased food production will help feed millions of starving humans. There are several complex issues involved, however. If the new strain of wheat (let's call it superwheat) is developed by a company, that company will need to recoup its development costs and will have to charge a fairly high price for the seed. This might put it out of the reach of small farmers – exactly the kind of farmer who lives in semi-arable climates in many third world countries. On the other hand, the company that develops the new superwheat has a right to recoup its development costs (and make a profit?) - if they could not do so, the superwheat would never be developed. Despite the human misery that might be alleviated by superwheat, someone has to pay for its development and production (people need to earn a living as scientists, administrators, distributors, truckers, shippers, carton manufacturers, etc.). Revenue might come from many different sources: from taxes in the "developer" country, from taxes in the recipient country, from new farm cooperatives in the third world countries (what happens to the single farmer?), from the UN (but who pays the UN?), and from many other possible mechanisms. How do you address this problem of revenue and discuss the moral and ethical issues involved in you decision.

Timothy Evans on Thu Feb 25 12:37:03 1999 wrote:
While I understand the right of multinational corporations (it is likely they are also First World MNCs) to generate a revenue from their investment, the geographic binaries that result when certain wealthier areas of Third World states are able to take advantage of the new crop technologies is highly detrimental to local internal stability (for instance look at India after northern regions were able to adopt Green Revolution technologies, prospered, and eventually sought independence). Therefore, along the lines of what Molly wrote, I see it in the best interest of the MNC and particularly of the respective Third World state to subsidize technological parity for all regions requesting the new biotechnologies. Without doubt this is an expensive and ambitious goal. But I think the political stability that is sacrificed by not doing so has far more serious consequences than simply those financial ones.

Pamela Smith on Thu Feb 18 15:53:42 1999 wrote:
Okay, I'd like to briefly discuss two of the issues involved with the development of superwheat: competition and the inevitability of its development.

While I can't say how much progress has been made in this area, it seems obvious that would be a very profitable undertaking. Chances are that this product will be developed by someone with money in mind, but since the superwheat has such a high potential to end starvation in underdeveloped countries, maybe that's not such a bad thing.

While research and development costs may be high, the revenues from so many third world countries seems like a good incentive to produce it. So when it becomes available in a final form, many companies are going to try to duplicate this technology, driving prices down, a point Vanessa touched upon.

Ideally, I think that the residents of these countries would benefit - you need someone to work the fields. And maybe I'm being optimistic, but I would hope that steady work and reduced costs for this wheat would be a good choice for any country, whether or not it subsidizes the costs. Maybe this does eliminate the single farmer, but if this is going to be mass-produced for maximum benefit, that's not an option anyways.

La Tanya R. Harry on Tue Feb 16 15:20:35 1999 wrote:
I believe the superwheat idea is a good one, however, the economical question of "who will pay for its production?" produces a down side to this otherwise incredible idea.
In my opinion, it is a given fact that third world countries--like Ethiopia which is neither economically nor agriculturally fit to take care of its inhabitants--cannot afford to take part in the superwheat project. Thus, I believe that it is the developer's responsibility to pay for the project. Once the third world country begins to get back on its feet, I am sure its members can provide some kind of compensation or repayment to the country which helped them out of famine.
This would not be a bad investment on the developers part because they would be helping those who are in tremendous need. With a healthy mind and body, member of third world countries will be able to function on a much higher level than they did in the past; this will lead to a new apprieciation for life and living successfully. Perhaps people will set out to find work and other odd jobs to do in order to help pay back the developer's country.

Ravi Chopra on Sat Feb 6 16:27:09 1999 wrote:
I am not exactly sure I like the idea of "superwheat" to begin with--it is not quite clear how this wheat will be developed. I'm not sure how much of our food is now "engineered" or treated with chemicals to be bigger, juicier, shinier...but the whole idea leaves a funny taste in my mouth (pardon the pun--ASCII text doesn't do a great job of conveying tone of voice).

In any case, I don't think funding in this case is really such a big issue. The invisible hand of the free market works in amazing ways. It seems to me that the great demand for food will push private enterprise into developing this newly-arable land.

In economic terms, supply is currently not meeting demand because arable land is a limited resource that may be exhausted in certain areas. This drives up the price of food in poor areas (A parallel: Even in the United States, food is more expensive in poor urban areas than it is in wealthy suburbs). In turn, the real wages of third world workers are further diminished.

I believe that the notion of superwheat will entice research and, once developed, business will develop currently non-arable lands in third-world countries. This is a boon for everyone--perhaps with the exception of farmers currently working the land, of whom much of the third world is comprised.

However, the falling prices of food will help them too--wheat will be more affordable, making their real incomes rise. Moreover, technological advancement is necessary and good. Perhaps some of us long for the good ol' days of living in some rural area, surviving off a small farm. That may simply be the result of us taking for granted the ease with which we can get food. Improved farming techniques have made the most basic necessity of food an afterthought.

I think Vanessa was right on with her comments. If private enterprise needs a little prodding to create superwheat, the U.S. government shouldn't hesitate to contribute money. It is in Americans' best interest. Since the U.S. already gives out billions in aid, we might as well allocate some of it here. In an increasingly global economy, the prosperity of the world population affects us all. Furthermore, it bulids stability in developing countries, which is crucial politically and economically. This only serves to help the U.S. in the global economy, as well as everyone else in the world. It is not a zero sum game.

Suzanne Beagan on Tue Feb 2 09:49:43 1999 wrote:
The idea of improving technology to raise the sandard of living and quality of life in our country has raised many ethical questions concerning how far is "too far." With the invention of a "superwheat" seed, the world would see an improvemnt in the standard of living and a decrease in world hunger. By allowing independent US companies to produce this seed and reap the benefits( profits) from it, the US economy would improve by and increased cash flow. However, the question here lies in whether or not the US should play the great philanthropist and limit production of this seed to non-profit organizations and companies providing aid to third world countries. This would allow the small farmer to yield the benefits of the seed, and the desperate country to move away from starvation. However, I believe that this technology should be brought into the wheat industry whether or not the small farmers see the benefit. We must weigh the cost to the farmer, who may lose money, compared to the benefit of the hungry country.
While I agree that the government has no right to take total control over such research, I can see the need for monitoring developments to prevent power falling in to the wrong hands. I think that incorporating this superwheat into already existing foreign aid would be of benefit to both the US and the underdeveloped country. I strongly disagree, however, that the US has ANY right to IMPOSE our system of government on another nation. If anything in this issue reminds me of Brave New World it is the idea of the US acting as "World Controller" and demanding that all countries follow our form of government. Our system, after all, holds as one of its core principles the idea of freedom of expression.

Prof. Gross on Mon Feb 1 12:46:59 1999 wrote:
About government control of research... Currently a major fraction (perhaps the majority - I don't have the numbers readily available) of US basic research is funded through the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation and other government agencies. All proposals are peer reviewed by other scientists as to their scientific merit. Awards are based on this peer review system. Although there are occasional problems with the system, in general it works quite well. There is no evidence of any government control at all. In fact, any hint of government control would be met with strong public outcries of protest by the scientists involved.

On the other hand, research conducted by private organizations is more likely to be directed towards questionable goals. An example might be the research conducted and paid for by tobacco companies to develop strains of tobacco with higher nicotine content. The goal being to addict more consumers to tobacco products.

There are ways of abusing almost any system. Keeping government funding of research open to public scrutiny seems to work well for monitoring what kinds of research are being supported.

Domingo Martinez on Mon Feb 1 05:51:20 1999 wrote:
Although I agree that foreign aid should help subsidize the cost to developing nations, I find it difficult to accept that our nation must force another nation into republicanism. This is just another form of colonialism, and if we indeed believe in the right to democracy, we must also believe in the right of self-rule. If a nation, and its citizens, however, want a different form of government, how can we stop them? We still have the obligation as the only super-power to help developing nations. I would suggest, though that the government would not be the only contributor to subsidize research. Many philanthropic organizations could help subsidize the research, as long as they are approached. Furthermore, often there are benefit/charity events that could provide funding for such research. I definitely agree the government should help fund these scientific institutions, but I would urge the researches to apply to not-for-profit, philanthropic organizations.

single on Sat Jan 30 19:49:08 1999 wrote:
I would like to thank the last two posters for taking the property rights of the companies into account, and for explaining why these rights are necessary.

I would urge caution, however, on government subsidies of anything--let alone science and technology. Government subsidies can speed up production in the short-term, but they have disastrous long-term consequences. One of these is to make science dependent on government funding, which means: government CONTROL of science (think: Brave New World). Another is to promote inefficiency, and to give some businesses an unfair advantage over others who do not have political pull. Forgetting for a moment that citizens are having their wealth looted to pay for these subsidies, I think the dangers involved with subsidies make "laissez-faire" a much more practical policy.

I like the idea of incorporating the "superwheat" aid into already existing foreign aid. At the same time, I think we should demand that the 3rd world nations we aid establish republican forms of government. We should demand that these countries develop their own constitutions, guaranteeing their citizens the right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. (We should also make sure those rights ARE, in fact, enforced.) This will ensure that we are helping people "get back on their feet" (by giving them the freedom to do so), and not simply subsidizing dictatorships.

Vanessa Green on Sat Jan 30 13:08:37 1999 wrote:
One of the reasons why we continue to develop new technologies is to improve the quality of life for people. This "super wheat" will greatly enhance the lives of many people, so I think that this idea for a new strain of wheat must be pursued. If you are worried about third world countries (who need this technology most) paying for the technology of "super wheat," why doesn't the money that is presently put towards aiding those countries, go towards paying for the development of this technology. Someone has to pay for the "super wheat." The companies that develop it deserve to make money and remain profitable. Hopefully, as the technology for "super wheat" grows and more and more companies become involved, the price of this technology will decrease. The competition involved will make "super wheat" less expensive, and more affordable to the countries in need of it. Until that point, I think that it is the responsibility of the developed countries, who already give these other countries aid money, to pay for this technology.

Molly Stutzman on Sat Jan 30 01:56:07 1999 wrote:
I think that companies should be able to reap the profits of the superwheat seeds they develop. This would provide an incentive for companies to research and create the most efficient seeds possible. If companies compete in their research they will eventually make strains that are less expensive. The governments can partially subsidize the cost of the seeds. This will make it more accessible to poor farmers and the money will be "paid back" to the government because the benefits of superwheat will save money.