Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
to divide up the realm of 'the human' in ways that accord with their attempts
to (re)locate the boundaries of the natural. To use Michael Carolan's (2008)
felicitous term, in capitalising on these possibilities biotechnology firms
engage in
ontological gerrymandering
. Some humans are assimilated to
nature, others said to act on external nature in ways that remake its intrinsic
properties.
Degrees of 'un/natural difference': purification is complicated
and contentious
If strategic delimitation of the nature/not nature border brings benefits
to some at the expense of others, the same can be said about 'internal
boundaries' within what's taken to be natural. Again, I'll take the case of
intellectual property and agricultural biotechnology to illustrate the point.
And, again, we see the importance of epistemic workers (patent officials,
lawyers and judges) in attempts to draw clear (but contentious) lines around
biophysical phenomena.
As we've seen above, patents on biotechnological inventions rely heav-
ily on the idea of 'products of nature' as their antithesis. We've also seen
that patents rely on a distinction between the physical expression of intel-
lectual property and discourse (because the property right is in a description
or instruction that, if acted upon precisely, produces a useful and novel
process, design or artefact). Both things should be borne in mind when
considering the case of
Monsanto, Canada Inc. versus Schmeiser
. The case was
brought against Saskatchewan farmer Percy Schmeiser who was alleged to
have grown Roundup Ready canola (RRc) in his fields illegally. Canola is
a 'promiscuous crop': it pollinates openly with wind and insects producing
crossbreeding between individual canola plants up to a radius of roughly
3 kilometres. Schmeiser argued that RRc must have grown in his fields acci-
dentally as a result of natural pollination processes or because RRc seed
blew on to his land from a neighbouring farmer's uncovered truck. In its
2004 ruling, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld Monsanto's complaint.
Itslogicwasthat:
By cultivating a plant containing the patented gene and composed of the
patented cells without license, the appellants deprived the respondents of the
full enjoyment of the monopoly.
The Court's judgement bracketed out the reasons why RRc was growing in
Schmeiser's fields, and argued that Schmeiser gained commercial advantage
from selling canola containing proprietary genes while avoiding the user fee
charged by Monsanto. In so doing, as I'll now explain, it sought to legislate
boundaries within the larger universe of canola plants - boundaries that had
(and have) a geographical expression, which is politically consequential.
