BioTech Devestation at UC Berkeley

SOWING SYNTHETIC SEEDS

Novartis, a major bio engineering company has a special relationship with UC Berkeley and it ain't about recruiting young MBA's either.

Novartis: Since its founding in 1996, from the merger of Swiss chemical giants Sandoz and Ciba-Geigy, Novartis has been one of the world's most aggressive marketers of pesticidal Bt crops, featuring an activated toxin spliced from Bt bacteria (Bacillus thuringiensis). Novartis has also been heavily involved in xenotransplantation research, seeking to genetically engineer animals to provide organs for human transplants; this line of research is considered extremely abusive to animals and, if it ever succeeds, it could introduce lethal animal viruses into the human population.

UC Berkeley has signed a five year deal with Novartis covering areas such as research, and technology development. Of note is the work of Peggy Lemaux and researcher at UC Berkeley (see http://plantbio.berkeley.edu/faculty/faculty_pages/Lemaux.html) that seeks to introduce transgenic genes into such staples as oats and barley. All paid for by Novartis, well a good deal at least. Another professor at UC Berkeley, Miguel A. Altieri, has soundly criticized the business based and driven research methods of the Novartis type scientists. He concludes that:
"There is consensus among scientists that transgenic crops will eventually allow transgenes to escape into free living populations of wild relatives. The disagreement lies in how serious are the impacts (Casper and Landsmann 1992). Despite the fact that some scientists argue that genetic engineering is not different than conventional breeding, critics of biotechnology claim that DNA technology enables new (exotic) genes into transgenic plants. Such gene transfers are mediated by vectors which are derived from disease-causing viruses or plasmids, which can breakdown species barriers so that they can shuttle genes between a wide range of species thus infecting many other organisms in the ecosystem (Steinbrecher 1996)." http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/~agroeco3/the_ecological_impacts.html

So why do we as taxpayers pay for this type of research at UC Berkeley? Especally considering that Novartis is seeking to introduce Terminator Geners into species to protect their proprietary genetically engineered seeds-- terminator genes stop the plant from reproducing. Because the UC Regents along with sitting on corporate boards, wants more money. As explained here:
"On November 23, 1998 the Regents of the University of California entered into a five-year Research Agreement with the Novartis Agricultural Discovery Institute, Inc. (NADII). Under the terms of the Agreement the Department of Plant and Microbial Biology (PMB) in the College of Natural Resources (CNR) would receive significant financial support for unrestricted research, as well as support for graduate students, postdoctoral researchers and administrative staff. In addition, scientists in PMB would gain access to technology and databases that would aid greatly in their research efforts" http://plantbio.berkeley.edu/PMB-TMRI/Background.html
It is further noted by the university that four researchers sought out this relationship: Rausser, Buchanan, Gruissem, and Lemaux. The Novartis proposal provides $25 million in unrestricted funds for research and overhead expenses over the five-year term of the agreement and offers to make proprietary technology available to the campus. Executive Vice Chancellor Christ and UC Vice President Reg Gomes review the proposal and negotiations begin with Novartis.

What does Novartis get in return for their 25 million dollar investment? They receive patents.
"SADI [Novartis] will have free non-exclusive access to any other inventions made by a University employee that result from the use of SADI's proprietary bioinformation database. SADI will have up to a maximum of 90 days to exercise these rights and will pay all costs related to corresponding patent applications. SADI scientists named as co-inventors of inventions made in University facilities will assign all rights to the University." http://plantbio.berkeley.edu/PMB-TMRI/Agreement.html

More corporate welfare at the taxpayers expense. Worst will be the environmental impact of this research driven by profit motives and researcher greed as noted by Professor Altieri:
"Most innovations in agricultural biotechnology are profit driven rather than need driven, therefore the thrust of the genetic engineering industry is not really to solve agricultural problems, but to create profitability."

RESOURCES:

UC Berkely Biotech website: http://ucbiotech.org/
Anti-Biotech Info: http://www.biodev.org
Academic Info to Promote Agroecology: http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/~agroeco3/index.html
ELF/ALF: http://www.earthliberationfront.com/ or http://www.animalliberation.net

The UC Berkeley anti-Biotech Agroecology department has videos on these issues:

On Agroecology:
DSL: http://itp.berkeley.edu/~spanport/agroecology/agroecology1a.ram
56K:
http://itp.berkeley.edu/~spanport/agroecology/agroecology1a.ram

On Biotechnology:
DSL: http://itp.berkeley.edu/~spanport/agroecology/biotechnology1.ram

56K: http://itp.berkeley.edu/~spanport/agroecology/biotechnology2.ram

Dear "Salim",
Please remove the jpeg image you have posted at
the top of your article, "BioTech
Devestation at UC Berkeley". You did not request
authorization to use this image and,
therefore, have violated copyright law. Thank you in
advance for your cooperation.

Regards,
S. Jenkins
UC Berkeley

Dear Dr. Jenkins,
Thank you for contacting us. We have looked into your affiliation at UC Berkeley. It appears you were previously a post-doc with Dr. Gruissem who defines himself as a champion of Biotechnology:

"I am involved (with a few colleagues) in organizing the demonstration in support of biotechnology research to provide factual and peer-reviewed information to the public during the FDA Hearing in Oakland on December 13, 1999. As scientist and public employee, I believe it is our responsibility to provide to the public correct and
unbiased scientific information on genetic engineering technologies and production of genetically modified organisms." --Dr. Gruissem (http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/srr/Alliance/past/WGmemo.htm)

We see you have learned well from him and your blind obedience to Novartis, et al. I wonder just whose peer reviews you folks adhere to. Academics or Novartis? I really find it interesting that in 1993 Dr. Gruissem was named to the Biotechnology Planning Board (http://plantbio.berkeley.edu/PMB-TMRI/Background.html). And subsequently championed Swiss Novartis to take on UC Berkeley Biotech research. Dr. Gruissem now teaches at a federally funded Swiss research university, I wonder if his friends at Sandoz-Novartis helped him acquire his lucrative posiiton. Your loyalty is very admirable. Please do warn us each time you want to sue us for alleged copyright infringement.

Read More about Dr. Gruissem and Novartis at UC Berkeley:
http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/srr/Alliance/past/past.htm

-- Alias Salem

Following are the nine scientists who are plaintiffs in the law suit against FDA policy on genetically engineered foods:

Dr. Richard Strohman, Emeritus Professor of Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of California, Berkeley. He has written extensively on biotechnology issues.

Dr. Philip J. Regal, Professor of Ecology, Behavior and Evolution at the University of Minnesota. Among the nation's most distinguished plant biologists. Has written extensively on the genetic engineering of plants and the ecological and human health risks associated with it.

Dr. John Fagan, Professor of Molecular Biology at Maharishi University of Management. Recipient of Research Career Development Award from the National Cancer Institute. Has written extensively on the hazards of genetic engineering. Gained world-wide attention in 1994 when he returned a $613,000 grant to the NIH as an ethical stand against genetic engineering.

Dr. Liebe Cavalieri, Molecular Biologist, Professor, Division of Natural Sciences, State University of New York at Purchase. Has written extensively on biotechnology issues.

Dr. David Ehrenfeld, Professor of Biology, Rutgers University. Has written on the dangers of genetically engineered foods.

Dr. David Fankhauser, Professor of Biology and Chemistry, University of Cincinnati.

Hanif Khalak, Computational Biologist, The Institute for Genomic Research, Rockville, MD. Though he does research that facilitates applications of biotechnology for curing human disease, he thinks that the current applications of biotech in food production are based in scientifically flawed assumptions.

Dr. Gary Kaplan, MD, PhD, Director of Clinical Neurophysiology, North Shore University Hospital; Assoc. Professor of Clinical Neurology, NYU School of Medicine.

Dr. Rama Dwivedi, Associate Director, Targeted Mutagenics, Department of Pediatrics, Northwestern University Medical School. Although he performs biotechnology for medical purposes, he believes that the program to genetically reconfigure food organisms, as currently conducted, is unsound.

The Union of Concerned Scientists articles on Biotech:
http://www.ucsusa.org/cgi-bin/perlfect/archive_search/search.pl?q=biotechnology

ONLY CAPITALISTS AND BUSINESS INTERESTS ARE BACKING BIOTECHNOLOGY

Students for Responsible Research was formed in 1998 in response to this research agreement, and continues to pursue its causes at UC Berkeley. Our web page (not updated, our apologies) is at
http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/srr

To clarify, Prof. Gruissem now works at the Swiss equivalent (SP?) of the NSF. However, it works VERY closely with industry there. Both Novartis (now known as Syngenta) and Gruissem are Swiss.

Feel free to contact me for more information.

Biotechnology has not produced a single biohazard in the more than 15,000 years of its application.

Care to prove me wrong with medical evidence?