In Response to Wangari Mathai’s Article on the Effect of Patenting Life Forms
Wangari Mathai, in ‘The link between patenting life forms, genetic engineering and food security’ (1998) concludes that patenting life forms and genetic engineering poses a threat to global food security. Firstly, she accuses biotech corporations of abusing patents on their merchandise, particularly seeds, to establish their monopoly on agriculture of developing countries. She amplifies this by stating that corporations, doing so, violate farmers’ right to sustain biodiversity and make them rely on the corporations’ products. She asserts patenting also prevents poor farmers from affording genetically modified seeds, and may cause their governments to run into debts by spending on food for their people. Although I find her argument convincing in general, several points need correcting and improving.
Indeed, the author successfully supports her claims that biopiracy should not be practised by biotech corporations. She initially terms biopiracy as an action in which a patent is granted on corporations' products identical to those which farmers have developed via conventional methods for centuries. Here, the definition of biopiracy is not distorted; it fits another by Kumar (2009):
[Biopiracy] is the use of intellectual property systems to legitimize the exclusive ownership and control over biological resources and biological products and processes that have been used over centuries in non-industrialized culture.
To justify her claim, the author further reasons that biopiracy blocks the development and expansion of similar products, and correctly exemplifies this with the basmati rice case. In this case, to prevent others from growing, exporting, and even using other lines of basmati rice, the Texas-based Rice Tec Inc. obtained a patent on their lines of basmati rice and grains (United Kingdom Parliament, 1999). In fact, the lines to be patented were not invented but originated in India, and their traits were similar to those of the traditional Indian rice (Shiva, 2009). The patent on Rice Tec’s lines of basmati rice is thus biopiracy. The author’s reasoning is therefore valid, with a strong example to support her argument.
However, the author falls short in her allegation that thanks to patenting, corporations can completely impede future research on their protected products. Nevertheless, according to Dratler (1991), the patent on one product does not exclude the right to improve that product, providing the person who seeks improvement can obtain permission from the patent holder. Thus the claim that patent holders can negate others’ right to modify their products needs amendment. Actually, she may better the argument by hedging her condemnation and casting doubt on the possibility that corporations can grant improvement-seekers such permissions. Indeed, there may be a slim chance that corporations agree to do so, since cases of their prohibitions on independent research are reported by Ananda (2011).
Besides, although the author’s argument that it is unacceptable for farmers to be dependent on corporation’s seeds is generally credible, there is room for improvement. She starts the argument by saying that saving seeds is a practice that has been kept since the past. This claim is true, especially for the case of poor farmers who depend on seed saving for the next season (Shand & Mooney, 1998). She further provides two examples to reveal how corporations coerce farmers into buying their seeds. The first one is cases of farmers being sued for re-using patented seeds. The example is a strong one, since such cases were observed in Tennessee (Little, 2004), and Canada (Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser, 2001). It also agrees with a report by Novak (2010) stating that farmers, afraid of legislative entanglements, are forced to buy seeds from biotech corporations. The other regarding the use of ‘terminator technology’ to make plants sterile after harvest, however, is not well-chosen due to the lack of evidence of its being utilised. Indeed, Rizvi (2006) demonstrates that there have been debates over its usage: some countries do not approve of it; others are reluctant to legalize it. Additionally, Monsanto Inc., a transnational biotech corporation and the technology patentee, states that it only signs treatments with farmers not to exploit the seeds after harvest and does not apply the technology to its seeds (Monsanto Inc., 2002-2011). Whether the technology is being used in reality is, thus, unclear, which plagues the author’s argument. In fact, by rejecting the aforementioned example and using better ones, she can improve it. Namely, besides producing seeds, Monsanto Inc. manufactures herbicides only its seeds can withstand (Novak, 2010). The unique chemicals prevent others’ seeds from being sown; consequently, farmers must purchase the same seeds from the corporation for next season (Novak, 2010). Including such examples may reinforce the author’s argument and makes it more convincing.
In conclusion, at times the author is able to demonstrate a valid argument backed up by persuasive illustrations, as shown in her position against the practise of biopiracy by corporations. Nonetheless, the author’s accusation that corporations can hinder future research on patented merchandise requires correction and improvement. Finally, by choosing better examples, her argument may be enhanced, which has been demonstrated in her stance against farmers’ dependence on corporations for seeds. Indeed, should such amplifications be incorporated, Wangari Mathai’s argument would be an influential one.
Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
---|---|---|---|
2022-10-04 | zx11111 | 76 | view |
2020-08-07 | vithikasalomi | 3 | view |
2020-01-24 | Shiimaaa | 70 | view |
2019-09-18 | farshad_hom | 60 | view |
2018-05-19 | nik.201094@gmail.com | 27 | view |
- Some people think that children should learn to paint or draw at school Others believe it is just a waste of time Discuss both views and give your own opinion 64
- Consumers are faced with increasing numbers of advertisements from competing companies. To what extent do you think are consumers influenced by advertisements? What measures can be taken to protect them? 61
- In the future, it seems more difficult to live on the Earth. Some people think more money should be spent on researching other planet to live, such as Mars. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement 78
- The society would benefit from a ban on all forms of advertising because it serves no useful purpose and can even be damaging Do you agree or disagree 67
- In the past 100 years, there have been many inventions such as antibiotics, airplanes and computers. What do you think is the most important of them? Why? 80
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 364, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...tain permission from the patent holder. Thus the claim that patent holders can negat...
^^^^
Line 7, column 359, Rule ID: AFFORD_VB[1]
Message: This verb is used with the infinitive: 'to better', 'to well'
Suggestion: to better; to well
...n and improvement. Finally, by choosing better examples, her argument may be enhanced,...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, besides, but, consequently, finally, first, firstly, however, if, may, nevertheless, nonetheless, regarding, so, therefore, thus, well, in conclusion, in fact, in general
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 37.0 15.1003584229 245% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 9.8082437276 173% => OK
Conjunction : 21.0 13.8261648746 152% => OK
Relative clauses : 23.0 11.0286738351 209% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 64.0 43.0788530466 149% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 112.0 52.1666666667 215% => Less preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 28.0 8.0752688172 347% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 4802.0 1977.66487455 243% => Less number of characters wanted.
No of words: 845.0 407.700716846 207% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.68284023669 4.8611393121 117% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.3915567054 4.48103885553 120% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.19721314944 2.67179642975 120% => OK
Unique words: 423.0 212.727598566 199% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.500591715976 0.524837075471 95% => OK
syllable_count: 1453.5 618.680645161 235% => syllable counts are too long.
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.51630824373 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 12.0 9.59856630824 125% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.994623655914 0% => OK
Article: 16.0 3.08781362007 518% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 5.0 3.51792114695 142% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.86738351254 268% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 17.0 4.94265232975 344% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 39.0 20.6003584229 189% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 20.1344086022 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.5708405453 48.9658058833 116% => OK
Chars per sentence: 123.128205128 100.406767564 123% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.6666666667 20.6045352989 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.76923076923 5.45110844103 87% => OK
Paragraphs: 7.0 4.53405017921 154% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 2.0 5.5376344086 36% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 18.0 11.8709677419 152% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 14.0 3.85842293907 363% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.88709677419 164% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.152297310694 0.236089414692 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0392729320932 0.076458572812 51% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0607213777708 0.0737576698707 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0790033046264 0.150856017488 52% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.06856704752 0.0645574589148 106% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.2 11.7677419355 138% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 58.1214874552 72% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 6.10430107527 183% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 10.1575268817 125% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.66 10.9000537634 144% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.39 8.01818996416 117% => OK
difficult_words: 252.0 86.8835125448 290% => Less difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 16.0 10.002688172 160% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.0537634409 103% => OK
text_standard: 16.0 10.247311828 156% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 Out of 30
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.