Lakoff, Sanford. "Biotechnology and the Developing Countries." Politics and the Life Sciences 2, 2 (February, 1984):151-59.
[Eight commentaries and author response, pp. 160-87]
Introduction. One does not have to be a natural scientist or science writer to appreciate the possible benefits of biotechnology for the developing countries, but one cannot be a social scientist without being apprehensive about the costs and unforeseen consequences these almost miraculous advances may entail. In the past few decades, it has become obvious that development of modernization is much more complex and harder to achieve than was often supposed when decolonization inspired hope that economic growth could be achieved rapidly, and that with it would come social as well as material progress. In most, though not all, of the developing countries, sustained and balanced economic growth has so far not been attained, for reasons that include inability to control population growth, poor climate and soil conditions, inadequate energy sources, and¾ no less important¾ the difficulty of transforming and adapting traditional cultural values and social structures. These deeply entrenched social conditions often frustrate efforts of reform, whether they are aimed at increasing average per capita income or at assuring fair distribution of the benefits of economic growth.
Prevailing cultural norms are often incompatible with the need to control population growth and to develop labor discipline and entrepreneurial attitudes, including willingness to sacrifice for the future. Political power, even under popular "revolutionary" regimes, tends to become unaccountable, personal, and ineffective in inducing cooperation and eliciting needed changes. Corruption and over-centralized, over-bureaucratic administration make the introduction of modern technologies difficult or futile, producing disillusionment and economic distortions more often than pride of accomplishment. Many developing countries have invested scarce resources and energies in a small number of big development projects, only to find themselves saddled with dual economies in which a few large extractive or assembly industries and export-oriented plantations coexist with an otherwise primitive, mainly agricultural economy incapable of providing even minimal subsistence. All too typically, the benefits of economic growth have gone more to a relatively wealthy elite than to the mass of the population. Some developing countries also suffer from overcrowded cities resulting in part from unbalanced growth and failed rural development schemes¾ a combination all but guaranteed to produce social unrest, revolutionary movements, and repressive government.
Will the opportunities fostered by progress in biotechnology make the problems of the developing countries any easier to manage, or will they only complicate these problems further? Will they help vindicate the rationalist faith of the prophets of progress or the pessimism of the neo-Malthusian forecasters of ‘overshoot and collapse?’ Will they be used to promote greater independence for the developing countries or to reinforce the existing hegemony of the advanced industrial states? Will the benefits accrue to all levels of society or will they be disproportionately captured by the upper echelons? Although it would be premature to attempt to answer such questions while biotechnology is still only an infant industry, it is not too early to raise them. Certain problems are already evident, and others suggest themselves from previous experience. Efforts to address these problems could increase the likelihood that the scientific advances now in prospect will better the lives of millions of people in the world’s poorer regions.