Click amount to donate direct to CounterPunch
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $500
  • $other
  • use PayPal
Support Our Annual Fund Drive! We only shake you down once a year, but when we do we really mean it. It costs a lot to keep the site afloat, and our growing audience, well over TWO million unique viewers a month, eats up a lot of bandwidth — and bandwidth isn’t free. We aren’t supported by corporate donors, advertisers or big foundations. We survive solely on your support.
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

The Profit Motive, Academic Freedom and the Case of Ignacio Chapela

by ALI TONAK

“I am living proof of what happens when biotech buys a university. The first thing that goes is independent research. The university is a delicate organism. When its mission and orientation are compromised, it dies. Corporate biotechnology is killing this university.”

Ignacio Chapela, interview by John Ross Feb. 2004

Tenure, a reward of permanent employment given to exceptional university professors, is an essential aspect of academia. The American Association of University Professors defines tenure as “a means to certain ends; specifically: (1) freedom of teaching and research and of extramural activities, and (2) a sufficient degree of economic security to make the profession attractive to men and women of ability. Freedom and economic security, hence, tenure, are indispensable to the success of an institution in fulfilling its obligations to its students and to society.”

This status allows researchers to ask controversial questions without fear of losing their livelihood or academic opportunities. Tenure is meant to encourage free thought and critical thinking, but the case of Ignacio Chapela, an assistant professor in the Environmental Science Department at the University of California-Berkeley, it was used as a weapon. According to those who question the increasingly cozy relationships between supposedly public universities and corporations, this was not an isolated case, but a warning to other professors not to oppose private funders and an indication of a growing trend.

In 1998, pharmaceutical giant Novartis signed a $25,000,000 deal with Berkeley’s College of Natural Sciences, without the consultation of the faculty. In exchange for the funding, Novartis gained exclusive patent rights to one-third of all of CNS’s research. Among other perks, the contract explicitly grants Novartis direct influence over the specific areas of the college’s research. Ignacio Chapela, along with several other colleagues, criticized the deal, warning that the influence of the world’s second largest pharmaceutical corporation would dictate priorities. The legitimacy of this concern was quickly justified.

Illicit Exposure

Chapela’s long-standing relationship with the agricultural community of Oaxaca, Mexico began when he helped set up a laboratory that facilitated the export of profitable Shitake mushrooms to Japan. While examining the native maize population in Oaxaca in October of 2000, one of Chapela’s graduate students, David Quist, made a shocking discovery. Despite a ban imposed by the Mexican government upon genetically-engineered(GE) corn in the birth place of modern maize domestication, there was clear evidence of genetic contamination.

DNA, the fundamental genetic unit found in every living organism, is a biological fingerprint. The DNA of every organism holds a unique genetic code, making it useful in criminology and other legal matters, such as determining parenthood. In Mexico alone there are 59 distinct races of corn, each with large numbers of sub-varieties. The presence of DNA from genetically modified corn revealed by Quist’s discovery presented a serious threat to the biodiversity of the native species, because genetically-modified crops have the potential to cross-breed with native crops, altering the evolution of the entire population.

While indigenous farmers rushed to preserve their heritage by saving seeds and plants, Chapela and Quist began to investigate the source of the contamination. Since the Monsanto Corporation was the first company to incorporate biotechnology into agri-business, the researchers examined the Oaxacan maize for the presence of a particular, Monsanto-patented genetic sequence. In five out of seven samples, this turned out to be the case. Further tests indicated a match with synthetically-created DNA constructs manufactured by several corporations, including Berkeley’s funder, Novartis.

Genetically modified pollen can travel great distances via wind and water currents. It’s not uncommon for genes to cross between species through vectors such as viruses and bacteria. The factors contributing to gene flow are numerous and, at this point, non-computable. While the origins of Oaxaca’s maize contamination remain unclear, it is obvious that the ban on GE corn cultivation by the Mexican Department of Agriculture in 1998 had not been enough.

Retribution

Fearing that this discovery would not be taken lightly by the millions who eat corn tortillas 3 times a day, Ignacio Chapela was contacted by the director of Mexico’s bio-security commission, Dr. Fernando Ortiz Monasterio. Monasterio met Chapela in an abandoned building. In a scene reminiscent of a mafia movie, a furious Monasterio berated Chapela for exposing the biotech industry to a potentially disastrous backlash. “‘You have gotten yourself into some serious shit this time,” Monasterio reportedly shouted. “But you will not stop us — no one will stop us!”

In an attempt to save face, Monsanto hired the Bivings Group, a Washington PR firm. To discredit Chapela and Quist’s research, an e-mail criticizing their methods and findings was sent to the mailing list of AgBioWorld?, a major portal for the biotech industry. The supposed author of this e-mail, “Mary Murphy”, was soon revealed to be a fictional character created by someone “working for Bivings” or “clients using our services,” as Todd Zeigler, head of the PR firm’s online department, admitted in a BBC interview. This confession came as a result of an investigation by a British anti-GMO campaigner, Jonathan Matthews of the Norfolk Genetic Information Network, who traced the origin of the e-mail to a computer operated by Bivings.

Despite this revelation, serious damage had already been inflicted upon the legitimacy of Chapela and Quist’s research by “Murphy”’s critique. In response to the controversy created by this e-mail, Nature, a leading scientific journal, published the following notice in April 2002: “In light of these discussions and the diverse advice received, Nature has concluded that the evidence available is not sufficient to justify the publication of the (Chapela and Quist’s) paper. As the authors nevertheless wish to stand by the available evidence for their conclusions, we feel it best simply to make these circumstances clear, to publish the criticisms, the authors’ response and new data, and to allow our readers to judge the science for themselves.” Nature may have been reluctant to support the Berkeley scientists’ conclusions, but subsequent studies conducted by the Mexican Government (National Institute of Ecology, INE, and National Commission of Biodiversity) confirmed the presence of genes from transgenic maize within native crop populations.

The Tenure Battle

The process to grant Chapela tenure began promisingly with a favorable 32 to 1 vote within his department. Despite the merit of his work and the affirmation of his colleagues, his tenure approval stalled once it reached top-level administrators. With no feedback from the closed-door tenure committee, Chapela was convinced that “there is another set of criteria that counterweigh the strength of the case,” clearly implying the influence of biotech, the industry that had showered Berkeley with $25,000,000.

Last summer, Chapela protested the kowtowing of University administrators to private entities by moving his office, piece by piece, onto the lawn. In an online article published in CounterPunch he explained his motivation for this action: “Beginning at 6 o’clock this morning, as I enter the final days of my contract as a faculty member at the University of California at Berkeley, I intend to mark and celebrate them, by doing what I believe a professor in a public university must do: to further reason and understanding. For the brief time that remains of my terminal contract at Berkeley, I shall sit holding office hours, day and night, outside the doors of California Hall. This is the building housing the Budget Committee of the Academic Senate, and the office of the Chancellor, the two arms of our university governance in charge of my file.”

Chapela’s tenure decision remained in limbo for another 6 months, but eventually, last fall, a rejection was delivered by Chancellor Robert Berdahl. An uproar ensued as hundreds of letters supporting Chapela poured in to the Chancellor’s office. Many academics wrote to Berdahl, questioning his decision and demanding greater transparency in the tenure process. Recently, the Graduate Assembly of the University voted unanimously to further pressure Berdahl into exposing the factors contributing to his rejection. “We’re just being supportive of the transparency of the process,” Jessica Quindel, president of the Graduate Assembly, told The Daily Cal. “There’s been a lot of secrecy about this—we just want to know why he was denied tenure.”

This fall Berdahl’s term as Chancellor comes to an end. This change of administration has encouraged Chapela to fight for his tenure at Berkeley. The new Chancellor will have the power to reverse Berdahl’s decision, so there is still hope, but if Novartis has it’s way, Igancio Chapela’s days of unveiling biotech fallacies at Berkeley will soon be history.

Genetic engineering has taken place for hundreds of years by the farmers of the world. A fruit that tasted better then another was selected to be planted year after year increasing its abundance.

Others were artificially mated with each other to produce tastes and odors pleasant to our senses. The problem arises when profit coupled with irresponsible science dictates these choices rather than the producers and their particular needs. The giants of Biotech have no concern in the preservation of the biodiversity for future generations of animals and plants; they are looking to maximize their shareholder values next month or next year. The tenure system has also historically preserved the integrity of research conducted in the university, selecting the ripe minds and nurturing them over the years. Today both UC Berkeley and the global population have reached a critical turning point where the decisions concerning tenure and nourishment are dictated by capital.

If you are disturbed by corporate influence on a public university, especially concerning the safety GMOs, visit www.tenurejustice.org and take action now.

ALI TONAK is a volunteer with the San Francisco Bay Area Independent Media Center and it’s monthly publication Fault Lines.


More articles by:

2016 Fund Drive
Smart. Fierce. Uncompromised. Support CounterPunch Now!

  • cp-store
  • donate paypal

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

September 28, 2016
Eric Draitser
Stop Trump! Stop Clinton!! Stop the Madness (and Let Me Get Off)!
Ted Rall
The Thrilla at Hofstra: How Trump Won the Debate
Robert Fisk
Cliché and Banality at the Debates: Trump and Clinton on the Middle East
Patrick Cockburn
Cracks in the Kingdom: Saudi Arabia Rocked by Financial Strains
Lowell Flanders
Donald Trump, Islamophobia and Immigrants
Shane Burley
Defining the Alt Right and the New American Fascism
Jan Oberg
Ukraine as the Border of NATO Expansion
Ramzy Baroud
Ban Ki-Moon’s Legacy in Palestine: Failure in Words and Deeds
David Swanson
How We Could End the Permanent War State
Sam Husseini
Debate Night’s Biggest Lie Was Told by Lester Holt
Laura Carlsen
Ayotzinapa’s Message to the World: Organize!
Binoy Kampmark
The Triumph of Momentum: Re-Electing Jeremy Corbyn
David Macaray
When the Saints Go Marching In
Seth Oelbaum
All Black Lives Will Never Matter for Clinton and Trump
Adam Parsons
Standing in Solidarity for a Humanity Without Borders
Cesar Chelala
The Trump Bubble
September 27, 2016
Louisa Willcox
The Tribal Fight for Nature: From the Grizzly to the Black Snake of the Dakota Pipeline
Paul Street
The Roots are in the System: Charlotte and Beyond
Jeffrey St. Clair
Idiot Winds at Hofstra: Notes on the Not-So-Great Debate
Mark Harris
Clinton, Trump, and the Death of Idealism
Mike Whitney
Putin Ups the Ante: Ceasefire Sabotage Triggers Major Offensive in Aleppo
Anthony DiMaggio
The Debates as Democratic Façade: Voter “Rationality” in American Elections
Binoy Kampmark
Punishing the Punished: the Torments of Chelsea Manning
Paul Buhle
Why “Snowden” is Important (or How Kafka Foresaw the Juggernaut State)
Jack Rasmus
Hillary’s Ghosts
Brian Cloughley
Billions Down the Afghan Drain
Lawrence Davidson
True Believers and the U.S. Election
Matt Peppe
Taking a Knee: Resisting Enforced Patriotism
James McEnteer
Eugene, Oregon and the Rising Cost of Cool
Norman Pollack
The Great Debate: Proto-Fascism vs. the Real Thing
Michael Winship
The Tracks of John Boehner’s Tears
John Steppling
Fear Level Trump
Lawrence Wittner
Where Is That Wasteful Government Spending?
James Russell
Beyond Debate: Interview Styles of the Rich and Famous
September 26, 2016
Diana Johnstone
The Hillary Clinton Presidency has Already Begun as Lame Ducks Promote Her War
Gary Leupp
Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Against Russia
Dave Lindorff
Parking While Black: When Police Shoot as First Resort
Robert Crawford
The Political Rhetoric of Perpetual War
Howard Lisnoff
The Case of One Homeless Person
Michael Howard
The New York Times Endorses Hillary, Scorns the World
Russell Mokhiber
Wells Fargo and the Library of Congress’ National Book Festival
Chad Nelson
The Crime of Going Vegan: the Latest Attack on Angela Davis
Colin Todhunter
A System of Food Production for Human Need, Not Corporate Greed
Brian Cloughley
The United States Wants to Put Russia in a Corner
Guillermo R. Gil
The Clevenger Effect: Exposing Racism in Pro Sports
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail