Volunteer Ali Tonak wrote a useful summary of the Chapela victimisation.
However, s/he is wildly astray regarding the nature of genetic "engineering":
> 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.
This is one of the crudest & most misleading furphies from the PR
agents for the gene-jiggering trade. The processes known as genetic
"engineering" have extremely little resemblance to anything that has 'taken
place ... by the farmers ...". Selecting mutants & recombinants that
arise naturally is very, very different from ramming in synthetic DNA
'cassettes' by drastically unnatural methods.
>The problem arises when profit coupled with irresponsible science dictates
>these choices rather than the producers and their particular needs.
This view of gene-tampering is an exact parallel of the old Soviet
line that nuclear power is OK but only in State control (as parrotted by
Gensuikyo in Japan).
The first answer is the empirical evidence of Chernobyl. The USSR
built in many satellite nations that type of reactor with no special
containment, whereas some marginal improvement is afforded by the
containments of the Western subsidised corporations.
As an example in the other direction, the first two hydro works
contracted out by our late Prime Minister Mulgoon fell over within weeks,
whereas none of the Ministry of Works dams has done so.
The general performance of the USSR nuclear industry was even more
reckless and polluting than any in the West.
Is some Marxist theory assumed to make dangerous technologies OK as
long as they're public enterprises? I see no reason to expect any great
difference either way. The Chinese are at least as gung-ho for
gene-jiggering as any Western corporations, public research institutes, or
Gene-tampering to make drastically novel chimaeras that would not
be produced by any natural process is motivated by lust for money and for
power over life. I doubt these vices differ much between public and