This is chilling. Suitors to corporations, University’s role in control of information.
Two researchers accuse the University of Manitoba of blocking for three years the release of their video exploring the risks of genetically modified crops, while at the same courting funds from biotech companies.
I never dreamt that when we started following the work of Ian Mauro it would come to this.
BACKGROUND:
“University of Manitoba PhD student Ian Mauro is distributing 11,000 questionnaires to rural addresses in high-wheat-growing areas of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.
Farmers will be asked whether they would grow Monsanto’s new Roundup Ready Wheat, which is resistant to the company’s popular Roundup weed killer.”
– we circulated email about ensuing documentary by Ian Mauro, 2005-01-25 Transgenics (GMO’s): New documentary, “Genetic Matrix”
– I forwarded some of our information to Ian:
- Bill C-11, Whistle-blower legislation.
- Plant Breeders’ Responsibilities, not “Rights” (Proposed changes to Plant Breeders’ Rights Act raise serious issues of GOVERNANCE (In whose interest?)
- HEALTH (Our food supply. Health is dependent upon food supply. What is criteria for seed selection?)
- ENVIRONMENT (Introduced species do not have enemies. They proliferate and become weeds.) and
- OWNERSHIP OF LIFE FORMS, the right of citizens to save seeds.
UPDATE: (Thanks to Mike)
Mon 12 Sep 2005
Winnipeg Free Press
Video sows seeds of controversy
by Helen Fallding
Two researchers accuse the University of Manitoba of blocking for three years the release of their video exploring the risks of genetically modified crops, while at the same courting funds from biotech companies.
The case is being compared to a University of Toronto scandal over the suppression of drug research concerns.
University of Manitoba environment professor Stéphane McLachlan and his PhD student Ian Mauro completed a feature-length documentary in
2002 with help from independent Winnipeg filmmaker Jim Sanders.
It is based on interviews with Prairie farmers about their experiences — good and bad — with genetically-modified canola.
But the Seeds of Change video has never been screened because the university and the researchers, who share the copyright, have been unable to negotiate an agreement on its release.
“We’ve had people knocking on our door wanting this,” said Mauro, citing interest from Denmark, Australia and the U.S.
The university originally demanded assurances it would not be liable if anyone sued. One insurer demanded a $50,000 deductible for any lawsuits by crop marketer Monsanto, which has a reputation for protecting its interests vigorously through the courts.
The company is featured in the documentary because of its legal battle with Saskatchewan farmer Percy Schmeiser and its development of genetically-modified wheat.
‘Never seen (the video)’
“Obviously, we’ve never seen (the video), so I’m not sure how these guys could assume that we would sue them,” Monsanto Canada spokeswoman Trish Jordan said.
Now that a private investor has pulled out of the Seeds of Change project and the filmmakers have made it clear they don’t intend to make a profit, the lawsuit issue has apparently been dropped by the university.
“I’ve seen (the video) and I think it’s fair. It’s not a biased kind of thing,” said Alan Simms, who represented the university in early negotiations before going on to head the university’s Smartpark research complex.
Simms said preliminary negotiations with Monsanto Canada over moving its Canadian headquarters to a new $6.5-million building in Smartpark did not begin until after his involvement with the documentary issue ended.
But McLachlan said the university is still demanding control over where and when the video is shown, while at the same time requiring a disclaimer indicating the project has nothing to do with the university. An independent lawyer advised him not to sign the agreement the university proposed.
University spokesman John Danakas would not say what restrictions the university would place on how the video is screened, because those details have not yet been discussed with the researchers. The university wants to make sure the documentary is only used for educational purposes, he said.
Filed grievance
McLachlan has filed a grievance through the faculty association claiming the university is infringing on his academic freedom — and even his responsibility as a public servant — to disseminate his research results as he sees fit.
If he and Mauro wrote a book about their interviews with the farmers, or even published the documentary transcript, the university administration would have no say. But a university copyright bylaw originally written to govern the use of taped lectures says the university has 50 per cent ownership of video and audio recordings by staff.
University of Manitoba ethics professor Arthur Schafer noted that universities are sometimes reluctant to offend corporate donors who compensate for government underfunding.
But Danakas said the lengthy negotiations over the video have more to do with the complexities of new media and the involvement of an outside filmmaker.
Sanders, meanwhile, is tired of waiting for permission to release the increasingly dated video.
In an article in the current issue of Canadian Dimension magazine, the independent filmmaker promised to put the documentary on his website for free download next month.
The Canadian Association of University Teachers has also taken up the case and plans to help McLachlan release the video in Winnipeg this fall — with or without the university’s permission. The professor recently received tenure, which gives him job security he did not have when negotiations with the university began.
CAUT executive director James Turk compared the case to the University of Toronto’s failure to support Dr. Nancy Olivieri when drug company Apotex tried to prevent her from going public with her concerns about one of their drugs. The company was also negotiating with the university over a huge donation.
Turk said stalling by the university amounts to suppression of research-based discussion of a compelling public issue — the very reason universities exist.
Equally vigilant
“We hope this never happens to another researcher.”
He said the association would be equally vigilant if the documentary focused on the benefits of genetically-modified crops.
Mauro said he has spent more time fighting to get the video released than he did interviewing farmers.
The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, which helped fund the documentary, encourages researchers to disseminate their work in a format accessible to the general public and has raised no objection to Seeds of Change.
helen.fallding@freepress.mb.ca
Video summary
Seeds of Change: Farmers, Biotechnology and the New Face of Agriculture
Summary: The video documentary explores the impacts genetically modified canola is having on farmers and rural communities in the Canadian Prairies, outlining benefits, but paying special attention to the risks. The voices of farmers have sometimes been missing in the public debate between anti-GM activists and the biotech industry.
Scientists critical of GM crops are interviewed, including activist David Suzuki, University of Guelph professor Anne Clark and Indian activist Vandana Shiva. Patrick Moore, a former Greenpeace activist turned advocate for GM crops, also appears in the film.
Monsanto, one of the main marketers of genetically modified crops, declined to participate in the project.
Date: The documentary was completed in 2002, but has not yet been released.
Length: 70 minutes
Budget: Less than $200,000, including grants from the federal Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and the Manitoba Rural Adaptation Council.
Created by: University of Manitoba PhD student Ian Mauro, independent Winnipeg filmmaker Jim Sanders and University of Manitoba professor Stéphane McLachlan. Other films by activist filmmaker Sanders include The Real Thing: Coca, Democracy and Rebellion in Bolivia, which screened last year at Cinematheque.
Benefits of genetically-modified crops mentioned in the video: yield increases, profitability, better weed control, reduced tillage and fuel savings.
Risks highlighted: contamination of non-GM seed, GM crops as weeds in other fields, resistance to herbicides, loss of markets in Europe, lawsuits against farmers for patent violations, impact on zero-till agriculture and organic farming. Similar issues were raised in an award-winning Free Press series on genetically-modified wheat in 2002.
Excerpt: “You have the extreme groups on the anti-GMO. You also have big business, which I don’t trust all the time — or ever — telling you something else on the other side. We’re stuck in the middle.”
(Farmer from Starbuck, Manitoba.)
Potential audience: farmers, academic conferences, agriculture policy makers, film festivals and alternative theatres. The potential for international distribution is limited now that independent funder Angband has pulled out following delays in releasing the video.