Source: BBC Radio 4: Today Programme
URL: N/A
Date: 15/10/2014
Event: Greenpeace's Doug Parr on stem cells, Golden Rice and Pascal Husting
Credit: BBC Radio 4: Today Programme
Also see:
People:
Justin Webb: There is a "Green Blob", a group of unelected busybodies who focus on the wrong green issues and do immense harm. That is the view of Owen Paterson, the former Environment Secretary, who introduced that phrase "Green Blob" and is making a speech today - this evening, in fact - in which he'll set out, for the first time since he was sacked from the government, what he thinks should be done about the Blob, the extent to which he thinks the Green Movement is damaging us all. We'll hear from him on the programme tomorrow morning, but we thought we'd talk today to Greenpeace, and we will hear from them in just a second.
First, though, the charges against them, not just from Owen Paterson - let's begin with stem cells. Greenpeace joined a legal action in Europe with the Catholic Church, which had the effect of hampering stem cell research, according to some scientists, among them Professor Peter Coffey, Professor of Cellular Therapies at the Institute of Ophthalmology at University College London.
Pete Coffey: I was absolutely astounded why an organisation like Greenpeace was looking at science and stem cell research, without in any way considering the impacts it would have and benefit for those people suffering from absolutely awful diseases. We're working mainly within eye disease, diseases which are untreatable at the moment and result in blindness, and we've had good success in restoring vision in a number of diseases, using these types of approaches.
Justin Webb: Right, that's stem cells. Item 2 - a word from Dr. Patrick Moore, who's the co-founder, actually, of Greenpeace and now very much a campaigner against the organisation, particularly on the subject of Golden Rice, which is genetically modified rice with added vitamin A, which could be - its supporters argue - hugely beneficial in parts of the world where poor people are deficient in that vitamin.
Patrick Moore: My problem with Greenpeace is: they have lost any humanitarian roots they had. When we started Greenpeace, it was to stop nuclear war and the destruction of human civilisation. That, of course, is the "peace" in Greenpeace. The "green" is the environment, and that's good as well, but they lost the concern for humans, and their position on Golden Rice is clear evidence of that. They have turned into, basically, an evil organisation.
Justin Webb: Mm. Dr. Doug Parr is Chief Scientist and Policy Director of Greenpeace, he's here in the studio. Good morning to you.
Doug Parr: Good morning.
Justin Webb: Could we start with the stem cells -
Doug Parr: Sure.
Justin Webb: - and this was a case, what, back in 2011, I think, wasn't it. It was heard at the European Court, you won the case - you and the Roman Catholic Church, acting together - what do you say to that scientist who says in winning that case you've done real damage to real people, who will not now get the cures for the diseases, that they're so desperately waiting for?
Doug Parr: Oh, I don't agree. Um, firstly, let's make it absolutely clear - we support stem cell research. We don't oppose it, we absolutely support and want to see more of it.
Justin Webb: Why did you join the case, then?
Doug Parr: The case was not about whether stem cell research is good or bad. The case was about the extension of patent law to certain biological materials, which could ultimately include human embryos and plants, and so on -
Justin Webb: But hang on, hang on, just on this - it's so important - it was about a laboratory process, wasn't it, it wasn't about whether or not an embryo, a stem cell line could be patented, it was about a laboratory process. And you objected, and what your critics said: you objected because you don't like the idea of commercial gain.
Doug Parr: It wasn't just about commercial gain - it was about the way in which the patent law was developing, in such a way that it would allow that patenting of biological material, and that's why it was important to set those precedents that were taken in quite a different direction. Now, it's - we want to see patent law, and such intellectual property protection that goes on, directed towards genuine innovative steps. Now, the implication of that is not quite as black and white as the gentleman there suggested. We actually think it will encourage stem cell research, so a survey by the World Intellectual Property Organisation - who aren't actually that worried about ownership and patent control - suggested that amongst scientists, the barriers to research, patents were amongst them, there were - there was a fear being engendered, that they were infringing intellectual property and so research was not going on.
Justin Webb: So you think you've assisted with stem cell research, by that action -
Doug Parr: Yes. Yes.
Justin Webb: - in spite of the fact that you were taking that action - with the Roman Catholic Church, who are absolutely, on principle, objecting to the use of embryonic stem cells - you think, somehow, that you achieved the opposite of the outcome they were looking for -
Doug Parr: I think - I think -
Justin Webb: - from the same case.
Doug Parr: The survey that shows what the impact have [sic] been, shows that the scientists across the UK were being inhibited by the intellectual property rights regime. That's what our interest was in - we're interested in, firstly, stopping that, though, the direction of travel of patent control, and secondly, making sure that, er, that regenerative medicine and research like that was not inhibited by commercial ownership.
Justin Webb: Let's turn to Golden Rice.
Doug Parr: Yes.
Justin Webb: And its supporters, including Owen Paterson, who's been very passionate about this, on this programme and may well be, tomorrow - he says you're damaging poor people by your opposition to this particular GM food, because they will immediately benefit and there are no known disbenefits.
Doug Parr: Well, I don't necessarily agree with that. I think that the thing about Golden Rice is it's a least favourable option. And let's also be clear, that it doesn't actually exist yet. It's been many years in being proposed, and it doesn't actually exist.
Justin Webb: It doesn't exist because people like you stop it.
Doug Parr: No, that's such a cheap go, and it's not because of that - it's because they keep having to withdraw the lines of, varieties of research that they're trying to try something else, because it doesn't work very well.
Justin Webb: Would you welcome it - if it did exist, if it could be tried in a greater trial than has currently been done, would you welcome that?
Doug Parr: Just as I was saying, it's not - it's a least good option, amongst the options that are available for dealing with the problem. Firstly, let's establish that vitamin A deficiency is an issue - it's an issue alongside a whole load of other micronutrient deficiencies. And Golden Rice will at best - if it ever works - only tackle one of them, because the real solution to this is through a proper balanced diet, which projects like the home gardening initiatives in Bangladesh have developed, so that people don't just get one single nutrient improvement but they get nutrient improvement across the board.
Now, okay, I accept that under certain circumstances, that's not going to be possible to deliver, ultimately, very quickly, and therefore, biofortification is indeed appropriate. We support the use of other biotechnologies like marker-assisted breeding, which is already established and is now on the ground, delivering in crops like maize and cassava biofortified material that is helping to deal with micronutrient deficiency. And it does preserve the genetic context in which - in which breeding takes place, and so doesn't have the risks associated with GM, which international fora like the Biosafety Protocol have recognised.
Justin Webb: Well, you talk about risk, but there are risks that at the moment, in the case of Golden Rice - nobody is suggesting, I think, convincingly, that there's going to be any harm and there would be any harm if it were introduced - there would obviously be good immediately to those people who had it, who were able to eat it, and the harm is something that you think might be there but you have no evidence.
Doug Parr: But it doesn't actually work, I mean, you know, we're still talking about a theoretical proposition. And, you know, the organisations who are -
Justin Webb: In that case, would you like to see it tried, at least?
Doug Parr: We'd - we don't necessarily say that it's - that it's going to be disastrous, as I say it's the least best option for the variety of reasons that I'm trying to lay out, which is not a solution to the overall picture - there are other things that are working, they're on the ground now, there are technologies, including biotechnologies, that are doing a better job.
Justin Webb: One of the sort of broader points that Owen Paterson makes - and doesn't just make this about Greenpeace - but it's a kind of suggestion that people in what he calls the "Green Blob" are more interested in things that make them feel good, campaigns that made them feel good, rather than really caring for the environment. And isn't one of the big issues for you the apparent hypocrisy - well, obvious hypocrisy, perhaps - of Pascal Husting, your International Programme Director, who we discover in the summer of being commuting to work by plane, a short-haul flight twice a month, while Greenpeace campaigns against people using particularly short-haul flights. Doesn't that expose you, in a way that Owen Paterson has suggested?
Doug Parr: Well, first of all, on Pascal Husting and his flights, that was a mistake, should never have happened, and as soon as people found out, across the organisation, it was stopped. It was wrong - it shouldn't have happened.
Justin Webb: Do you - with - I mean, he's still in place, isn't he - do you think he should go?
Doug Parr: Er, no, because you know, people make mistakes, we understand that - but I, you know, nobody's condoning what he did there. And absolutely -
Justin Webb: Well, it was initially condoned, actually, wasn't it, by one of the Greenpeace bosses in the United Kingdom, who wrote a blog suggesting that it was six of one, half a dozen of the other, and actually that it was defensible. You're saying absolutely it wasn't.
Doug Parr: No, no, it was not defensible, and, you know, very rapidly, when it was discovered, it was -
Justin Webb: It was more than a mistake, though, wasn't it - doesn't it just suggest that right at the heart of the organisation, you don't do what you tell other people to do.
Doug Parr: No, I don't agree, because that was something that would never have been allowed to happen if it had been appraised across the organisation. And so what we do, when we do campaigns, is to do precisely that - we look across the organisation, we look at influence, we look at impact, and we are very, very mindful of the need to incorporate the kind of social and economic issues into what we do. Because otherwise, frankly, you know, campaigns won't work.
We're not - there's not going to be some kind of green dictatorship that imposes these decisions upon anybody, and that's where, I think, Owen Paterson misses any kind of trick. Look, there's plenty of examples of where actually there are very good - very good synergies between the environmental and the social agenda - look - and people like Owen Paterson, I'm afraid, have been part of a government that have got in the way.
Take fuel poverty - I think it's a disgrace that so many people in this country are in cold homes, when simultaneously we could help them with warmer homes and deal with climate change at the same time - it's also true that plenty of reports are now indicating that irrespective of climate change, we could get economic benefit through the infrastructure, investment and reduction in fuel imports that moving to a low-carbon, clean-energy economy would bring.
Justin Webb: Two things, among others, to put to Owen Paterson, when we talk to him - as I think we are going to be, tomorrow morning. Doug Parr, Dr. Doug Parr, thanks very much.
Doug Parr: Thank you.