Blockchain Papers

Insaf Arfa, Wided Khiari, Houssein Ballouk

ABSTRACT Faced with the accelerating erosion of biodiversity and its growing recognition as a source of financial risks and opportunities, the academic literature linking biodiversity and finance is expanding rapidly. This article offers a systematic and bibliometric review of this literature in order to analyze its evolution, intellectual structure, main conceptual dynamics and gap identification. Aligning with the PRISMA‐2020 protocol, this study examines 1088 scientific articles published in the period 1993–2025. The data were extracted from Scopus and Web of Science databases. The analysis uses descriptive bibliometric methods available in R software and the bibliometrix package via the Biblioshiny interface. The results highlighted a strong acceleration of scientific production since 2015, which is linked with the development of sustainable finance and international regulatory frameworks. While the thematic mapping identifies a broader landscape, three key areas are prioritized for in‐depth analysis: Sustainability as a macroeconomic framework, Biodiversity conservation via innovation in financial instruments, and the emergence of biodiversity risk as a systemic financial risk. Beyond descriptive mapping, this study proposes the Biodiversity‐Finance Inhibition Framework (BFIF) as an integrative conceptual framework to synthesize the persistent disconnect between academic evidence and market implementation. It identifies a systemic “Inhibition Loop” where data gaps at the micro‐level and a lack of ecological accountability at the meso‐level paralyze macro‐regulatory ambitions. The article also highlights a significant geographical disparity, with research heavily concentrated in developed economies. Finally, it outlines a strategic research agenda aimed at breaking this “Inhibition Loop” by exploring a “methodological frontier” involving bio‐econometrics, blockchain, and artificial intelligence to reinforce the measurement, governance, and effectiveness of biodiversity‐finance.

ALAMUSI

Digital technologies are transforming supply chain management by enabling greater connectivity, transparency, and coordination among supply chain partners. In forestry supply chains, characterized by dispersed resources, multiple stakeholders, and complex operational processes, collaborative governance has become increasingly important for improving coordination and sustainable resource management. However, existing studies mainly focus on operational optimization and digital applications, while the governance implications of digital technologies remain insufficiently explored. This conceptual article explores how digital technologies may enable collaborative governance capability in forestry supply chains through four governance mechanisms: information sharing, resource integration, collaborative decision-making, and adaptive governance. Based on collaborative governance and digital transformation literature, a conceptual framework is proposed to illustrate how digital technologies may support governance processes through the Internet of Things, big data analytics, cloud computing, blockchain, and artificial intelligence. The article provides theoretical insights into digital-enabled collaborative governance and practical implications for sustainable forestry supply chains.

Mahsa Alian, Sunil P. Dhoubhadel, Venkatesh Balan

Cordyceps militaris is a high-value medicinal mushroom known for its bioactive compounds, including cordycepin and polysaccharides, which have driven demand for scalable and economically efficient cultivation systems. This study presents an integrated techno-economic analysis (TEA) of Cordyceps production in modular shipping-container units under two operational strategies: (i) a centralized system with on-site substrate and spawn preparation, and (ii) a decentralized system relying on commercially produced spawn at a single grow-only site. Red rice was used as the cultivation substrate at two production scales (50 and 100 lb/day) and evaluated using a five-year financial model that incorporated capital expenditure (CapEx), operating expenditure (OpEx), revenue, net cash flows, discounted cash flows, and net present value (NPV). The model assumed 80% debt and 20% equity financing, a WACC of 6.48%, and a 30% corporate tax rate. GHG emissions were quantified within a farm-gate boundary encompassing electricity consumption, CO 2 from mushroom respiration, and raw material transportation. Centralized systems required higher initial CapEx ($212,232 and $375,408) but benefited from substantially lower raw-material costs, resulting in superior operating margins and annual cash flows. In contrast, decentralized systems incurred two-to three-fold higher substrate-related costs, which constrained profitability despite lower upfront capital requirements. As a result, centralized systems achieved significantly higher NPVs and shorter payback. Sensitivity analysis confirmed that the selling price and biological efficiency are the dominant drivers of NPV, while the electricity price has minimal influence across all scenarios. Centralized container-based production offers a more economically viable and scalable pathway for commercial Cordyceps cultivation.

Eber Addí Quintana-Obregón

This document proposes integrative principles that articulate fully established and validated approaches—such as ethnobotany, One Health, circular bioeconomy, TRL, and Access and Benefit-Sharing—into an integrative model that shifts bioprospecting from a purely extractive model centered on the pharmaceutical industry to a more human-centered, circular, and biocultural paradigm. Through a historical analysis of the generations of bioprospecting (from 0.0 to 4.0), this work theorizes that technological advancement has paradoxically contributed to epistemic injustice. The proposed 5.0 framework integrates social validation tools and introduces the Epistemic Gap Score (EGS) as an exploratory heuristic tool that allows for visualizing the divergence or cohesion of bioprospecting a plant resource and the recognition of ancestral knowledge in a more humanistic manner. Through preliminary proof-of-concept, this study demonstrates the practical utility of the EGS for prioritizing plant species for bioprospecting, ensuring that the valorization of underutilized plant resources produces a tangible “epistemic return” and thereby promotes community autonomy and multisectoral benefits across the food, energy, and health systems. By focusing on zero-waste cycles and social reciprocity, Bioprospecting 5.0 reestablishes the role of plant resources as essential components of sustainable global development and ethical scientific practice.

Georgeio Semaan, Guizhou Wang, Quoc Si Vo, Gopalakrishnan Kumar

Despite advances in biofuel production and biomass processing technologies, biorefineries still experience commercialization issues. When costs exceed revenues, their long-term economic sustainability is threatened. Although integrated biorefineries have significant global potential due to process integration and product co-generation, it is crucial that they generate a positive net return, thereby incentivizing their continual operation. Nonetheless, research and development into new system designs and process integration are required to address current biorefinery inefficiencies. The integration of Bitcoin mining into biorefineries represents an innovative approach to diversify revenue streams and potentially offset costs, ensuring the economic viability and commercial success of biorefineries. When using bio-H2, a total of 3904 sats/kg fuel can be obtained as opposed to 537 sats/kg fuel when using syngas. Bitcoin, whether produced onsite or not, is an accretive asset that can offset the sales price of other produced biochemicals and biomaterials, thereby making biorefineries more competitive at offering their products. Collaborations with policy makers and industry stakeholders will be essential to address regulatory challenges and develop supportive frameworks for widespread implementation. Over time, the integration of Bitcoin mining in biorefineries could transform the financial dynamics of the bio-based products market, making them more affordable and accessible whilst pushing towards sustainable development and energy transition.

Ronny Hauf, Robert Miehe, Oliver Schöllhammer, Thomas Bauernhansl

Biological transformation represents one of the most promising optimization strategies for a sustainable economy. The rapid convergence of biotechnology, information technology and production technology provides a vast area of innovation. From an economic and innovation policy perspective, cooperation structures and value creation systems will change significantly in a biointelligent transformation process. In the future, many industries will produce personalized products in a much more decentralized manner based on locally provided, renewable resources using autonomous non-expert systems. Such a profound change affects not only products and processes but also the organization of companies and how innovations are evaluated and implemented. In this paper, we thus discuss the need for a reorientation of innovation management in companies in the context of biological transformation. This article focused the central question of how the innovation management can change in the context of biointelligence so that companies can be helped to invest strategically in biointelligent innovations. We then outline the basic elements of a framework and discuss key challenges for future research and development. In this paper, we present initial thoughts on a framework for the management of biointelligent innovation that aims to solve the complex requirements of BioIntelligence. Our approach is based on a holistic view of different methods and techniques to provide a comprehensive solution to the challenges. We discuss the basic concepts and goals of this framework as well as potential application areas and challenges. Furthermore, we present first approaches for implementation and evaluation.

Rumy Narayan, Annika Tidström

No abstract is available for this record.

Onat Kibaroğlu

As a technology that can be traced back to the late 1990s in its structural fundamentals, ‘blockchain’ came into mainstream public discourse as of 2017. Previously discussed in the fringes of the technology-savvy circles, blockchain has now become a global phenomenon and indeed an industry that is rapidly growing and capturing a notable share of the public imagination along with academic discourse. Blockchain’s emergence in the realm of technology is essentially thanks to the invention of bitcoin as both a speculative asset and as a digital store of value. Many governments around the world have made public claims regarding their enthusiasm for adopting ‘blockchain’ in various ways; varying from Russia, Estonia, and Ukraine in Europe all the way to Venezuela in Latin America and even the Marshall Islands in the Pacific Ocean. This paper puts out the objective of achieving self-sovereign identities on the blockchain is a promise that has not yet manifested on the ground, albeit it disproportionately captures a significant share of the contemporary discourse on the three larger concepts of self-sovereignty, digital identity, and the blockchain. A key reason for the lack of manifestation of this promise is that there is little agreement as to what is actually meant by ‘self-sovereign identities’ —in stark comparison to the major consensus over the concepts of ‘blockchain’ or ‘cryptocurrencies’. In order to explore the genealogy of the core concept of ‘identity’, the theoretical genesis of ‘biopolitics’ is consulted, demonstrating that our contemporary technological epoch is best defined as an era of the emergence of ‘bio digital’ power. The paper ultimately argues that the reason for this disproportional share of discourse is created by certain actors to utilize the growing rhetoric on ‘blockchain’ and the libertarian notion of ‘self-sovereignty’ as façades to potentially pursue capitalist objectives. Keywords: blockchain, self-sovereignty, bitcoin, capitalism, digital identity, privacy, data, cryptocurrencies.

Emília Krajňáková, Mantas Švažas, Valentinas Navickas

As the conjuncture of the energetic system in countries or different regions changes, renewable energy sources play a significant role. Thanks to them, it is possible to move from pollute fossil fuels to sustainable use of clean resources. It is widely acknowledged that the use of biomass waste promotes better environmental state and sustainable development because the waste that cannot be recycled is used for energy production. This article describes the usage of blockchain technology-based biomass systems that not only allows tracing the emergence of biomass, but also contributes to the development of sustainable energy. The research shows that a biomass blockchain enables simplification of biomass production process, thus saving resources and contributing to the expansion of forests and the development of common energy system.

Jane Qiu

The amount of arable land per person in China is only about 40% of the global average. In the next two decades, the country will need to produce 30–50% more food to meet the demand of its growing population. It's a daunting task for an agricultural sector that has long been plagued by pest infestation, crop diseases, soil pollution and degradation, water shortage and labour efflux—which will be exacerbated by climate change. To secure food supply, China is increasingly looking to genetic modification (GM) technology. In 2008, it rolled out a 12-year, 25 billion yuan (US$3.7 billion) programme to promote the research and development of GM technology. Six years on, Chinese scientists lament about the slow progress and public misconceptions, whereas some social scientists and non-government organizations are concerned that GM proponents are missing the forest for the trees. In a forum chaired by National Science Review's executive associate editor Mu-ming Poo, five panellists from diverse backgrounds locked horns over a myriad of issues of GM technology. Bing Liu Social Scientist at Tsinghua University in Beijing Baorong Lu Ecologist at Fudan University in Shanghai, a member of National Committee on the Biosafety of Agricultural Genetically Modified Organisms (NCBAGMO) Lanying Zhang Coordinator of the non-government organization Farmer Seed Network in Beijing Yunlong Zhou Researcher at Ministry of Agriculture's Centre for Science and Technology Development in Beijing, a member of NCBAGMO Zhen Zhu Geneticist at Chinese Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Genetics and Developmental Biology in Beijing Mu-ming Poo (Chair) Neurobiologist at Chinese Academy of Sciences' Institute of Neuroscience in Shanghai Poo: What's the stance of the Chinese government on GM technology? Zhu: Food security in China is extremely pressing at the moment. With a growing population, it's only going to get worse in the future. This is why the No.1 Document—central government's first policy document of the year—in the past consecutive years invariably focused on agriculture issues, with particular mention of seed industry and GM technology. The government really sees GM technology as central for feeding its people, and has invested heavily on its research and development. Lu: This is in line with the rapid development of GM technology around the world. The cultivation area of GM crops has reached 175.2 million hectares in 2013, constituting over 11% of global farmlands, up by 3% compared with the previous year. Zhu: There has been a lot of progress in GM research in China: hundreds of field trials of GM crops have been approved and conducted, and half a dozen have been approved for commercial production. In 2009, the government awarded safety certificates to two GM rice varieties, but it's unlikely that they will make their way to the market. The commercial cultivation of GM crops in China has been stagnated for years—since the great success of Bt cotton. Lu: Indeed. At 4.2 million hectares, China ranked sixth in 2013 in the cultivation area of GM crops, mostly Bt cotton—after the USA, Brazil, Argentina, India and Canada—dropping from the fourth place 10 years ago. Even in Pakistan and South Africa, which have much less land mass than China, the cultivation area of GM crops reached nearly 3 million hectares last year. China is in danger of being left behind by the rest of the world. Zhu: This will have serious implications for food security. China imports nearly 70 million tonnes of GM corn, soybean and rapeseed a year, about 12% of China's total production of all crops. If we do not get a significant boost from GM technology, our reliance on imports will continue to rise. This is a grave matter of food security. Poo: Why has the commercialization of GM crops been so slow in China despite the major government push? Zhou: The public concerns for ethical and biosafety issues are the main reason. We develop GM crops to serve consumers. Even if they are safe, it'd be no good if nobody buys them. The government is reluctant to grant further approval for commercial production unless there is a sea change in public mood. Poo: There've been fierce debates in China about GM crops, which are increasingly polarized. What are the underlying reasons? Lu: In the past five years, the public attitude has shifted from being more or less neutral to being negative. We did a survey recently and found that most people don't really know what GM technology is about, but oppose their commercialization. As scientists, we haven't done a good job in communicating the importance of GM crops to the public. Zhu: The public debates on GM crops are a sign of progress, illustrating China's improving democracy. Compared to a few decades ago, people demand a greater say in important public policies, especially about the environment they live in and the food they eat. But they should listen to the experts—scientists and economists—about the value of GM technology and how safe it is. Zhou: Scientific and technological breakthroughs are often controversial at the beginning. China's economic development has reached a stage in which basic livelihood is not a problem for most people. The public are really concerned if it's safe to eat GM foods—not only for themselves but also for future generations—and whether GM crops could damage the environment. When the public hasn't received proper information, they are more likely to be influenced by scaremongering claims that GM crops are unsafe than those that support them. Zhang: The public are also concerned whether GM technology will make farmers and national food production heavily rely on a small number of biotech companies, and what impact they will have on local cultivars, traditional farming practices and indigenous knowledge. Another issue is that people want to retain their right to choose what they eat, especially when staple food is concerned. This is a basic autonomy that must be respected. They simply cannot and would not accept to have GM foods, especially GM rice, imposed upon them. This is why compulsory labelling is absolutely essential. China is losing ground in the international race of transgenic technology. —Zhen Zhu Liu: The debates about GM crops are not just about science or economics. Rather, it concerns a myriad of issues, including the role of science in society, ethics, culture, tradition and even religion. A main problem is that China still uses the outdated science-communication approach in which scientists tell the public about their findings, which the public passively understand and accept. This is highly problematic and rarely effective. A better approach is to have a dialogue between experts and multiple stakeholders and involve diverse perspectives and opinions. Poo: This discussion is very interesting. We really need to have more interactive dialogues involving multiple stakeholders, not just the public being told by the scientists. There is a lack of intelligent debates in the Chinese media—most are one-sided, either supporting or opposing GM—which is partly to blame for fuelling the polarization. Liu: The fierce GM debates also result from a serious mistrust on the experts. Scientists have been saying that GM crops are safe, but this hasn't persuaded the public. Some people wonder if those scientists are part of an interest group conspiring to benefit financially from the commercialization of GM crops. This suspicion has been exacerbated by the fact that there is a lack of transparency in terms of who the committee members are, how the assessment is done, how the decisions of commercialization are reached and whether different opinions are considered. Zhu: I agree we need to adopt a more interactive approach when engaging with the public. The right to choose is also very important, and we are not saying that we will force people to eat certain things just because they are safe. But we can't ignore the harsh reality: the demand for food supply is overwhelming; a lot of people still live below the poverty line in many parts of the world. As we overemphasize the importance of the right to choose, aren't we depriving people's right to basic livelihood? Isn't that something we should take into consideration in our ethical debates? Zhou: It's unlikely that we will be able to persuade everybody. So who should make the decision? I think government and international organizations must take a lead on this. Otherwise we'd be going nowhere if we have to consider the opinions of every individual. It's as much about the respect for individual's rights as the collective interest. Lu: There is a lot of misinformation floating around, which contributes to some public anxieties about GM crops. For instance, most people don't realize that compulsory labelling is required for all products derived from GM crops according to the Chinese biosafety regulations. GM rice would be labelled, too, so consumers would always have the choice. Zhu: The GM debates touch upon many issues. But the most fundamental question we must consider before anything else is: are GM crops safe? The answer must be based on solid scientific evidence. Poo: So what have we learned about the potential impact of GM crops on human health? Zhu: The world has been consuming foods derived from GM crops for nearly 20 years and there have been no safety issues. Zhou: China imports 70 million tonnes of GM corn, soybean and rapeseed a year. GM foods have long got into our food chain. Liu: I don't think it's appropriate to make a sweeping statement about the biosafety of GM crops in general. It really depends on which GM crops you are talking about. If Bt rice turns out to be harmful, its large-scale cultivation and commercialization would have unthinkable consequences. — Bing Liu Zhu: That's true. GM is a technology. It's neutral. Whether it's safe or not depends on what kind of genes you introduce to crops. If you have a GM toxin, of course it won't be safe. Lu: Indeed. We cannot say all GM crops are safe before biosafety assessment. Biosafety must be assessed on a case-by-case basis—which is one of the fundamental principles in biosafety evaluation in China and around the world. GM technology is not that much different from traditional breeding, but is more targeted, efficient and can cross species reproductive barriers. There are mainly two types of GM crops that have been commercialized in the world: one is genetically modified to produce a protein made by the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) that can kill a type of pests belonging to the lepidopteran order and the other is modified to produce an enzyme called EPSP synthase that can protect plants from herbicides. Extensive research and nearly 20 years of commercial cultivation have really shown that neither Bt nor EPSP crop has any adverse impact on health and environment. Zhang: I don't think the picture is as black and white as you portrayed. In 2012, a study led by French scientist Gilles-Eric Seralini and published in Food and Chemical Toxicology showed that EPSP maize caused tumours and other serious diseases in rats after two years of feeding experiments. In a controversial move, the journal retracted the paper a year later on the grounds that ‘no definitive conclusions can be reached’. It was republished this June by Environmental Sciences Europe, another peer-review journal. I don't think there is a consensus within the scientific community. Zhu: The Seralini study, along with other similar research, has been widely refuted by mainstream scientists. Until now, there is simply no solid evidence that GM foods could pose any threat to human or animal health. Liu: I agree with Zhang: the health impacts of GM crops are still an open question. Most of the existing GM crops are either used as animal feeds or consumed after having been processed. None of them has been directly consumed to the extent as rice is in China. So even if no health issue has emerged so far, this does not mean that Bt rice would be safe. No country in the world—not even the USA—has commercialized a GM staple crop. Zhang: The pest-resistant protein Bt is a toxin. The Bt pesticides are also derived from the same chemical. I think the public anxiety over Bt rice is understandable. Liu: I certainly don't think that those three-month rat experiments are sufficient to reassure the public that eating toxin-containing rice three times a day for their entire life would be safe. If Bt rice turns out to be harmful, its large-scale cultivation would have unthinkable consequences. Zhu: I think you are holding an impossible standard for biosafety studies. If three months of animal experiments are not enough, how long a duration would assure you? Two years, 50 years or 500 years? If one demands such stringent proof, there would be no hope for any technology. Zhou: The issues of staple crops have attracted a lot of public attention. But I don't think, as a staple crop, GM rice is a special case from the point of view of biosafety. China takes biosafety issues very seriously, which was why it took 15 years to approve the two Bt rice varieties. It has also dedicated 40% of the funding of the major GM programme, billions of yuans, to biosafety research. Liu: We should be extremely cautious about GM rice. Is the issue of food supply so pressing that we must subject one billion people to the biggest human experiment in history? There are several historical examples, in which new inventions, such as pesticides, seemed wonderful at the time but has turned out to be harmful. They are cautionary tales for GM technology. Lu: No technology is absolutely safe, and so we should balance the risks and benefits of GM crops. As pointed out by the Chinese proverb: when we face two benefits, choose the greater one; when we face two evils, choose the lesser one. Poo: What could GM crops do to environment and biodiversity? Lu: One worry is whether Bt toxin, which aims at killing target pests, could also affect neutral or beneficial insects—the so-called non-target effects. There has been a lot of research around the world, and most studies show little impact. Another concern regards gene flow—that is, whether the transgene could get into unmodified, wild or weedy relatives through cross-pollination. We have done a lot of research on Bt rice in the past 15 years. Because rice produces seeds strictly through self-pollination, the efficiency of gene flow to rice crops is extremely It would be even if you have a between GM and rice. The efficiency of gene flow to wild rice is but we haven't found any significant adverse with the Bt Zhu: There are some issues with GM cotton. For instance, the first Bt is to but the of non-target pests, such as of the after a few years and the main Scientists have the of GM with two are to Liu: that the widely used gene into weedy rice, could make the plants and more in the of the This is a of the GM crops could have on the environment. It's because any gene flow to weedy rice is the transgene to and subject to But of studies are rarely in debates about the biosafety of GM crops. Poo: GM crops have any on environment or Zhu: GM technology can pollution caused by of pesticides and GM crops have the of Scientists are GM crops that can take up and much more so less would be There could also be GM that are to and crop diseases and can in Lu: At the we have two we either rely on pesticides, at and more with serious impacts on health and or we pest-resistant crops. We must risks and benefits in this kind of Liu: I that we have a lot of with such as those caused by pesticides and But are we really a of either GM crops or those there other we should a little and how we have got into such a before what we should Zhang: A lot of agricultural issues are in decades of farming such as of pesticides and land which have out and the of to and A on GM crops is a for and the Liu: I we need to take a approach agricultural The of GM technology to is just the than the The of which can just as much as is a case in farmers are on pesticides, the same as I the transgenic GM to and will other In the USA, the benefits of GM crops have also because have mostly to farming Zhang: GM technology is not a for food production. on GM could also further for improving traditional and farming Zhou: No one is saying that GM technology is a for all agriculture It's a that we cannot not to take GM is not the only for such as pest infestation, but it's the main up to Poo: What are the impact of GM crops on traditional agriculture and One I have in is GM it was in the USA, farmers growing traditional have China must consider of issues if it is to GM crops on a Zhang: farmers I of GM technology. When I told them that if they GM crops they have to seeds every year, they really worry about their autonomy and Lu: We should take into consideration interest. But as we get into a the traditional farming approach of and is way to large-scale This is a global not an issue to GM technology. Zhou: I also the seeds if they rice or and have to get supply from seed with technology. farming has always been in and but I don't think is a Lu: I think Bt really how GM technology could impact it was in the production nearly because of pest The was and of farmers year. The of Bt has really the has a lot of labour and A study led by of Chinese Academy of Sciences’ Centre for Chinese Agricultural showed that by yuan per No technology is absolutely safe and so we should balance the risks and benefits of GM crops. Lu Zhang: The benefits of Bt are They most significant in the first a few years after Bt was but to as pests and farmers on This is by the fact that Bt is more to diseases and their seeds are several times more than traditional Liu: is a major only the seeds but also of and are all by it's about who and the food supply of billion population. Zhu: the of GM products would be able to get sufficient from the and would always on government the of between China and would if we do not develop Poo: and of GM crop research trials is to their development and public has it been The in which at the Academy of Sciences field trials of GM crops has serious Zhou: China has a of and on GM technology such as basic research, field commercial food and compulsory They are all in line with international and The government takes biosafety evaluation very The National Biosafety between five government of experts on public environment food safety and Liu: The issue at is not only about having a good but also It's similar to China has a very good on but many and are have that the of GM crops is not Zhang: Indeed. GM seeds have been found at local in several because of GM rice has also been for years. to by China's of and the for Food and found times of GM rice in food products from China. panellists the importance of GM technology in but this could be for China's food The debates should all stakeholders and take diverse opinions and perspectives into Zhang Liu: In the are genetically to produce a of to the efficiency of of to after of the rice approval or from the This is just another of and Zhang: of GM crops is also for and the of But I just don't that China is able to face up to such on a Poo: We are out of their Zhu: GM crops are safe and China is losing ground in the international race of transgenic technology. We should to science and and be engaging in and the great The food shortage that we must Lu: There is no We should balance risks and benefits, the greater benefit and the lesser The potential risks of GM crops can be to Zhou: The of GM technology is on The Chinese government will take and consider public when important it's about the most out of this technology and at the same time risks as much as we Liu: We should be extremely cautious and potential risks when over the commercialization of GM crops, especially GM rice. The national biosafety committee should be much more about its members and The public has a right to Zhang: The GM debates are not just about science and technology. A lot of social issues are also such as ethics, culture, tradition and The debates should all stakeholders and take diverse opinions and perspectives into

Henk van den Belt

On May 20, 1999, Nature published a brief report on an experiment performed by researchers at Cornell University that indicated that pollen from genetically modified (GM) Bt corn (Zea mays) could kill the larvae of monarch butterflies (Danaus plexippus). In laboratory tests, caterpillars fed milkweed (Asclepias curassavica) leaves dusted with pollen from a Bt corn hybrid showed retarded growth and increased mortality. “These results,” the authors stated, “have potentially profound implications for the conservation of monarch butterflies” (Losey et al., 1999). In a press release announcing the publication in Nature, the principal investigator on the Cornell study, John Losey, had expressed due caution: “Pollen from Bt-corn could represent a serious risk to populations of monarchs and other butterflies, but we can't predict how serious the risk is until we have a lot more data. And we can't forget that Bt-corn and other transgenic crops have a huge potential for reducing pesticide use and increasing yields. This study is just the first step, we need to do more research and then objectively weigh the risks versus the benefits of this new technology” (Cornell News, 1999). Such caution was wasted on Greenpeace International. The day the findings of the Cornell study were published it already demanded that authorities in the United States, Argentina, Canada, and the European Union take immediate action and prohibit the growing of genetically engineered maize crops. The environmentalist nongovernmental organization (NGO) reiterated its earlier call for a ban on all releases of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Less than a month later, in a media-oriented action, members of Greenpeace dressed up as butterflies confronted a meeting of European Union environment ministers held in Luxembourg, carrying banners demanding “Give butterflies a chance.” In Europe, their campaign apparently found resonance among the authorities: The European Commission decided to freeze the approval process for new Bt maize varieties. The Cornell study did not show that monarch butterfly populations in the wild were actually endangered by Bt corn. However, when Monsanto and Novartis, the companies that sold Bt corn at that time, correctly pointed out that the detrimental effects had so far only been shown in the laboratory, Greenpeace branded them as irresponsible. A spokesperson declared: “Such reactions are the precise opposite to precaution and follow the same pattern of denial these companies have employed for decades, when health and environmental effects of their chemical pesticides were exposed. However, in the case of these GMOs we are talking about living toxins that can reproduce in nature and transmit their dangerous traits to wild species. We cannot consider GMOs harmless until harmful effects are fully proven (sic)” (Greenpeace, 1999a). (The last sentence is obviously a—Freudian?—slip of the tongue and should be read: “We cannot consider GMOs harmless until the absence of harmful effects is fully proven.”) For Greenpeace, not just monarchs were supposed to be endangered. The NGO drew up a list of over 100 species of butterflies that it believed could be harmed by GM maize. It accused biotech companies and regulatory authorities of fully ignoring these risks (Greenpeace, 1999b). More recent field research performed in the American Midwest, however, seems to indicate that monarch butterfly populations are hardly affected, if at all, by the large-scale cultivation of Bt maize in this region (Ortman et al., 2001). The monarch butterfly case is only one among many occasions in which the so-called Precautionary Principle (PP) has been invoked to advocate preventative action to forestall possible harm even before the likelihood or the possible extent of the latter has been scientifically well established. This principle is highly contested. With many other environmentalist NGOs, Greenpeace champions its adoption as a central principle of international law against tenacious opposition from the United States, Canada, and Australia (Greenpeace, 2002). The principle is also at issue in recent World Trade Organization trade disputes between the United States and the European Union. But why does the PP play such a central role? The PP is an outgrowth of increased environmentalist awareness since the 1970s. The conviction took hold that humanity finds itself in a historically unprecedented situation in which our technological capacity and the potential scale of our actions far exceed our predictive knowledge. According to the German philosopher Hans Jonas, this discrepancy between the ability to foresee and the power to act itself assumes ethical importance and asks for humility and responsible restraint on our part. Jonas maintains that it is possible to extract from this situation of profound scientific uncertainty a rule or principle of decision making that is itself not uncertain at all, namely the rule “to give in matters of a certain magnitude—those with apocalyptic potential—greater weight to the prognosis of doom than to that of bliss” (Jonas, 1984). The supreme moral imperative in the new age, Jonas holds, is that humankind may not put its own existence and survival at stake in the wager of technological progress. If we want to find a philosophical basis for the PP, we must look for it in Jonas' book on the imperative of responsibility (although he himself did not use the expression PP). Environmentalists often hold that modern biotechnology has “apocalyptic potential” because it tampers with the basic processes of life. If we release GMOs into the environment, the ultimate consequences for the natural flora and fauna are extremely hard to predict but may well be irreversible. However, many environmentalists, just like Jonas, believe that we possess a decision rule or principle for dealing with fundamental scientific uncertainty that is itself not the least uncertain. That rule is the PP. Thus, in almost any debate, it seems that the PP can be brought in as a trump card to override all other considerations and arguments. But what exactly is the PP? Proponents of the PP assert that the principle is already “enshrined” in such international agreements as the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, but existing definitions of it are at best partial and incomplete. In the context of dealing with environmental hazards, the Rio Declaration of 1992 presented the following formulation of what a precautionary approach entails: “Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.” A well-known definition of the PP was spelled out in a January 1998 meeting at Wingspread in Racine, Wisconsin. The Wingspread Statement summarized the principle thus: “When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically” (Raffensberger and Tickner, 1999). Definitions such as these beg many questions. Is there ever full scientific certainty? Do we need a minimal threshold of scientific certainty or plausibility before we may (or should) undertake preventative action? And do we really know how to prevent harm if we are so much ignorant about the underlying cause-effect relationships? The definitions that are currently on offer fail to spell out the precise conditions that have to be fulfilled before the PP may be invoked or the nature of the preventative action that has to be taken. The types of action suggested range from implementing a ban, imposing a moratorium while further research is conducted, allowing the potentially harmful activity to proceed while closely monitoring its effects, to just conducting more research. The PP does not have a very precise meaning as long as such crucial aspects are left largely unanswered. In practice, however, the PP is often given a more definite meaning by reducing it to an absurdity. Normally, no minimal threshold of plausibility is specified as a “triggering” condition, so that even the slightest indication that a particular product or activity might possibly produce some harm to human health or the environment will suffice to invoke the principle. And just as often no other preventative action is contemplated than an outright ban on the incriminated product or activity. The intervention of Greenpeace in the monarch butterfly case seems to fit this pattern. Closely linked to various versions of the PP is the idea of reversing the onus of proof. Thus, the adherents of the Wingspread Statement declare that “the applicant or proponent of an activity or process or chemical needs to demonstrate that the environment and public health will be safe. The proof must shift to the party or entity that will benefit from the activity and that is most likely to have the information” (Raffensberger and Tickner, 1999). Greenpeace also holds that effective implementation of the PP requires a shift in the burden of proof (Greenpeace, 2001). Shifting the burden of proof seems a fairly straightforward way to ensure, as Jonas demanded, that greater weight will be given to the “prognosis of doom” than to the “prognosis of bliss.” Before looking into the proper assignment of the burden of proof, we must first examine more closely the underlying justification for the strong version of the PP. Why should the prospect of harmful effects of a new technology take precedence over the prospect of beneficial effects, quite apart from the inherent likelihood of each of these possibilities? The obvious answer seems to be that such a priority is defensible only when the harmful effects are of such magnitude that they carry catastrophic (or, as Jonas would say, “apocalyptic”) potential. The infinite costs of a possible catastrophic outcome necessarily outweigh even the slightest probability of its occurrence. This type of reasoning exhibits a remarkable resemblance to a well-known example of a “zero-infinity dilemma,” namely Pascal's famous “wager.” When it comes to wagering on the existence of God, the 17th century French philosopher argued incisively in his Pensées that it is better to be safe than sorry (Haller, 2000; Graham, 2002; Manson, 2002). Given an unknown but nonzero probability of God's existence and the infinity of the reward of an eternal life, the rational option would be to conduct one's earthly life as if God exists. Alas, Pascal's reasoning contains a fatal flaw. His argument is vulnerable to the “many gods” objection (Manson, 2002). Consider the possible existence of another deity than God, say Odin. If Odin is jealous, he will resent our worship of God, and we will have to pay an infinite price for our mistake. Never mind that Odin's existence may not seem likely or plausible to us. It is sufficient that we cannot exclude the possibility that he exists with absolute certainty. Therefore, the very same logic of Pascal's wager would lead us to adopt the opposite conclusion not to worship God. Pascal's argument, then, cannot be valid. If the wager argument is not valid, the strong version of the PP (which Manson dubs the “catastrophe principle”) cannot be valid either. Take the application of this principle to the problem of global warming. Environmentalists often argue that even if it is not conclusively established that the emission of carbon dioxide and other gases causes an enhanced greenhouse effect, the mere prospect of an ecological catastrophe due to such a scenario should lead us to drastically curb our emissions of greenhouse gases now. By the same logic, however, one could conjure up the possibility of a coming ice age. The mere prospect of this equally catastrophic scenario should then induce us to avert this outcome by stepping up the emission of greenhouse gases. Thus, the strong version of the PP would lead to contradictory recommendations (compare with Graham, 2002). In a similar way, it could be argued that this principle commits us to each of two contradictory policies: (a) We must not develop GM crops, and (b) We must develop GM crops. The first alternative is argued vehemently by many environmentalists who appeal to the PP. To support the second possibility, Gary Comstock conjures up a dramatic scenario in which people are forced to seize upon the remaining reserves of nature in a desperate effort to overcome food shortages resulting from global warming. He then argues, in the style of the environmentalists, that “lack of full scientific certainty that GM crops will prevent environmental degradation shall not be used as a reason for postponing this potentially cost-effective measure” (Comstock, 2000). Therefore, the strong version of the PP is untenable. But what about the proposed shifting of the onus of proof toward those who advocate a new technology or activity? Reversing the burden of proof would amount to substituting the maxim “guilty until proven innocent” for the age-old legal principle “innocent until proven guilty.” Biotech enthusiasts and antiregulationists resent this departure from what they consider time-honored legal sanity (Miller and Conko, 2000). They are prone to counter the frequent invocation of the PP with an equally insistent demand of “sound science.” The same opposition is also at the center of the present World Trade Organization trade disputes between the United States and the European Union and their disagreement on the regulation of GM crops. One side claims the moral high ground, whereas the other side attempts to seize the scientific high ground. The situation is highly polarized because various economic and political interests are at stake (Fig. 1). Wheat (Triticum aestivum) fields in the Palouse region of the state of Washington in the United States. The polarized discussion about the PP and the adoption of GM crops has become a proxy for everything that Europeans and environmentalists in other countries don't like about modern agriculture. The rejection of agricultural biotechnology may perhaps be tolerated as a European indulgence but hardly makes sense on a global scale. The critics of the PP assert that the burden that environmentalists and regulators want to impose on the proponents of new technologies tends to be unbearable (Miller and Conko, 2000). In the name of absolute safety, the latter are asked nothing less than to demonstrate conclusively that the new technologies they advocate offer no possible harm. This is a formidable, perhaps even logically impossible, task. You cannot prove a negative (compare with Wildavsky, 1995). Moreover, a risk-free world is not a real option. Thus, a consistent application of the PP would in the final analysis stifle all innovation. A closer analysis of what is involved in applying the classical principle “innocent until proven guilty,” however, reveals that the situation need not be as black and white as it seems at first sight. Take the paradigm case of criminal justice. There are two main ways in which a miscarriage of justice can come about. Either the suspect did not commit the crime, but the verdict found him guilty; or the suspect did commit the crime, but the verdict found him not guilty. In a civilized system of justice, the risks of the first type of error are minimized as far as possible. That is what is meant by the phrase “innocent until proven guilty.” The system contains safeguards and precautions in the form of high standards of proof so as to ensure that a suspect will be condemned for a certain criminal offense only if it has been established “beyond reasonable doubt” that he in fact committed the alleged offense. Alas, there is a price to be paid for this cautious and civilized approach, namely the possibly large number of wrongdoers who have to be acquitted due to “lack of sufficient proof.” To a certain extent, the risks of the two types of error are inversely related. We may to the risk of an by demanding ever more standards of proof but only at the of increasing the risk of Therefore, we must that there is an involved in the of our system of criminal justice. We may to our standards as high as we but a must be the system will become by making it to sentence on the of there is a similar to be between the of a type or a type the of when it is in fact or to the when in fact it is By a we a particular this should on our of the and with of the two types of The analysis that the at issue is not just to burden of proof. as we for more or less standards of proof, an of In other the burden we want to put on the of one or the other party more or less on we our standards of proof more or less This may us to from the polarized opposition of PP versus In most companies to GM crops have to their to for health effects and environmental This can be more or less The of those who by “sound is a fully risk However, it is only possible to this in more and such as or are at then the expression “sound is because it the that necessarily into the of of and between type and type In other or more ecological effects are at the of the fully risk is of “sound will be to such less straightforward as or risks that can be However, as the proponents of the PP are in lack of of harm is not of lack of harm. If we are really about such hazards, we can put in effort to more about their plausibility or It would be to our with an appeal to “sound science.” A recent European on the release of GMOs into the environment that any that to or a transgenic should carry out a environmental risk into immediate and 2001). This new regulation of GM crops much further than some American also argue for a more approach et al., 2001). The new European a burden of proof on biotech companies to or not they are to take that burden on their will on the definition of a or for conducting environmental risk The to be is that the on these companies will become them at the of regulatory and for of environmental This will be enhanced by the fact that the of the has been by the PP and that regulatory authorities may give to the of GMOs only they have been that the release will be safe for human health and the The fairly of the environmental risk need not be in if of play for the regulation of GM crops can be More is also about the that have to be taken into in The outcome of the is for on or not in are taken as a or or not a strong to as a option is 2001). The and of a Bt maize hybrid or any other transgenic might be quite in than in the United States. Europeans are to because their countries lack of and other of regulatory at holds that the in on GM is not about safety, but is in fact a proxy for a on how should be 2001). GM crops have become a for all that Europeans don't like in modern agriculture. a for and a rejection of agricultural biotechnology perhaps may be tolerated as a European the prospect hardly makes sense on a global scale. this is what Greenpeace us as a the NGO us a serious answer to the of how to a growing world and natural the of modern biotechnology (compare with 1999). We can even press the environmentalist organization by the Thus, it that the polarized on the PP is just a proxy for a on the of world agriculture.