The dilemma: entering the market
The Biotechnology Strategy Conference was held in the plush Peer Gynt hall in the centre o f Bergen. Every second year the city’s ‘High Technology Centre’ (HIB) holds a strategy conference, and the theme for 1999 was the biotechnology sector. The technology centre itself is a science park, one of several in Norway that reflect government innovation policy o f recent years which attempts to foster collaboration between research centres and businesses, and is thus a space that exists as a bridge across economic and scientific boundaries. Around 100 participants attended, mainly from the private sector, with government and academic participants also. There were no consumer representatives or environmentalists present. The conference stretched over two days, with the main focus on exploring issues arranged in the following categories;
1. Policies for Research Based Industrial Development 2. Public and Private Investment in Biotechnology
It is interesting to note that the notion of ‘culture’ as used by informants here is being used as Strathem (1995) points out in another private sector context, “with just that set o f connotations with which anthropologists have invested it in their writings”; she continues “The concept points to differences between systems o f value, to the link between practice and ethos, to the need to change habits if one is to change the way that people think”. Above all, ‘Culture’ in this context is seen as an “agent for change” (Strathem 1995: 2)
3. The Role of Biotechnology for Sustainable Economic Development 4. Innovative New Biotech Businesses.
The conference thus had a question and answer structure, with the first day introducing the problems o f government policy and raising capital, while the second day looked at the positive achievements of biotechnology and also presented success stories.
The conference opened with a speech by the chairman o f the Science Park^®. He concentrated on the core themes o f the need for government and industry to “bridge the gap between universities and colleges, and industry”, and the responsibility that government in particular has to “foster biotechnology innovation.” The conference itself he described as an element of this bridging/fostering; “From the laboratory to the business world... this conference aims to be a practical step towards achieving technological development”.
Aside from the rhetorical nature of such statements, I considered his claim to be literal in many important respects. The conference was very much an event that forms part of the practice o f the biotechnology sector, and was not simply a display of biotechnology sector issues and concerns. Participants were also engaged in furthering their companies and their careers, establishing contacts, lobbying ministers, developing strategy with the trade association and so on. Coffee breaks, the gala dinner, the drinks and walks to and from the hotels, were all moments that were full of such activity. The talks themselves were also powerful discursive elements o f practice within the market policy/industry interface.
A moment o f disquiet
After the chairman’s introductory speech came an “artistic interlude”, which framed the start of the conference^*. The lights were dimmed, and two smartly dressed young men stepped up on the stage; one played the piano and the other stood playing the flute. Behind them on a screen a succession of photographic images was projected at a
The conference language was English, and most of the quotes reflect this. It is worth noting that English is the second language of most of the participants
There were a number of such cultural framing events, for instance the performance of medieval music and songs at the conference dinner. Such performances are common in Norwegian conferences.
slow pace. These were classic images of Norwegian landscapes in winter and spring. We saw the sea, rocks, fjords, fields, snowy branches, snow on a broken fence, children playing, running water. The images suggested purity; water in the many forms that it is found in Norway, as ice, snow, liquid, as vapour (thin, frozen winter clouds). The music and the images, combined with the dimmed lights, produced a silent, church-like feel in the auditorium. When LA^^, the chair o f the first session, got up on stage once the lights were back on, he appeared to be wiping tears from his eyes.
15. He started by saying that he himself played the violin and that he had been moved to tears by the music. He carried on to the main talk and started by discussing the local elections in Norw ay... how political discussions focus on how to split and share welfare, and focus very little on the issue of value creation which is needed in order to have welfare in the first place. (Field notes. 00025 250999)
The reason I draw attention to this moment was that it, like other moments of ‘art’ at later points in the conference, seemed to signal the need to identify the conference as a highly Norwegian event. This was despite the fact that English was the conference language, and despite the fact that the technology that was the subject of the conference was considered a ‘global’ technology. The ‘artistic interlude’ was recognition of the participants as first and foremost Norwegian, despite the fact that the conference participants were all keen to identify themselves as global players and to distance themselves from the Norwegian general public both in public and in conversation with me. (It was frequently pointed out to me that the Norwegian public were fools (in contrast to other nations), ignorant of science, unworldly and hysterical. A phrase that was used repeatedly was “We live in a country o f four million idiots”).
What then was signalled by LA’s emotional response? My initial interpretation of this moment was that his tears expressed sadness. This is clear if we see what he spoke of immediately after talking about his tears. He turned immediately to the fact that politicians in Norway in his view do not discuss what appears to be a kind of necessary evil, namely value creation. Politicians concentrate on welfare distribution (i.e. fairness, equality). His sadness it seemed was provoked by the tension that recurred throughout the two days both in the presentations and in dinner
both in the private and public sectors and in academia (the Anthropological conference at Lillehammer in 2001, for example, included performances by local groups).
conversations. The tension seemed to lie between commerce and ethics, and whether one could actually be a Norwegian and a commercially successful biotechnologist at the same time. The images of Norwegian cultural markers (snow, music and so on) provoked awareness of tensions between professional identities, personal aspirations and Norwegian identities.
Another speaker also stressed that “if we want to maintain welfare twenty years from now then we must create 300 billion Norwegian Krone of business... Maybe more, if there is going to be any welfare to share”. His contrast was between value creation as something unspeakable, that politicians dare not name, and welfare distribution, as a public requirement for fairness that the public desires but doesn’t ask where it comes from. In such a context the role o f the biotechnologist becomes that o f the lone and despised warrior fighting to create value for his people whilst they despise him for the fact that he must work with mammon. The speaker who gave the concluding remarks to the conference actually used the term ‘white knights’ to describe their position, as potential saviours o f the Norwegian population.
In her discussion of the difficulties encountered by immigrants in Norway Gullestad suggests that an important marker of belonging in Norway is identification with “vz som bygget landed (we who built the land/country)^^. The biotechnologists strongly stressed their role in this regard. Is it the bringing together o f science and industry that is so disruptive, as they seem to suggest? Why can biotechnology not bridge the Market and scientific spheres successfully in Norway?
Is commerce unethical?
Biotechnology is often (both by informants and in literature) considered the most pure form of capitalist science. The very definition of biotechnology places it firmly within the ‘Market’ sphere, as its implicit and explicit aim is the commercialisation of the results of science. Thus students of biotechnology are taught:
Biotechnology is concerned with the production of commercial products generated by the
metabolic action of micro-organisms. O r... “the application of scientific and engineering principles to the processing o f material by biological agents to provide goods and services”
Click, B.R: and J.J.Pastemak (1994) p.4-5
Indicating in particular the creation of post-war Norway and the welfare state, which is seen as a symbol of state-citizen unity.
This view is echoed by participants in my study (I have found none who disagree). In the words o f one informant for example, biotechnology is 'Heknologisk anvendelse av kunnskap” (“the technological application of knowledge”) which he contrasted to biology which is ‘'grunnforskning^' (basic research) and more purely academic. Biotechnology takes place in the realm o f the commercial world, the world where commercial-technological uses are found for science.
The commercial aspect of biotechnology is often emphasised as the aspect that makes it unethical, for example the patenting of genetic sequences, or financial influence on the direction o f scientific research. Biotechnology is considered an activity that is in practice placed firmly within the commercial sphere; it is something that takes place in relation to ‘the market’ - the sphere of relations mediated by money. It is almost without exception considered to be in an oppositional relationship with society, ethics and social solidarity. Thus Ho (1998) for example tells us “Science is not bad, but there is bad science” (1998: 6) and accordingly that “[gjenetic engineering biotechnology is an unprecedented alliance between bad science and big business which will spell the end o f humanity as we know it” (ibid.: 1). It is science’s marriage to industry that brings it into ethically dangerous waters.
However, somewhat paradoxically in this view, conference participants seemed extremely keen to establish themselves as commercial actors just like any other. To identify themselves as commercial actors seemed to offer relief, not condemnation. A Finnish speaker, for instance, talked about the elements o f his success. He first stressed the importance o f entrepreneurs thinking differently, to stop considering their country to be the centre of the world, and instead to see themselves as part of a global business community.
16. S starts with showing a picture which illustrates how his thinking about Finland in the world changed. “The nation is not big ... the world is big”. From believing Finland to be big, “to seeing the opportunities for partnerships in the wide wide world”. .. “International partners are the most important”. (...) He compares Finland with San Francisco, talks about clever money, and cultural and attitude differences. “What is most important is skilled management, money, risk capital, and science”. (00029 240999)
He finished his talk by showing an overhead with an illustration of a fist full of dollars, saying “to encourage entrepreneurs... look for money!” The hall filled with laughter and a sense o f relief at the open way in which he talks about money and greed.
A T T I T U D E IN
T H E F U T U R E
P e o p l e a r e t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t
From r e s e a r c h and industry to SME’s
T h e driving f o r c e =
P e o p l e w a n t ot m a k e m o n e y
by e n tr e p r e n e u r s h ip .
The Finnish speaker identified biotechnology as ‘just another money-making endeavour’, and advised people to focus on money and the global perspective - to not get trapped in the local. The laughter in the hall was relieved; his paper allowed them to identify themselves with the ‘greedy’ ideologies o f the neo-classical economic school associated with the conventional understanding of the market^"^. They sought to present themselves as, perhaps reassure themselves that they are, simply like “those who populate this cultural world o f the Market” namely “free individuals with their eyes securely on material reward” (Carrier 1997b: 131).
Economic activity, making money, is not generally despised in Norway. It may be considered distasteful to display one’s wealth (and thus one’s difference), but there is no sense in which stockbrokers or high-profile business men and women would somehow feel a sense of painful exclusion, or difficulty with reconciling their commercial activities with their sense of themselves as ‘Norwegian’ It is equally clear that it is not the commercialisation of science per se that is considered problematic in the Norwegian context, and in fact the market was seen as an identity providing relief for the biotechnologists.
Overall, their presentation o f themselves was that they should be considered as entrepreneurs. They insisted rather on understanding their activities exclusively in relation to the market. Although some speakers did indicate the ‘good’ aspects of their work (the perceived ability o f ‘golden rice’^^ to prevent blindness in the ‘third world’, and of genetically engineered fish to grow faster and subsequently feed more people)
Adam Smith (1976) [1776] being the ‘founding father’ of this model of thinking in 18 Century Britain
Kjell Inge Rokke, for example, a high-profile businessman in Norway (who now also owns Wimbledon FC) is widely castigated for his wealth and success, but is nevertheless not considered beyond the boundaries of ‘Norwegian-ness’. Recent newspaper reports show that he is well-liked by the public, despite recent accusations of corruption and dishonesty “Rokke wins the people’s approval. Despite accusations of cormption Kjell Inge Rokke has secured his position as popular businessman in
Norway. Since 1999 his popularity has increased by 10 percent, a new opinion poll shows” {Dagbladet
8^ June 2002). It is interesting to note that he compounds his popularity by suggesting that he is just like everyone else, so that now, facing the threat of imprisonment over allegations of corruption, he
says “1 can make pallets like anyone else” [i.e. do prison-work]” Dagbladet 11^ May 2002. The
example of Rokke, in fact, suggests that capitalist success is highly respected in Norway, and that the personification o f capitalism is enjoyed in the wider culture. There is an interesting contrast to be drawn here with businessmen in the UK, few of whom would be as well-known and none of whom, that 1 can think of, would have their popularity checked by opinion polls.
their main boast was the ability to create more wealth. Ethics was considered the burden of government, not industry.
How they see the problems they face
Whilst the biotechnologists saw themselves as almost heroic actors fighting to create wealth on behalf o f the people of Norway, one o f the central points of the conference was to address the question o f why they were not seen in this way. This was one of the many problems facing the sector, which, from the papers presented and the interviews and conversations I had, can be summarised thus:
• Lack of investment/clever money
• Lack o f expertise in the government (tendency to rule by consensus) • Too much public impact on policy
• Public scepticism and fear
• Lack o f expertise in the Research Council
• Research Council politically driven and influenced by public fears • Ignorance and fear surrounding genetic technology in general
The disparity between their own understanding of themselves as wealth-creators, loyal to the nation, and the public’s view of them provoked much questioning. Why, it was asked, was Norway doing so badly in establishing a (modem) biotechnology sector? Why were they feared and hated? Why was genetic technology seen as ‘evil’? From what did it come? And why were the public allowed so much influence?
Explanation: ignorance
Ignorance, or a lack of expertise, was a major factor in the eyes o f the sector, affecting everyone from policymakers to investors and the public. Such perception o f ignorance and lack o f education was spoken of in papers to the conference and were always stressed to me informally or in interviews often in jest. Thus one informant from the pharmaceuticals industry told me how industry actors like to make jokes about the public. He said they particularly liked statistics like the one about how 60% of people think that there aren’t genes in foods that haven’t been genetically modified. Whilst he expressed concern about the fact that the industry doesn’t respect the public, he also led the conversation towards jokes about ignorance and fear (for example the joke about ‘dangerous jeans’ (genes). The joke being that the indigo dye used to dye
jeans (the most Norwegian of all articles of clothing) is from a genetically engineered plant; if the public knew, he joked, they would expect their jeans to eat them).
That policy-makers should be steered by the need to pander to such fears was a source of intense frustration. Examples were often given - the Norferm example discussed in the previous chapter was repeatedly presented to me in interviews as an example of the ignorance o f government, or the lack of government willingness to engage in scientifically based decision-making.
Genetic technology as a moral problem
An explanation for such ignorant fears was the emotional or religious basis for people’s responses to genetic technology. The public is scared and therefore considers all genetic technology to be wrong, or misunderstands the nature o f scientific knowledge and imagines that genetics will run out of control. The question of whether genetic technology is ‘good’ or ‘evil’ in a moral sense or in relation to religious sentiment was not explicitly addressed in the official discourse of the conference, nor was it addressed as a serious concern by informants that I interviewed individually. People did however make jokes about religious judgement of genetic engineering. Thus the Tree o f Knowledge was referred to in reference to biotechnology’s “use of new knowledge”. The image gave rise to much amusement in the conference hall^^.
This illustration was met with a great deal of light-hearted laughter. It clearly represents the way in which (disinterested) ‘science’ in historically dominant Western views (and in anthropology’s