Museveni’s GMO law dilemma

Scientists bitter and puzzled

But just like the 2017 version of the law unsettled civil society, this one too has left scientists bitter and puzzled. For over two decades, Ugandan scientists have been engaging in crop and animal improvement research but have always felt handicapped by a lack of an enabling law to test their scientific innovations.

For years, they have been conducting confined field trials on bananas, maize, cotton, potatoes and rice in several agricultural research institutions across the country with the hope that an enabling law would help Uganda be among the few progressive African countries that have embraced genetic engineering.

Many scientists The Independent talked to days after MPs passed the Bill last November said the Bill constrains scientists. Commissioner Arthur Makara told The Independent that the scientists do not want the strict liability clause.

“This clause might end up acting as a deterrent to innovation in the country because, ‘a researcher is already declared guilty even before any investigation is done,’” Makara said.

He told The Independent that he hoped President Museveni would again seek legal advice on these clauses that are likely to curtail innovation in Uganda.

Have Kirabo’s suspicions been confirmed?

But as the suspense continues whether Uganda will or will not get a law that regulates genetic engineering, Clet Wandui Masiga, a conservation biologist and geneticist says the situation makes Ugandan scientists confused.

Masiga foresees one big challenge if the current impasse continues.

“People do not realise how much Uganda stands to lose 10-15 years from now; this is a science that can benefit Uganda but we don’t have the foresight.”

Masiga and Tugume told The Independent that it is misleading to reduce genetic engineering research to agricultural innovations.

“We see Ugandans continue going to India seeking sophisticated medical attention like heart transplants but where biotechnology is going, these are procedures which should be done here,” Masiga said.

Masiga says he foresees a situation where Ugandan scientists might have to leave the country in droves should the situation on genetic engineering remain unresolved.

“There is no way scientists can work in an environment that is unpredictable,” he told The Independent on May 15.

“Like any venture, biotechnology research is quite expensive but if you are not sure whether you are going to operate or not, it makes everything difficult.”

Arthur Tugume, the professor of plant pathology says without a proper law, he sees Uganda becoming a dumpsite of biotechnology in future. “This law seeks, among others, to regulate genetically modified products entering into the country,” he says, “The longer Uganda takes to pass a law on biotechnology, the more Uganda will continue being a dumpsite for all sorts of products.”

He said although there are no genetically modified products currently being made in Uganda, many products that Ugandans encounter in supermarkets and pharmacies; including some syrup come from outside Uganda and are genetically modified.

Kirabo says, procedurally, Parliament has done its legislative role and it is now the responsibility of President Museveni to tell Ugandans what is going on.

“My suspicion is that this is not just any other law and this has been our argument,” she said, “Of course it is not a law for the people of Uganda, because we all know that there is a number of foreign interests in this law.”

“Bear in mind that this law is not coming in isolation; it quickly follows the Plant Variety Protection Act, 2014, which gives a framework for protecting the innovations of researchers to apply exclusive rights on their innovations.” In the agricultural field, that includes innovations around seed varieties, she said.

The Plant Variety protection Act, 2014 was passed in December, 2013 and assented to by President Museveni in June, 2014. But in August, 2015, a group of civil society organisations including Food Rights Alliance, Action Aid and the Centre for Health, Human Rights and Development (CEHURD) petitioned the Constitutional Court to declare the law null and void.

Civil society activists said in their petition that the law gives all the produce cultivated by farmers to the owners of the seeds, plants and propagating material which the farmers have used to cultivate that produce.

Kirabo insists these laws should be looked at in the broadest terms possible considering that most of the funding for agricultural research in Uganda comes from foreign benefactors.

“Remember these are expensive technologies and all these projects going on are not funded by the government but private foreign entities that already have a provision in the Plant Varieties Act.”

Moses Mulumba, the executive director CEHURD has followed the biotechnology debate over the last six years. He told The Independent that the problem with the debate around biotechnology in the country has always been “the lack of a meeting of minds” regarding a proper biotechnology law.

“Those who are interested in the biotechnology law explain it with a disregard for its shortcomings while those who are against it present their case as if there is nothing good that comes from biotechnology innovations.”

“That is why whoever meets the president last will always be the winner and that has tended to cause confusion.”

“There is need to appreciate the fact that biotechnology has many advantages when you consider the solutions it provides to today’s challenges but also stakeholders who appreciate the role of science should know that we have existed before without biotechnology.”

Mulumba told The Independent that the purpose of enacting intellectual property laws is to reward innovators but also to ensure that these innovations benefit the wider society.

Kirabo insists there are high stakes surrounding the law on genetic engineering in Uganda.

“The dynamics and interests are still there; people want to control our farming systems and in order to control our farming systems, you do not need to control gardens, you control what goes into the gardens: the seed.”

“We are dealing with a political economic issue using science but we know science does not rule the world.”

“We remain suspicious until proven otherwise,” Kirabo told The Independent, “It’s like we are in a theatre; a patient was taken in and up to now, we are wondering what happened to our patient.”

****