Let there be light … and bread: the United Nations, the developing world, and atomic energy’s Green Revolution
2009; Routledge; Volume: 25; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1080/07341510802618166
ISSN1477-2620
Autores Tópico(s)International Science and Diplomacy
ResumoAbstract Although President Eisenhower's 1953 'Atoms for Peace' speech typically is associated with the promotion of nuclear power, it also recommended other peaceful uses of the atom, including applications in agriculture. 'Developing' countries in particular took a keen interest in food preservation, grain disinfestation, fertilizer studies, insect control, and mutation breeding, all using irradiation. A conflict of philosophies emerged at the United Nations between the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The IAEA stood accused of promoting a narrow range of technological solutions, ignoring more sensible but less sensational techniques, and tempting the poorest countries of the world to achieve 'modernization' with unproven technologies. The present essay outlines the origins of FAO/IAEA conflict and collaboration in the 1960s, and explores the failed effort of plant geneticist Ronald Silow to stop what he saw as the IAEA's hijacking of agriculture at the UN. Keywords: Ronald SilowAtoms for PeaceInternational Atomic Energy AgencyFood and Agriculture OrganizationGreen Revolutionagriculture Notes 1. Silow's discussion with the BBC is mentioned in an unauthored and undated memorandum in Folder 'Dr Fischnich/Dr Silow 1968/1973,' Box 10ADG351, FAO Archives. 2. Seeing the links between science, technology, and politics is so commonplace now that it finds wide expression among scholars in a variety of disciplines. Historians of cold war science, for example, question the impact of military patronage on scientific agendas; an influential example is Forman, 'Behind Quantum Electronics.' Sociologists point out the difficulty in separating objective facts from the human beings creating them; see Latour, Science in Action. Historians of technology routinely emphasize technology's ability to compel certain actions even when seeming to empower people. Two influential examples include Thomas Hughes's study of technological systems and Lewis Mumford's critique of authoritarian tendencies in technology. See Hughes, Networks of Power; and Lewis Mumford's two‐volume The Myth of the Machine, published as Technics and Human Development and The Pentagon of Power. For examples of the political stakes of technological choice in the nuclear realm, see Hecht, 'Political Designs'; Bess, 'Ecology and Artifice.' 3. In international relations, exportation of science and technology may appear innocuously as technology transfer, manpower training, or foreign aid; yet these usually reflect the values and norms of the governments sponsoring them. Even modernization's most noted proponent, Walt Rostow, recognized that his vision of 'modern' was intended to compete with the vision of the future emanating from the Soviet Union. See Rostow, Stages of Economic Growth. On Rostow and others, see Latham, Modernization as Ideology. An excellent overview of the intellectual trends behind modernization theory can be found in Gilman, 'Modernization Theory.' 4. Nick Cullather, 'Miracles of Modernization.' See also Perkins, Geopolitics and the Green Revolution. 5. Recent studies emphasizing the propaganda value of Atoms for Peace include Chernus, Eisenhower's Atoms for Peace and Osgood, Total Cold War. 6. Few of these applications have received much of attention from historians. An exception is food irradiation, which has remained controversial for decades. James Spiller has pointed to the international endorsements by the UN as useful arguments in the favor of food irradiation advocates over the years. See Spiller, 'Radiant Cuisine.' Nicholas Buchanan argues that food irradiation was a 'cold war science,' aimed at consumers but offering little benefit to them; yet scientists, he argues, gained benefits in the form of funding and prestige. See Buchanan, 'Atomic Meal.' 7. Most discussions of the Green Revolution in India emphasize the importance of the Mexican wheat, and particularly the success of the amber‐colored variety of it. For an example, see Paarlberg, Toward a Well‐Fed World. 8. The IAEA official history is Fischer, History of the International. On the FAO/IAEA Joint Division, see chap. 10. 9. On UNESCO's struggles to identify its purpose in promoting peaceful atomic energy, see Hamblin, 'Exorcising Ghosts.' At the suggestion of the USA, the UN convened an international conference in Geneva to explore the myriad peaceful uses of atomic energy. The conference itself, as historian John Krige has put it, was a 'masterpiece of marketing,' featuring a functioning nuclear reactor built by the USA. Both sides of the cold war conflict used the meeting to promote their roles in turning the atom into a positive force in the world. See Krige, 'Atoms for Peace.' On the Soviet activities at the Geneva conference, see Josephson, Red Atom. Nuclear‐powered electricity was only one such application. In his 'Atoms for Peace' speech, Eisenhower had identified the provision of 'abundant electrical energy in the power‐starved areas of the world' as the special purpose of the future IAEA, but he also noted that its most important responsibility would be to devise ways in which fissionable material would be allocated to pursue peaceful pursuits, particularly 'agriculture, medicine, and other peaceful pursuits.' The speech is reprinted in Cantelon et al., American Atom, 96–104. 10. Sen also tried to capitalize on the 1954 US Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act – later dubbed 'Food for Peace' – by integrating it into his projects, culminating in the Freedom from Hunger Campaign, launched in 1959. The cool attitudes of American diplomats to this idea, as historian Amy Staples has noted, reinforced the view that the Americans were less interested in development than in bilateral programs to dump their surpluses. Atoms for Peace provided another opportunity for FAO to address global food concerns by claiming a stake in a popular foreign policy initiative. Staples, Birth of Development. 11. The research station had been operated by the Empire Cotton Growing Corporation since 1926, acting as a clearinghouse for all the world's varieties of the genus Gossypium (cotton). The corporation subsequently moved its research operations to Africa. Silow's contributions to the book focused on the long evolution, inter‐species competition, and natural and human selection trends in cottons over the centuries. See Hutchinson et al., Evolution of Gossypium. These authors traced the origins of certain South American cottons directly to India, a controversial point that proposed the crop was transported by humans across the Pacific prior to European contact via the Atlantic. For reflections on these theories, see Arnold, 'Joseph Burtt Hutchinson.' Genetic and cytological studies later would counter some of its claims about pre‐Columbian cotton migrations. Still, American geneticist Bentley Glass said that the book 'takes its place among the most important books on plant evolution,' adding further that 'no student of evolutionary processes can afford to be less than thoroughly acquainted with the facts presented here and also with the authors' lines of thought.' See Glass, 'Review of The Evolution of Gossypium.' For arguments countering the book see Gerstel, 'Chromosomal Translocations,' and Phillips, 'Cytogenetics of Gossypium.' 12. The authors wrote that the relationship between man and plants represented 'a true symbiosis, man being dependent for food upon his plants, and the plants benefiting by the clearing and weeding of the land, and the storing and sowing of the seed,' Hutchinson et al., Evolution of Gossypium, 133. 13. R.A. Silow to F.L. McDougall, 18 Apr 1955, Folder 'ACC Subcommittee on Atomic Energy,' Box 10TAC344, FAO Archives. 14. On Seibersdorf's origins and early work, see Suschny, 'Agency's Laboratories.' 15. M. Fried, 'Application of Radioisotopes and Radiation Sources in Agriculture, Food Production and the Food Industry with Special Reference to I.A.E.A.'s Work,' paper for World Food Congress, 19 April 1963, Folder 'Dr Fischnich/Dr Silow 1963/1967,' Box 10ADG351, FAO Archives. 16. Caused by a plant virus, cadang‐cadang ravaged coconuts in the Philippines in the early 1960s. Prior to its appearance in 1961, there were 250,000 coconut trees on San Miguel Island; by 1965, only 80 trees still bore fruit. Riker, 'Plant Pathology and Human Welfare.' 17. Ronald Silow, memorandum for record, 30 October 1959, and Ronald Silow, undated draft, Folder 'ACC,' Box 10TAC344, FAO Archives. 18. FAO/IAEA Press release, 'Better Wheat and Barley Through Irradiation Reported at IAEA–FAO Symposium,' August 11, 1960, Folder 'ACC,' Box 10TAC344, FAO Archives. 19. FAO/IAEA Press release, 'Beginning of the New Era in Radiobiology, IAEA–FAO Meeting Successfully Concluded,' August 12, 1960, Folder 'ACC,' Box 10TAC344, FAO Archives. 20. FAO/IAEA Press release, 'Atomic Energy Against Hunger, Joint IAEA–FAO Symposium Opens at Karlsruhe,' August 6, 1960, Folder 'IAEA/FAO Symposium on the Effects of Ionising Radiation on Seeds,' Box 10TAC344, FAO Archives. 21. FAO/IAEA Press release, 'Better Wheat and Barley Through Irradiation Reported at IAEA–FAO Symposium,' August 11, 1960, Folder 'IAEA/FAO Symposium on the Effects of Ionising Radiation on Seeds,' Box 10TAC344, FAO Archives. 22. R.A. Silow to A.H. Boerma, 27 Sep 1960, Folder 'ACC,' Box 10TAC344, FAO Archives. 23. R.A. Silow to Frank W. Parker, 14 October 1960, Folder 'IAEA part III,' Box 10TAC342, FAO Archives. 24. Although this turned out to be premature (the screwworm would return in subsequent years), the method itself was vindicated. Perkins, 'Edward Fred Knipling's.' 25. M. Fried, 'Application of Radioisotopes and Radiation Sources in Agriculture, Food Production and the Food Industry with Special Reference to IAEA's Work,' 19 April 1963, WFC/63/EP/IAEA/III.C, Folder 'Dr Fischnich/Dr Silow 1963/1967,' Box 10ADG351, FAO Archives. 26. Sullivan, 'Use of Radiation on Insects Hailed,' 81. 27. Irradiation in the service of food and agriculture had been one of the six fields of inquiry in the American National Academy of Sciences' 1956 report on the biological effects of atomic radiation, and the results had been very encouraging. Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation on Agriculture and Food Supplies, 'Agriculture, Food Supplies.' 28. M. Fried, 'Application of Radioisotopes and Radiation Sources in Agriculture, Food Production and the Food Industry with Special Reference to IAEA's Work,' 19 April 1963, WFC/63/EP/IAEA/III.C, Folder 'Dr Fischnich/Dr Silow 1963/1967,' Box 10ADG351, FAO Archives. 29. B.R. Sen to Sigvard Eklund, 9 August 1963, Folder 'IAEA part V,' Box 10TAC342, FAO Archives. 30. Gordon Wortley to O.E. Fischnich, 27 September 1963, Folder 'IAEA part V,' Box 10TAC342, FAO Archives. 31. Sigurbjörnsson, 'Conception, Birth and Growth,' 199. 32. R.A. Silow, 'Appraisal of the Programme of Work of Atomic Energy in Agriculture,' interoffice memorandum, 20 January 1966, Folder 'Dr Fischnich/Dr Silow 1963/1967,' Box 10ADG351, FAO Archives. 33. R.A. Silow, 'Appraisal of the Programme of Work of Atomic Energy in Agriculture,' interoffice memorandum, 20 January 1966, Folder 'Dr Fischnich/Dr Silow 1963/1967,' Box 10ADG351, FAO Archives. 34. Edouard Saouma to O.E. Fischnich, 3 February 1966, Folder 'Jt FAO/IAEA Division,' Box 10ADG351, FAO Archives. 35. J. Vallega to O.E. Fischnich, 4 February 1966, Folder 'Jt FAO/IAEA Division,' Box 10ADG351, FAO Archives. 36. Sigvard Eklund to Orvis V. Wells, 5 February 1966, Folder 'Dr Fischnich/Dr Silow 1963/1967,' Box 10ADG351, FAO Archives. 37. R.A. Silow to B.R. Sen, 15 August 1966, Folder 'Dr Fischnich/Dr Silow 1963/1967,' Box 10ADG351, FAO Archives. 38. M. Fried to O.V. Wells, 25 October 1966, Folder 'Dr Fischnich/Dr Silow 1963/1967,' Box 10ADG351, FAO Archives. 39. 'Report of the Consultant Group Appointed to Review and Advise on the Programme and Activities of the Joint FAO/IAEA Division of Atomic Energy in Agriculture,' 29 September 1966, Folder 'Jt FAO/IAEA Division,' Box 10ADG351, FAO Archives. 40. A.W. Lindquist to Mr Phillips, October 1966, Folder 'Jt FAO/IAEA Division,' Box 10ADG351, FAO Archives. 41. R.A. Silow to Sigvard Eklund and B.R. Sen, 14 March 1967, Folder 'Dr Fischnich/Dr Silow 1963/1967,' Box 10ADG351, FAO Archives. 42. Ibid. 43. Ibid. 44. Ibid. 45. Ibid. 46. Ibid. 47. On this controversy see Spiller. 48. R.A. Silow to Sigvard Eklund and B.R. Sen, 14 March 1967, Folder 'Dr Fischnich/Dr Silow 1963/1967,' Box 10ADG351, FAO Archives. 49. Ibid. 50. Ibid. 51. Ibid. 52. Ibid. 53. Ibid. 54. Ibid. 55. Fischer, History of the International, 132. 56. R.A. Silow to Sigvard Eklund and B.R. Sen, 14 March 1967, Folder 'Dr Fischnich/Dr Silow 1963/1967,' Box 10ADG351, FAO Archives. 57. Ibid. 58. Ibid. 59. Ibid. 60. R.A. Silow to S. Eklund, B.R. Sen, and O.E. Fischnich, 14 April 1967, 'The Joint FAO/IAEA Programme in Food Irradiation,' Folder 'Dr Fischnich/Dr Silow 1963/1967,' Box 10ADG351, FAO Archives. 61. 'Comments on "The Joint FAO/IAEA Programme in Food Irradiation," by R.A. Silow,' unnamed author, August 1967, Folder 'Dr Fischnich/Dr Silow 1963/1967,' Box 10ADG351, FAO Archives. 62. R.A. Silow to S. Eklund, B.R. Sen, and O.E. Fischnich, 14 April 1967, 'The Joint FAO/IAEA Programme in Food Irradiation,' Folder 'Dr Fischnich/Dr Silow 1963/1967,' Box 10ADG351, FAO Archives. 63. Ibid. 64. 'Comments on "The Joint FAO/IAEA Programme in Food Irradiation," by R.A. Silow,' unnamed author, August 1967, Folder 'Dr Fischnich/Dr Silow 1963/1967,' Box 10ADG351, FAO Archives. 65. James L. Goddard, 'Good Science and Good Food,' extracts from speech February 1967, attached to R.A. Silow to S. Eklund, 24 August 1967, Folder 'Dr Fischnich/Dr Silow 1963/1967,' Box 10ADG351, FAO Archives. 66. 'Comments on "The Joint FAO/IAEA Programme in Food Irradiation," by R.A. Silow,' unnamed author, August 1967, Folder 'Dr Fischnich/Dr Silow 1963/1967,' Box 10ADG351, FAO Archives. 67. Ibid. 68. S. Eklund to B.R. Sen, 15 September 1967, Folder 'Dr Fischnich/Dr Silow 1963/1967,' Box 10ADG351, FAO Archives. 69. The company was Nuclear Chemical Plant, Ltd., and its parent was John Thomson Ltd. Extract from Nucleonics Week 8 (August 1967), 33, Folder 'Dr Fischnich/Dr Silow 1963/1967,' Box 10ADG351, FAO Archives. 70. R.A. Silow to S. Eklund, 24 August 1967, Folder 'Dr Fischnich/Dr Silow 1963/1967,' Box 10ADG351, FAO Archives. 71. Fischer, History of the International, 378. 72. See Staples, Birth of Development, 121. 73. 'Comments on the memorandum of 11 September 1967 by Dr Silow,' n.d., unnamed author, Folder 'Dr Fischnich/Dr Silow 1963/1967,' Box 10ADG351, FAO Archives. 74. Director‐General to Otto Fischnich, n.d, Folder 'Dr Fischnich/Dr Silow 1968/1973,' Box 10ADG351, FAO Archives. 75. In the late 1960s, West Pakistan became a wheat exporter, while India's annual yields rose from 12 million tons to 21 million tons. In defiance of gloomy Malthusian predictions, India's cereal crops were growing more rapidly than its population. See Brown, 'Nobel Peace Prize.' 76. Skeptics pointed out the Green Revolution's inherent limitations (the need for government subsidies, expensive irrigation and fertilizer, and an open door to devastating species‐specific diseases). Paddock, 'How Green is the Green Revolution?' 77. As Don Paarlberg later wrote, 'the Rockefeller people had the grace and wit to buoy up the Mexicans and the Indians rather than claim credit for themselves.' Paarlberg, Toward a Well‐Fed World, 110. Shinde is quoted in Culliton, 'Wheat and Revolution.' India had taken a dramatic national turn in the mid 1960s that was very conducive to promoting 'cutting‐edge' research such as mutation genetics. After the death of longtime Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru in 1964, the new (but brief) regime under Lal Bahadur Shastri wanted a more aggressive program to address his country's food needs. The path he took was in crop intensification, using technology to maximize yields. Shastri's Minister of Food and Agriculture, C. Subramaniam, saw atomic energy as a crucial component of this. He had written to FAO's director‐general, his countryman Binay Ranjan Sen, that India was 'deeply interested in exploiting atomic energy to the fullest possible extent for the betterment of human welfare,' and wanted FAO's help to increase production on existing land through a program of what Subramaniam called 'scientific cropping.' Atomic energy seemed so promising, particularly in plant breeding and radioactive tracer studies, which his ministry decided to include in its Fourth Five Year Plan a major expansion of such research. Hoping for FAO assistance in gaining funds, Subramaniam reminded Sen that India was 'in a stage of transition from a traditional to a progressive agriculture,' and that it needed at least one national institution capable of using these modern research tools. See C. Subramaniam to Binay Ranjan Sen, 18 October 1966, Folder 'Dr Fischnich/Dr Silow 1968/1973,' Box 10ADG351, FAO Archives. After Swaminathan's subsequent successes, mutation studies in India acquired a momentum of their own, needing little encouragement from international agencies. At a time of population pressure, famine threats, and war – India was at war with Pakistan in 1965 – food security through a dynamic and aggressive line of genetic research became a central part of India's vision of future national security. The importance of Mexican wheat to Indian national security is emphasized in Perkins, Geopolitics and the Green Revolution, 242. 78. Silow's successor as deputy‐director of the joint division, Björn Sigurbjörnssen, rushed to defend protein improvement with irradiation. He pointed also to the fact that irradiation undertaken in India had changed the seed color of the Mexican wheat variety Sonora‐64 in a matter of three and a half years. 'It is very difficult to match this by using any other technique of breeding,' he said, and added: 'I see no reason why developing countries should be deprived of a proven method of efficient plant improvement.' He believed that a shift toward plant protein improvement programs in the developing world was fully justified. Björn Sigurbjörnsson to O.E. Fischnich, 2 April 1969, Folder 'Dr Fischnich/Dr Silow 1968/1973,' Box 10ADG351, FAO Archives. 79. R.A. Silow to O.E. Fischnich, 21 March 1969, Folder 'Dr Fischnich/Dr Silow 1968/1973,' Box 10ADG351, FAO Archives. 80. R.A. Silow to T.E. Ritchie, 30 April 1969, Folder 'Dr Fischnich/Dr Silow 1968/1973,' Box 10ADG351, FAO Archives. 81. R.A. Silow to O.E. Fischnich, 19 September 1969, Folder 'Dr Fischnich/Dr Silow 1968/1973,' Box 10ADG351, FAO Archives. 82. Maurice Fried to O.E. Fischnich, n.d., Folder 'Dr Fischnich/Dr Silow 1968/1973,' Box 10ADG351, FAO Archives. 83. Maurice Fried to O.E. Fischnich, 25 September 1969, Folder 'Dr Fischnich/Dr Silow 1968/1973,' Box 10ADG351, FAO Archives. 84. The handwritten comment to Otto Fischnich, signed but not decipherable, is next to a typed letter from O.E. Fischnich to A.H. Boerma, 19 November 1969, Folder 'Dr Fischnich/Dr Silow 1968/1973,' Box 10ADG351, FAO Archives. 85. Arne Lachen to A.H. Boerma, 5 January 1970, Folder 'Jt FAO/IAEA Division,' Box 10ADG351, FAO Archives. 86. Aresvik, draft book manuscript, attached to Arne Lachen to A.H. Boerma, 5 January 1970, Folder 'Jt FAO/IAEA Division,' Box 10ADG351, FAO Archives. 87. Maurice Fried to O.E. Fischnich, 16 January 1970, Folder 'Jt FAO/IAEA Division,' Box 10ADG351, FAO Archives. 88. R.A. Silow to O.E. Fischnich, 29 January 1970, Folder 'Dr Fischnich/Dr Silow 1968/1973,' Box 10ADG351, FAO Archives. 89. Aresvik, Agricultural Development of Turkey. 90. He argued that it was not right to do it while he was still awaiting action on his legal case from the ILO Tribunal, but this point fell on deaf ears. R.A. Silow to O.E. Fischnich, 4 February 1970, Folder 'Dr Fischnich/Dr Silow 1968/1973,' Box 10ADG351, FAO Archives. 91. R.A. Silow to A.H. Boerma, 16 December 1970, Folder 'Dr Fischnich/Dr Silow 1968/1973,' Box 10ADG351, FAO Archives. 92. O.E. Fischnich, note, 14 January 1971, Folder 'Dr Fischnich/Dr Silow 1968/1973,' Box 10ADG351, FAO Archives. 93. International Labour Organization, Administrative Tribunal, Twenty‐Second Ordinary Session, Silow v. IAEA, Judgment No. 142, 3 November 1969, available at http://www.ilo.org/public/english/tribunal/fulltext/0142.htm (accessed June 2, 2008). 94. International Labor Organization, Administrative Tribunal, Thirteenth Ordinary Session, In re Silow (No. 5), Judgment No. 205, 14 May 1973, available at http://www.ilo.org/public/english/tribunal/fulltext/0205.htm (accessed June 2, 2008). 95. Unauthored, n.d., Folder 'Dr Fischnich/Dr Silow 1968/1973,' Box 10ADG351, FAO Archives. 96. 'Nuclear Applications in Food and Agriculture: A Joint FAO/IAEA Contribution,' n.d., Folder 'Jt FAO/IAEA Division,' Box 10ADG351, FAO Archives. 97. One reason for the controversy, Garrett Hardin once wrote, was that 'no one desires irradiated food,' but that commercial interests simply want to use it to gain financially. For Hardin, that meant that the burden of proof for its safety ought to lie with the industry; meanwhile the practice should be forbidden. Hardin, 'Food Irradiation.' The controversy was alive and well in the 1990s, when public health scientist James H. Steele observed that 'these antis prey on the fears of nuclear destruction which have hung over the world since 1945 …'. See Steele, 'It's Time for Food Irradiation.' The issue was revived in the late 1990s when some advocated irradiation to combat E. coli and other contaminants. See also Lutter, 'Food Irradiation.' For the charge of 'scaremongering,' see Grierson, 'Safe Food.' Also in the 1990s, as the definition of 'organic farming' was contested, irradiation was one of the key methods (along with genetic modification and the use of sewage sludge) that many advocates wished to disallow under the rubric of 'organic.' See Fisher, 'Organic.' 98. Sigurbjörnsson, 'Conception, Birth and Growth,' 208. 99. Ibid., 204–5. 100. Fischer, History of the International, 434. 101. Sigurbjörnsson, 'Conception, Birth and Growth,' 198. 102. Ibid., 199.
Referência(s)