The Ethics of Patenting and Genetically Engineering the Relative Hāloa

Ethnos Journal of Anthropology ISSN: 0014-1844 (Print) 1469-588X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/retn20 The Ethics of Patenting and Genetically Engineering the Relative Hāloa Mascha Gugganig To cite this article: Mascha Gugganig (2017) The Ethics of Patenting and Genetically Engineering the Relative Hāloa, Ethnos, 82:1, 44-67, DOI: 10.1080/00141844.2015.1028564 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00141844.2015.1028564 Published online: 18 Apr 2015. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 150 View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=retn20 Download by: [The University of British Columbia] Date: 09 January 2017, At: 05:39 The Ethics of Patenting and Genetically Engineering the Relative Hāloa Mascha Gugganig University of British Colombia, Vancouver, Canada abstract This article investigates the patenting and genetic engineering of the plant taro (Colocasia esculenta), which Native Hawaiians consider their elder brother and ancestor Hāloa. It explores how molecular scientists at the University of Hawai‘i through their research activities inadvertently disrupted this relationship and concurrently provoked a resurgence of Native Hawaiians’ interest in their creation story Kumulipo and connection to their kin Hāloa. The juxtaposition of purportedly value-free scientific practices with a value-laden indigenous epistemology exposes the former’s debatable characterisation as ‘objective’. Scientific practices such as patenting or genetically engineering taro are discussed as hybrids that are composed of molecular scientists with real intentions; a plant as kin, ancestor and embodied god Kāne; and an indigenous people with real kinship to a non-human being. In consequence, the described case exemplifies how scientific practices are as malleable and situated as the concept of nature, while both concurrently shape each other. keywords Genetic engineering, kinship studies, intellectual property rights, Hawaii, hybridity, taro Introduction ommunication between scientists and the wider public is often defined by a lack of transparency, which as a result has often created separate spheres of knowledge production (see Haraway 1988; Shiva 1995; Nader 1996; Berkes [1999] 2008; Cruikshank 2005; Jasanoff 2005; Bamford 2007). Particularly in respect to indigenous people, a growing literature describes struggles with research institutions and governments that ignore indigenous people’s intellectual property rights (LaDuke 2005; Schlais 2007; Cummings 2008; Fitting 2011). These processes have often been termed bio-piracy, C ethnos, vol. 82:1, 2017 (pp. 44–67), http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00141844.2015.1028564 # 2015 Taylor & Francis The Ethics of Patenting and Genetic Engineering 45 bio-prospecting (Greene 2004) or biocolonialism (Whitt 1998; Howard 2001). Examples of patenting and/or genetic engineering of a plant sacred to a people point to the Manoominike wild rice of the Ojibwe (LaDuke 2005) or maize for indigenous peoples in Mexico (see Fitting 2011). Māori have also expressed concerns about the ethics of genetic engineering1 in regard to their genealogy, Whakapapa (see Reynolds 2004; Roberts et al. 2004; Cram 2005). Bamford asserts that biotechnology has been actively confronted by indigenous people’s understanding of their relationship to other life forms (2007: 153). Taro was not genetically engineered and patented in Hawai‘i until the early 2000s, and thus, in comparison to other places such as certain US states, Mexico, New Zealand and Europe, ignited a later public debate. Genetic engineering and patented taro present cases where cultural matters halted a public research institution to reflect upon its practices while they concurrently caused a surge of increased awareness of these very cultural matters. More precisely, Native Hawaiians, Kānaka Maoli,2 became more interested in their cosmogenic creation story, the Kumulipo, and their kinship to kalo, taro, as elder brother and ancestor Hāloa. Stone (2010) gives a compelling review of the anthropology of genetic modification/engineering. This article extends Stone’s review to impacts on indigenous peoples’ cosmogenic worldview as well as their apprehension, and furthers Schlais’ detailed discussion on patented taro (2007) with an anthropological analysis of genetically engineered taro in Hawai‘i. International agreements, such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (United Nations 2008), the Cartagena Protocol (United Nations 2000: 19) and regionally specific documents such as Kānaka Maoli’s Paoakalani Declaration (‘Īlio‘ulaokalani Coalition 2003), which call for the protection and consideration of bio-resources of indigenous peoples, have often been to no avail.3 This can result in disagreements between researchers and local populations as to what research is crucial for the latter due to diverging sets of expertise. In such scenarios, scientists often appear as ‘white knights’ to solve problems they are concerned with in ways that differ from those of a public. In Hawai‘i, a public’s resistance to a land-grant university’s research practices exposed the underlying, diverging ethics of expertise between molecular scientists and Native Hawaiians regarding nature, as discussed in this special issue. Embedded in the context of qualitative interviews, data analysis and ethnographic fieldwork, I will discuss three main findings: (1) the resurgence of Native Hawaiians’ interest in Hāloa in response to genetic engineering and patenting practices, and the hereto related redefinition of kinship; (2) an understanding of scientists’ entangled practices with ethnos, vol. 82:1, 2017 (pp. 44 –67) 46 mascha gugganig genetically engineered (GE) taro along Latour’s scheme of hybridity (1993) and (3) taro farmers’ and molecular scientists’ contesting expertise, which affirm the central role of values, and thus ethics. Before that, I will give a short description of the creation story, Kumulipo, and the incidents between 2002 and 2008. In the Beginning, There Was Darkness The Kumulipo, ‘beginning-in-deep-darkness’ (Beckwith [1951] 1972), is the cosmogenic creation story of all Hawaiian gods including their descendants, the Kānaka Maoli. Wākea, the male god of light and heavens, and his sister Papahānaumoku, Papa from whom lands are born, had a daughter, Ho’ohōkūkalani, the heavenly one who made the stars, whom Wākea could not resist and who he thus impregnated (Beckwith 1940: 294; Kame’eleihiwa 1992: 24). Their first child was a stillborn that they buried at the east corner of their house. Out of it grew a taro plant, kalo, which they named Hāloanakalaukapalili, long trembling stalk. Later, Ho’ohōkūkalani gave birth to a human child that was named Hāloa, who became the ancestor of humans, and was taught to honour his elder brother. The chiefs, the land and taro are to feed and shelter their younger siblings, the Hawaiian people, who in turn are to care for their elder siblings, the chiefs, the land and taro (Kame’eleihiwa 1992; Yuen n.d.) (Figure 1). This relationship was inadvertently challenged by research projects conducted by the College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources (CTAHR) at the University of Hawai‘i (UH). CTAHR scientists Nelson et al. find leaf blight to be ‘the most important and damaging disease of taro worldwide’ (2011: 9), and also led plant pathologist Eduardo Trujillo to cross-breed the widely grown Hawaiian taro variety Maui Lehua with the leaf blight-resistant Palauan Ngeeruch variety. This cross-breeding resulted in the patents of the Pa‘akala, Pa‘lehua and Pauakea cultivars, which were filed in 2002 (Trujillo 2002).4 When taro farmer Chris Kobayashi first heard about the patented taro, she could not believe that someone would put a patent on the plant she, her father and numerous other taro farmers have grown freely for centuries.5 Licensees were not allowed to sell the patented plant or breed stocks, and they had to pay 2% of gross sales as royalties to the university (Trujillo 2002). Besides its unfavourable consistency for making poi, a favoured starch made of steamed and pounded taro, Chris found the licence agreement counterproductive to taro farmers’ common practice of sharing the huli, the taro stem, for vegetative reproduction. For the following four years, together with Native Hawaiian activist Walter Ritte and other Kānaka Maoli, taro farmers, as well as the Hawaiethnos, vol. 82:1, 2017 (pp. 44 –67) The Ethics of Patenting and Genetic Engineering 47 Figure 1. The terminology of kalo reflects that of the family, ‘ohana, which derives from ‘oha, offspring of taro. The plant’s offspring are also called keiki, children. With permission from Eliza K. Jewett. ian environment organisation KAHEA, Chris committed to raise public awareness on this issue. Around the same time, CTAHR agronomist Susan Miyasaka together with members of the Hawaii Agriculture Research Center started preliminary work on taro in order to provide a crop-saving intervention should diseases from abroad arrive that would lead to a similar devastation as had happened to the local papaya.6 One such potential disease is the lethal alomae– bobone virus complex to which tested Hawaiian taro varieties were all found to be susceptible.7 The kind of potential crop-saving intervention projects that followed, however, tackled fungal pathogens. Plant pathologists at CTAHR cite oomycete and fungal diseases as most detrimental to taro, of which taro leaf blight, pocket rot, soft rot and southern blight are argued to be responsible for 25– 50% of crop loss in Hawaii (He et al. 2013: 369). While resistance to taro leaf blight was found in the taro germplasm, certain environmental conditions can decrease this resistance (Trujillo et al. 2002). ethnos, vol. 82:1, 2017 (pp. 44 –67) 48 mascha gugganig Research endeavours at CTAHR on taro subsequently involved the genetic engineering of taro via the insertion of the disease-resistant wheat oxalate oxidase gene, the rice chitinase gene and the grapevine stilbene synthase gene (Miyasaka 2006). CTAHR researchers sought to genetically engineer the Chinese taro variety Bun Long, the Hawaiian Maui Lehua and the Samoan Niue, yet only succeeded with Bun Long (Hashimoto 2005).8 The promising results of the oxalate oxidase gene, arresting the spread of the pathogen Phytophthora colocasiae in taro, which causes taro leaf blight, led to further research projects where rice chitinase gene inserted into taro’s germplasm showed resistance to the fungus Sclerotium rolfsii causing southern blight (He 2006; He et al. 2013: 378). In 2003, members of the state-wide taro growers’ organisation ‘Onipa‘a Nā Hui Kalo became aware of the genetic engineering work and invited CTAHR scientists John Cho and Susan Miyasaka to discuss their research.9 Miyasaka affirmed to discontinue GE taro research if taro farmers were not in favour. The farmers asserted that the issue at stake was not the kalo itself, but the poor condition of Hawai‘i soils. During this meeting, and in subsequent years, Miyasaka indicated the potential introduction of the alomae – bobone virus complex that was heavily impacting taro production in Papua New Guinea (PNG) and the Solomon Islands as a justification for genetically engineering kalo. Taro growers pointed out that testing Hawaiian taro’s potential disease resistance by importing viruses from abroad would be overly negligent and that farmers would be better protected by prohibiting shipments of taro from PNG and the Solomons, a point I will return to further in the article. After this meeting, however, Miyasaka and others continued GE taro research. The same year, the Ka ‘Aha Pono – Native Hawaiian Intellectual Property Rights Conference – issued the Paoakalani Declaration, which detailed among others the protection of traditional knowledge and bio-resources through collaboration with an indigenous people and its belief system (‘Īlio‘ulaokalani Coalition 2003). After it leaked out that genetic tests were done on Hawaiian taro and rumours of its possible genetic engineering spread, a public outcry followed. As taro farmers’ concerns passed unheeded, in May 2005, Native Hawaiian educators, students and taro farmers held a ceremony for Hāloa at UH in order to stress the urgency of terminating research involving genetic engineering of any taro variety (Hawaii SEED n.d.; Leone 2005). The genetic engineering of Hāloa was seen as an alteration of a kin, and thus a desecration (see Ritte & Freese 2006). At this ceremony, the dean of CTAHR Andrew Hashimoto asserted ethnos, vol. 82:1, 2017 (pp. 44 –67) The Ethics of Patenting and Genetic Engineering 49 that the college would refrain from any genetic engineering of Hawaiian taro varieties following their commitment to ‘be sensitive to the cultural significance of taro’ (Hashimoto 2005). The dean also stressed that genetic engineering of the Hawaiian taro Maui Lehua had been unsuccessful, and therefore only genetic engineering of the Chinese Bun Long variety had been pursued (Hashimoto 2005).10 In the meantime, in February 2006, the growing concern regarding the three patents led Chris Kobayashi, Walter Ritte and the nation-wide non-profit organisation (NPO) Center for Food Safety to write a letter to the President of UH to request abandoning the patents for their non-compliance to the United Nations’ World Intellectual Property Organisation and the United States Patenting Law (Kobayashi & Ritte 2006). First, they argue, ancestry of the female parent Maui Lehua is not ‘unknown’ (Trujillo 2002) but had been introduced by first island settlers in the fourth to fifth century from which Hawaiians have cultivated over 300 taro varieties (Kobayashi & Ritte 2006). Furthermore, claimed properties of leaf blight resistance, tolerance to root rot and vigorous growth (Trujillo 2002) were not valid, as a month after the third patent was issued CTAHR stated that ‘only preliminary observations are available on . . . disease susceptibility . . . and yield of the three new cultivars’ (Trujillo et al. 2002; Kobayashi & Ritte 2006). The letter was followed by a public protest of more than 600 taro farmers, advocates and youth who gathered at UH to oppose the patents. At this event, Ritte called the attempt at patenting Hawaiian taro the second Māhele, referring to the Great Māhele, or Land Division, that took place in 1848, which introduced the foreign concept of land as private ownership: ‘They do not have the right to buy, sell, own and manipulate our mana,11 . . . We are Hāloa, and Hāloa is us. No one can own us’ (Ing 2006: 1). In May 2006, Native Hawaiian activists chained the doors of the John A. Burns School of Medicine of UH demonstrating a kapu, a ban, on the university’s patenting practice on kalo (Gima 2006). A month later, vice chancellor of research Ostrander and vice president for research Gaines of UH signed a letter that detailed the university’s ‘Terminal Disclaimers’ for the three patented taro varieties (Ostrander 2006). Ostrander explained that ‘[t]he university has acted sincerely and in good faith to respect the rights of Native Hawaiians in this matter’ (University of Hawai’i 2006). Opposing the idea of returning the patents, Ritte, Kobayashi and professor of Hawaiian Studies Jonathan Kamakawiwo‘ole Osorio symbolically tore the patents apart (Essoyan 2006). ethnos, vol. 82:1, 2017 (pp. 44 –67) 50 mascha gugganig The university’s self-imposed moratorium and Terminal Disclaimer were celebrated as a victory; yet, to this day concerns persist over the fact that the college did not withdraw from genetically engineering all taro varieties. In fact, many Native Hawaiians and taro farmers have noted that a ban on GE taro should involve all ‘Pacific cousins’, all taro varieties, as they are all related (Hawaiian Civic Club Honolulu 2008; Kobayashi, pers. conversation 2011). There are also concerns over cross-pollination of GE taro with conventionally grown taro (see Kobayashi 2008). While the risk of cross-pollination in the Hawaiian environment remains disputed, by sharing huli, the taro stem, the likelihood of mixing GE taro huli with conventional ones becomes a certainty (see Konanui 2008; Levin [2007] 2009).12 In 2007, State Representative Mele Carroll introduced the Taro Security Bill, which detailed a 10-year moratorium on ‘developing, testing, propagating, cultivating, growing, and raising genetically engineered taro in the State’ (Senate Bill 958 HD1 2007). As a Native Hawaiian, Carroll follows her spiritual belief in kalo as an ancestor of her people (Hamilton 2009). The bill was denied a hearing in the House of Representatives by House Speaker Calvin Say and Agriculture Committee Chairman Representative Clift Tsuji, who stated that it was ‘too complicated and controversial at the time’, yet that it would be revisited in 2008 (Senate Bill 958 HD2 2008; Smith & Azambuja 2008). Hundreds of protesters returned to the opening of the 2008 Legislative Session at the State Capitol to remind Say and Tsuji of their promise. Taro farmer Bryna ‘Oliko Storch helped collecting 6000 signatures in support of the bill through KAHEA, accompanying thousands of testimonies in support of the measure (Senate Bill 958 HD2 2008). Three months later, in April 2008, Tsuji and Say introduced several amendments in conference, thus without public hearing, which included a reduction of the moratorium to five years, and to Hawaiian taro varieties only (Senate Bill 958 HD2 2008; Storch, personal communication, 2013). The amended bill stated that out-of-state companies that make seed crops the biggest agricultural commodity ‘need assurance that they will still be able to invest and operate in Hawaii’ (Senate Bill 958 HD2 2008). Further amendments included a prohibition of both the state and counties to ban the ‘testing, planting, or growing . . . of any genetically modified non-Hawaiian taro or other nontaro plant organism’, and a ban of ‘advertisement, labelling, packaging, handling, transportation, distribution, use, notification of use, certification, or registration of genetically modified plant organism’ for counties (Senate Bill 958 HD2 2008). With this pre-emption clause, neither the state nor its counties would have legal power to regulate any genetically engineered organisms in Hawai‘i. ethnos, vol. 82:1, 2017 (pp. 44 –67) The Ethics of Patenting and Genetic Engineering 51 Carroll followed Native Hawaiians’ and taro farmers’ urgent concern, conveyed via Konanui and Storch, and killed the poisoned bill. A few months later, the Big Island County Council passed their own bill regarding the ban of testing and propagation of GE taro and coffee (Dayton 2008), which was followed by the Maui County Council with a ban on GE taro (Tanji 2009). Ever since the failed Senate Bill 958, similar state-wide bills have been introduced, and all of them have been deferred to the next respective Legislative Session. The same year, Act 211 established the Taro Security and Purity Task Force, whose members comprise a minimum of 50% taro farmers who develop recommendations for taro policy and non-GMO (genetically modified organism) taro-based research (OHA 2009).13 Then-sitting Governor Linda Lingle vetoed funding allocated by the legislature from the state budget while, concurrently, Act 71 symbolically established taro as the official State Plant of Hawai‘i (OHA 2009: 12). The Office of Hawaiian Affairs stepped in to fund the Task Force. The Resurgence of an Elder Brother and Ancestor Environmental lawyers have referred to Native Hawaiians’ efforts as a unique case in which cultural reasons were the main impetus for the termination of patents and GE of a sacred plant (Schlais 2007; Cummings 2008: 188; Kimbrell 2013). Vivid public ceremonies for Hāloa, such as pounding poi, erecting an ahu, altar, and dancing hula were accompanied by numerous visual artists’ works that depict the human kinship to kalo, such as Solomon Enos’ piece Hāloa (Figure 2). Ritte and Freese assert that concern among the broader Hawaiian community regarding GE was not significant until it related to Hāloa, while the movement before had been predominantly composed of ‘haole (Caucasian) environmentalists and organic growers’ (2006: 12). It also expressed the reverse: a raised awareness of Hāloa.14 Roberts et al. (2004) similarly point out that in New Zealand genetic engineering has resulted in Māoris’ renewed interest in their creation story, the Whakapapa. Humans’ intervention in other species via genetic engineering is viewed as unsanctioned interference with Whakapapa, which connects the spiritual and material worlds (Roberts et al. 2004). Anthropologists have equally pointed to indigenous peoples’ kin-related understandings of their environment (Cruikshank 2005; Turner 2005; Wyndham 2009), an approach Salmón coins kincentric ecology (2000). Native Hawaiians strive to maintain a sacred relationship to natural phenomena, which are bodily forms of gods, kino lau, among whom taro is a myriad body of the god of creative power, Kāne (see Handy & Handy 1978: 23). Polynesians’ relations between ‘natural’ ancestral ethnos, vol. 82:1, 2017 (pp. 44 –67) 52 mascha gugganig Figure 2. Solomon Enos’ Hāloa, with permission from the artist. This artwork served as cover page for the magazine Honolulu Weekly (2006) for an article on patented and GE taro, and seven years later for the NPO Hawaii SEED’s second edition of their booklet Facing Hawai‘i’s Future: Essential Information About GMOs (Black 2013). phenomena and social persons are neither metaphoric nor metonymic, but synecdochic (Sahlins 1985: 81). Hence, taro is neither simply a metaphor for Hāloa or Kāne, nor merely an association, a metonym. As synecdoche, a specific part, taro refers to the whole, to Hāloa, and Kāne. In Kānaka Maoli epistemology, nature, divinity and kinship are thus interconnected, and thus differ from interbreeding. Genetic engineering crosses boundaries of species, which unduly manipulates mana, according to Ritte (Lo 2006). In this light, the common reference to scientists ‘playing god’ by genetically engineering an organism receives new meaning when in fact a physical body form of the god, Kāne, is changed. Contested Expertise Due to their contrasting activities and experiences, taro farmers and molecular scientists obtain different sets of expertise that offer diverging findings ethnos, vol. 82:1, 2017 (pp. 44 –67) The Ethics of Patenting and Genetic Engineering 53 regarding impairments for taro’s health. As mentioned earlier, CTAHR scientists understand leaf blight to be most devastating for taro, and are cautious about such pests as the alomae – bobone virus complex. The reasoning goes as follows: The current set of taro pests and pathogens, including some known problems that may yet arrive here from afar, is a formidable challenge to the relatively narrow genome of the traditional Hawaiian taro varieties . . . . (CTAHR 2009: 4) The ‘narrow genetic base’ of Samoan taro, which resulted in the devastation of the Samoan taro industry due to its lack of resistance to leaf blight (Moorhead 2011), is often cited as an impetus for CTAHR scientists’ research endeavours regarding taro leaf blight (see CTAHR 2009: 9). Taro’s ‘narrow genome’ is explained in reference to the ancestral practice of taro cultivation through asexual propagation by planting the stem, huli (see Moorhead 2011: 19; Nelson et al. 2011). Yet over a thousand years, Hawaiian taro farmers have cultivated over 300 varieties from this gene pool by adapting them to varying microclimates, soil, cultivating practices as well as hybridisation (Handy & Handy 1978; TenBruggencate 2005; OHA 2009: 8; Konanui 2012). Master taro farmer Jerry Konanui has grown tired of the ‘narrow genome’ argument. For him, as for many other taro farmers in Hawai‘i, it distracts attention from more pertinent questions. These are addressed in the Task Force report which recommends, among other things, improved access to land and water, improvement of soil and water conditions, biosecurity measures for taro pests and diseases, and significantly more research on Hawaiian taro practices and cultivars including DNA (Deoxyribonucleic acid) mapping (OHA 2009). Within the last 200 years, cultivated wetland taro decreased from 30,000 to 500 acres, and now makes up less than 1% of all agricultural land in Hawai‘i (Levin, pers. conversation 2014). The Task Force estimates that across the islands hundreds, if not thousands, of acres of ancient taro patches are covered in dense layers of invasive plants. Flowing fresh water is also particularly important for healthy taro growth in Hawai‘i’s characteristic wetland fields, the lo‘i. Yet over the last 150 years sufficient water for traditional ‘auwai, irrigation ditches, has become increasingly inaccessible due to the removal of excessive amounts of water for sugar plantations. A more recent problem is the rise in permitted house constructions amidst still active taro systems (OHA 2009: 32). ethnos, vol. 82:1, 2017 (pp. 44 –67) 54 mascha gugganig A consequence of the severely diminished stream flows has been increased water temperatures that created a favourable habitat for a pest introduced in the 1980s as a delicacy, and soon spread across lo‘i: apple snails (Levin 2006: 59). Conservation planner and taro farmer Penny Levin finds that lack of research and ineffective policies related to the control of this pest led to taro farming being on ‘the brink of disaster’ (p. 11), with a 18 – 25% taro crop loss and an increase of 50% in labour (Levin 2006). Furthermore, apple snails do not mind taro diseases, as they would not discriminate against GE taro, which points to the uselessness of its leaf blight resistance in the presence of this pest (2009). In her study on taro farming and waterbird habitats, Nan Greer quotes a farmer stating, not with a lack of irony, that he does not have the problem of pocket rot because the apple snails eat the infested corms (Greer 2005: 99). Another example of diverging interpretations relates to the alomae – bobone virus complex. As mentioned earlier, Miyasaka and other molecular scientists argue that this virus complex could be devastating for Hawai‘i’s taro, were it to arrive on the islands. The EU-funded Pacific Island Taro Market Access Scoping Study (Secretariat of the Pacific Community Land Resources Division 2011), which assesses global taro industries, remarks that in the context of the extreme cultural sensitivities surrounding GE taro in Hawai‘i, and despite the absence of the alomae – bobone virus on the islands, the ‘[United States Department of Agriculture/Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service] and State of Hawaii quarantine authorities have not seen it necessary to impose devitalisation regulations on imported taro from the Pacific Islands’ (pp. 29, 36). The Task Force report refers to outdated import laws that categorise taro as food rather than propagatable material while raw taro corms can still produce offshoots under the right circumstances, and dried or frozen taro may bear diseases (OHA 2009: 50). The Task Force suggests an update on the importing policies and more incentives for local taro farmers to farm in order to limit the need for imports (2009). CTAHR plant pathologists state that critics of their taro cultivar developments are ignorant of plant diseases, and instead locate the problem in ‘restrictions imposed by government on access to land and, particularly, water resources’ (CTAHR 2009: 5). Plant pathologists are experts in plant pathology, not in ecology, politics of land use, or taro farming. For instance, the ecological logic of monoculture that predisposes crops to devastation with one single disease, as was the case in Samoa and discussed in a CTAHR report (Nelson et al. 2011), does not highlight the severity of the ‘narrow genome’ argument. ethnos, vol. 82:1, 2017 (pp. 44 –67) The Ethics of Patenting and Genetic Engineering 55 Such a debate can also be heedless of the meagre research on already existent Hawaiian taro varieties, particularly DNA mapping, which could in fact substantiate or derail the severity of a ‘narrow genome’ theory. It only operates in a context of plant breeders producing disease-resistant taro varieties by using traits ‘available within the full Colocasia genome’ (CTAHR 2009: 4; emphasis added). The act of accumulating all genetic traits of all existing taro varieties, as well as traits of other species via GE, creates a hypothetical super-disease-resistant taro that makes any taro variety next to it look weak. Cross-breeding on such a global scale normalises a vocabulary of genetically ‘poor’ Hawaiian taro. GE Taro, the ‘Hybrid’ In a video with several CTAHR scientists, the genetic narrative of Hawaiian taro being narrow was further put in relation to early Native Hawaiians’ ‘weakness’ to diseases from abroad. Hugh Lovell, a Native Hawaiian spokesperson hired by CTAHR as ‘researcher’,15 made the following comparison: When you look at the ali‘i [kings] of Hawai‘i they basically bred within themselves to maintain the royal Hawaiian line. And because there was not too many branches on the tree, and their gene line became thin, when western diseases came they were the first to die. Same thing with taro. Taro was taken, bred back upon itself, and their gene lines gotten real thin. When disease came to hit, they’re having a hard time. (2006) The dean of CTAHR Hashimoto stated similarly that Hawaiian taro is vulnerable in the same way as early Hawaiians were susceptible to the plague (Lo 2006). Native Hawaiian scholar Lilikala Kame‘eleihiwa countered that ‘we didn’t change the Hawaiian people. We attacked the disease’ (Lo 2006). Back then no efforts were made to provide basic health care to cure Native Hawaiians, who were struck with numerous diseases from abroad (Kame‘eleihiwa 1992: 202). According to Walter Ritte, Hawaiians are not arguing with the intentions of the researchers but with the way scientists at CTAHR behave like ‘old-time missionaries, trying to save us from ourselves’ (Honolulu Magazine 2008). Two hundred years ago missionaries wanted to ‘help’ Hawaiians to increase their population rates by teaching land ownership in order to make them hard working, and thus ‘healthy’ Christians. CTAHR scientists’ GE and patenting of Hawaiian taro disquietingly parallels missionaries’ efforts to socially engineer Hawaiian populations, as both groups assume that foreign elements must be drawn in to preserve the race/species. ethnos, vol. 82:1, 2017 (pp. 44 –67) 56 mascha gugganig Bruno Latour describes modern practices such as scientific research as a work of purification through the creation of human beings and non-human beings as ontologically separate zones (1993; see also Bamford 2007). An obsession with such purity allows philosophers to ignore that gods are also present ‘in a hydroelectric plant on the banks of the Rhine, in subatomatic particles, . . . in agribusiness’ (Latour 1993: 66; see also Sahlins 1996), as well as in taro. The linear passage to scientific progress in genetic engineering recreates purification in the separation of human beings from non-human entities. Concurrently, modern practices do not merely purify human and nonhuman entities, but are paradoxically interdependent with the translation of the two (Latour 1993). Modern philosophers tried to manage these quasi-objects by creating hybrids of subjects and objects that are accepted as ephemeral intermediaries rather than mediators in their own right (p. 55). These apparently incompatible repertoires are ‘confused’ by the modernist’s desire for natural entities (p. 89). In our case, molecular scientists frame and ‘confuse’ the final product, the ‘hybrid’ GE taro, as a natural entity. This is also apparent in the United States Food and Drug Administration’s legal regulation of GE food as ‘substantially equivalent’ to conventionally grown food (United States Food and Drug Administration 1992). In this reasoning, the subject, the molecular scientist, ‘disappears’ in the translation process from subject to object not least to give consumers the comfort that what they eat is not different from any non-GE food. If, however, molecular scientists stress their expertise as inventors, they may return to the ontologically separate zones and define themselves as subjects separate from the object, the GE and/or patented plant. Counter to that, Schlais asserts that the image of the individual, independent genius contradicts Hawaiian traditional knowledge, which is created through intergenerational transmission (2007: 591). Latour advocates for hybrids as mediators of their own rather than as mere ephemeral intermediaries, since a mediator is an original event that creates both what it translates and the entities between which it plays a mediating role (1993: 78). He cautions that we ‘have to slow down, reorient and regulate the proliferation of monsters [hybrids] by representing their existence officially’ (p. 12). In that respect, a hybrid consists of what is translated between the scientist and taro, GE taro, as well as the scientist. While a Latourian hybrid may provide a transparent and processual understanding of biotechnology and patenting life practices, the term hybrid remains problematic. In the context of gaining societal acceptance of a controversial technology, proponents of genetic engineering seek to deliberately blur the line between agricultural hybrid and genetic engineering methods, ethnos, vol. 82:1, 2017 (pp. 44 –67) The Ethics of Patenting and Genetic Engineering 57 which has led to much confusion among taro farmers and the general public.16 The apperception of ruptures and inconsistencies that come to full display in the demand to recognise Hāloa not as a ‘belief or ‘agenda’ (CTAHR 2009: 6) but as kin, ancestor and god will depend on a more attentive use of terminologies, and a distinction between ontological hybrids and hybridisation as modern agricultural practice. It remains crucial to recognise genetic engineering as involving scientists with real intentions and plants with real meanings for an indigenous people and non-indigenous people. Industrious Objectivity In 2009, CTAHR published a report as public response to controversies over their research projects.17 Among other things, it states that: Assertions of values or cultural values, which may have religious connotations, do not readily find common cause with the principles that motivate the professional activities of CTAHR faculty that are (and, constitutionally, must be) secular. (2009: 6) In their analysis of Māori genealogy Whakapapa, Roberts et al. state that contrary to the idea that modern science is value free, indigenous knowledge systems are rich in narratives that are deliberately value-laden in order to offer moral guidelines for proper conduct (2004: 15). The moral guideline of the mo‘olelo, narrative, of Wākea, sky father and genitor of Hāloa and the Hawaiian people, is for the latter to honour the former, that is, to do no harm by manipulating or owning your elder brother.18 Such ethics differ from a knowledge production setting where the articulation of values would compromise professionalism. This standpoint in turn becomes problematic when such knowledge production settings, academic institutions, become producers of marketable goods. CTAHR agronomist Hector Valenzuela points out that through the enactment of the Bayh-Dole Act in 1980 academic institutions were enabled to gain patenting rights to certain inventions that were partly government funded, and thus contributed to the commercialisation of ideas.19 According to Valenzuela, this Act reflected an expansion of neo-liberal politics into public educational institutions: The industries at that time realised that society was gonna change from an energybased to a biology-based economy. And this means an economy based on patents. So, everything matched perfectly, the universities were gonna move to patenting and the industry was gonna move to patenting. . . . So, at UH we have a big high tech or patent office that is trying to patent anything that is coming from professors. ethnos, vol. 82:1, 2017 (pp. 44 –67) 58 mascha gugganig And if you have new ideas they are willing to come and help you. So, we have some professors that decided to make some crosses and develop new varieties of taro and say: Hey! We can patent these varieties, and we can, I can become real popular, and I have patents and can start getting royalties and so on. Valenzuela describes a prestige- and product-driven mindset that disguises the valuation of profit. In 2010 and 2011, the biotechnology corporation Monsanto granted a total of $600,000 to CTAHR for the support of education in plant science (Schrire 2010, 2011), while a member of the college’s Board of Advisors is an executive of Monsanto.20 A few years earlier, the dean of CTAHR explained the patenting of taro with the argument that Monsanto or another company could have slightly modified and patented the taro if UH would not have done it (TenBruggencate 2006). While some indigenous groups have explored patenting as a viable option to protect intellectual property rights from corporate control (see Greene 2004), Schlais elucidates that in Hawaiian epistemology ownership is problematic, for heritage consists of a bundle of relationships, and its sale would simply end them (2007: 593; see Paoakalani Declaration 2003). Andre Perez, protester against patented Hawaiian taro, makes the following comparison: ‘Putting a patent on taro is like putting a copyright on Jesus, and every time you pray to him you have to pay me with bread and wine.’21 Hawai‘i exemplifies an increasingly common global scenario where private corporations enter public education institutions via monetary means and advisors, which blurs both the ethics of the latter and their distinction from the former. Thirty years ago, Donna Haraway pointed out that a ‘pallid discourse of bioethics is patently impotent to grapple with the nature of power here’ (1983). These power relations are discernible in a ‘growing industrial direction of education (especially higher education) by science-based multinationals (particularly in electronics and biotechnology dependent companies)’ (1983). As numerous anthropologists have shown, scientific research is never free of cultural settings and values (Latour 1993; Nader 1996; Sahlins 1996; Bamford 2007). Sheila Jasanoff elaborates that the USA is a Wissenschaftsstaat, a state of science, which reflects the country’s obsession with completely value- and politics-free ‘pure science’ (2005: 231). Jasanoff asserts that in the USA biotechnology was transformed from a research enterprise into a global industry, and this translates into a nation’s urge to permanently be the ‘first’ in technological progress (2005). The majority of the public, including politicians such as Tsuji and Say, may thus see private investment such as that from Monsanto as a contriethnos, vol. 82:1, 2017 (pp. 44 –67) The Ethics of Patenting and Genetic Engineering 59 bution to ‘scientific progress’ that translates into more revenues, a more lucrative economy for investment in Hawai‘i and more jobs. Concluding Thoughts The incidents described here exemplify how biotechnology and patenting life practices intervene with an indigenous ontology, and how this concurrently evoked a resurrection of Kānaka Maoli genealogical connections to their elder brother Hāloa. In that sense, technologised nature, which Strathern predicted would lead to the ‘flattening’ of nature (1992), rather instigated a redefinition of nature as kincentric ecologies (Salmón 2000). Institutions such as universities or states have to sincerely reflect upon their positions of power in relation to indigenous communities, and thus what constitutional rights indigenous people’s kinship relations have when they come into conflict with the institution’s ethics – or lack thereof. In this article, I furthermore highlight that differing expertise between two groups need a more thorough analysis of what is at stake for either of the groups. The ‘narrow genome’ argument needs to be put in its ecological, political, economic and sociocultural context for thorough analysis. The juxtaposition of the ‘narrow genome’ of Hawaiian taro with that of Native Hawaiians’ furthermore reflects a disturbing similarity between molecular scientists who aim to functionalise life in nature, and outdated anthropological paradigms that aim to functionalise culture. Science is a symbolic practice (Nader 1996), as much as the human mind is a cultural mind (Geertz 1973). Missionaries attempted to socially engineer the Native Hawaiian population, while plant pathologists want to ‘save’ Hawaiian taro. These practices rely/relied upon the introduction of foreign elements: in one case, teaching protestant work ethics, in the other, making taro disease-resistant through the insertion of foreign genes. The logic of rendering such processes normal is disassembled via the not unproblematic notion of hybrid with its paradoxical interdependence of purification and translation: missionaries and scientists are ‘pure’ subjects with real intentions to ‘improve’ a race or nature. The end product is GE taro as natural unity, as ‘substantially equivalent’ to regular taro. This again parallels schemes to socially engineer, and consequently normalise, Kānaka Maoli as US-American citizens through centuries of ‘foreign elements’ (missionaries, plantation owners, etc.). There is a need to recognise scientists with real motivations and plants with real meanings to a people. I have further shown that the juxtaposition of moral guidelines of Kānaka Maoli’s creation story, the Kumulipo, with an academic institution’s purported ethnos, vol. 82:1, 2017 (pp. 44 –67) 60 mascha gugganig objectivity illustrates two things: while one group holds up its ethics by preserving accountability to values, the other group asserts to have no values by disguising values and profit orientation as ‘scientific progress’. Biotechnology interrelated with private business (Jasanoff 2005) is not considered unethical because of its operation within a purported ‘secular’, ‘objective’ framework. This framework needs further attention if the disguise of academic capitalism and disregard of culturally differing epistemologies become its defining elements. The drive to ‘invent’ cannot be disassociated from corporations’ investment into public research institutions as much as from a nation’s belief in its progress in ‘pure’ science. As Stone states, anthropologists shall engage in an academy’s constantly reconfigured relationships to both the state and the industry, as ‘the parallels in the timelines of genetic modification and what is often called academic capitalism are striking’ (2010: 384). Native Hawaiians’ continuous public reminders of the illegality of the State of Hawai‘i21 further complicate links between the value of ‘pure’ science and US nationalism. Members of the Native Hawaiian sovereignty movement have recently formed allies with those of an emerging food sovereignty movement. The incidence of GE and patented kalo triggered a somewhat lagged movement raising awareness about an evolved biotech seed industry that has made Hawai‘i a centre of GE seed research and development (See DBEDT 2009: 40f). It is unlikely that anti-GMO activists instrumentalised the GE taro incident to mobilise Native Hawaiians against this technology (yet see Helm 2008), since back in 2007/2008 allies between anti-GMO activists and Native Hawaiians were rather occasional. In the recent movement, taro’s symbolic power has indeed been resuscitated (Figure 2), which also reflects newly formed allies across ethnicities. A number of taro farmers comment that if it were not for the GMO taro battle, the general public in Hawai‘i would not be nearly as aware of the issue as they are now. Kalo farmer Storch reflects as follows: In some ways the kalo became an offering to allow for raising awareness for GMO that is happening right now. It created an educational space in the heart of our community. In this way, in these modern times, the older brother Hāloa continues to protect and provide for us. Coming generations in Hawai‘i, particularly Kānaka Maoli, may further this discussion in a way that I cannot provide as malihini, foreigner and guest, for there is certainty that the issues raised here will continue, and thus are in need of scrutiny. ethnos, vol. 82:1, 2017 (pp. 44 –67) The Ethics of Patenting and Genetic Engineering 61 Acknowledgements I want to thank kalo farmer Jerry Konanui, Penny Levin, Chris Kobayashi, Bryna ‘Oliko Storch and anonymous kalo farmers for their helpful suggestions. Further thanks go to my supervisor at UBC John Barker, at CTAHR to Hector Valenzuela and Mehana Blaich Vaughan, the anonymous reviewer of Ethnos, as well as to Solomon Enos and Eliza K. Jewett for their permission to use their artworks. Last but not least, I would like to extend my thanks to Victoria Boydell and Katharine Dow for organising the panel ‘Nature and Ethics’ at the AAA conference in 2011, which led to this special issue. Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author. Notes 1. As Stone asserts (2010: 382), the terminology is as contested as the technology itself. While he suggests genetic modification as a neutral and shared term among opponents and proponents, fieldwork on Kaua‘i has shown that on both sides critics found the term genetic modification misleading, as it also suggests conventional hybridisation of plants. Among critics, genetic engineering was generally seen as a more accurate definition (Gugganig, 2013). In this article, ‘GMO’ or genetically modified organisms are referred to in references and citations only. 2. If not otherwise indicated, all translations from Hawaiian to English refer to the online dictionary www.wehewehe.org. All people of Hawaiian ancestry are referred to with a capitalised ‘N’, Native Hawaiians, regardless of their blood quantum. 3. The USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand have not signed the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (United Nations 2008). The Cartagena Protocol (2000) was not signed by the USA and Australia, and was not ratified by Canada and Argentina. 4. The License Agreement for Pa‘akala shall serve as an example for the other two patents. 5. Interview with Kobayashi, 2011. Kobayashi does not distinguish between taro plants she and Native Hawaiians have grown and the patented varieties from UH. To her, as to many other taro farmers, they are all Hāloa. 6. While the ringspot virus-resistant GE ‘Rainbow’ papaya is referred to as a success story within the scientific community (see Voosen 2011), it remains a debated topic among environmental activists and consumers (see Bondera 2006). It is curious to note that the GE papaya, which entered the market in the 1990s, did not provoke much concern over this biotechnology. 7. The CTAHR report does not detail how many Hawaiian taro varieties were tested (2009: 20). 8. In the development of tissue culture, the Bun Long variety created most regenerative calli (tissue), while the Hawaiian Maui Lehua produced none (He et al. 2013: 372). 9. All information related to this meeting was provided by a taro grower who attended the meeting. ethnos, vol. 82:1, 2017 (pp. 44 –67) 62 mascha gugganig 10. Hashimoto asserted collaboration with Sir William D. Souza of the Royal Order of Kamehameha I to form a forum/review board to discuss research raising cultural concerns ‘in the Hawaiian community’ (2005). Yet who speaks for an indigenous community is contested, as discussed by Greene (2004), and so, Souza’s role as spokesperson for ‘the Hawaiian community’ is equally challenged (see Nobrega 2005). 11. Mana: divine power, authority. 12. Plant pathologists argue that in Hawai‘i’s environment taro rarely flowers (de la Peña 1990; Miyasaka 2006; He et al. 2013: 379), possibly referring to the unlikeliness of cross-pollination due to the different timing that a female flower becomes receptive and the pollen sheds (see Yamakawa 2008). Taro farmer Bryna ‘Oliko Storch recalls this argument as proof of the disconnection between scientists and the practice of taro farming (Interview, 2013. All following citations refer to this interview) as taro growers not infrequently observe flowering among all Hawaiian taro varieties, as well as seed taro production in the lo‘i (Konanui 2008; see also Levin [2007] 2009 for further discussion; pers conversation 2014). 13. The focus on non-GMO research requires members to not discuss or entertain GMO issues in Task Force meetings, despite numerous farmers’ frustration over this fact (OHA, 2009: 27; Storch, personal communication, 2013). However, the Task Force clarified the meaning of ‘taro security’ and ‘taro purity’ in its 2009 report, stating clearly that one layer of the definition of ‘taro purity’ was to be non-GE. 14. I thank Mehana Vaughan for pointing this out to me. 15. It is pertinent to note that Lovell did not earn a university degree (Aha n.a.). 16. I thank Penny Levin for pointing this out (pers. conversation 2014). 17. Task Force members found this report inaccurate and insensitive, partly because it was intended for legislators as propaganda piece. 18. What defines such harm is contested, yet only few Kānaka Maoli see biotechnology as a potential tool to sustain kalo (see Lovell 2006; Helm 2008). 19. Interview with Valenzuela, 2013. All following citations refer to this interview. 20. Interview with Valenzuela, 2013. 21. Leo (2006). Andre Perez was mistakenly cited as Mario Perez. 22. See, for instance, Keanu Sai’s ‘Proclamation of the acting Council of Regency declaring Provisional Laws for the Kingdom’ (2014). References Aha, Moku. n.d. Aha Kiole Archive [online]. http://www.ahamoku.org/index.php/ahakiole/ (Accessed 4 July 2014). Bamford, Sandra. 2007. Biology Unmoored: Reflections on Kinship from Papua New Guinea and the World of Biotechnology. Berkeley: University of California Press. Beckwith, W. Martha. 1940. Hawaiian Mythology. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. ———. [1951] 1972. Kumulipo. A Hawaiian Creation Chant. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press. Berkes, Fikret. [1999] 2008. Sacred Ecology. New York: Routledge. Black, Catherine (ed.). 2013. Facing Hawai‘i’s Future. Essential Information about GMOs. Honolulu: Hawaii SEED. ethnos, vol. 82:1, 2017 (pp. 44 –67) The Ethics of Patenting and Genetic Engineering 63 Bondera, Melanie. 2006. Papaya and Coffee. In Facing Hawai‘i’s Future. Essential Information about GMOs, edited by Ana Currie. pp. 44 –46. Hilo: Hawaii SEED. Cram, Fiona. 2005. Backgrounding Māori Views on Genetic Engineering. In Sovereignty, edited by Joanne Barker. pp. 51– 66. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Cruikshank, Julie. 2005. Do Glaciers Listen? Local Knowledge, Colonial Encounters & Social Imagination. Vancouver/Toronto: UBC Press. CTAHR. 2009. CTAHR and Taro: Taro Research by the College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i at Manoa. Cummings, H. Claire. 2008. Uncertain Peril: Genetic Engineering and the Future of Seeds. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Dayton, Kevin. 2008, November 14. Big Island Bans GMO Coffee and Taro Crops. Honolulu Advertiser [newspaper article]. Honolulu. http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/ article/2008/Nov/14/ln/hawaii811140334.html (Accessed 9 October 2013). Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism. 2009. Benchmarking Hawaii’s Emerging Industries. State of Hawaii. Essoyan, Susan. 2006, June 21. Activists tear up 3 UH Patents for Taro. Star Bulletin [newspaper article]. http://archives.starbulletin.com/2006/06/21/news/story03.html (Accessed 9 October 2013). Fitting, Elizabeth. 2011. The Struggle for Maize: Campesinos, Workers, and Transgenic Corn in the Mexican Countryside. Durham, NC/London: Duke University Press. Geertz, Clifford. 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books. Greer, F. Nan. 2005. Agroecology, Conservation, and Land Use in Taro Farming Systems, Kaua’i, Hawaii (unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). University of Washington, Seattle. Gima, Craig. 2006, May 18. Native Hawaiians Temporarily Shut UH Medical School. Star Bulletin [newspaper article]. http://archives.starbulletin.com/2006/05/18/news/ story01.html (Accessed 9 October 2013). Greene, Shane. 2004. Indigenous People Incorporated? Culture as Politics, Culture as Property in Pharmaceutical Bioprospecting. Current Anthropology, 45(2):211 –237. Gugganig, Mascha. 2013. Fieldnotes for Doctoral Dissertation. University of British Columbia, Vancouver. Hamilton, Chris. 2009, April 21. GMO Taro Ban Passes with Amendments. Maui News http://www.iatp.org/news/gmo-taro-ban-passes-with[newspaper article]. amendments (Accessed 5 February 2014). Handy, C. S. Edward & Elizabeth G. Handy. 1978. Native Planters in Old Hawaii: Their Life, Lore and Environment. Honolulu, HI: British Museum Press. Haraway, Donna. 1983. The Ironic Dream of a Common Language for Women in the Integrated Circuit: Science, Technology, and Socialist Feminism in the 1980s or a Socialist Feminist Manifesto for Cyborgs. History of Consciousness Board. University of California at Santa Cruz [online]. http://www.egs.edu/faculty/donna-haraway/articles/donnaharaway-the-ironic-dream-of-a-common-language-for-women-in-the-integrated-cir cuit/ (Accessed 3 March 2014). ———. 1988. Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3):575 –599. Hashimoto, Andrew. 2005. Taro Research and Genetic Engineering of Hawaiian Taro. College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources [letter]. http://www.ctahr.hawaii. edu/biotech/image/Hashimotostatement05-12-05.htm (Accessed 10 April 2015). ethnos, vol. 82:1, 2017 (pp. 44 –67) 64 mascha gugganig Hawaiian Civic Club Honolulu. 2008, March-April. Newsletter [online]. http://www. hcchonolulu.org/archives/newsletters/2008_03_HCCH.pdf (Accessed 4 February 2014). Hawaii SEED. n.d. Taro [online article]. http://hawaiiseed.org/local-issues/taro/ (Accessed 10 October 2013). He, Xiaoling. 2006. Transformation and Regeneration of Taro with Two Plant Disease Resistance Genes: A Rice Chitinase and a Wheat Oxalate Oxidase Gene (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Hawaii, Honolulu. He, Xiaoling, M. M. Maureen Fitch, J. Yun Zhu & Susan Miyasaka. 2013. Genetic Transformation of Taro. In Biotechnology of Neglected and Underutilized Crops, edited by Shri Mohan Jain & S. Dutta Gupta. pp. 367– 383. Dordrecht/Heidelberg/New York/ London: Springer. Helm, Adolph. 2008, March 2. Commentary: Sustaining Taro in New Era. Honolulu Advertiser [online]. http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2008/Mar/02/op/ hawaii803020334.html (Accessed 5 February 2014). Honolulu Magazine. 2008, March. Scrapyard: Moratorium on GMO Taro? [article] http:// www.honolulumagazine.com/Honolulu-Magazine/March-2008/Moratorium-onGMO-Taro/ (Accessed 10 October 2013). Howard, Stephanie. 2001. Life, Lineage and Sustenance – Indigenous Peoples and Genetic Engineering: Threats to Food, Agriculture, and the Environment, edited by Debra Harry & Brett L. Shelton. pp. 1 – 51. Wadsworth, NV: Indigenous Peoples Council on Biocolonialism. ‘Īlio‘ulaokalani Coalition. 2003. Paoakalani Declaration. Honolulu: Ka ‘Aha Pono Native Hawaiian Intellectual Property Rights Conference. Ing, K. Matthew. 2006, March 6. Hawaiian Groups Voice Opposition to Taro Patents. Ka Leo o Hawai‘i [newspaper article]. https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/ bitstream/handle/10125/18643/060306.pdf?sequence=1 (Accessed 10 October 2013). Jasanoff, Sheila. 2005. Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Kame‘eleihiwa, Lilikalā. 1992. Native Land and Foreign Desires. Pehea Lā E Pono Ai? Honolulu, HI: Bishop Museum Press. Kimbrell, Andrew. 2013. Public Speech. Presented at Raise Awareness, Inspire Change. Hawaii SEED, Kaua’i Memorial Convention Center. Kobayashi, Chris. 2008, April 10. Tainted GMO Taro Bill [online article]. http://www. islandbreath.org/2008Year/01-farming/0801-15KillSB958.html (Accessed 10 April 2015). Kobayashi, Chris & Walter Ritte. 2006. Letter to the University of Hawai’i [online]. http://ha waiiseed.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Taro_protest_letter_to_UH.pdf (Accessed 11 October 2013). Konanui, Jerry. 2008, March 12. Testimony Regarding Kauai County Council Resolution Supporting SB 958, pp. 18 [online]. http://www.kauaiinfo.org/Council%20Minutes.3/03_ 12_2008%20Regular%20Meeting.pdf (Accessed 5 February 2014). ———. 2012, August 25. Kalo Workshop. Regenerations International Botanical Garden. Kalihiwai, Kaua‘i: Kalihiwai Community Garden. LaDuke, Winona. 2005. Recovering the Sacred: The Power of Naming and Claiming. Cambridge, MA: South End Press. ethnos, vol. 82:1, 2017 (pp. 44 –67) The Ethics of Patenting and Genetic Engineering 65 Latour, Bruno. 1993. We Have Never Been Modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Leo, Ka. 2006, May 6. Protesting a Patent on Taro. Ka Leo o Hawai‘i [newspaper article]. http://www.friendsoftobi.org/misc/research/tarohawaii.htm (Accessed 10 October 2013]. Leone, Diane. 2005, May 25. UH Vows to Hold off Genetic Tests with Hawaiian Taro. Star Bulletin [newspaper article]. http://archives.starbulletin.com/2005/05/25/ news/story4.html (Accessed 4 February 2014). Levin, Penny. 2006. Statewide Strategic Control Plan for Apple Snail (Pomacea canaliculata) in Hawai‘i. Wailuku: The Hawai‘i Land Restoration Institute. ———. [2007] 2009. Evidence of the Flowering and Seeding of Taro (Colocasia esculenta): A Review of Hawaiian Literature, Manuscripts and Observations. Wailuku, HI: White Paper. ———. 2009. Testimony in support of SB 709 [online]. http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/ session2009/testimony/SB709_SD1_TESTIMONY_WTL_02-27-09.pdf (Accessed 10 April 2015). Lo, Catherine. 2006, April 5. Patents on Life – The Whole World in Whose Hands? Honolulu Weekly [newspaper article]. http://honoluluweekly.com/cover/2006/04/ patents-on-life/ (Accessed 10 October 2013). Lovell, B. Hugh. 2006, July 17. GMO Taro – An Important Initial Discussion with Some of its Pro-advocates. Maui Arts & Music Association [online]. http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=0D9zANrWYes (Accessed 11 January 2014). Miyasaka, Susan. 2006, December 14. Update on Genetic Engineering of Chinese Taro (variety Bun long) for Increased Disease Resistance. CTAHR [online]. http://www. ctahr.hawaii.edu/biotech/image/Update-GE-Dec14-06.pdf (Accessed 3 July 2014). Moorhead, Anne. 2011. Lesson from diversity in Samoa’s taro blight. Partners, March – May: 18 – 19. Nader, Laura. 1996. Naked Science: Anthropological Inquiry into Boundaries, Power, and Knowledge. London: Routledge. Nelson, Scot, Fred Brooks & Glenn Teves. 2011. Taro Leaf Blight in Hawai‘i. College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources. University of Hawai’i at Mānoa, Honolulu. Nobrega, Mike. 2005, July 24. Biotech brouhaha. Star Bulletin [newspaper article]. http:// archives.starbulletin.com/2005/07/24/business/story1.html (Accessed 3 March 2014). OHA. 2009. Taro Security and Purity Task Force 2010 Legislative Report. Honolulu: Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Ostrander, K. Gary. 2006, June 20. University of Hawai‘i’s Terminal Disclaimers against Patent Numbers PP12,722 P2, PP12,361 P2, and PP12,342 P2 [online]. http:// hawaiiseed.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Taro-UH-terminal-disclaimers.pdf (Accessed 11 October 2013). de la Peña, S. Ramon. 1990. Development of New Taro Varieties through Breeding [research article]. Research Extension series/Hawaii Institute of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources. Washington, DC: Library of Congress. Reynolds, A. F. Paul. 2004. Nga Puni Whakapiri: Indigenous Struggle and Genetic Engineering (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Simon Fraser University, Vancouver. ethnos, vol. 82:1, 2017 (pp. 44 –67) 66 mascha gugganig Ritte, Walter & Bill Freese. 2006. Haloa. In Seedling: Biodiversity, Rights and Livelihood, edited by Brewster Kneen. pp. 11– 14. Barcelona: GRAIN. Roberts, Mere, Bradford Haami, R. Anthony Benton, Terre Satterfield, L. Melissa Finucane, Mark Henare & Manuka Henare. 2004. Whakapapa as a Māori Mental Construct: Some Implications for the Debate over Genetic Modification of Organisms. The Contemporary Pacific, 16(1):1 – 28. Sahlins, Marshall. 1985. Islands of History. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. ———. 1996. The Sadness of Sweetness: The Native Anthropology of Western Cosmology. Current Anthropology, 37(3):395– 428. Sai, Keanu. 2014. Proclamation of the Acting Council of Regency Declaring Provisional Laws for the Kingdom. The Hawaiian Kingdom [online], Honolulu. http://hawaiiankingdom. org/pdf/Proc_Provisional_Laws.pdf (Accessed 3 February 2015). Salmón, Enrique. 2000. Kincentric Ecology: Indigenous Perceptions of the HumanNature Relationship. Ecological Applications, 10(5):1327– 1332. Schlais, K. Gregory. 2007. The Patenting of Sacred Biological Resources, the Taro Patent Controversy in Hawai‘i: A Soft Law Proposal. University of Hawai‘i Law Review, 29:581 –618. Schrire, Margot. 2010, July 8. Monsanto establishes scholarship at UH Mānoa. University of Hawai’i [online article]. http://www.hawaii.edu/news/article.php?aId=3718 (Accessed 10 October 2013). ———. 2011, September 6. Monsanto Funds Education and Research at CTAHR. University of Hawai’i [online article]. http://www.hawaii.edu/news/article.php?aId=4645 (Accessed 10 October 2013). Secretariat of the Pacific Community Land Resources Division. Facilitating Agricultural Commodity Trade (FACT). 2011. Pacific Island Taro Market Access Scoping Study. Noumea: Secretariat of the Pacific Community. Senate Bill 958 HD1. 2007. A Bill for an Act [online]. The Senate. Twenty-Fourth Legislature. Honolulu: State of Hawaii. Senate Bill 958 HD2. 2008. A Bill for an Act [online]. The Senate. Twenty-Fourth Legislature. Honolulu: State of Hawaii. Shiva, Vandana. 1995. Democratizing Biology: Reinventing Biology from a Feminist, Ecological, and Third World Perspective. In Reinventing Biology: Respect for Life and the Creation of Knowledge, edited by Linda Birke & Ruth Hubbard. pp. 50 – 71. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Smith, Jennifer & Leo Azambuja. 2008. GMO Rally Shakes up First Day of Hawaii Legislature [online article]. Northwest Resistance Against Genetic Engineering. http:// nwrage.org/content/gmo-rally-shakes-first-day-hawaii-legislature (Accessed 11 October 2013). Stone, D. Glenn. 2010. The Anthropology of Genetically Modified Crops. Annual Review of Anthropology, 39:381 –400. Strathern, Marilyn. 1992. After Nature: English Kinship in the late Twentieth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tanji, Melissa. 2009, October 3. Council Approves Ban on GMO Taro. The Maui News [newspaper article]. http://www.mauinews.com/page/content.detail/id/524344. html (Accessed 11 October 2013). ethnos, vol. 82:1, 2017 (pp. 44 –67) The Ethics of Patenting and Genetic Engineering 67 TenBruggencate. Jan. 2005, February 14. Taro Genetic Work Blasted. Honolulu Advertiser [newspaper article]. http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2005/Feb/14/ln/ ln14p.html (Accessed 11 October 2013). ———. Jan. 2006, May 2. Many Questioning Why UH Should Own Hybrids. Honolulu Advertiser [newspaper article]. http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2006/ May/02/ln/FP605020342.html (Accessed 11 October 2013). Trujillo, E. Eduardo. 2002. Patent for ‘Pa‘akala.’ United States Plant Patent. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa. Trujillo, E. Eduardo, D. Thomas Menezes, G. Catherine Cavaletto, Robin Shimabuku & Steven K. Fukuda. 2002. Promising New Cultivars with Resistance to Taro Leaf Blight: ‘Pa‘lehua’, ‘Pa‘akala’, and ‘Pauakea’. Cooperative Extension Service, College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i at Mānoa. Turner, J. Nancy (ed.). 2005. A Kincentric Approach to Nature. In The Earth’s Blanket: Traditional Teachings for Sustainable Living. pp. 69– 94. Vancouver: Douglas & McIntyre. United Nations. 2000. Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Montreal: United Nations. ———. 2008. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. New York: United Nations. United States Food and Drug Administration. 1992. Statement of Policy – Food Derived from New Plant Varieties [online]. http://www.fda.gov/food/guidanceregulation/guida ncedocumentsregulatoryinformation/biotechnology/ucm096095.htm (Accessed 14 February 2014). University of Hawai‘i. 2006, June 20. UH Files Terminal Disclaimer on Taro Patents [online article]. http://www.hawaii.edu/news/article.php?aId=1468 (Accessed 5 February 2014). Voosen, Paul. 2011, September 21. Crop Savior Blazes Biotech Trail, but Few Scientists or Companies Are Willing to Follow. The New York Times [online]. http://www. nytimes.com/gwire/2011/09/21/21greenwire-crop-savior-blazes-biotech-trail-but-few -scien-88379.html?pagewanted=all (Accessed 1 February 2014). Whitt, A. Laurie. 1998. Biocolonialism and the Commodification of Knowledge. Science as Culture, 7(1):33–67. Wyndham, Felice. 2009. Spheres of Relations, Lines of Interaction: Subtle Ecologies of the Rarámuri Landscape in Northern Mexico. Journal of Ethnobiology, 29(2): 271 –295. Yamakawa, Roy. 2008, March 12. Testimony Regarding Kauai County Council Resolution Supporting SB 958, pp. 39 [online]. http://www.kauaiinfo.org/Council%20Minutes. 3/03_12_2008%20Regular%20Meeting.pdf (Accessed 5 February 2014). Yuen, Leilehua. n.d. Taro: Hawaii’s roots [online]. Earthfoot. http://www.earthfoot.org/ lit_zone/taro.htm (Accessed 11 October 2013). ethnos, vol. 82:1, 2017 (pp. 44 –67)