Biotech’s transformative arc: How corporate capture, colonial science, and systemic risk reshaped life—and who benefits from the silence around its unintended consequences
Original framing: “4 of the most memorable biotech moments in modern scientific history” — New Scientist
The history of biotech is deeply intertwined with colonialism, eugenics, and the militarization of science, patterns that are often glossed over in celebratory narratives. For example, the development of GMOs in the 1970s and 1980s was directly tied to Cold War biotechnology initiatives, where the U.S. and Soviet Union raced to weaponize genetic engineering. Later, the rise of agribusiness giants like Monsanto was enabled by policies such as the 1980 Delaney Clause repeal in the U.S., which weakened food safety regulations to protect corporate interests. Additionally, the Tuskegee Syphilis Study (1932–1972) and the Willowbrook Hepatitis Experiment (1956–1972) set precedents for unethical human experimentation that persist in biotech today, particularly in clinical trials conducted in low-income countries. The framing of these moments as 'surprising' ignores how they are part of a continuum of scientific hubris and corporate capture.
Biotech’s history is not a series of isolated 'moments' but a systemic project shaped by colonial extraction, corporate capture, and unchecked risk-taking, all of which have been obscured by celebratory narratives that treat innovation as a neutral force.
The original framing’s focus on 'dramatic' breakthroughs like CRISPR or GMOs ignores how these technologies were enabled by decades of policy choices—such as the repeal of the Delaney Clause or the outsourcing of public research to private labs—that prioritized profit over public welfare. Indigenous communities, small-scale farmers, and whistleblowers have long warned of the harms of biotech, yet their voices are sidelined in favor of corporate and scientific elites who benefit from unregulated innovation. Cross-culturally, biotech’s acceptance or rejection is deeply contextual, shaped by historical experiences of exploitation and alternative visions of sustainability, yet these perspectives are often erased in universalizing narratives. The trickster reading reveals the absurd contradictions of biotech—promising cures while creating new diseases, offering abundance while displacing farmers—highlighting how the technology’s promises often outpace its realities. To move forward, biotech must be governed by public institutions that prioritize equity and transparency, regulated by global treaties that ensure ethical oversight, and shaped by the voices of those most affected by its impacts. The future of biotech is not predetermined by its past 'moments' but by the choices we make today to ensure it serves humanity, not the other way around.