From ehammond@uswest.net Sun Feb 6 19:29:57 2000 Received: from mxu1.u.washington.edu (mxu1.u.washington.edu [140.142.32.8]) by lists.u.washington.edu (8.9.3+UW99.09/8.9.3+UW99.09) with ESMTP id TAA49650 for ; Sun, 6 Feb 2000 19:29:55 -0800 Received: from mail.rdc1.wa.home.com (imail@ha1.rdc1.wa.home.com [24.0.2.66]) by mxu1.u.washington.edu (8.9.3+UW99.09/8.9.3+UW99.09) with ESMTP id TAA01466 for ; Sun, 6 Feb 2000 19:29:55 -0800 Received: from [24.12.240.231] by mail.rdc1.wa.home.com (InterMail v4.01.01.00 201-229-111) with ESMTP id <20000207032954.TRIH17514.mail.rdc1.wa.home.com@[24.12.240.231]> for ; Sun, 6 Feb 2000 19:29:54 -0800 Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2000 19:29:54 -0800 Subject: Re: Biodiversity PR From: Edward Hammond To: Message-ID: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="MS_Mac_OE_3032710194_1197766_MIME_Part" > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --MS_Mac_OE_3032710194_1197766_MIME_Part Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Hello R Stepp - I'm sorry to say that your post makes clear that you are misinformed on several counts. First, as for "right wing fundamentalist Christian groups" funding RAFI, I am afraid that somebody has been feeding you nonsense. In 5 years working at RAFI I heard some strange criticisms (generally from industry and conservative governments); but that is about the strangest theory on RAFI that I've heard yet. The foundations that support RAFI are about as far from Christian fundamentalists as you can get. RAFI's funder list and annual report has been available on line, with updates, since 1995 (http://www.rafi.org). I know, because I used to work on the website! Next time, take a second to verify that kind of remark, especially when sending it to a public list. With just a little effort, you could have seen that was silly misinformation before repeating it on a large listserver. I for one would like to know where that little jewel of "information" came from. It's a pretty irresponsible rumor, I am sorry to say bordering on slanderous in the way you state it. I'd be interested in knowing where you heard such a thing. And the good news is that if that lie was your main problem with RAFI, now perhaps you will like them even more! As for advancing indigenous peoples struggles, I suspect that if you asked both RAFI and Daryll about each others' work, that each would generally compliment the other. I think indigenous peoples would have compliments and criticisms for both as well. But frankly, I think the comparison is irrelevant and it's not really one for you or me to make. It's indingeous peoples own work that is doing the most to advance their cause. Also, I don't think RAFI's work is primarily based on the Berlin article as you state, it's based on their contacts with people in Chiapas as they explain. If you think there are inaccuracies in the RAFI post (the one I sent), why don't you identify them in a specific way .. that might help, for clarity's sake. The most important thing here for me is not UGA's ICBG: Instead, let's talk about something more important. Let's talk about the ICBG program in general, where it came from, what it is doing, what it has done, and what it has not done over the past 8 years. That's the most important issue here for me. What has so many years and several million dollars worth of US Government subsidized, private sector-funded, academic bioprospecting gotten us (taxpayers) and the research subjects (victims, beneficiaries?)? Now, there's a valuable conversation! If you want to talk HFC, I would be happy to talk HFC as well; but let's divide the issues out. Suffice it to say that I've been watching for a long time and I don't agree with your assessment. But when the dust settles with the ICBG thing, if we want to go back to HFC, let's do that then, OK? ... especially that bit about "indigenous intellectual property rights" and Capitol Hill. Edward > From: "R. Stepp" > Reply-To: rstepp@uga.edu > Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2000 19:09:05 -0600 > To: indknow@washington.edu > Subject: Re: Biodiversity PR > > Edward, > > The RAFI press release which you sent out is filled with inaccuracies. > While much of RAFI's work is commendable (e.g terminator gene) they are > wrong on this issue--numerous ethnobiologists and indigenous activists have > spoken up in support of Brent Berlin's work, including Daryll Posey who has > probably done more to advance the struggle for indigenous rights then the > entire gang at RAFI. I also have a real problem with RAFI because they are > financed by right wing fundamentalist Christian groups--the same people > that have done so much harm to indigenous people's around the world. > One other point--Katy Moran's work for the healing forest > conservancy is outstanding; operating on a minimal budget she has been a > staunch supporter of indigenous intellectual property rights and has had > tremendous success in championing these causes on Capitol Hill. > Below I am attaching a post from Berlin on which the subsequent > RAFI article was based in the interest of clarity. > > --MS_Mac_OE_3032710194_1197766_MIME_Part Content-type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Re: Biodiversity PR Hello R Stepp -

I'm sorry to say that your post makes clear that you are misinformed on sev= eral counts.  

First, as for "right wing fundamentalist Christian groups" fundin= g RAFI, I am afraid that somebody has been feeding you nonsense.  In 5 = years working at RAFI I heard some strange criticisms (generally from indust= ry and conservative governments); but that is about the strangest theory on = RAFI that I've heard yet.

The foundations that support RAFI are about as far from Christian fundament= alists as you can get.  RAFI's funder list and annual report has been a= vailable on line, with updates, since 1995 (http://www.rafi.org).  I kn= ow, because I used to work on the website!  Next time, take a second to= verify that kind of remark, especially when sending it to a public list. &n= bsp;With just a little effort, you could have seen that was silly misinforma= tion before repeating it on a large listserver.  

I for one would like to know where that little jewel of "information&q= uot; came from.  It's a pretty irresponsible rumor, I am sorry to say b= ordering on slanderous in the way you state it.  I'd be interested in k= nowing where you heard such a thing.  And the good news is that if that= lie was your main problem with RAFI, now perhaps you will like them even mo= re!

As for advancing indigenous peoples struggles, I suspect that if you asked = both RAFI and Daryll about each others' work, that each would generally comp= liment the other.  I think indigenous peoples would have compliments an= d criticisms for both as well. But frankly, I think the comparison is irrele= vant and it's not really one for you or me to make.  It's indingeous pe= oples own work that is doing the most to advance their cause.

Also, I don't think RAFI's work is primarily based on the Berlin article as= you state, it's based on their contacts with people in Chiapas as they expl= ain.  If you think there are inaccuracies in the RAFI post (the one I s= ent), why don't you identify them in a specific way .. that might help, for = clarity's sake.  

The most important thing here for me is not UGA's ICBG:  Instead, let'= s talk about something more important.  Let's talk about the ICBG progr= am in general, where it came from, what it is doing, what it has done, and w= hat it has not done over the past 8 years.  That's the most important i= ssue here for me.  What has so many years and several million dollars w= orth of US Government subsidized, private sector-funded, academic bioprospec= ting gotten us (taxpayers) and the research subjects (victims, beneficiaries= ?)?  Now, there's a valuable conversation!

If you want to talk HFC, I would be happy to talk HFC as well; but let's di= vide the issues out.  Suffice it to say that I've been watching for a l= ong time and I don't agree with your assessment.  But when the dust set= tles with the ICBG thing, if we want to go back to HFC, let's do that then, = OK? ... especially that bit about "indigenous intellectual property rig= hts" and Capitol Hill.


Edward


> From: "R. Stepp" <rstepp@uga.edu= >
> Reply-To: rstepp@uga.edu
> Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2000 19:09:05 -0600
> To: indknow@washington.edu
> Subject: Re: Biodiversity PR
>
> Edward,
>
> The RAFI press release which you sent out is filled with inaccuracies.=
> While much of RAFI's work is commendable (e.g terminator gene) they ar= e
> wrong on this issue--numerous ethnobiologists and indigenous activists= have
> spoken up in support of Brent Berlin's work, including Daryll Posey wh= o has
> probably done more to advance the struggle for indigenous rights then = the
> entire gang at RAFI.  I also have a real problem with RAFI becaus= e they are
> financed by right wing fundamentalist Christian groups--the same peopl= e
> that have done so much harm to indigenous people's around the world. > One other point--Katy Moran's work for the healing forest
> conservancy is outstanding; operating on a minimal budget she has been= a
> staunch supporter of indigenous intellectual property rights and has h= ad
> tremendous success in championing these causes on Capitol Hill.
> Below I am attaching a post from Berlin on which the subsequent
> RAFI article was based in the interest of clarity.
>
>
--MS_Mac_OE_3032710194_1197766_MIME_Part-- .