The proponents of open-source agriculture are basing their argument on the same fallacies of corporate gm crop development. Primarily, that gm crops can solve the problem of world hunger. Hasn't it already become well understood that world hunger is a problem stemming largely from politics rather than the inability of areas rich for agriculture to grow enough food for people less fortunate?

I don't think gm crop tech can be compared to computer technology. The hubris in thinking a living thing that has undergone gm in an invention needs to be addressed. Then calling the results of gm an improvemnt is questionable since there is little understanding of how gmo's function in the real world.

The value of the results, interpreted as montary value, should also include liability and/or responsibility for contamination. One advantage to open-source for big biotech is spreading the risk of liability. I'm reminded of a recent article in the Wall Street Journal (linked below) addressing this concern.

I am in favour of sharing new research according to the open-source model, but the risks of gm contamination are so well known, and problems so poorly understood my fear is that making the info more widely available will only increase the liklihood of problems that can't easily be recalled or patched.

Here is a link that might be useful: out of the lab