La Fondation Gates a payé une société de relations publiques pour collecter secrètement le processus des experts de l'ONU sur une technologie d'extinction génétique controversée (Gene Drive Files)

La Fondation Gates a payé une société de relations publiques pour collecter secrètement le processus des experts de l'ONU sur une technologie d'extinction controversée
Article originel : Gates Foundation paid PR firm to secretly stack UN Expert process on controversial extinction technology
Gene Drive Files, 1.12.2027

Note de SLT : pour faire simple, la fondation Gates soutient les techniques de forçage génétique ou Gene Drive en anglais. Le forçage génétique (Gene Drive) est «une technique de manipulation génétique qui permet de booster la propagation d’une mutation dans une population. En relâchant simplement quelques individus qui possèdent une portion d’ADN élaborée par l’homme (appelée cassette «gene drive») dans une population naturelle, on peut théoriquement obtenir en quelques dizaines de générations une population entièrement contaminée par la cassette gene drive». Cette technique est utilisée notamment en Afrique dans le projet Target Malaria visant à éliminer les moustiques transmettant le paludisme (Malaria) par transmission de manipulations génétiques à l'espèce par ce procédé de forçage. Ce projet est soutenu par l'ONU, la fondation Gates mais aussi l'armée US via le Darpa qui finance un nombre très important de travaux de forçage génétique. Il a déjà été posé la question de savoir si le travail de forçage génétique par le Darpa était ciblé sur les Africains. Ce que l'on peut dire c'est qu'en 2017, la Fondation Gates et l'armée US travaillaient main dans la main sur cette technique. L'article de Gene Drive Files (traduit ci-dessous) nos apprend que la fondation Gates a tout fait pour limiter un potentiel moratoire sur cette technique qui peut mener, entre de mauvaises mains, à l'extinction génétique de pans plus ou moins importants d'une espèce. 
Lire aussi :
- L'armée US a un rôle de premier plan dans le développement du forçage génétique (Gene Drive Files)

Les documents reçus dans le cadre des demandes d'accès à l'information révèlent que la Fondation Bill et Melinda Gates 2 a versé 1,6 million de dollars [1] à une société privée de relations publiques spécialisée dans l'agriculture et la biotechnologie pour des activités sur le forçage génétique (Gene Drives). Cela comprenait la gestion d'une "coalition de plaidoyer" secrète [3] qui semble avoir eu l'intention de fausser le seul processus d'experts des Nations unies traitant du forçage génétique, une nouvelle technologie d'extinction génétique très controversée en cours de développement. D'autres documents montrent également une coordination secrète similaire par un groupe de pression établi dans le domaine des biotechnologies, qui coordonne le même processus avec des représentants des gouvernements du Canada, du Royaume-Uni, du Brésil, des États-Unis et des Pays-Bas.

Suite aux appels mondiaux lancés en décembre 2016 par les pays du Sud et plus de 170 organisations en faveur d'un moratoire des Nations unies sur le forçage génétique [4], des courriels adressés aux défenseurs des campagnes de collecte de gènes, reçus dans le cadre d'une demande de liberté d'information par Prickly Research, révèlent qu'une société privée d'affaires publiques "Emerging Ag" a reçu des fonds de la Fondation Bill et Melinda Gates 2 pour coordonner la "lutte contre les partisans du moratoire sur les campagnes de forçage génétique". 5

Dans le cadre d'un projet baptisé "Gene Drive Research Sponsors and Supporters coalition" (coalition des sponsors et des partisans de la recherche sur le forçage génétique), [6] Emerging Ag a secrètement recruté 65-66 scientifiques et fonctionnaires apparemment indépendants pour qu'ils participent à un processus d'experts en ligne (le forum en ligne de la CDB des Nations unies sur la biologie synthétique) [9], destiné à discuter des préoccupations concernant la biologie synthétique, y compris le forçage génétique. Le processus de la CDB des Nations unies est le seul processus multilatéral qui traite actuellement de ce sujet. [7] Emerging Ag a informé ces "volontaires" [8] et a émis des conseils presque quotidiennement sur la manière d'influencer le forum.

Parmi les personnes qui ont coordonné et participé étroitement à l'opération d'influence d'Emerging Ag, on compte un haut fonctionnaire de la Fondation Gates [10] et au moins trois membres d'un comité d'experts des Nations unies lié au processus [11], l'AHTEG (Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group) sur la biologie synthétique. Deux autres membres de l'AHTEG, le Dr Todd Kuiken de l'université d'État de Caroline du Nord et le professeur Paul Freemont de l'Imperial College de Londres, représentent des institutions qui reçoivent au moins 100 millions de dollars de fonds militaires et philanthropiques étatsuniens combinés, expressément destinés à développer et à tester des systèmes de forçage génétique. [12]

Le Groupe spécial d'experts sur la biologie synthétique se réunira le 5 décembre 2017 à Montréal et a pour mission de formuler des conseils et des recommandations à l'intention des gouvernements sur la base des résultats du forum en ligne. Le forçage génétique devrait être au centre des discussions du GSET.

Des documents révèlent également que Emerging Ag a également collaboré avec un groupe de pression biotechnologique, le Public Research and Regulation Initiative (PRRI), qui dirige une coordination similaire. Le fonctionnement de la PRRI est détaillé dans des courriels envoyés à un représentant du gouvernement canadien et membre du groupe AHTEG des Nations unies. Dans ces courriels, le PRRI se vante d'une "opération de secours" pour les experts gouvernementaux et industriels "de même sensibilité" qui siègent au AHTEG. Les courriels suggèrent que les représentants des gouvernements nationaux du Canada, des États-Unis, du Royaume-Uni, du Brésil et des Pays-Bas ont été assistés à distance par le PRRI au cours de discussions à huis clos. [13] Il semble que la "Gene Drive Research Sponsors and Supporters coalition" ait proposé d'approcher les contacts du ministère étatusnien de l'agriculture (USDA) afin de trouver des financements supplémentaires pour les activités du PRRI. [14]

Traduction SLT

Références

1. Emerging Ag describes itself as “a boutique international consulting firm providing communications and public affairs services to clients in the Agriculture, Food and Health sectors.” Its president and founder is Robynne Anderson, former international communications director of CropLife, the global lobby group for the biotechnology, seed and pesticide industry.

2. Email from Isabelle Cloche (VP of Strategy for Emerging Ag):”We (Emerging Ag) have been in talks with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation about securing longer term resources to enable and support advocacy and engagement activities on gene drive – in particular information sharing, collaboration and coordination on advocacy between different groups involved in this field.As I mentioned on the call of our group last Monday, the Foundation has now offered to put up some seed funding to ensure this effort continues. It is in the hope that others may join to support activities, either through funding or ‘in kind’ by contributing time and effort on advocacy and engagement.” See file: 20170801-Re_Gene drive engagement-733.pdf  . Additionally the grantees database for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation records Emerging Ag Inc receiving  $1,603,405 from the Foundation “to increase awareness, understanding and acceptance of possible gene drive applications for public” – see https://www.gatesfoundation.org/How-We-Work/Quick-Links/Grants-Database/Grants/2017/07/OPP1174273

3. Notes from Target Malaria Ethics Committee meeting: “Isabelle noted that the CBD meeting in December 2018, combined with growing interest in gene drive, had put the Target Malaria team on spot. It was able to reach out to a large group of like minded researchers and advocates and is now working to capitalize on this early effort by supporting efforts to build an advocacy coalition. See file: 2017 06 Notes Ethics Committee Meeting.pdf

Recruitment email from Heath Packard: “We urge you to get yourself (or a colleague) nominated to the UN SBD Synthetic Biology Open-Ended Forum (July-Sept 2017). It is very important to have experts like yourselves to help balance policy discussions that might otherwise be weighted towards imposing a moratorium on gene drive research as we saw last winter at the CBD Convening of the Parties.” See file: 20170530-Action requested! CBD Syn Bio Forum-278.pdf

4. For reporting on the call for a moratorium on Gene Drives at CBD COP13 in Cancun December 2016 see: ETC Group and Scientific American.

Also see “A Call for Conservation with a Conscience: No Place for Gene Drives in Conservation,” a letter signed by 30 environmental leaders asking that there be a “halt to all proposals for the use of gene drive technologies, but especially in conservation.”

For more background information on gene drives and the calls for a global moratorium, see: “Reckless Driving: Gene drives and the end of nature”

5. Email from Stephanie James FNIH:

“By way of this email, I would like to introduce you to Isabelle Coche. Isabelle will be working on efforts to get a broader scientific perspective represented in these discussion. She is looking for a few good scientists who have a broad perspective on the issues around gene drive and are mature enough to be able to deal with the kinds of conversations that can arise within the CBD arena. Isabelle would like the chance to explain what this all means and what activities will be needed to fight back against gene drive moratorium proponents before the next CBD meeting in 2018. Ultimately she is looking to get some volunteers to help in the cause. I hope you will all be interested enough to get back in touch with her to learn more about what this might entail. I’m sorry to say that these next few years are going to be critical and we are going to have to take the fight outside the laboratory.”

Source

6. Email from Heath Packard: “The Gene Drive Research Sponsors and Supporters coalition will be monitoring the Forum daily.” See file: 20170601-Re_CBD follow up – reminder of our call Friday 2 June-240 (N0024131xC1D49.PDF

7. The “‘volunteer’ target list” of 65 individuals that Emerging Ag recruited can be seen in the file: CBD Synbio AHTEG online forum outreach tracking sheet.xlsx

However, actual emails to this group of ‘volunteers’ went to a list of 66 individuals that appears to differ slightly from the target list. See file: 20170714-CBD Forum update-368.pdf.

In one update, notes record “On the registrations for the online forum, Isabelle noted that there are currently 19 people registered who are either directly linked to this group or considered well aligned to the position of the group. This is very positive and reflect the efforts made by everyone to reach out through their network.” See file: 2017 06 02 NOTES call

See detailed discussion on reach out to “volunteers” for the synbio on-line forum:

“Isabelle noted that the geographical diversity of participants however remains a weak point, with mostly North America and Europe represented. Greater participation from Asian, Latin American and African experts would be very useful as government representatives tend to value the opinion of experts from their region. Bob and Royden offered to help reach out through Tata, TIGs group, and GBIRd to try to get more participants from India and Oceania. Delphine is continuing outreach to Target Malaria’s partners in Africa as well. Hector offered to reach out to Douglas Miano.

Isabelle noted that in conversation with NEPAD, they had signaled their own efforts to have African experts registered but that sometimes a perceived lack of expertise was preventing them from being active in the discussions, even if they are registered. Isabelle suggested this group of experts could be made available to answer questions should NEPAD’s network want to seek opinions on some of the questions raised. The group agreed and David noted he would be available to help.

Hector and Camilla both suggested that outreach could also be done through Biotechnology Information Centers (BIC) in Asia and Jeff suggested the Asian malaria leaders group could also be a good entry point.” See file: 2017 06 02 NOTES call

8. Email from Isabelle Cloche, Emerging Ag: “I will be holding briefing calls for ‘volunteers’ this week before the online forum begins. The calls are meant to provide a very basic introduction to what the forum is and how we expect it to work, and some guidance on where and how efforts may best be spent.” See file: 20170626-Re_CBD online forum – briefing calls for _volunteers_-97.pdf

9. The Gene Drive Files extensively document how Emerging Ag communicated with its volunteers. for example:

Email from Isabelle Cloche:

“The proposal is that my team (Ben Robinson and another team member tbc) will monitor the conversation and send the group regular updates and signal when it would be useful to see more engagement. This is meant to help everyone not spend hours on the sites figuring out what’s happening, but of course doesn’t preclude anyone from doing so. My team can also relay any concerns, warnings or call for engagement that you wish to share.”

See file: 20170621-CBD online forum – schedule announced – starting July 3-102.pdf

Email from Ben Robinson:

“My name is Ben Robinson, I work with Isabelle Coche & Delphine Thizy, and I will be sending you regular updates on the discussions taking place in the context of the CBD’s Open-Ended Online Forum on synthetic biology. I will monitor contributions and provide you with brief summaries of the content and tenor of conversations, while highlighting topics and posts you may wish to address. Should you feel that a topic needs to be addressed but you do not have the relevant resources or expertise, I can also help identify and coordinate those best suited among the group to respond to particular issues.”

See file: 20170630-CBD Online Forum on Synthetic Biology-757.pdf

Emails from Isabelle Cloche to Zach Edeleman:

“My team will be monitoring the conversation and will send regular updates and signal when it would be useful to see more engagement.”

“When relevant issues come up (it could be once a day or every few days), we will send the expert group an email. It will give you an overview of the conversations and suggest areas where contributions would be useful.”

See file.

For an example of an email sent by Ben Robinson of Emerging Ag to the 65 “volunteers” during the online forum, see: example: 20170705-CBD Online Forum Update-659.pdf

“The 1st two days of the CBD’s online forum on synthetic biology have not featured substantive discussion of gene drive technology. However, there have been a couple of statements which it may be useful to begin thinking about ways to respond to, as per below:

Points you may wish to address:

1. Barbara Livoreil, SBSTTA focal point for France, has raised the following points as potential new developments in synthetic biology, while asking how true they are:

“It is designed to be used “in vivo”, in field experiments, no longer in confinement only.”

“off target effects are prevalent and may prevent the prediction with a high level of certainty of the real phenotype (including behavior) of the organism and its effects on its environment”

This point in particular may be picked up by NGOs with regards to CRISPR and other gene editing techniques, so it would be good to think about arguments or publications which could be used as a response.

“It goes “faster” or “deeper” (larger modifications) than evolution (and may not consider how the natural environment may react to this).”

You can respond to Ms. Livoreil’s points here: https://bch.cbd.int/synbio/open-ended/discussion /?threadid=8384#8392”

10. Jeff Chertack, Senior Program Officer Global Policy and Advocacy at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is a former PR and public affairs executive from Ogilvy PR who formerly represented biotech and pharma giants in Brussels. Chertack sits on the co-ordination team meetings of Emerging Ag’s “Gene Drive Research Sponsors and Supporters coalition” and is copied on several strategy calls and co-ordination phone calls. See: 20170621-CBD online forum – schedule announced – starting July 3-102.pdf.

Chertack also appeared to play a key role in a recent “messaging” meeting for Gene Drive Supporters where the draft agenda includes presentation by Jeff Chertack BMGF “presentation of preliminary findings of testing gene drive concepts and terminology with stakeholders and informed publics.” See file.

11. The Gene Drive Files show that the 2 following appointed members of the Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Synthetic Biology also took a central active role in recruitment and strategy for the “Gene Drive Research Sponsors and Supporters coalition”:Todd Kuiken (North Carolina State University) and Bob Friedman of the J Craig Venter Institute. Additionally, Paul Freemont of Imperial College London recurs several times as an active participant in the advocacy coalition activities and is also a member of the AHTEG on Synthetic Biology. Professor Freemont’s institution (Imperial College, London) hosts both the Target Malaria coalition and provides office space for the Vice President of Strategy for Emerging Ag, Isabelle Cloche. Todd Kuiken of North Carolina State University is a key player in the GBIRd Gene Drive consortium which received $6.4 million to develop gene drive mice for field release.

(12)Imperial College, London (at which Paul Freemont is a professor) receives at least $92.5 million US dollars of philanthropic funds to support the Target Malaria Gene Drive project. The GBIRd (Genetic Biocontrol of Invasive Rodents) consortium of which Todd Kuiken is a key member receives $6.4 Million U.S. for gene drive development from the US military

13. See file: PRRI back up for AHTEG.pdf – Email sent from Piet Vander Meer of PRRI (Public Research and regulation Initiative) to Jim Louter, an employee of Environment Canada. Aug 8th 2015

Extracts:

“(I) wanted to alert and invite you to an informal discussion group on CBD-SynBio which PRRI facilitates (in the same way we facilitate such groups on CPB related topics as ERA, SECs and Review). Thus far I have learned that the following people have been confirmed for the AHTEG:

PRRI

Imperial College

J Craig Venter Institute

Netherlands, GMO Office

Wilson Institute

Brazil Ministry of Agriculture

UK, HSE

US, State Department

As [redacted] said the participation of PRRI members has had quite an impact in MOPs, COPs and AHTEGs. Having said that I must correct that not all people on this email list are PRRI members. In the past tense informal groups did indeed only consist of PRRI members, but over the years these lists include other researcher, members of the other part of the regulated community (i.e. the private sector) and regulators…In addition know that we always establish a ‘back up team’ on the home front, who can give immediate feedback through email, or search for articles while you sleep.”

14. See file: 2017 06 02 NOTES call

“In addition, Bob suggested PRRI could be a useful network to increase geographic diversity but that current lack of funding for that group was likely to impair their ability to participate. Camilla suggested reaching out to Diane Wray Cahen at USDA to see if there would be some funding opportunities for PRRI…Isabelle, Hector, Bob will see if a solution could be found to help support PRRI.”

Traduction SLT

Pour des raisons indépendantes de notre volonté, nous avons encore des difficultés à publier nos billets et nos articles. Pour toute question ou remarque merci de nous contacter à l'adresse mail suivante : samlatouch@protonmail.com.

Pour savoir pourquoi nous avons dû changer d'e-mail : cliquez ici.
----

Les articles du blog subissent encore les fourches caudines de la censure cachée via leur déréférencement par des moteurs de recherche tels que Yahoo, Qwant, Bing, Duckduckgo. Pour en avoir le coeur net, tapez le titre de cet article dans ces moteurs de recherche (plus de 24h après sa publication), vous remarquerez qu'il n'est pas référencé si ce n'est par d'autres sites qui ont rediffusé notre article.
- Contrairement à Google, Yahoo & Co boycottent et censurent les articles de SLT en les déréférençant complètement !
- Les articles de SLT toujours déréférencés sur Yahoo, Bing, Duckdukgo, Qwant.
- Censure sur SLT : Les moteurs de recherche Yahoo, Bing et Duckduckgo déréférencent la quasi-totalité des articles du blog SLT !