The Uses of Life: A History of Biotechnology

by Robert Bud, Mark F. Cantley (Foreword)

This book shows, for the first time, how modern biotechnology grew out of this century's hopes for a new relationship between biology and engineering. Long before recombinant DNA, these promised a new kind of technology. By exploring the rich and surprisingly overlooked complex of prophesies, industrial and scientific development and government programs, the book sheds new light on the expectations now held for biotechnology. A world-wide view, covering developments, not just in America but also in Europe and Japan, uncovers surprising links. This makes possible a coherent story to supersede the historical notes which have been available until now. This first history of biotechnology provides a readable and challenging account that will appeal to anyone interested in the development of this key component of modern industry.

320 pages, Paperback

First published March 26, 1993

Reviews

[Brian · Rating 3 out of 5]

In the course of revisiting the early debates over biotechnology, I thought it might be useful to get an earlier perspective to remind me of a less polarized and more optimistic era for the technology. With the benefit of hindsight, one can see that Bud's book was already dated by the time it hit the press. While that is an occupational hazard for historians of technology that is still rapidly evolving, in Bud's case he ignored or discounted some technologies that were highly developed. He correctly identified that the technology was driven by medical applications and pharmaceuticals, which offered greater profits and less public opposition than food and agriculture. It is true that he acknowledged food and agriculture applications were older and formed the basis of much of the subsequent research. However, he missed some of the big drivers of agricultural biotechnology and I found that disappointing. His discussion of the ethical concerns is cautious and equivocal. While this may seem like "balance" it also strikes one as a bit disingenuous, as if he is unwilling to explain the specific concerns over the risks of the technology to avoid seeming biased against it. His treatment of the Asilomar Declaration and subsequent concerns voiced by the scientific community even before the publication of his book seem deficient.

In the post-COVID era, public acceptance and public opposition to biotechnology have both shifted in ways that Bud could not have predicted. However, Bud reminds us that both support and opposition to biotechnology did not fall cleanly into a "left-right" dichotomy. The technology was promoted by modernizing progressive liberals and pro-business conservatives, while traditionalists, religious conservatives, and anti-corporate radicals were wary. Politicians across the political spectrum jumped on the biotech bandwagon as a driver of economic growth, and political opposition was marginalized to the fringe of both far-right and far-left.

[Brooke · Rating 4 out of 5]

Useful reference but a bit anglocentric

[Will Connelly · Rating 2 out of 5]

Bud is a great historian of science who argues that biotech has a very long and drawn out history. Unfortunately his writing is very VERY dry. This is a book historians assign their students when they absolutely must let them know they are hated.