|economics | bioethics|
» sociocultural impact:
The introduction of genetically modified plants into the ecosystem of country 'x' allows for a unique analysis of the economy and potential benefits. Although, initially an expensive investment, the long-term benefits seemingly surpass the short-term drawbacks. An initial investment into genetically modified plants is very high, at a time when country 'x' may profit more by improving the agricultural infrastructure of the country, or health care system. Some might even go as far as to say it is an unwise investment. But this short-sighted view is the wrong approach to the situation. Country 'x' will gain far more if it invests in genetically modified plants that it will lose. For example, growing a commodity such as a plant that can be used to treat many autoimmune diseases will encourage economic development, and is an investment into the country. These plants are also relatively cheap to grow, so the scalability of the operation provides the country with much leeway to gain back this investment.
The jobs that would be created from the implantation of genetically modified plants in the agricultural and scientific sector would create what is known as a "Keynesian Positive Multiplier" effect. As a result, workers would have an increased income, and a higher propensity to consume. As a result, consumerism will increase the income of those networked with the workers creating a chain reaction of increased economic opportunities for the country as a whole. This is visible for other industries, so it is likely to hold true for GMOs as well.
Another positive effect is that, through increased foreign investment into country 'x', living standards are likely to improve. An increase budgetary surplus from the investments could be used to improve housing quality, and government infrastructure and the healthcare system. Once purchased, the genetically modified plant will need reasonably little care and it is likely that simple adjustments can be made to increase resilience to desiccation and herbivores (which may have a devastating effect on the plant) and the financial resources used for maintenance. There will be a decrease in the need to purchase insecticides should different transgenic lines be breeded together, or other such agricultural technologies incorporated, and thus, the long-term costs of maintenance are actually lower than investing in a non-modified plant.
Negative effects of foreign investment into country 'x' include the possible exploitation of the fertile conditions of the country, leading to a squandering of the resources. However, the public in this day and age have seen these sorts of things happening before, and so awareness of such irresponsible ecological management is higher than it was decades ago.
The initial investment into the plant may also be costly and the profits that may be feasibly attained are fleetingly small if the industry cannot take off straight away. This is a possibility, since much of immunotherapy via plant-made compounds is currently only in the research stage. If, once the investment is made and no other resources are available for important investments such as further research, clinical trials, healthcare, or even the transportation of the crop when it is grown, the initial investment will become useless.
After this analysis of the infrastructure and theoretical economic course of country 'x', it would likely be beneficial to make an investment into a genetically modified plant. The benefits appear to be far more long-term, and outweigh dramatically the disadvantages that primarily exist in the short-term.