No abstract

Increasingly high-profile research is being undertaken into the socio-environmental challenges associated with the over-production and consumption of food from animals. Transforming food systems to mitigate climate change and hidden hunger, ensure food security and good health all point to reducing animal-based foods as a key lever. Moving beyond animal-based food systems is a societal grand challenge requiring coordinated international research by the social sciences and humanities. A ‘selective openness’ to this range of disciplines has been observed within multi-discipline research programmes designed to address societal grand challenges including those concerned with the sustainability of food systems, inhibiting the impact of social sciences and humanities. Further, existing research on animal-based foods within these disciplines is largely dispersed and focused on particular parts of food systems. Inspired by the ‘Sutherland Method’ this paper discusses the results of an iterative research prioritisation process carried out to enhance capacity, mutual understanding and impact amongst European social sciences and humanities researchers. The process produced 15 research questions from an initial list of 100 and classified under the following five themes: (1) debating and visioning food from animals; (2) transforming agricultural spaces; (3) framing animals as food; (4) eating practices and identities; and (5) governing transitions beyond animal-based food systems. These themes provide an important means of making connections between research questions that invite and steer research on key challenges in moving beyond animal-based food systems. The themes also propose loci for future transdisciplinary research programmes that join researchers from the natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities and stakeholders from beyond academia to develop cooperative research and implementation initiatives. The experiences gained from the prioritisation process draw attention to the value of spending time to discuss and collaboratively steer research enquiry into emergent and controversial matters of concern. Fundamental, ethical questions around the continuation or complete cessation of the use of animals for food was a key tension. The positioning of research towards these questions affects not only the framing of the research area but also the partners with whom the research can be carried out and for whom it may be of benefit.

Numerous attempts have been made to understand the Anthropocene in relation to overwhelming species and habitat loss. However, amidst these losses ecological niches have emerged and been taken as signs of resilience and hope: from mushrooms that flourish in damaged forests to urban wildlife in brownfield sites. This article offers an alternative conception of abundance, which addresses the sociological and conceptual challenges posed when abundance is a characteristic of so-called pests, parasites and pathogens. The article draws together research from three case studies: bed bugs, hookworms and antibiotic resistant microbes, all of which have become intimately entangled with particular human communities as other lifeforms have declined. Through contrasting these cases we elucidate how the affordances of abundant lifeforms, including the dangers they pose to other forms of life, are entwined with failed ‘technofixes’, colonial legacies and contemporary inequalities. In doing so we situate abundance as a constitutive element of the Anthropocene that requires as sustained an ethical engagement as questions of species loss. We conclude by arguing that further ethical attention needs to be paid to finding ways of ‘being alongside’ life that is difficult to live with, but is becoming intimately re-entangled with human worlds. In doing so, we complicate existing theoretical work that has drawn hope from multispecies abundance and entanglement.

Circular bioeconomy is gaining prominence in academic, policy, and industry contexts, linking circular economy and bioeconomy agendas in service of sustainability. However, it is at risk of developing in narrow, unsustainable ways. A sustainable path to circular bioeconomies must embrace diverse expert and stakeholder input, multiple solutions, and noneconomic value. Two Paths to a Circular Bioeconomy 'Circular bioeconomy' signifies the convergence of circular economy and bioeconomy agendas, with varying degrees of emphasis on biotechnology. Its recent delineation in research papers, policy documents and industry practices has resulted in the marginalisation of several important social, ethical, and ecological dimensions, and risks setting circular bioeconomy on an unsustainable trajectory [1-3]. Drawing on recent policy analysis [1,4], research papers [2,3], and a transdisciplinary workshop convened in 2019 (https://sbrcnottingham.ac.uk/rri/circular-bioeconomy/ circling-sustainability-and-responsibility. aspx), we identify two potential trajectories for circular bioeconomies: a delimiting path, where a limited range of actors define problems and solutions narrowly, prioritising economic value; and a sustainable path, incorporating diverse stakeholder and expert input, accommodating multiple solutions, and delivering social, environmental and economic value. We outline these trajectories and argue the sustainable path will lead to more equitable, resilient and socially robust circular bioeconomies.

No abstract