Although the development of improved seeds has witnessed significant advances over the last decades, the adoption of improved seeds and varieties by smallholder farmers is variable. This suggests that research methods for studying farmers’ seed demand are not yielding information that reflects the real-life decisions and behaviours of farmers in the choice and acquisition of their seeds. We suggest that research methods for analysing farmers’ seed demand shape seed availability. This is supported by the theory of social life of methods. We argue that access to and attractiveness of seed are highly context-specific for a farmer, for example, influenced by his/her social position, the role of the crop or variety in the farming system, the linkage to the market, agro-ecological conditions, and that context is highly variable. We also argue that many of our research methods are weak on capturing real-life context and provide fragmented snapshot-nature understanding and biases of farmers preferences and needs for seeds. We call for more integrated understanding of seed systems as a whole and a more holistic methodological research approach that better captures the variable real-life context of farmers while providing the metrics that are needed by seed actors and policymakers to enable informed decisions.
delivery 21 . For example, Gehrke's recent study 9 on the public's understanding of nanotechnology and tolerance for different regulatory responses puts forward a compelling case that the public's distrust of companies and governments means they are more favourably predisposed to labelling as a form of regulation, rather than traditional 'top-down' regulation. Thus, there may be reasons to explore labelling as a first 'light-touch' approach to nanotechnology regulation, while the science matures sufficiently to inform the development of more traditional methods.
Humans and rats relate to each other in a variety of ways. Consider the different ways that humans relate to rats in the sewer, the laboratory, and the living room: depending on the location of the encounter, human-rat relations can be characterized as hostile, instrumental, or friendly. Rather than searching for a single human-animal relation, this article suggests that the multiple and contradictory relations between humans and nonhuman animals deserve an explanation. The article argues that the multiplicity of human-animal relations can be better understood by approaching them as situated practices: as practical and precarious accomplishments that take place in specific settings. This approach is applied to the relation between humans and fancy rats. By studying how humans in particular settings come to befriend the same animal that is simultaneously despised and feared as dirty and treacherous when encountered elsewhere, the article shows how these relationships emerge as enactments of situated practices.
This article contributes to the debate about how regulatory science for agricultural technologies can be 'opened up' for a more diverse set of concerns and knowledges. The article focuses on the regulation of 'socio-economic considerations' for genetically modified organisms. While numerous countries have declared their intent to include these considerations in biotechnology decision-making, it is currently unclear both what counts as a socioeconomic consideration and how such considerations should be assessed. This article provides greater clarity about how socioeconomic considerations can be included in regulations by drawing upon the experience of two countries whose efforts in this field are particularly advanced: Kenya and South Africa. Based on extensive fieldwork, this article identifies the contours of an emerging regulatory regime by presenting two practice-based models for including socioeconomic considerations in biotechnology decision-making. Whereas Kenya has taken a bottom-up process prior to assessing the first technologies and strongly emphasises scientific expertise, South Africa has instead established regulatory standards in an ad hoc fashion on a case-to-case basis, with a less prominent role for scientific evidence. The discussion of the distinct characteristics and tensions of both models provides insight into two potential pathways for including socioeconomic considerations in the regulation of agricultural technologies.
Emerging technologies like nanotechnologies are governed in different ways around the world. This article draws attention to an important element that can help to explain the emergence of this diversity in governance practices: the role of nanotechnology in nationbuilding. By investigating the relation between nanotechnology and the nation in India, the article demonstrates that various particularities of the Indian governance of nanotechnology can be explained by the relation between science, technology, and nation-building. The article discusses four instances in which the governance of nanotechnology in India is informed by the role science and technology has in nation-building: the historical image of India as a country that can attain modernity and development by engaging with modern science and technology supported the government's decision to free funds for nanotechnology research; the view of India as a country that cannot rely on foreign assistance to get access to the latest technologies reinforced the strategy to pro-actively pursue nanotechnology research and development itself; the historical use of science and technology as crucial elements in overcoming deeply rooted societal divisions enabled the science-centered way in which nanotechnology was governed; and the Indian ambition to become a global superpower informed the governance of nanotechnology as an object of international competition. The governance of nanotechnology in turn defines 'Indianness' in a post-liberalization world.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.