Against Free Markets, Against Science? Regulating the Socio‐Economic Effects of Biotechnology*

Kinchy, Abby; Kleinman, Daniel Lee; Autry, Robyn

doi:10.1526/003601108784514570

Cited by 40 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…They contrast this with the two-party system in the United States and the winner-take-all approach to policy making. However, even the European Union recently developed a policy of evaluating only the relatively depoliticized issues of health and safety of GE technologies rather than socioeconomic consequences [72].…”

Section: Consumer and Citizen Acceptance And Participationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Theory and Practice of Genetically Engineered Crops and Agricultural Sustainability

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The development of genetically engineered (GE) crops has focused predominantly on enhancing conventional pest control approaches. Scientific assessments show that these GE crops generally deliver significant economic and some environmental benefits over their conventional crop alternatives. However, emerging evidence indicates that current GE crops will not foster sustainable cropping systems unless the negative environmental and social feedback effects are properly addressed. Moreover, GE crop innovations that promote more sustainable agricultural systems will receive underinvestment by seed and chemical companies that must understandably focus on private returns for major crops. Opportunities to promote crops that convey multi-faceted benefits for the environment and the poor are foundational to a sustainable food system and should not be neglected because they also represent global public goods. In this paper, we develop a set of criteria that can guide the development of GE crops consistent with contemporary sustainable agriculture theory and practice. Based on those principles, we OPEN ACCESS Sustainability 2011, 3 848 offer policy options and recommendations for reforming public and private R&D and commercialization processes to further the potential contributions of GE crops to sustainable agriculture. Two strategies that would help achieve this goal would be to restore the centrality of the public sector in agricultural R&D and to open the technology development process to more democratic participation by farmers and other stakeholders.

show abstract

Section: Consumer and Citizen Acceptance And Participationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Theory and Practice of Genetically Engineered Crops and Agricultural Sustainability

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Both Kinchy, Kleinman, and Autry (2008) and Thompson (2014) give INTERNA-TIONAL INSTITUTIONAL EXPLANATIONS for the predominance of the health and safety framing. That is, both papers point to the role of international political institutions in shaping the terms of public deliberation, and specifically international trade agreements such as the Sanitary and Phytosanitary [SPS] Agreement of the World Trade Organization.…”

Section: Institutions For Health and Safetymentioning

confidence: 99%

Genetically Modified Crops, Inclusion, and Democracy

Hicks

2017

Perspectives on Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The public controversy over genetically modified [GM] crops is predominantly framed in terms of health and safety risks to humans and the environment. However, opponents of GM crops are motivated by a wide variety of other social, political, and economic concerns. In this paper, I critically assess the predominance of the health and safety framing in terms of Iris Young's model of communicative democracy. I argue that the health and safety framing leads to the marginalization of the social, political, and economic concerns of GM opponents, within both public discourse and government, and is therefore democratically illegitimate.

show abstract

“…For example, there are now a number of scholars engaging in these debates, especially the relationship between neoliberalism and technoscience (e.g. Birch 2006;Berman 2008;Kinchy et al 2008;Lave et al 2010;Biddle 2011;Mirowski 2011;Moore et al 2011;Tyfield 2012c).…”

Section: K Birchmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Political Economy of Technoscience: An Emerging Research Agenda

Birch

2013

SponGe

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Against Free Markets, Against Science? Regulating the Socio‐Economic Effects of Biotechnology*

Cited by 40 publications

References 29 publications

The Theory and Practice of Genetically Engineered Crops and Agricultural Sustainability

The Theory and Practice of Genetically Engineered Crops and Agricultural Sustainability

Genetically Modified Crops, Inclusion, and Democracy

The Political Economy of Technoscience: An Emerging Research Agenda

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About