Plants, Power, and Profit: Social, Economic, and Ethical Consequences of the New Biotechnologies.

Buttel, Frederick H.; Busch, Lawrence; Lacy, William B.; Burkhardt, Jeffrey; Lacy, Laura R.

doi:10.2307/2074768

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Viable scientific and technological developments require not just the potential to change food systems but also compatibility with the profit-driven agribusiness interests and national interest-driven programs that often fund this work. This hybrid public-private responsibility for agricultural development continues to affect agricultural science and food policy (Busch et al, 1991). Public scientists frequently work with, and respond to, the needs of rent-seeking agribusinesses that are motivated primarily by profits, rather than the social responsibility to feed people.…”

Section: Scientific Engagement In Feeding the Worldmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rethinking scientists’ ongoing participation in “feeding the world”

Haring

Schmulevich

Manser

et al. 2023

Front. Sustain. Food Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Agricultural science necessarily involves a commitment to some form of humanitarian and environmental ethics. For the past century, agricultural science has been based on a productivist ethic of maximizing agricultural production in pursuit or support of food security. Recognition of the ethical and political disposition of contemporary agricultural science can help scientists reorient their work to better address the urgent problems of the upcoming century: environmental degradation, climate change, and social inequality. A commitment to solving these problems is well within the scope of modern agricultural science. Supporting and furthering multidimensional food systems should replace productivism as an explicit goal of agricultural development and scientific innovation.

show abstract

Section: Scientific Engagement In Feeding the Worldmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rethinking scientists’ ongoing participation in “feeding the world”

Haring

Schmulevich

Manser

et al. 2023

Front. Sustain. Food Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The primary concern is the construction and improvement of the theoretical understanding of the molecular mechanisms involved, as well as of experimental and technological laboratory methods, products and practical solutions (Strand 2001). Confidence in human control over biological systems and our predictive capacities as well as reductionism and genetic determinism dominates (Busch et al 1991;Krimsky 1991;Nielsen 2002;Strohman 1997;Verhoog 1993). The concern is not merely to understand nature, but to control it.…”

Section: Contextual Influence On Scientistsʼ Perspectives On Gm Cropsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In many ways this discipline has more in common with molecular biology and related fields than with ecology. The two fields share an emphasis on the control of nature and crop improvement for human needs (Busch et al 1991). Still, conventional plant breeding differs considerably from molecular biology and related fields, both because conventional plant breeders work largely with whole plants, either as individuals or as large but uniform populations (Krimsky 1982), and because they apply other techniques than genetic engineering.…”

Section: Contextual Influence On Scientistsʼ Perspectives On Gm Cropsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scientists’ Perspectives on the Deliberate Release of GM Crops

Kvakkestad

Gillund

Kjølberg

et al. 2007

Environmental Values

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper we analyse scientists’ perspectives on the release of genetically modified (GM) crops into the environment, and the relationship between their perspectives and the context that they work within, e.g. their place of employment (university or industry), funding of their research (public or industry) and their disciplinary background (ecology, molecular biology or conventional plant breeding). We employed Q-methodology to examine these issues. Two distinct factors were identified by interviewing 62 scientists. These two factors included 92 per cent of the sample. Scientists in factor 1 had a moderately negative attitude to GM crops and emphasised the uncertainty and ignorance involved, while scientists in factor 2 had a positive attitude to GM crops and emphasised that GM crops are useful and do not represent any unique risks compared to conventional crops. Funding had a significant effect on the perspective held by the scientists in this study. No ecologists were associated with factor 2, while all the scientists employed in the GM-industry were associated with this factor. The strong effects of training and funding might justify certain institutional changes concerning how we organise science and how we make public decisions when new technologies are to be evaluated. Policy makers should encourage more interdisciplinary training and research and they should make sure that representatives of different disciplines are involved in public decisions on new technologies.

show abstract

Plants, Power, and Profit: Social, Economic, and Ethical Consequences of the New Biotechnologies.

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

Rethinking scientists’ ongoing participation in “feeding the world”

Rethinking scientists’ ongoing participation in “feeding the world”

Scientists’ Perspectives on the Deliberate Release of GM Crops

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About