This theme is part of the Biotechnology Research Archive.
Governing biotechnologies in favour of ‘pro-poor’ outcomes is a challenge. The research contained in this section of the Biotechnology Research Archive shows that, while there is much rhetoric about ‘pro-poor biotechnology’, the evidence on the ground is wanting. Getting publics – farmers, consumers, traders and others – involved in debates about biotechnology, its design, use and regulation, is vital.
Research in this section includes reviews of public participation in biosafety regulation, and the challenges this implies. The archive also includes reports on a series of experiments in and reflections on deliberative approaches to discussion agricultural futures and the role of modern crop biotechnologies, based on citizens’ juries.
Key findings include:
- Conflicting perspectives and interests always exist around the future, particularly when a controversial technology such as genetic engineering is concerned. Debate and dispute should be expected; inclusive deliberation on key issues should be encouraged.
- Approaches to inclusive deliberation include citizens’ juries, scenario workshops, and other methods. These can provide space for exploring diverse options and alternative views – beyond those of technocrats, industry lobbyists, and government personnel – to be heard. There are however limitations to such approaches.
- Deliberative and participatory spaces are subject to power dynamics. Careful attention needs to be applied to making sure all perspectives are heard, in an open and transparent way. Dissent and disagreement is to be expected, and needs to be acknowledged as part of the process.
- So-called participatory and consultative policy processes are sometimes tacked on to policy processes whose main strands impose standardised, normative models of governance, in which risks of concern have been pre-defined by scientific experts, and there is no room for citizens’ values or priorities to frame the process. Giving the appearance of taking citizens’ views into account while allowing scientists to lay down the rules may merely provoke mistrust of official policy.
- Political cultures – of protest, participation and policymaking – and institutions – e.g. of law, politics or religion – diverge widely between countries and cultures. This has major implications for how policy disputes about modern biotechnology can be tackled and what policy instruments may be used. Capacity-building efforts that assume that one style of policymaking is correct and universal is inappropriate, and result in major misunderstandings and potential conflicts.
Theme 4 Archive
General
Arora, S., Van Dyck, B., Argumedo, A., and Wakeford, T. (2019) Choreographed consensus: The stifling of dissent at CRISPRCon 2019, STEPS Blog.
Ely, A. (2015) Lessons from China’s GM Controversy, in MacNaghten, P., and Ripalda, S. (eds.) A new pathway to governing GM crops: global lessons from the rising powers for agricultural sustainability, Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Glover, D. (2015) Public participation, accountability and the stewardship of transgenic crops, in Macnaghten, P., and Carro-Ripalda, S. (eds.) Governing Agricultural Sustainability: Global lessons from GM crops. Abingdon, UK: Routledge, 167-173.
Macnaghten, P., and Carro Ripalda, S. (2015) Governing Agricultural Sustainability: Global lessons from GM crops, Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Ely, A. (2014) GM Nation or GM Planet? How to involve citizens in decisions about transgenic crops, STEPS Blog.
Kashani, E. S., and Millstone, E. (2013) Contested framings and policy controversies: analysing biosafety policy making in Iran, Science and Public Policy, Vol. 40, No. 5, 616-627.
Stirling, A. (2012) Opening Up the Politics of Knowledge and Power in Bioscience, PLoS Biol.
Ely, A. (2009) Implementation of the General Framework: Genetically Modified (Cry1Ab) Maize Case Study, in Dreyer, M., and Renn, O. (eds.) Food Safety Governance: Integrating Science, Precaution and Public Involvement, Berlin, DE: Springer, 143-158.
Ely, A., Stirling, A., Dreyer, M., Renn, O., Vos, E., & Wendler, F. (2009) The need for change, in Dreyer, M., and Renn, O. (eds.) Food Safety Governance: Integrating Science, Precaution and Public Involvement, Berlin, DE: Springer.
Ely, A., Stirling, A., Dreyer, M., Renn, O., Vos, E., & Wendler, F. (2009) Overview of general framework, in Dreyer, M., and Renn, O. (eds.) Food Safety Governance: Integrating Science, Precaution and Public Involvement, Berlin, DE: Springer.
Ely, A., Stirling, A., Vos, E., & Wendler, F. (2009) The process of framing, in Dreyer, M., and Renn, O. (eds.) Food Safety Governance: Integrating Science, Precaution and Public Involvement, Berlin, DE: Springer.
Ely, A., and Stirling, A. (2009) The process of assessment, in Dreyer, M., and Renn, O. (eds.) Food Safety Governance: Integrating Science, Precaution and Public Involvement, Berlin, DE: Springer.
Scoones, I. (2008) Mobilising against GM crops in India, South Africa and Brazil, Journal of Agrarian Change, Vol. 8 No. 2-3, 315–344.
Burgess, J., Stirling, A., Clark, J., Davies, G., Eames, M., Staley, K., & Williamson, S. (2007) Deliberative mapping: a novel analytic-deliberative methodology to support contested science-policy decisions, Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 16, No. 3, 299-322.
Glover, D. (2007) Farmer participation in private sector agricultural extension, IDS Bulletin, Vol. 38, No. 5, 61-73.
Millstone, E. (2007) Can food safety policy-making be both scientifically and democratically legitimated? If so, how?, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, Vol. 20, 483-508.
Stirling, A. (2007) Deliberate futures: precaution and progress in social choice of sustainable technology, Sustainable Development, Vol. 15, No. 5, 286–295.
Scoones, I., and Leach, M. (2006) The Slow Race – Making Technology Work for the Poor, London, UK: Demos.
Stirling, A. (2006) Precaution, foresight and sustainability: reflection and reflexivity in the governance of science and technology, in Voss, J., Bauknecht, D., and Kemp, R. (eds.) Reflexive Governance for Sustainable Development, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Scoones, I. (2005) Contentious Politics, Contentious Knowledges: Mobilising Against GM Crops in India, Brazil and South Africa, IDS Working Paper 256, Brighton, UK: IDS.
Stirling, A., and Mayer, S. (2004) Confronting Risk with Precaution: A Multi-Criteria Mapping of Genetically Modified Crops, in Getzner, M., Spash, C. L., and Stagl, S. (eds.) Alternatives for Environmental Valuation, London, UK: Routledge.
Scoones, I. (2004) Debating GM crops, Insights 52.
Glover et al. (2003) Public participation and the Biosafety Protocol: a review for UNEP-GEF and DFID, Brighton, UK: IDS.
Keeley, J. (2003) Democratising biotechnology: an overview, Democratising Biotechnology: Genetically Modified Crops in Developing Countries Briefing Series, Briefing 1, Brighton, UK: IDS.
Millstone, E. (2003) The EU-US Dispute over the introduction of agricultural biotechnology: an analysis and prognosis, Soziale Technik, Vol. 4, 19-20.
Millstone, E., and van Zwanenberg, P. (2003) Food and Agricultural Biotechnology Policy: How Much Autonomy Can Developing Countries Exercise?, Development Policy Review, Vol. 21, No. 5, 655-667.
Mohamed-Katerere, J. (2003) From risks to rights: challenges for biotechnology policy, Democratising Biotechnology: Genetically Modified Crops in Developing Countries Briefing Series, Briefing 12, Brighton, UK: IDS.
Newell, P. (2003) Globalisation and the governance of biotechnology, Global Environmental Politics, Vol. 3, No. 2, 56-72.
Thompson, J., and Scoones, I. (2003) PLA Notes 46 – Special issue on Participatory processes for policy change, Participatory Learning and Action, London, UK: IIED.
Wakeford, T., and Pimbert, M. (2003) Power-reversals in biotechnology: experiments in democratisation, Democratising Biotechnology: Genetically Modified Crops in Developing Countries Briefing Series, Briefing 13, Brighton, UK: IDS.
Wakeford, T. (2002) Citizens juries: a radical alternative for social research, Social Research Update, Vol. 37, Surrey, UK: University of Surrey.
Pimbert, M., and Wakeford, T. (2001), PLA Notes 40 – Special Issue on Deliberative democracy and citizen empowerment, Participatory Learning and Action, London, UK: IIED, The Commonwealth Foundation, ActionAid, DFID and SIDA.
Stirling, A. (2001) PLA Notes 40 – Inclusive deliberation and scientific expertise: precaution, diversity and transparency in the governance of risk, London, UK: IIED, The Commonwealth Foundation, ActionAid, DFID and SIDA.
Adam, B., Berkhout, F., Dyson, T., and Grove-White, R. (1999) The Politics of GM Food: Risk, Science &Public Trust, ESRC Global Environmental Change Programme, Special Briefing No. 5.
Millstone, E., and Dixon, B. (1992) Our Genetic Future: the science and ethics of genetic technology, The British Medical Association, Oxford University Press.
Africa
Rusike, E. (2005) Exploring food and farming futures in Zimbabwe: A citizens’ jury and scenario workshop experiment, in Leach, M., Scoones, I., and Wynne, B. (eds.) Science and Citizens: Globalization and the Challenge of Engagement, London, UK: Zed Books, 249-255.
Scoones, I. (2005) Governing technology development: challenges for agricultural research in Africa IDS Bulletin, Vol. 36 No. 2, Brighton, UK: IDS.
Mohamed-Katerere, J. (2003) Risk and rights: challenging biotechnology policy in Zimbabwe, IDS Working Paper 204, Biotechnology Policy Series 10, Brighton, UK: IDS.
Rusike, E. (2003) Izwi neTarisiro – Zimbabwe’s Citizens Jury, Seedling.
Saruchera, M., and Matsungo, O. (2003) Understanding Local Perspectives: Participation of Resource Poor Farmers in Biotechnology: The Case of Wedza District of Zimbabwe, Biotechnology and the Policy Process in Developing Countries Project, Brighton, UK: IDS.
Mohamed-Katerere, J. (2001) Biotechnology and the policy process: Zimbabwe, Biotechnology and the Policy Process in Developing Countries Project, Brighton, UK: IDS.
China
Ely, A. (2015) Lessons from China’s GM Controversy, in Macnaghten, P., and Carro-Ripalda. S. (eds.) Governing Agricultural Sustainability: Global lessons from GM crops. Abingdon, UK: Routledge, 161-166.
Geall, S. (2014) GM in China: ‘Paranoia’ and public opinion, STEPS Blog.
Newell, P. (2008) Lost in Translation? Domesticating Global Policy on GMOs: Comparing India and China, Global Society, Vol. 22, No. 1, 115-136.
Keeley, J. (2006) Balancing Technological Innovation and Environmental Regulation: an analysis of Chinese agricultural biotechnology governance, Environmental Politics, Vol. 15, No. 2, 293–309.
Keeley, J. (2003) A biotech developmental state? The Chinese experience, Democratising Biotechnology: Genetically Modified Crops in Developing Countries Briefing Series, Briefing 11, Brighton, UK: IDS.
Keeley, J. (2003) The biotech developmental state? Investigating the Chinese gene revolution, IDS Working Paper 207, Biotechnology Policy Series 6, Brighton, UK: IDS.
Newell, P. (2003) Domesticating global policy on GMOs: comparing China and India, IDS Working Paper 206, Biotechnology Policy Series 12, Brighton, UK: IDS.
Huang, J., Wang, Q., and Keeley, J. (2001) Agricultural biotechnology policy processes in China, Biotechnology and the policy process in developing countries Project, Brighton, UK: IDS.
Europe
Lydgate, E., Anthony, C., and Millstone, E. (2019) Brexit food safety legislation and potential implications for UK trade: the devil in the details, Working Paper, UK Trade Policy Observatory: Brighton, UK.
STEPS Centre. (2015) Some nice recommendations, shame about the spin, STEPS Blog.
Stirling, A (2013) Why all the fuss about GM food? Other innovations are available, The Guardian.
Ely, A. (2009) Implementation of the General Framework: Genetically Modified (Cry1Ab) Maize Case Study, in Dreyer, M., and Renn, O. (eds.) Food Safety Governance: Integrating Science, Precaution and Public Involvement, Berlin, DE: Springer.
India
Oxley, N. (2017) GM mustard in India: Are important questions not being asked?, STEPS Blog.
Newell, P. (2008) Lost in Translation? Domesticating Global Policy on GMOs: Comparing India and China, Global Society, Vol. 22 No. 1, 15-136.
Scoones, I. (2007) Biotechnology in Bangalore: the politics of innovation, ID21 Insights, Vol. 68.
Scoones, I. (2007) The contested politics of biotechnology: biotech in Bangalore, Science and Public Policy, Vol. 34, 261-271.
Scoones, I. (2006) Science, Agriculture and the Politics of Policy: the case of biotechnology in India, Delhi, IN: Orient Longman.
Newell, P. (2003) Domesticating global policy on GMOs: comparing China and India, IDS Working Paper 206, Biotechnology Policy Series 12, Brighton, UK: IDS.
Pimbert, M., and Wakeford, T. (2003) Prajateerpu, power and knowledge: The politics of participatory action research in development Part 1 – Context, process and safeguards, Action Research, Vol. 1, No. 2, 185-207.
Scoones, I. (2003) Making policy in the ‘New Economy’: the case of Karnataka’s biotechnology policy, IDS Working Paper 196, Biotechnology Policy Series 13, Brighton, UK: IDS.
Seshia, S., and Scoones, I. (2003) Tracing policy connections: the politics of knowledge in the Green Revolution and biotechnology eras in India, IDS Working Paper 188, Biotechnology Policy Series 21, Brighton, UK: IDS.
Visvanathan, S., and Parmar, C. (2003) Reconstructing policy narratives: the Green Revolution story, Biotechnology Policy Series 16, Brighton, UK: IDS.
Pimbert, M., and Wakeford, T. (2002) Prajateerpu: A Citizens Jury / Scenario Workshop on Food and Farming Futures in Andhra Pradesh, India, London, UK: IIED.
Pimbert, M., and Wakeford, T. (2002) Prajateerpu: Food and Farming Futures for Andhra Pradesh: A Citizens’ Jury / Scenario Workshop, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 37, No. 27, 2778-2787.
Visvanathan, S., and Parmar, C. (2002) A Biotechnology Story: notes from India, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 37, No. 27, 2714-2724.
Pimbert, M., Wakeford, T., and Satheesh, P. V. (2001) Citizens’ juries on GMOs and farming futures in India, LEISA Magazine, Vol. 17, No. 4, 27-30.
Latin America
Newell, P. (2009) Bio-hegemony: The Political Economy of Agricultural Biotechnology in Argentina, Journal of Latin American Studies, Vol. 41, No. 1, 27-57.
Newell, P. (2009) Technology, Food, Power: Governing GMOs in Argentina, in Clapp, J., and Fuchs, D. (eds) Agro-Food Corporations, Global Governance, and Sustainability, Cambridge, USA: MIT Press.
Newell, P. (2008) Trade and biotechnology in Latin America: Democratization, Contestation and the Politics of Mobilization, Journal of Agrarian Change, Vol. 8, No. 2-3, 345-376.
Newell, P. (2008) Trade and biotechnology in Latin America: Democratization, Contestation and the Politics of Mobilization, in Borras, S. M., Edelman, M., and Kay, C. (eds.) Transnational Agrarian Movements Confronting Globalization, Chichester, UK: Wiley Blackwell, 177-209.
Biotechnology Research archive
Biotechnology Research archiveOur Biotechnology Research Archive is a collection of evidence-based research by STEPS-affiliated researchers and projects, spanning over two decades.