Essential Features of Responsible Governance of Agricultural Biotechnology

Hartley, Sarah; Gillund, Frøydis; Hove, Lilian van; Wickson, Fern

doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002453

Cited by 49 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 16 publications

(22 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is true that some smart technologies, such as precision agriculture, have so far been embraced with little societal "backlash, " yet it is argued that large-scale use of AI, robotics, and other emergent innovations have the clear potential to cause unintended, unforeseen, and unwanted societal consequences. Indeed, Hartley et al (2016) use the same precedent of the GM controversy to argue for the responsible governance of agricultural biotechnology.…”

Section: Technological Re-scripting Of Societymentioning

confidence: 99%

Agriculture 4.0: Broadening Responsible Innovation in an Era of Smart Farming

Rose

Chilvers

2018

Front. Sustain. Food Syst.

435

273

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Agriculture is undergoing a new technology revolution supported by policy-makers around the world. While smart technologies, such as Artificial Intelligence, robotics, and the Internet of Things, could play an important role in achieving enhanced productivity and greater eco-efficiency, critics have suggested that the consideration of social implications is being side-lined. Research illustrates that some agricultural practitioners are concerned about using certain smart technologies. Indeed, some studies argue that agricultural societies may be changed, or "re-scripted," in undesirable ways, and there is precedent to suggest that wider society may be concerned about radical new agricultural technologies. We therefore encourage policy-makers, funders, technology companies, and researchers to consider the views of both farming communities and wider society. In agriculture, the concept of responsible innovation has not been widely considered, although two recent papers have made useful suggestions. We build on these interventions by arguing that key dimensions of responsible innovation-anticipation, inclusion, reflexivity, and responsiveness-should be applied to this fourth agricultural revolution. We argue, however, that ideas of responsible innovation should be further developed in order to make them relevant and robust for emergent agri-tech, and that frameworks should be tested in practice to see if they can actively shape innovation trajectories. In making suggestions on how to construct a more comprehensive framework for responsible innovation in sustainable agriculture, we call for: (i) a more systemic approach that maps and attends to the wider ecology of innovations associated with this fourth agricultural revolution; (ii) a broadening of notions of "inclusion" in responsible innovation to account better for diverse and already existing spaces of participation in agri-tech, and (iii) greater testing of frameworks in practice to see if they are capable of making innovation processes more socially responsible. Some would argue that the "fourth agricultural revolution" (Lejon and Frankelius, 2015) or "agriculture 4.0" (Bartmer in Frankelius et al., 2017) has already begun. Each previous agricultural revolution was radical at the time-the first representing a transition from hunting and gathering to settled agriculture, the second relating to the British agricultural revolution in the 18th century, and the third relating to post-war productivity increases associated with mechanization and the Green Revolution in the developing world. While technological innovation is thus not new

show abstract

Section: Technological Re-scripting Of Societymentioning

confidence: 99%

Agriculture 4.0: Broadening Responsible Innovation in an Era of Smart Farming

Rose

Chilvers

2018

Front. Sustain. Food Syst.

435

273

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, the emphasis IFOAM places on responsible development links to the growing policy discourse of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI). In RRI, scientific research, technological innovation and their governance are being required to address and orient around new norms [63,64]. These include: (1) A focus on addressing significant socio-ecological needs and challenges; (2) A commitment to actively engaging a range of stakeholders for the purpose of substantively better decision-making and mutual learning; (3) A dedicated attempt to anticipate potential problems, assess available alternatives and reflect on underlying values, assumptions and beliefs; and (4) A willingness among all participants to act and adapt according to these ideas [65].…”

Section: Develop and Use Gmos Responsiblymentioning

confidence: 99%

Should Organic Agriculture Maintain Its Opposition to GM? New Techniques Writing the Same Old Story

2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Biotechnology is diversifying rapidly through the development and application of new approaches to genome editing and ongoing research into synthetic biology. Proponents of biotechnology are enthusiastic about these new developments and have recently begun calling for environmental movements to abandon their campaigns against Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) and for organic agriculture to reconsider its exclusion of Genetic Modification (GM). In this article, we begin by describing the diversity of practices that cluster under both the terms GM and organic and show that although there is a clash of different cultures of agriculture at stake, there is also a spectrum of practices existing between these two poles. Having established the terms of the debate, we then go on to analyse whether the organic movement should reconsider its position on GM in light of new plant breeding techniques (NPBTs), using the criteria highlighted as important by the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) in their 2016 draft revised position on GMOs. Through this analysis, we suggest that given the in-context-trajectory of biotechnology development, the continued narrow framing of agricultural problems and the ongoing exclusion of important socio-economic, political and cultural dimensions, the organic movement is justified in maintaining its opposition to GM in the face of NPBTs.

show abstract

“…As such, there is a need for sufficient and relevant information about new technologies alongside more active forms of public engagement that link both researchers and other stakeholders. Hartley et al [89] argue that new agricultural biotechnology represents an opportunity to re-evaluate current governance systems-it is hoped that our work can contribute to the socially-responsible governance of the emerging fields of PMF and NPBTs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Shotguns vs Lasers: Identifying barriers and facilitators to scaling-up plant molecular farming for high-value health products

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Plant molecular farming (PMF) is a convenient and cost-effective way to produce high-value recombinant proteins that can be used in the production of a range of health products, from pharmaceutical therapeutics to cosmetic products. New plant breeding techniques (NPBTs) provide a means to enhance PMF systems more quickly and with greater precision than ever before. However, the feasibility, regulatory standing and social acceptability of both PMF and NPBTs are in question. This paper explores the perceptions of key stakeholders on two European Union (EU) Horizon 2020 programmes-Pharma-Factory and Newcotianatowards the barriers and facilitators of PMF and NPBTs in Europe. One-on-one qualitative interviews were undertaken with N = 20 individuals involved in one or both of the two projects at 16 institutions in seven countries (Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Israel, Spain and the UK). The findings indicate that the current EU regulatory environment and the perception of the public towards biotechnology are seen as the main barriers to scaling-up PMF and NPBTs. Competition from existing systems and the lack of plant-specific regulations likewise present challenges for PMF developing beyond its current niche. However, respondents felt that the communication of the benefits and purpose of NPBT PMF could provide a platform for improving the social acceptance of genetic modification. The importance of the media in this process was highlighted. This article also uses the multi-level perspective to explore the ways in which NPBTs are being legitimated by interested parties and the systemic factors that have shaped and are continuing to shape the development of PMF in Europe. PLOS ONEPLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.The use of plants as platforms for the expression of recombinant proteins was first demonstrated in the late 1980s and early 1990s -primarily with the tobacco plant [23][24][25]. It would take over a decade for the first commercial product to be launched [8], but since that time a PLOS ONEBarriers and facilitators to scaling-up plant molecular farming PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.Barriers and facilitators to scaling-up plant molecular farming PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.

show abstract

Essential Features of Responsible Governance of Agricultural Biotechnology

Cited by 49 publications

References 16 publications

Agriculture 4.0: Broadening Responsible Innovation in an Era of Smart Farming

Agriculture 4.0: Broadening Responsible Innovation in an Era of Smart Farming

Should Organic Agriculture Maintain Its Opposition to GM? New Techniques Writing the Same Old Story

Shotguns vs Lasers: Identifying barriers and facilitators to scaling-up plant molecular farming for high-value health products

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About