When technology is more than instrumental: How ethical concerns in EU agriculture co-evolve with the development of GM crops

Inghelbrecht, Linde; Goeminne, Gert; Huylenbroeck, Guido Van; Dessein, Joost

doi:10.1007/s10460-016-9742-z

Cited by 8 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although recent literature has extended far beyond the classical "technology-push" model of innovation [46] and advanced our view on the innovation process through more flexible innovation models such as agile gate stage [22], lean start up [47], design thinking [24], project management [25], open innovation [48], and other techniques, it does not seem to be reflected upon in RRI literatures. On the other side, RRI and CSR studies tend to describe other techniques, sometimes overlapping with major innovation management practices, such as walkshop approach [49], engagement workshops [50][51][52], online platforms [53]; online knowledge sharing [54,55], social experimentation and design thinking [56,57], anticipation of risks and technology assessment [58,59].…”

Section: The 3w1h Of Stakeholder Involvement-exploring the Innovationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Role of Stakeholders in the Context of Responsible Innovation: A Meta-Synthesis

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper contributes to the sustainability debate by analyzing the inclusion dimension in the responsible research and innovation (RRI) process. RRI is claimed to be an important tool for addressing global challenges and achieving sustainable development goals. While stakeholder involvement is considered to be imperative for the RRI process, there is little empirical evidence on (1) who the stakeholders participating in the RRI process are; (2) when stakeholders participate; (3) how stakeholders’ inclusion contributes to the sustainable innovation process; and (4) who the agents are who orchestrate stakeholders’ inclusion. This paper addresses the issue of stakeholder involvement through the lens of innovation management literature by attempting to link the innovation process to the responsibility concept. We employed a meta-synthesis of empirical studies of RRI to develop a deep understanding of stakeholder inclusion. After screening 139 articles, we identified seven empirical papers highlighting RRI process, mainly from projects nested in academic contexts. The findings indicate that multiple stakeholders are included at a late stage of the innovation process—during the market launch. To some extent, this allows for the adaptation of the solution, but such adaptations are limited in nature. This study also identifies the agents who stimulate stakeholder inclusion as being mainly academic researchers and researchers linked to multi-institutional projects. Our findings indicate that innovation management thinking is rarely applied in the governance of research and innovation projects ‘born’ in academia. We suggest enhancing RRI theoretical development by incorporating elements of innovation management such as early inclusion of users in the innovation process. For practitioners, this means an extension of the design space to allow early stakeholder inclusion in the innovation process to ensure responsible outcomes. We also identified avenues for future research. There is a need to systematically investigate which tools and frameworks for deliberate stakeholder inclusion are relevant at the various stages of the innovation and development process.

show abstract

Section: The 3w1h Of Stakeholder Involvement-exploring the Innovationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Role of Stakeholders in the Context of Responsible Innovation: A Meta-Synthesis

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Also, other authors argued for deliberation that includes other (lay) experts, besides techno-scientists, for answering the question ‘what we can learn about how socio-technological innovations can contribute to sustainable development’. Including those perspectives will broaden deliberation and will avoid dichotomous key political questions concerning controversial techno-scientific experiments (Mampuys 2021 ; Burall 2018 ; Inghelbrecht et al 2017 ; Hanssen & Gremmen 2013 ).…”

Section: The Current European Commission Consultation Round On New Ge...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Inghelbrecht et al ( 2017 ) argued that an evolving technology co-determines the values and structures that form the societal system using it. Technologies-in-use actively shape our interpretation, our action, moral standards, and routines.…”

Section: Doubly Unstructured Problemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Restore politics in societal debates on new genomic techniques

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

End of April 2021, the European Commission published its study on New Genomic Techniques (NGTs). The study involved a consultation of Member States and stakeholders. This study reveals a split on whether current legislation should be maintained or adapted to take account of scientific progress and the risk level of NGT products. This split was predictable. New technological developments challenge both ethical viewpoints and regulatory institutions; and contribute to the growing divide between science and society that value ‘technological innovations’ differently. Such controversies are often characterized as ‘unstructured’ because of nearly unbridgeable positions on entangled scientific and value-laden issues. Initiatives for stakeholder involvement, such as consultation or participation, often focus on reaching a ‘shared vision’ without exploring the diverse societal concerns and values behind these positions. To resolve the EU stalemate in NGT regulation, we advocate to bring back politics in the EU decision-making process instead of hiding it under the veil of science, the need for regulatory change and public support. A more productive and justified use of genuine stakeholder participation is possible, if participants and deliberation design meet the criteria of what we call participation ethics. Drawing from our applied experience exploring the ethics of genetic modification, we believe that this approach can lead to more robust political decision-making and restore societal confidence in the governance of contested issues such as NGTs.

show abstract

“…In 1999, the de facto moratorium on new Genetically Modified (GM) crop approvals, based on the precautionary principle within the EU political environment, demarcated the decades-long troublesome position of GM. In their paper, "When technology is more than instrumental: How ethical concerns in EU agriculture co-evolve with the development of GM crops" Inghelbrecht et al [9] argue that GM technology was a catalyst for growing resistance against key characteristics of the capitalist, neo-liberal agricultural system. They hold up examples such as the privatization of research, concentration of power in few large companies, and patenting of genetic material.…”

Section: Gentically Modified Organisms Challenging the Agricultural Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Generative Potential of Tensions within Belgian Agroecology

Stassart

Crivits²,

Hermesse

et al. 2018

Sustainability

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Food crises and ecologization have given rise to a Belgian dynamic that does not behave according to the conventional tripod of agroecology: practitioners, social movement, and scientists. Instead of simply recounting the history of Belgian agroecology, the authors trace the history and dynamics in Belgium), a journey along six strands that weave themselves into a Belgian tapestry: Genetically modified crop commandos, a scientific paradigm shift, hybrid expertise opening the Northern route that intersects with a Southern political route, an original non-institutional dynamic in the French-speaking part of Belgium and an institutional initiative that led to a rift in Flanders. In the following section, we identify, emerging from those six strands, four tensions that create a space of innovations, namely, politically differentiated discourses, land access, fair price, and epistemic tensions. We discuss then the generative potential of the 4 tensions and describe the potential of reconfigurations generated by boundaries organizations, food justice and transdisciplinarity. We conclude that the concept of agroecology continues to have transformative potential in Belgium today. However, no one can predict the course of such a largely non-institutional dynamic.

show abstract

When technology is more than instrumental: How ethical concerns in EU agriculture co-evolve with the development of GM crops

Cited by 8 publications

References 44 publications

The Role of Stakeholders in the Context of Responsible Innovation: A Meta-Synthesis

The Role of Stakeholders in the Context of Responsible Innovation: A Meta-Synthesis

Restore politics in societal debates on new genomic techniques

The Generative Potential of Tensions within Belgian Agroecology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About