Abstract

This article contributes to the debate about how regulatory science for agricultural technologies can be ‘opened up’ for a more diverse set of concerns and knowledges. The article focuses on the regulation of ‘socio-economic considerations’ for genetically modified organisms. While numerous countries have declared their intent to include these considerations in biotechnology decision-making, it is currently unclear both what counts as a socio-economic consideration and how such considerations should be assessed. This article provides greater clarity about how socio-economic considerations can be included in regulations by drawing upon the experience of two countries whose efforts in this field are particularly advanced: Kenya and South Africa. Based on extensive fieldwork, this article identifies the contours of an emerging regulatory regime by presenting two practice-based models for including socio-economic considerations in biotechnology decision-making. Whereas Kenya has taken a bottom-up process prior to assessing the first technologies and strongly emphasises scientific expertise, South Africa has instead established regulatory standards in an ad hoc fashion on a case-to-case basis, with a less prominent role for scientific evidence. The discussion of the distinct characteristics and tensions of both models provides insight into two potential pathways for including socio-economic considerations in the regulation of agricultural technologies.

Highlights

  • One of the recurring criticisms of regulatory science is that it functions to erroneously ‘close down’ the appraisal of food and agricultural technologies (Stirling 2008)

  • This article started by observing that actors around the world are struggling to ‘open up’ regulatory science to different types of issues and knowledges (Stirling 2008)

  • The inclusion of socio-economic considerations into biotechnology decision-making is a case in point

Read more

Summary

Introduction

One of the recurring criticisms of regulatory science is that it functions to erroneously ‘close down’ the appraisal of food and agricultural technologies (Stirling 2008). The starting point for these critiques is the recognition that discussions about new food and agricultural technologies are “not just about the pros and cons of a particular set of technologies, but about politics and values and the future of agrarian society” (Scoones 2008). K. Beumer science has been criticized for predominantly framing issues in terms of risk to human health and the environment. The issue is ‘scientized’, as one commentator described it (Kinchy 2010)

Objectives
Methods
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call