Abstract
The first major wave in the conflict over modern biotechnologies took place in the United States at the federal level. Biotechnology proponents were able to capture the federal regulatory structure, so today, a second wave of anti-biotech activism focused at the local and state levels is emerging. This article examines what enables or constrains place-based anti-biotech activism through a case study of the conflict over genetically engineered (GE) animals in Massachusetts. I demonstrate how, in spite of a highly visible animal advocacy and anti-GE presence, GE animal proponents have mobilized effective politics of place strategies to suppress local debate by exercising territorial control in relation to two places – the state of Massachusetts as a whole and the animal research laboratory specifically.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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 callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
