Search results

Globalization has affected science inevitably with a motto of ‘Knowledge conquers the mind’. However, global efforts and harmonization are needed and are established through international rules, laws, norms and standards. The potentially positive and negative results of globalization have altered the production relations and complicated the demographic scale.

Purpose – New genetically modified (GM) crops are novel but risky interventions, offering a variety of potential benefits but also the possibility of serious unintended consequences. I address the regulatory framework for GM crops, seeking protection from disproportionate risks without unduly stifling innovation.

Approach – Conditions that may justify precautionary interventions are identified, and an idealized regulatory protocol (screening, pre-release testing, and post-release surveillance, STS) is developed to provide protection, encourage research and learning, and focus-in quickly on the cases that pose serious threats of harm. This protocol is adapted to the case of GM crops, and compared with current regulatory practice in the United States, the EU, and Canada, as well as international agreements exemplified by the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. Two real-world cases are considered, Starlink® corn and Roundup-Ready® canola, and some speculations are offered as to how the stylized protocol might have handled them.

Findings for policy – Pre-release, US regulatory practice is more fragmented and incomplete than the stylized protocol; EU practice is more systematic and streamlined, but some critics perceive over-regulation; and Canadian regulatory practice is more consistent with the protocol. Only the EU performs systematic post-release surveillance. International agreements have various weaknesses, beginning with fragmentation: for example, food safety and biosafety are regulated separately.

Implications for further research – Embracing the STS framework opens a broad new avenue of research about to how the mix of pre-release testing and post-release surveillance might be streamlined to provide adequate protection while reducing further the costs and delays entailed.

Most research ethic review procedures refer to the principles of safety and security only as sub-criteria of other ethical principles such as the protection of human subjects in research, thereby ignoring the public good aspect of safety and security. In addition, Research Ethics Review Committees (RECs) are usually dominated by philosophers, ethicists, medical doctors, and lawyers with limited practical backgrounds in safety and security risk management. This gap of knowledge restricts ethics reviews in carrying out project-specific safety and security risk management and defers this responsibility to lawmakers and national legal authorities. What might be sufficient in well-regulated and well-understood environments, such as the safety of individuals during clinical research, is insufficient in managing rapidly changing and emerging risks – such as with emerging biotechnologies – as well as addressing the public good dimension of safety and security.

This chapter considers governance approaches to safety and security in research. It concludes that legal mechanisms are insufficient to cope with the complexity of and the fast progress made in emerging technologies. The chapter also addresses the role and potential of research ethics as a safety and security governance approach. It concludes that research ethics can play an important role in the governance of such risks arising from emerging technologies, for example through fundamental rights and public good considerations. However, in reality the current capacity of ethics in the safety and security governance of emerging technologies is limited. It is argued that in newly emerging areas of research currently applied legal compliance–based approaches are insufficient. Instead, inclusion of fundamental risk management knowledge and closer interactions between scientists, safety, and security experts are needed for effective risk management. Safety and Security Culture provide frameworks for such interactions and would well complement the current legal compliance–based governance approaches in research ethics.

Purpose – The chapter provides a comprehensive review of trade-related regulations of genetically modified (GM) food, identifies their main effects, and analyzes the main motivations behind their support.

Methodology/approach – The analysis is substantiated by (a) results from the literature on GM food regulations and (b) comparative statics results from a simplified three-country partial equilibrium welfare and political economic model.

Findings – The analysis shows that in a non-GM producing country, trade-related regulations will benefit producers, but not necessarily consumers. Producers' support is found to be instrumental to push for a ban, for information requirements on shipments, or for mandatory labeling of GM food products. Outside pressure groups will play the role of swing voters in cases where consumers and producers do not agree.

Research limitations/implications – The analytical model is based on simplifying assumptions on the groups and market effects of each regulation. Future research is needed to empirically validate some of the main results.

Originality/value of the chapter – The goal of the chapter is to inform economic and policy researchers on the effects of GM food trade-related regulations. The chapter provides an updated comprehensive overview of the key trade regulations of GM food. It uses a unique model to derive the main welfare effects of GM food regulations. By comparing the effects of GM food regulations in different types of countries for different pressure groups, the findings provide new insights in this area.

Since the 1980s agricultural biotech investments by the public sector have increased substantially in both China and India. In the last two decades there has also been a dramatic increase in private section investment in agricultural biotechnology particularly in India. The promise of major benefits of Bt cotton identified in early socioeconomic studies of Bt cotton has proven to be true. Bt cotton has spread to at least 66% and 85% of total cotton areas of China and India, respectively – wherever bollworm is a major problem. Bt cotton continues to control bollworm in both countries, and farmers continue as major beneficiaries rather than biotech or seed companies. The major impacts have been yield increases in India and reduced pesticides consumption in China. In China, evidence also suggests that Bt cotton has suppressed the bollworm population so that non-Bt cotton growers and producers of other crops that are susceptible to bollworm are also benefitting.

The chapter also provides evidence that in the near future Bt rice and Bt eggplant could have major positive impacts by reducing pesticide use and farmers’ exposure to chemical pesticides and increasing yields. Both crops were approved for commercial production by government biosafety regulators, but are not yet available for commercial cultivation.

Researchers continue to seek understanding of industrialization as a state managed process. How to create and implement new industries based on advanced knowledge is on the policy agenda of many advanced nations. Measures that promote these developments include national capacity building in science and technology, the formation of technology transfer systems, and the establishment of industrial clusters. What these templates often overlook is an analysis of use. This chapter aims to increase the understanding of the processes that embed new solutions in structures from an industrial network perspective. The chapter describes an empirical study of high-technology industrialization in Taiwan that the researcher conducts to this end. The study shows that the Taiwanese industrial model is oversimplified and omits several important factors in the development of new industries. This study bases its findings on the notions that resource combination occurs in different time and space, the new always builds on existing resource structures, and the users are important as active participants in development processes.

Purpose – The globally controversial genetically modified (GM) cotton has been adopted widely by Indian farmers. Claiming the adoption to be a success of the GM technology, the GM proponents call for a large-scale introduction of GM crops in Indian agriculture. Opposition to GM crops is largely constructed in terms of the environmental risks that GM technologies pose to crop and forest biodiversity. This chapter examines the economic and political context in which these seeds were adopted to see if adequate support mechanisms were available to farmers to facilitate adoption of the new technology.

Design/methodology/approach – A field study was conducted in Vidharbha, Eastern Maharashtra. In addition, government reports and newspaper articles were reviewed and interviews were conducted in Maharashtra and Delhi.

Findings – This chapetr finds that the problems faced by farmers are much deeper than what technology can solve or which have been addressed in the GM debate. Cotton farmers face persistent problems in the agricultural production process that increase their production costs. A spate of farmer's suicides in Vidharbha and other rain-fed regions of India epitomizes the dire conditions farmers are in. This chapter asserts that state-supported policies transformed India from a food importing to a food surplus country in the 1960s during the green revolution. However, GM cotton has been introduced without a supportive infrastructure for technology transfer in Maharashtra and most cotton-growing states. The lack of support makes the gain of cotton farmers in Vidharbha from the new technology highly uncertain.

Originality/value – This analysis shows the need to examine the role of government programs in helping farmers implement technological advances in agriculture.

Strong evidence has shown that increased agricultural productivity and opened international trade are required to maintain and enhance food security. The multilateral trading system has been unable to keep trade open for one subset of agricultural products – those that use biotechnology in production. This chapter assesses whether preferential trade agreements can represent potential alternative sources of trade rules for dealing with trade in the products of biotechnology. This chapter analyzes and compares three case studies of preferential trade agreements (Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, EU-US Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, and Trans-Pacific Partnership), by focusing on negotiations pertaining to products of biotechnology. The three preferential trade agreements have shown little inventiveness in their attempts to put in place rules of trade for the products of modern agricultural biotechnology and have established forums where only issues can be discussed. They are forums to talk and talk without any means to force closure on negotiations. Given the inability to deal with the issue of biotechnology at the WTO or other multilateral forums, the recent and current negotiations of major preferential agreements represent the second best alternative which still needs to be analyzed and still needs to be understood by policy makers, academics, and the population at large. This chapter represents a first step in that direction.