Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 19, Issue 3, pp 1181–1200

Re-skilling the Social Practices: Open Source and Life–Towards a Commons-Based Peer Production in Agro-biotechnology?

Original Paper


Inspired by the thinking of authors such as Andrew Feenberg, Tim Ingold and Richard Sennett, this article sets forth substantial criticism of the ‘social uprooting of technology’ paradigm, which deterministically considers modern technology an autonomous entity, independent and indifferent to the social world (practices, skills, experiences, cultures, etc.). In particular, the authors’ focus on demonstrating that the philosophy,methodology and experience linked to open source technological development represent an emblematic case of re-encapsulation of the technical code within social relations (reskilling practices). Open source is discussed as a practice, albeit not unique, of community empowerment aimed at the participated and shared rehabilitation of technological production ex-ante. Furthermore, the article discusses the application of open source processes in the agro-biotechnological field, showing how they may support a more democratic endogenous development, capable of binding technological innovation to the objectives of social (reducing inequalities) and environmental sustainability to a greater degree.


Technology Democracy Participation Social skills 


  1. Arendt, H. (1994). Vita activa. La condizione umana. Milano: Bompiani.Google Scholar
  2. Bauman, Z. (2005). Globalizzazione e glocalizzazione. Roma: Armando Editore.Google Scholar
  3. Benkler, Y. (2006a). Commons-based peer production and virtue. The Journal of Political Philosophy, Vol 14, n° 4, 394–419.Google Scholar
  4. Benkler, Y. (2006b). The wealth of networks how social production transforms markets and freedom. New Haven, London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Berra, M., & Meo, A. R. (2001). Informatica solidale Storie e prospettive del software libero. Torino: Bollati Boringhieri.Google Scholar
  6. Bijker, W.E. (1995). Of bicycles, bakelites and bulbs: Towards a theory of sociotechnical change. Cambridge (MA), MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bloor, D. (1991). Knowledge and social imagery. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  8. Boettiger, S., & Wright, B. (2006). Open source in biotechnology: Open questions (pp. 43–55). Fall: Innovations.Google Scholar
  9. Bourdieu, P. (1980). Le sens pratique. Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit.Google Scholar
  10. Braman, S. (1989). Defining information: An approach for policymakers. In D. M. Lamberton (Ed.), The economics of communication and information (pp. 233–242). Brookfield, VT: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  11. Braverman, H. (1974). Labor and monopoly capital: The degradation of work in the twentieth century. New York: Monthly Review Press.Google Scholar
  12. Broothaearts, H., et al. (2005). Gene transfer to plants by diverse species of bacteria. Nature, 433, 629–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network society. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  14. Ceccarelli, S. (2009). Evoluzione, miglioramento genetico e biodiversità. In C. Modonesi e G. Tamino (Eds), Biodiversità e beni comuni (pp. 109–128). Milano: Jaca Book.Google Scholar
  15. Ceccarelli, S. et al. (2007). Barley breeding for sustainable production. In M. S. Kang e P. M. Priyadarshan, Breeding major food staples (pp. 193–226). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  16. De Certau, M. (1980). L’invention du quotidien. Paris: UGE.Google Scholar
  17. Dewey, J. (1927). The public and its problems. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
  18. Dreyfuss, R. C. (2003). Varying the course in patenting genetic material: A counter-proposal to Richard Epstein’s steady course. Advances in Genetics, 50, 195–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Epstein, R. A., & Kuhlik, B. N. (2004). Navigating the anticommons for pharmaceutical patents: steady the course on Hatch-Waxman. Chicago Working Paper Series,
  20. Feenberg, A. (2001). Questioning technology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Feenberg, A. (2003). Pragmatism and critical theory of technology. Techné, 7(1), 42–48.Google Scholar
  22. Feenberg, A. (2010). Between reason and experience: Essays in technology and modernity. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Foucault, M. (1976a). Histoire de la sexualité 1: La volonté de savoir. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
  24. Foucault, M. (1976b). Sorvegliare e punire. nascita della prigione. Torino: Einaudi.Google Scholar
  25. Friedmann, G. (1946). Problèmes humain du machinisme industriel. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
  26. Gallino, L. (2007). Tecnologia e democrazia. Conoscenze tecniche e scientifiche come beni pubblici, Torino: Einaudi.Google Scholar
  27. Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, acting and knowing (pp. 67–82). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  28. Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  29. Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  30. Gorz, A. (1988). Métamorphoses du travail. Quête du sens critique de la raison économique. Paris: Éditions Galilée.Google Scholar
  31. Gramsci, A. (1975). Quaderni dal carcere. Torino: Einaudi.Google Scholar
  32. Hall, S. (1973). Encoding, decoding. In Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies (Ed.), Culture, media, language: Working papers in cultural studies (pp. 128-138). London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
  33. Hardin, J. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162, n°3859, 1243–1248.Google Scholar
  34. Hardt, M., & Negri, A. (2003). Impero. Milano: Rizzoli.Google Scholar
  35. Heller, M.. (1998). The tragedy of the anticommons: Property in the transition from Marx to markets. Harvard Law Review, Vol. 111, n° 3 (January), 621–688.Google Scholar
  36. Hess, C., & Ostrom, E. (2007). Understanding knowledge as a commons. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  37. Hickman, L. (2001). Philosophical tools for technological culture. putting pragmatism to work. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Himanen, P. (2001). The hacker ethic and the spirit of the information age. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  39. Hope, J. (2008). Biobazaar. The open source revolution and biotechnology. Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Hunt, A., & Wickham, G. (1994). Foucault and law. towards a sociology of law as governance. London: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
  41. Ingold, T. (1983). The architect and the bee: Reflections on the work of animals and men. Man (N.S.), 18, 1–20.Google Scholar
  42. Ingold, T. (1997). Eight themes in the anthropology of technology, Social Analysis, n°41(1), March, 106–138.Google Scholar
  43. Ingold, T. (2000a). Evolving skills. In H. Rose & S. Rose (Eds.), Alas poor Darwin, arguments against evolutionary psychology (pp. 225–246). London: Jonatan Cape.Google Scholar
  44. Ingold, T. (2000b). The perception of the environment. essays on livelihood, dwelling and skill. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  45. Kaczynski, T. J. (2010). Technological slavery. Port Townsend, WA: Feral House.Google Scholar
  46. Kloppenburg, J. (2005). First the seed the political economy of plant biotechnology. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  47. Kloppenburg, J. (2010). Seed sovereignty: The promise of open source biology. In A. Desmarais & K. H. Wittman (Eds.), Food sovereignty: Theory, praxis, and power (pp. 1–15). Halifax (NS): Fernwood Publishing.Google Scholar
  48. Kompridis, N. (2006). Critique and disclosure: Critical theory between past and future. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  49. Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolution. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers trough society. Cambridge, Ma: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Latour, B. (1991). Nous n’avons jamais été modernes. Paris: Éditions La Découverte.Google Scholar
  52. Latour, B. (1993). Dove sono le masse mancanti? Sociologia di alcuni oggetti di uso come. Intersezioni, n., 2, 221–255.Google Scholar
  53. Lessig, L. (2005). Cultura libera. Milano: Apogeo.Google Scholar
  54. Marx, K. (1970). I manoscritti economico-filosofici del 1844. Torino: Einaudi.Google Scholar
  55. Mauss, M. (1923–1924). Essai sur le don. forme et raison de l’échange dans les sociétés primitives, l’Année Sociologique, seconde série.Google Scholar
  56. Mauss, M. (1936). Les techniques du corps. Journal de Psychologie, XXXII, 3–4, 271–293.Google Scholar
  57. Merlau-Ponty, M. (1945). Phénoménologie de la perception. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
  58. Michaels, T. (1999). General public release for plant germplasm: A proposal. Version 1.1, 26 February.
  59. Nicolosi, G. (2007). Biotechnology, alimentary fears and the orthorexic society. Tailoring Biotechnologies, 2(3), 37–56.Google Scholar
  60. Nicolosi, G. (2012). Corpo, ambiente, tecnicità. Azione tecnica ed esperienza tra Ragni e Formiche. Tecnoscienza, vol. 3 (1), 73–93.Google Scholar
  61. Noble, D. (1993). La questione tecnologica. Torino: Bollati Boringhieri.Google Scholar
  62. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons. The evolution of institution for collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Oyama, S. (1998). The evolution’s eye. A systems view of the biology-culture divide. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Paccagnella, L. (2004). Sociologia della comunicazione. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
  65. Paccagnella, L. (2010). Open access. Conoscenza aperta e società dell’informazione. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
  66. Polanyi, K. (1974). La grande trasformazione. Torino: Einaudi.Google Scholar
  67. Postman, N. (1993). Technopoly: The surrender of culture to technology. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  68. Rai, A., & Boyle, J. (2007). Synthetic biology: Caught between property rights, the public domain, and the commons. PLoS Biology, 5(3), e58. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0050058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Raymond, E. (2001). La cattedrale e il bazar. Milano: Apogeo.Google Scholar
  70. Rose, N. (1996). Inventing our selves. Psychology, power and personhood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  71. Ruivenkamp, G. (2005). Tailor-made biotechnologies: Between biopower and subpolitics. Tailoring Biotechnologies, 11, 11–33.Google Scholar
  72. Ruivenkamp, G. (2008). Biotechnology in development: Experiences from the south. Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  73. Ruivenkamp, G. (2009). Scienza, lavoro immateriale e politica: Appunti per una ‘terza via’ biotecnologica. In M. Negro, F. Ciaramelli, & G. Nicolosi (Eds.), L’ esperienza del corpo nell’ era delle biotecnologie (pp. 145–182). Enna: Città Aperta Edizioni.Google Scholar
  74. Ruivenkamp, G., Hisano, S., & Jongerden, J. (Eds.). (2008). Reconstructing biotechnologies: Critical social analyses. Wageningen: Wageningen Academic publishers.Google Scholar
  75. Sclove, R. (1995). Democracy and technology. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  76. Sclove, R. (2012). Reinventing technology assessment for the 21 st century. Washington: WWICS.Google Scholar
  77. Sennett, R. (2008). The craftsman. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  78. Shiva, V. (2004). L’industria biotecnologica si basa su fondamenta di menzogne e illegalità. In C. Silici (Ed.), OGM. Le verità sconosciute di una strategia di conquista, Roma: Editori Riuniti.Google Scholar
  79. Sigaut, F. (1994). Technology. In T. Ingold (Ed.), Companion encyclopedia of anthropology: Humanity, culture and social life (pp. 420–459). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  80. Sigaut, F. (2007). Les outils et le corps. Communications, 81, 9–30.Google Scholar
  81. Stallman, R. M. (2002). Free software, free society. Boston (Mass.): Gnu Press.Google Scholar
  82. Stiegler, B. (1998). Technics and time, I. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  83. Suarez-Villa, L. (2001). The rise of technocapitalism. Science Studies, vol. 14, n° 2, 4–20.Google Scholar
  84. Van der Ploeg, J. D., & Long, A. (Eds.). (1994). Born from within. Practice and perspectives of endogenous rural development. Assen: Van Gorcum.Google Scholar
  85. Von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing innovation. Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press.Google Scholar
  86. Winner, L. (1995). Citizen virtues in a technological order. In A. Feenberg & A. Hannay (Eds.), Technology and the politics of knowledge (pp. 65–84). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dipartimento di Scienze Politiche e SocialiUniversity of CataniaCataniaItaly
  2. 2.CTC Research Unit of Wageningen UniversityWageningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations