Agriculture and Human Values

, Volume 36, Issue 2, pp 183–197 | Cite as

Responsible innovation through conscious contestation at the interface of agricultural science, policy, and civil society

  • Laxmi Prasad PantEmail author


This research examines a series of case studies from the agricultural sector to illustrate how various models of innovation embrace value proposition. A conscious value contestation at the interface of science, policy and civil society requires transformations in the triple-helix model of university-government-industry collaboration, because reiterations in the triple-helix model of innovation, such as quadruple, quintuple and higher helices, do not necessarily address civil society concerns for human values and science ethics. This research develops and tests a matrix model of university-government-industry-civil society collaboration, which involves the co-creation of inclusive and transformational spaces for value proposition. Findings suggest that the matrix model of innovation institutionalises citizen science as it serves as a moral heuristic to make seemingly apolitical science responsive to essentially contested societal values.


Agriculture Innovation systems Civil society Human values Triple-helix innovation Citizen science 



  1. Altieri, M. 2005. The Myth of Coexistence: Why Transgenic Crops Are Not Compatible With Agroecologically Based Systems of Production. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 25 (4): 361–371.Google Scholar
  2. Ashby, J. A., and L. Sperling. 1995. Institutionalizing Participatory, Client-Driven Research and Technology Development in Agriculture. Development and Change 26: 753–770.Google Scholar
  3. Axinn, G. H. 1988. International Technical Interventions in Agriculture and Rural Development: Some Basic Trends, Issues, and Questions. Agriculture and Human Values 5 (1–2): 6–15.Google Scholar
  4. Azadi, H., and P. Ho. 2010. Genetically modified and organic crops in developing countries: A review of options for food security. Biotechnology Advances 28: 160–168.Google Scholar
  5. Biggs, S. D. 1998. Beyond Methodologies: Coalition-Building for Participatory Technology Development. World Development 26 (2): 239–248.Google Scholar
  6. Bird, S. J. 2015. Social Responsibility and Research Ethics: Not Either/Or but Both. Washington, DC: Americal Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAC).Google Scholar
  7. Bos, A. P., and J. Grin. 2012. Reflexive interactive design as an instrument for dual track governance. In System Innovations, Knowledge Regimes, and Design Practices towards Transitions for Sustainable Agriculture, eds. M. Barbier, and B. Elzen, 132–153. France: INRA Science for Action and Development.Google Scholar
  8. Bouis, H. E., and R. M. Welch. 2010. Biofortification—A Sustainable Agricultural Strategy for Reducing Micronutrient Malnutrition in the Global South. Crop Science 50 (2): S1–S13.Google Scholar
  9. Bramwell, A., and D. A. Wolfe. 2008. Universities and regional economic development: The entrepreneurial University of Waterloo. Research Policy 37 (8): 1175–1187.Google Scholar
  10. Brooks, S. 2010. Rice Biofortification: Lessons for Global Science and Development. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  11. Brooks, S., and M. Loevinsohn. 2011. Shaping agricultural innovation systems responsive to food insecurity and climate change. Natural Resources Forum 35: 185–200.Google Scholar
  12. Brumfiel, G. 2012. Good science bad science: Work on mutant flu caused a furore, but is far from the only subject in which risks might outweigh benefits. Nature 484: 432–434.Google Scholar
  13. Chilvers, J. 2012. Reflexive Engagement? Actors, Learning, and Reflexivity in Public Dialogue on Science and Technology. Science Communication 35 (3): 283–310.Google Scholar
  14. Clark, J. L. 2015. Killing the Enviropigs. Journal of Animal Ethics 5 (1): 20–30.Google Scholar
  15. Clark, N., B. Yoganand, and A. Hall. 2002. New science, capacity development and institutional change: the case of the Andra Pradesh-Netherlands Biotechnology Programme (APNLBP). The International Journal of Technology Management and Sustainable Development 1 (3): 196–212.Google Scholar
  16. Clark, J. K., M. Bean, S. Raja, S. Loveridge, J. Freedgood, and K. Hodgson. 2017. Cooperative extension and food system change: goals, strategies and resources. Agriculture and Human Values 34 (2): 301–316.Google Scholar
  17. Classen, L., S. Humphries, J. FitzSimons, S. Kaaria, J. Jiménez, F. Sierra, and O. Gallardo. 2008. Opening Participatory Spaces for the Most Marginal: Learning from Collective Action in the Honduran Hillsides. World Development 36 (11): 2402–2420.Google Scholar
  18. Conway, G. 2012. One Billion Hungry: Can We Feed the World? Ithace: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Conway, G., and E. B. Barbier. 1990. After the Green Revolution: Sustainable Agriculture for Development. London: Earth scan Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
  20. Cooke, P. 2010. Regional innovation systems: development opportunities from the ‘green turn’. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 22 (7): 831–844.Google Scholar
  21. Cunningham, J. A., M. Menter, and C. O’Kane. 2017. Value creation in the quadruple helix: a micro level conceptual model of principal investigators as value creators. R&D Management 48 (1): 136–147.Google Scholar
  22. Dary, O., and J. O. Mora. 2002. Food Fortification to Reduce Vitamin A Deficiency: International Vitamin A Consultative Group Recommendations. The Journal of Nutrition 132 (9): 2927S–2933S.Google Scholar
  23. Dubock, A. 2014. The present status of Golden Rice. Journal of Huazhong Agricultural University 33: 69–84.Google Scholar
  24. Duguet, A.-M., T. Wu, A. Altavilla, H. Man, and D. M. Harris. 2013. Ethics in Research with Vulnerable Populations and Emerging Countries: The Golden Rice Case. North Carolina Journal of International Law & Commercial Regulation 38: 979–1129.Google Scholar
  25. Einsiedel, E. F. 2002. Assessing a controversial medical technology: Canadian public consultations on xenotransplantation. Public Understanding of Science 11: 1–17.Google Scholar
  26. Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Building Theories from Case Study Research. The Academy of Management Review 14 (4): 532–550.Google Scholar
  27. Elzen, B., F. W. Geels, C. Leeuwis, and B. van Mierlob. 2011. Normative contestation in transitions ‘in the making’: Animal welfare concerns and system innovation in pig husbandry. Research Policy 40: 263–275.Google Scholar
  28. Emery, S. B., H. A. J. Mulder, and L. J. Frewer. 2015. Maximizing the Policy Impacts of Public Engagement: A European Study. Science, Technology, & Human Values 40 (3): 421–444.Google Scholar
  29. ETC Group. 2013. Putting the Cartel before the Horse… and Farm, Seeds, Soil, Peasants, etc. Who Will Control Agricultural Inputs, 2013? Ottawa: ETC Group Headquarters.Google Scholar
  30. Etzkowitz, H., and L. Leydesdorff. 2000. The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university—industry—government relations. Research Policy 29: 109–123.Google Scholar
  31. Etzkowitz, H., and C. Zhou. 2018. Innovation incommensurability and the science park. R&D Management 48 (1): 73–87.Google Scholar
  32. Falcon, W. P. 1970. The Green Revolution: Generations of Problems. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 52 (5): 698–710.Google Scholar
  33. Fisher, D. R., and W. R. Freudenburg. 2001. Ecological Modernization and Its Critics: Assessing the Past and Looking Toward the Future. Society and Natural Resources 14: 701–709.Google Scholar
  34. Foster, K., P. Vecchia, and M. Repacholi. 2000. Science and the Precautionary Principle. Science 288 (5468): 979–981.Google Scholar
  35. Friederichsen, R., T. T. Minh, A. Neef, and V. Hoffmann. 2013. Adapting the innovation systems approach to agricultural development in Vietnam: challenges to the public extension service. Agriculture and Human Values 30: 555–568.Google Scholar
  36. Funtowicz, S. O., and J. R. Ravetz. 1994. The worth of a songbird: ecological economics as a post-normal science. Ecological Economics 10: 197–207.Google Scholar
  37. Gamuyao, R., J. H. Chin, J. Pariasca-Tanaka, P. Pesaresi, S. Catausan, C. Dalid, I. Slamet-Loedin, E. M. Tecson-Mendoza, M. Wissuwa, and S. Heuer. 2012. The protein kinase Pstol1 from traditional rice confers tolerance of phosphorus deficiency. Nature 488: 535–541.Google Scholar
  38. Geels, F. W. 2002. Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration process: a multi-level perspective and a case-study. Research Policy 31: 1257–1274.Google Scholar
  39. Godfray, H. C. J. 2015. The debate over sustainable intensification. Food Security 7 (2): 199–208.Google Scholar
  40. Golovan, S. P., R. G. Meidinger, A. Ajakaiye, M. Cottrill, M. Z. Wiederkehr, D. J. Barney, C. Plante, J. W. Pollard, M. Z. Fan, M. A. Hayes, J. Laursen, J. P. Hjorth, R. R. Hacker, J. P. Phillips, and C. W. Forsberg. 2001. Pigs expressing salivary phytase produce low-phosphorus man. Nature Biotechnology 19: 741–745.Google Scholar
  41. Goode, W. J. 1997. Rational Choice Theory. The American Sociology 28 (2): 22–41.Google Scholar
  42. Greenpeace International. 2011. Golden rice’s lack of lustre: Addressing vitamin A deficiency without genetic engineering. Amsterdam: Greenpeace International.Google Scholar
  43. Grundel, I., and M. Dahlström. 2016. A Quadruple and Quintuple Helix Approach to Regional Innovation Systems in the Transformation to a Forestry-Based Bioeconomy. Journal of Knowledge Economy 7: 963–983.Google Scholar
  44. Hall, A., G. Bockett, S. Taylor, and M. V. K. Sivamohan. 2001. Why Research Partnership Really Matter: Innovation Theory, Institutional Arrangements and Implications for Developing New Technology for the Poor. World Development 29 (5): 783–797.Google Scholar
  45. Hinrichs, C. C. 2014. Transitions to sustainability: a change in thinking about food systems change? Agriculture and Human Values 31: 143–155.Google Scholar
  46. Holton, G. 1992. How to think about the ‘anti-science’ phenomenon. Public Understanding of Science 1 (1): 103–128.Google Scholar
  47. Hounkonnou, D., D. Kossou, T. W. Kuyper, C. Leeuwis, E. S. Nederlof, N. Röling, O. Sakyi-Dawson, M. Traoré, and A. van Huis. 2012. An innovation systems approach to institutional change: Smallholder development in West Africa. Agricultural Systems 108: 74–83.Google Scholar
  48. Humphries, S., O. Gallardo, J. Jimenez, and F. Sierra, and e. al. 2005. Linking small farmers to the formal research sector: lessons from a participatory bean breeding programmed in Honduras. AgREN Network Paper 142.Google Scholar
  49. Iatridis, K., and D. Schroeder. 2016. Responsible Research and Innovation in Industry: The Case for Corporate responsibility Tools. London: Springer.Google Scholar
  50. Joss, S., and S. Bellucci. 2002. Participatory Technology Assessment: European Perspectives. London, UK: Centre for Study of Democracy, University of Westminster.Google Scholar
  51. Kellogg Commission. 2000. Returning to Our Roots: Executive Summaries of the Reports of the Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land-Grant Universities. Washington, DC: National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges.Google Scholar
  52. Kenney, M., and D. Patton. 2009. Reconsidering the Bayh-Dole Act and the Current University Invention Ownership Model. Research Policy 38 (9): 1407–1422.Google Scholar
  53. Klerkx, L., S. van Bommel, B. Bos, H. Holster, J. V. Zwartkruis, and N. Aarts. 2012. Design process outputs as boundary objects in agricultural innovation projects: Functions and limitations. Agricultural Systems 113: 39–49.Google Scholar
  54. Koerkamp, P. W. G., and A. P. Bos. 2008. Designing complex and sustainable agricultural production systems: an integrated and reflexive approach for the case of table egg production in the Netherlands. NJAS—Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 55 (2): 113–138.Google Scholar
  55. Lacey, H. 2002. Assessing the Value of Transgenic Crops. Science and Engineering Ethics 8: 497–511.Google Scholar
  56. Lacy, W. B. 1996. Research, Extension, and User Partnerships: Models for Collaboration and Strategies for Change. Agriculture and Human Values 13 (2): 33–41.Google Scholar
  57. Leydesdorff, L. 2012. The Triple Helix, Quadruple Helix,… and an N-Tuple of Helices: Explanatory Models for Analyzing the Knowledge-Based Economy? Journal of Knowledge Economy 3: 25–35.Google Scholar
  58. Leydesdorff, L., and H. Etzkowitz. 1996. Emergence of a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations. Science and Public Policy 23 (5): 279–286.Google Scholar
  59. Leydesdorff, L., and M. Meyer. 2010. The decline of university patenting and the end of the Bayh–Dole effect. Scientometrics 83: 355–362.Google Scholar
  60. Leydesdorff, L., and J. Ward. 2005. Science shops: a kaleidoscope of science–society collaborations in Europe. Public Understanding of Science 14: 353–372.Google Scholar
  61. Lilja, N., and J. Dixon. 2008. Responding to the Challenges of Impact Assessment of Participatory Research and Gender Analysis. Experimental Agriculture 44: 3–19.Google Scholar
  62. Mahon, N., I. Crute, M. Di Bonito, E. A. Simmons, and M. M. Islam. 2018. Towards a broad-based and holistic framework of sustainable intensification indicators. Land use Policy 77: 576–597.Google Scholar
  63. MASIPAG. 2001. Grains of delusion: Golden rice seen from the ground. Laguna, Philippines: Philippine Partnership for Development Farmer-Research Scientists (MASIPAG).Google Scholar
  64. McAdam, M., and K. Debackere. 2018. Beyond ‘triple helix’ toward ‘quadruple helix’ models in regional innovation systems: implications for theory and practice. R&D Management 48 (1): 3–9.Google Scholar
  65. Meenakshi, J. V., N. L. Johnson, V. M. Manyong, H. Degroore, J. Javelosa, D. R. Yanggen, F. Naher, C. Gonzalez, J. Garcia, and E. Meng. 2010. How Cost-Effective is Biofortification in Combating Micronutrient Malnutrition? An Ex-ante Assessment. World Development 38 (1(): 64–75.Google Scholar
  66. Miller, K., R. McAdam, and M. McAdam. 2018. A systematic literature review of university technology transfer from a quadruple helix perspective: toward a research agenda. R&D Management 48 (1): 7–24.Google Scholar
  67. Morris, M. L., and M. R. Bellon. 2004. Participatory plant breeding research: Opportunities and challenges for the international crop improvement. Euphytica 136: 21–35.Google Scholar
  68. Ostrom, E. 1991. Rational Choice Theory and Institutional Analysis: Toward Complementarity. The American Political Science Review 85 (1): 237–243.Google Scholar
  69. Ostrom, E. 2010. Beyond Markets and States: Polycentric Governance of Complex Economic Systems. American Economic Review 100: 641–672.Google Scholar
  70. Owen, R., J. Stilgoe, P. Macnaghten, M. Gorman, E. Fisher, and D. Guston. 2013. A Framework for Responsible Innovation. In Responsible Innovation: managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society, 1st Edition, eds. R. Owen, J. Bessant; and M. Heintz, 27–50. London: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  71. Pant, L. P. 2016. Paradox of mainstreaming agroecology for regional and rural food security in developing countries. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 111: 305–316.Google Scholar
  72. Pant, L. P., and H. Hambly Odame. 2009. The promise of positive deviants: bridging divides between scientific research and local practices in smallholder agriculture. Knowledge Management for Development Journal 5 (2): 160–172.Google Scholar
  73. Pant, L. P., and J. Ramisch. 2010. Beyond Biodiversity: Culture in Agricultural Biodiversity Conservation in the Himalayan Foothills. In Beyond the Biophysical: Knowledge, Culture and Politics in Agriculture and Natural Resource Management, eds. L. German, J. Ramisch; and R. Verma, 73–97. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  74. Pant, L. P., K. B. KC, E. D. G. Fraser, P. K. Shrestha, A. Lama, S. K. Jirel, and P. Chaudhary. 2014. Adaptive Transition Management for Transformations to Agricultural Sustainability in the Karnali Mountains of Nepal. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 38 (10): 1156–1183.Google Scholar
  75. Parayil, G. 2003. Mapping technological trajectories of the Green Revolution and the Gene Revolution from modernization to globalization. Research Policy 32: 971–990.Google Scholar
  76. Patel, R. 2009. Grassroots voices: Food sovereignty. The Journal of Peasant Studies 36 (3): 663–706.Google Scholar
  77. Persson, E. 2016. What are the core ideas behind the Precautionary Principle? Science of the Total Environment 557–558: 134–141.Google Scholar
  78. Potrykus, I. 2010. Regulation must be revolutionized. Nature 466: 561.Google Scholar
  79. Pretty, J. 1997. The sustainable intensification of agriculture. Natural Resources Forum 21 (4): 247–256.Google Scholar
  80. Rip, A., T. Misa, and J. Schot. 1995. Managing Technology in Society: The Approach of Constructive Technology Assessment. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  81. Robaey, Z. 2016. Transferring Moral Responsibility for Technological Hazards: The Case of GMOs in Agriculture. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 29: 767–786.Google Scholar
  82. Rosendal, G. K. 2006. Balancing Access and Benefit Sharing and Legal Protection of Innovations From Bioprospecting Impacts on Conservation of Biodiversity. The Journal of Environment & Development 15 (4): 428–447.Google Scholar
  83. Sanderson, J. 2015. Who killed the EnviroPig? Assemblages, genetically engineered animals and patents. Griffith Law Review 24 (2): 244–265.Google Scholar
  84. Schot, J. 2001. Towards New Forms of Participatory Technology Development. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 13 (1): 39–52.Google Scholar
  85. Schut, M., A. van Paassen, C. Leeuwis, and L. Klerkx. 2014. Towards dynamic research configurations: A framework for reflection on the contribution of research to policy and innovation processes. Science and Public Policy 41: 207–218.Google Scholar
  86. Shapiro, H. T. 2005. A Larger Sense of Purpose: Higher Education and Society. Princeton, UAS: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  87. Sperling, L., M. E. Loevinsohn, and B. Ntabomvura. 1993. Rethinking the farmer’s role in plant breeding: local bean experts and on-station selection in Rwanda. Experimental Agriculture 29: 509–519.Google Scholar
  88. Spoelstra, S. F., P. W. G. Koerkamp, A. P. Bos, B. Elzen, and R. R. Leenstra. 2013. Innovation for sustainable egg production: realigning production with societal demands in The Netherlands. World’s Poultry Science Journal 69: 279–298.Google Scholar
  89. Stilgoe, J., R. Owen, and P. Macnaghten. 2013. Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy 42: 1568–1580.Google Scholar
  90. Stilgoe, J., S. J. Lock, and J. Wilsdon. 2014. Why should we promote public engagement with science? Public Understanding of Science 23 (1): 4–15.Google Scholar
  91. Stirling, A. 2014. Emancipating Transformation: From Controlling ‘the Transition’ to Culturing Plural Radical Progress. In The Politics of Green Transformations, eds. I. Scoones, M. Leach; and P. Newell., London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  92. Stokes, D. 1997. Pasteur’s quadrant. Washington, DC.: Brookings Institute.Google Scholar
  93. Stone, G. D., and D. Glover. 2017. Disembedding grain: Golden Rice, the Green Revolution, and heirloom seeds in the Philippines. Agriculture and Human Values 34 (1): 87–102.Google Scholar
  94. Tang, G., Y. Hu, S.-a. Yin, Y. Wang, G. E. Dallal, M. A. Grusak, and R. M. Russell. 2012. b-Carotene in Golden Rice is as good as b-carotene in oil at providing vitamin A to children. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 96: 658–664.Google Scholar
  95. Timmermann, C., and G. F. Félix. 2015. Agroecology as a vehicle for contributive justice. Agriculture and Human Values 32: 523–538.Google Scholar
  96. Timmermann, C., and Z. Robaey. 2016. Agrobiodiversity under different property regimes. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 29 (2): 285–303.Google Scholar
  97. Uphoff, N., and A. Krishna. 2004. Civil Society and Public Sector Institutions: More than a Zero-sum Relationship. Public Administration and Development 24: 357–372.Google Scholar
  98. van den Belt, H. 2014. Design for Values in Agricultural Biotechnology. In Handbook of Ethics, Values, and Technological Design, ed. J. van den Hoven, P. Vermaas, and I. van de Poel, 1–15. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  99. Vanloqueren, G. B., and V. Philippe. 2009. How agricultural research systems shape a technological regime that develops genetic engineering but locks out agroecological innovations. Research Policy 38: 971–983.Google Scholar
  100. von Schomberg, R. 2013. A Vision for Responsible Research and Innovation. In Responsible Innovation managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society, eds. R. Owen, J. Bessant; and M. Heintz, 51–73. London: Wiley.Google Scholar
  101. Whyte, W. F. 1991. Participatory Action Research. In SAGE Focus Editions. Newbury Park, California: Sage.Google Scholar
  102. Wieczorek, A. J. 2018. Sustainability transitions in developing countries: Major insights and their implications for research and policy. Environmental Science & Policy 84: 204–216.Google Scholar
  103. Williams, P. 2002. The Competent Boundary Spanner. Public Administration 80 (1): 103–124.Google Scholar
  104. Witcombe, J. R., A. Joshi, K. D. Joshi, and B. R. Sthapit. 1996. Farmer Participatory Crop Improvement: I. Varietal Selection and Breeding Methods and their impact on biodiversity. Experimental Agriculture 22: 443–460.Google Scholar
  105. Wong, C.-Y., and M. M. Salmin. 2016. Attaining a productive structure for technology: The Bayh–Dole effect on university–industry–government relations in developing economy. Science and Public Policy 43 (1): 29–45.Google Scholar
  106. Wynne, B. 2001. Creating Public Alienation: Expert Cultures of Risk and Ethics on GMOs. Science as Culture 4 (10): 445–481.Google Scholar
  107. Ye, X., S. Al-Babili, A. Kloti, J. Zhang, P. Lucca, P. Beyer, and I. Potrykus. 2000. Engineering the Provitamin A (Beta-Carotene) Biosynthetic Pathway into (Carotenoid-Free) Rice Endosperm. Science 287: 303–305.Google Scholar
  108. Yin, R. K. 2002. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Environmental Design and Rural DevelopmentUniversity of GuelphGuelphCanada

Personalised recommendations