Advertisement

Technologies of Governance: Science, State and Citizen in Visions of the Bioeconomy

  • Tess Doezema
  • J. Benjamin Hurlbut
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter examines visions of the bioeconomy , exploring how these visions construct biotechnological innovation as urgently necessary to guard against a host of global-scale risks, and as reflecting and requiring particular relationships between science , state and citizen. The chapter argues that such visions of the bioeconomy reflect an imaginary of innovation -as-governance wherein technoscience is positioned the primary agent capable of enhancing social wellbeing, with corresponding requirements for the state to facilitate this function. The chapter analyzes bioeconomy strategies published by the United States and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD ) together with FDA regulation of AquAdvantage Salmon to illustrate how this imaginary informs both political agendas and regulatory practices, including the manner in which public ambivalence to biotechnology is negotiated in these contexts.

References

  1. Aquabounty. (2017). Retrieved May 2, 2017, from http://www.aquabounty.com.
  2. Bakker, K. (2010). The limits of ‘neoliberal natures’: Debating green neoliberalism. Progress in Human Geography, 34(6), 715–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Birch, K., & Tyfield, D. (2013). Theorizing the bioeconomy biovalue, biocapital, bioeconomics or… What? Science, Technology & Human Values, 38(3), 299–327.Google Scholar
  4. Cahill, D. (2011). Beyond neoliberalism? Crisis and the prospects for progressive alternatives. New Political Science, 33(4), 479–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Campbell, H. (2016). GMO salmon needed to feed the world. San Diego Union-Tribune. Retrieved August 7, 2016, from http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2016/jun/22/agriculture-gmo-salmon/.
  6. Carpenter, D. (2010). Reputation and power: Organizational image and pharmaceutical regulation at the FDA. Princeton studies in American politics: Historical, international, and comparative perspectives (1st ed.). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Committee on a New Biology for the 21st Century: Ensuring the United States Leads the Coming Biology Revolution; National Research Council. (2009). A new biology for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  8. Entine, J. (2015). Why we oppose GMO labeling: Science and the law. Huffington Post. Retrieved August 7, 2016, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-entine/gmo-labeling-science-and-_b_8871680.html.
  9. Felt, U., & Wynne, B. (2007). Taking European knowledge society seriously: Report of the expertgroup on science and governance to the science, economy and society directorate, directorate-general for research, European commission. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  10. Goven, J., & Pavone, V. (2015). The bioeconomy as political project: A polanyian analysis. Science, Technology and Human Values, 40(3), 302–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hansen, M. (2010). Comments of consumers union on genetically engineered salmon, food and drug administration docket no. FDA-201034-N-0001, Veterinary Medicine Advisory Committee Meeting. Consumers Union. Retrieved August 7, 2016, from http://consumersunion.org/pdf/CU-comments-GE-salmon-0910.pdf.
  12. Hilgartner, S. (2015). Capturing the imaginary. Science and Democracy: Making Knowledge and Making Power in the Biosciences and Beyond. Abingdon: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  13. Hurlbut, J. B. (2016). Promising waste: Biobanking, embryo research, and infrastructures of ethical efficiency. Monash Bioethics Review, 33(4), 301–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hurlbut, J. B. (2017). Experiments in democracy: Human embryo research and the politics of bioethics. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Institute For Fisheries Resources et al., & V. Sylvia Mathews Burwell et al. (2016). Case no. 16-Cv-01574-Vc, United States District Court for the Northern District of California.Google Scholar
  16. Jasanoff, S. (1999). The songlines of risk. Environmental Values, 8, 135–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jasanoff, S. (2005). Designs on nature: Science and democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Jasanoff, S. (2011). Making the facts of life. In S. Jasanoff (Ed.), Reframing rights: Bioconstitutionalism in the genetic age (pp. 59–84). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. Jasanoff, S. (2012). Taking life: Private rights in public nature. In K. Sunder Rajan (Ed.), Lively capital: Biotechnologies, ethics, and governance in global markets (pp. 155–183). Durham: Duke University Press Books.Google Scholar
  20. Jasanoff, S., & Kim, S. H. (Eds.). (2015). Dreamscapes of modernity: Sociotechnical imaginaries and the fabrication of power. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  21. Juma, C. (2016). Innovation and its enemies: Why people resist new technologies. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Kennedy, D. (2016). A world of struggle: How power, law, and expertise shape global political economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Letter to President Obama. (2014). Retrieved August 7, 2016, from www.ftrw.org/scientist_executive_letter_to_president_obama_on_biotechnology.docx.
  24. Levidow, L., & Carr, S. (1997). How biotechnology regulation sets a risk/ethics boundary. Agriculture and Human Values, 14(1), 29–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Levidow, L., & Carr, S. (2000). Normalizing novelty: Regulating biotechnological risk at the US EPA. Risk, 11, 9.Google Scholar
  26. Miller, H. (2015). How the genetically engineered salmon floundered in regulatory limbo for 20 Years. Forbes. Retrieved September 28, 2016, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2015/11/20/how-the-genetically-engineered-salmon-floundered-in-regulatory-limbo/#70d2fb6e3c59.
  27. Mirowski, P., & Plehwe, D. (2009). The road from Mont Pelerin. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  28. OECD. (2009). The bioeconomy to 2030: Designing a policy agenda.Google Scholar
  29. Pollack, A. (2010). Panel leans in favor of engineered salmon. New York Times. Retrieved September 28, 2016, from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/21/business/energy-environment/21salmon.html.
  30. Pollack, A. (2015). Genetically engineered salmon approved for consumption. New York Times. Retrieved September 28, 2016, from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/20/business/genetically-engineered-salmon-approved-for-consumption.html?_r=0.
  31. Sunder Rajan, K. (2012). Lively capital: Biotechnologies, ethics, and governance in global markets. Durham: Duke University Press Books.Google Scholar
  32. Sample, I. (2010, May 20). Synthetic life breakthrough could be worth over a trillion dollars. The Guardian. Retrieved August 7, 2016, from https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/may/20/craig-venter-synthetic-life-genome.
  33. Sentenac, H. (2014). GM salmon: Will supermarket wariness sabotoge rollout of first genetically engineered animal? Generic Literacy Project. Retrieved August 4, 2016, from https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/03/12/gm-salmon-how-much-can-one-product-overcome/.
  34. Slaughter, A.-M. (2005). A new world order. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Staffas, L., Gustavsson, M., & McCormick, K. (2013). Strategies and policies for the bioeconomy and bio-based economy: An analysis of official national approaches. Sustainability, 5(6), 2751–2769.Google Scholar
  36. Thompson, P. B. (2003). Value judgments and risk comparisons. The case of genetically engineered crops. Plant Physiology, 132(1), 10–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. United States Food and Drug Administration. (2010). FDA Response to Public Comments to the Veterinary Medicine Advisory Committee. Retrieved May 1, 2017, from https://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/GeneticEngineering/GeneticallyEngineeredAnimals/ucm466221.htm.
  38. United States Food and Drug Administration. (2012). AquAdvantage Salmon Draft Environmental Assessment.Google Scholar
  39. United States Food and Drug Administration. (2015a). FDA has determined that the aquadvantage salmon is as safe to eat as non-GE salmon. Retrieved August 7, 2016, from http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm472487.htm.
  40. United States Food and Drug Administration. (2015b). Aquadvantage salmon—Response to public comments on the environmental assessment. Retrieved August 7, 2016, from http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/GeneticEngineering/GeneticallyEngineeredAnimals/ucm280853.htm.
  41. White House. (2012). National bioeconomy blueprint.Google Scholar
  42. Winickoff, D., Jasanoff, S., Busch, L., Grove-White, R., & Wynne, B. (2005). Adjudicating the GM food wars: Science, risk, and democracy in world trade law. Yale Journal of International Law, 30(81), 81–123.Google Scholar
  43. Wynne, B. (2001). Creating public alienation: Expert cultures of risk and ethics on GMOs. Science as Culture, 10(4), 445–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wynne, B. (2007). Public participation in science and technology: Performing and obscuring apolitical–conceptual category mistake. East Asian Science, Technology and Society: An International Journal, 1, 99–110.Google Scholar
  45. Zohar, Y. (2010). Genetically modified salmon can feed the world. CNN. Retrieved September 28, 2016, from http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/09/22/zohar.genetically.engineered.salmon/.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tess Doezema
    • 1
  • J. Benjamin Hurlbut
    • 1
  1. 1.School for the Future of Innovation in Society & School of Life SciencesArizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations