Globalizing Technologies: Geopolitical Innovation in the U.S. Bioeconomy

  • Tess DoezemaEmail author
Part of the Technikzukünfte, Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft / Futures of Technology, Science and Society book series (TEWG)


This chapter examines how U.S.-based visions of biotechnological potential, undergirded by narratives of biological and economic progress, contribute to shaping technological innovation, policy, and politics at the international level. The invocation of “science-based” markets and policies is put to work in diverse instances to create conditions of potentiality for a particular vision of future good—the bioeconomy. The chapter discusses techniques for the creation of international markets for biotechnologies, as well as the modes of measurement and obfuscation leveraged in their validation and discursive construction as universally beneficial, placeless, and disembodied technologies.



Many thanks to Ben Hurlbut for guidance and careful reading of early drafts of this chapter, and to the editors of this collection for their insightful comments.


  1. Beck, U. (2009). World at risk. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  2. Birch, K. (2006). The neoliberal underpinnings of the bioeconomy: The ideological discourses and practices of economic competitiveness. Genomics, Society and Policy, 2(3), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Birch, K., & Tyfield, D. (2013). Theorizing the bioeconomy: Biovalue, biocapital, bioeconomics or what? Science. Technology & Human Values, 38(3), 299–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carlson, R. (2007). Laying the foundations for a bio-economy. Systems and Synthetic Biology, 1(3), 109–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Consulate Hong Kong. (2008). Funding request for FY2008 biotechnology outreach and capacity building in Hong Kong. WikiLeaks Public Library of US Diplomacy. Accessed 29 Jan 2008.
  6. Cooper, M. (2008). Life as surplus: Biotechnology and capitalism in the neoliberal era. Seattle: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
  7. Embassy Ankara. (2005). Senior biotech advisor’s meetings with Turkish officials and agribusiness. WikiLeaks Public Library of US Diplomacy. Accessed 15 Feb 2005.
  8. Embassy Bratislava. (2009). BT corn acreage increases despite administrative and commercial obstacles. WikiLeaks Public Library of US Diplomacy. Accessed 8 Jan 2009.
  9. Embassy Cairo. (2006). Senior advisor for agricultural biotechnology advocates science-based regulatory framework in Egypt and Middle East. WikiLeaks Public Library of US Diplomacy. Accessed 10 Apr 2006.
  10. Epstein, S. (1996). Impure science: AIDS, activism, and the politics of knowledge. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  11. European Commission. (2012). Innovating for sustainable growth: A bioeconomy for Europe. 13.2.2012 COM(2012) 60 final. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  12. Gieryn, T. F. (1983). Boundary-aork and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review, 48(6), 781–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goven, J., & Pavone, V. (2015). The bioeconomy as political project: A Polanyian analysis. Science, Technology and Human Values, 40(3), 302–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hecht, G. (1994). Political designs: Nuclear reactors and national policy in postwar France. Technology and Culture, 35(4), 657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hilgartner, S. (2007). Making the bioeconomy measurable: Politics of an emerging anticipatory machinery. BioSocieties, 2(3), 382–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hurlbut, J. B. (2018). Laws of containment: Control without limits in the new biology. In I. Braverman (Ed.), Gene editing, law, and the environment: Life beyond the human (pp. 77–94). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Institute for Fisheries Resources et al., & V. S. M. Burwell et al. (2016). Case 3:2016cv01574, March 30, 2016, California Northern District Court. San Francisco: San Francisco Office.
  18. Jasanoff, S. (1990). The fifth branch: Science advisers as policymakers. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Jasanoff, S. (2005). Designs on nature: Science and democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jasanoff, S. (2012). Taking life: Private rights in public nature. In K. S. Rajan (Ed.), Lively capital: Biotechnologies, ethics, and governance in global markets (pp. 155–183). Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Jasanoff, S., & Kim, S.-H. (2015). Dreamscapes of modernity: Sociotechnical imaginaries and the fabrication of power. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Juma, C. (2016). Innovation and its enemies: Why people resist new technologies. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Letter to President Obama, Roberts, R. J., Van Eenennaam, A., Juma, C., Walton, M., Beachy, R., Carlson, D., Giddings, E. V., & Pommer, J., et al. (2014). Scientist executive letter to President Obama on biotechnology. Accessed 17 Sept 2014.
  24. Miller, C. (2015). Globalizing security: Science and the transformation of contemporary political imagination. In S. Jasanoff & S.-H. Kim (Eds.), Dreamscapes of modernity: Sociotechnical imaginaries and the fabrication of power (pp. 277–299). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  25. Obama, B. (2015). United States, State of the Union Address. Remarks by the President in State of the Union Address/January 20, 2015.
  26. Obama, B. (2016). United States, State of the Union Address. Remarks of President Barack Obama-State of the Union Address as delivered/January 13, 2016.
  27. OECD. (2009). Bioeconomy to 2030: Designing a policy agenda.
  28. Rajan, K. S. (2006). Biocapital: The constitution of postgenomic life. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Smith-Spark, L., & Hanna, J. (22 Apr 2017). March for science: Protesters gather worldwide to support “evidence.” CNN.
  30. Specter, M. (2009). Denialism: How irrational thinking hinders scientific progress, harms the planet, and threatens our lives. London: Penguin Press.Google Scholar
  31. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Towers, L. (2016). AquaBounty starts AquAdvantage Salmon trials in Brazil, Argentina. Accessed 4 Feb 2018.
  33. United States Food and Drug Administration. (2012). AquAdvantage Salmon draft environmental assessment. Accessed 4 May 2012.
  34. United States Food and Drug Administration. (2015). AquAdvantage Salmon-Response to public comments on the environmental assessment. Accessed 7 Aug 2016.
  35. United States Secretary of State. (2007). FY 2008 biotechnology outreach strategy and department resources. WikiLeaks Public Library of US Diplomacy. Accessed 27 Nov 2007.
  36. House, White. (2012). National bioeconomy blueprint, April 2012. Industrial Biotechnology, 8(3), 97–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School for the Future of Innovation in SocietyArizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations