Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Multiple Dimensions of Social Justice Affected by Agricultural Innovation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Social Justice and Agricultural Innovation

  • 218 Accesses

Abstract

This introductory chapter provides an overview of the different philosophical approaches to assessing technologies. It starts by discussing today’s great challenges for providing food in a socially and environmentally sound manner. It continues with a brief overview of the different schools of post-World War II technology assessment. After that, it introduces the six-dimensional social justice framework used in this book and provides definitions of the main concepts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) art. 25.1 “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.” The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966) art. 11 is much more explicit “1. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions. The States Parties will take appropriate steps to ensure the realization of this right, recognizing to this effect the essential importance of international co-operation based on free consent. 2. The States Parties to the present Covenant, recognizing the fundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger, shall take, individually and through international co-operation, the measures, including specific programmes, which are needed: (a) To improve methods of production, conservation and distribution of food by making full use of technical and scientific knowledge, by disseminating knowledge of the principles of nutrition and by developing or reforming agrarian systems in such a way as to achieve the most efficient development and utilization of natural resources; (b) Taking into account the problems of both food-importing and food-exporting countries, to ensure an equitable distribution of world food supplies in relation to need”.

  2. 2.

    The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966) art. 15.1 (c) “To benefit from the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author” on the protection of economic interest. Here the UN General Comment on this section specifies that the other affected rights of the Covenant and “article 15, paragraph 1 (c), is at the same time mutually reinforcing and reciprocally limitative” (UN Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights 2006, par. 5).

References

  • Altieri, Miguel A. 1989. Agroecology: A new research and development paradigm for world agriculture. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 27 (1): 37–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Altieri, Miguel A., Clara I. Nicholls, and Rene Montalba. 2017. Technological approaches to sustainable agriculture at a crossroads: An agroecological perspective. Sustainability 9 (3): 349.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asveld, Lotte, Jurgen Ganzevles, and Patricia Osseweijer. 2015. Trustworthiness and responsible research and innovation: The case of the bio-economy. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 28 (3): 571–588.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balmford, Andrew, Tatsuya Amano, Harriet Bartlett, Dave Chadwick, Adrian Collins, David Edwards, Rob Field, Philip Garnsworthy, Rhys Green, and Pete Smith. 2018. The environmental costs and benefits of high-yield farming. Nature Sustainability 1 (9): 477–485.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, Ulrich. 1986. Risikogesellschaft: Auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beekman, Volkert. 2004. Sustainable development and future generations. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 17 (1): 3–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bongiovanni, Rodolfo, and Jess Lowenberg-DeBoer. 2004. Precision agriculture and sustainability. Precision Agriculture 5 (4): 359–387.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borlaug, Norman E. 2007. Sixty-two years of fighting hunger: Personal recollections. Euphytica 157 (3): 287–297.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bragdon, Susan H. 2016. Reinvigorating the public sector: The case of food security, small-scale farmers, trade and intellectual property rules. Development 59 (3–4): 280–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Britz, Johannes J., and Tomas A. Lipinski. 2001. Indigenous knowledge: A moral reflection on current legal concepts of intellectual property. Libri 51 (4): 234–246. https://doi.org/10.1515/libr.2001.234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, Allen, Tony Cole, and Robert O. Keohane. 2011. Justice in the diffusion of innovation. Journal of Political Philosophy 19 (3): 306–332. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9760.2009.00348.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Canavan, Chelsey R., Ramadhani A. Noor, Christopher D. Golden, Calestous Juma, and Wafaie Fawzi. 2017. Sustainable food systems for optimal planetary health. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 111 (6): 238–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, La Shun L. 2017. A comprehensive definition of technology from an ethological perspective. Social Sciences 6 (4): 126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clague, Julie. 2006. “Patent Injustice”: Applying Sen’s capability approach to biotechnologies. In Transforming unjust structures the capability approach, ed. Séverine Deneulin, Mathias Nebel, and Nicholas Sagovsky, 177–196. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cline, William R. 2007. Global warming and agriculture: Impact estimates by country. Washington, DC: Center for Global Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • COMEST. 2015. Ethical Perspective on science, technology and society: A contribution to the post-2015 Agenda. Paris: UNESCO & COMEST.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coolsaet, Brendan. 2016. Towards an agroecology of knowledges: Recognition, cognitive justice and farmers’ autonomy in France. Journal of Rural Studies 47: 165–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Jonge, Bram. 2009. Plants, genes and justice: An inquiry into fair and equitable benefit-sharing. Ph.D. diss., Applied Philosophy Group, Wageningen University.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Schutter, Olivier. 2009a. International trade in agriculture and the right to food. Geneva: Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Schutter, Olivier. 2009b. Seed policies and the right to food: enhancing agrobiodiversity and encouraging innovation (Report presented to the UN General Assembly, 64th session, UN doc. A/64/170). New York: United Nations.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Schutter, Olivier. 2017. The political economy of food systems reform. European Review of Agricultural Economics 44 (4): 705–731.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Winter, Jan. 2012. How to make the research agenda in the health sciences less distorted. THEORIA. Revista de Teoría, Historia y Fundamentos de la Ciencia 27 (1): 75–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeCamp, Matthew Wayne. 2007. Global health: A normative analysis of intellectual property rights and global distributive justice. Ph.D. diss., Department of Philosophy, Duke University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doran, Elizabeth M.B., Jay S. Golden, and B.L. Turner. 2017. From basic research to applied solutions: are two approaches to sustainability science emerging? Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 29: 138–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drahos, Peter, and John Braithwaite. 2001. Intellectual property, corporate strategy, globalisation: TRIPS in context. Wisconsin International Law Journal 20: 451–480.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drahos, Peter, and John Braithwaite. 2003. Information feudalism: Who owns the knowledge economy?. New York: New Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drugs for Neglected Diseases Working Group. 2001. Fatal Imbalance: The Crisis in Research and Development for Drugs for Neglected Diseases. Geneva: Médecins Sans Frontières.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dumitru, Speranta. 2008. Are Rawlsians entitled to monopoly rights? In Intellectual Property and Theories of Justice, edited by Axel Gosseries, Alain Strowel and Alain Marciano, 57–72. Houndmills & New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eastwood, Callum, Laurens Klerkx, Margaret Ayre, and Brian Dela Rue. 2019. “Managing socio-ethical challenges in the development of smart farming: from a fragmented to a comprehensive approach for responsible research and innovation.” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics32: 741–768.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberg, Rebecca S., and Richard R. Nelson. 2002. Public vs. proprietary science: A fruitful tension? Daedalus 131 (2): 89–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fernández Pinto, Manuela. 2015. Commercialization and the limits of well-ordered science. Perspectives on Science 23 (2): 173–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Figueroa, Robert, and Claudia Mills. 2001. Environmental justice. In A companion to environmental philosophy, edited by Dale Jamieson, 426–438. Malden & Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franssen, Maarten, Gert-Jan Lokhorst, and Ibo van de Poel. 2018. Philosophy of Technology. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2018 Edition), edited by Edward N. Zalta.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, Nancy. 1998. Social justice in the age of identity politics: Redistribution, recognition, and participation. In The tanner lectures of human values, ed. Grethe B. Peterson, 1–67. Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gault, Fred. 2012. User innovation and the market. Science and Public Policy 39: 118–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gebbers, Robin, and Viacheslav I. Adamchuk. 2010. Precision agriculture and food security. Science 327 (5967): 828–831.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glennie, Charlotte, and Alison Hope Alkon. 2018. Food justice: Cultivating the field. Environmental Research Letters 13 (7): 073003.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gliessman, Stephen R. 2007. Agroecology: The ecology of sustainable food systems. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Godin, Benoît. 2015. Innovation contested: The idea of innovation over the centuries. New York & Oxon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goeschl, Timo, and Timothy Swanson. 2003. Pests, plagues, and patents. Journal of the European Economic Association 1 (2–3): 561–575.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gomberg, Paul. 2007. How to make opportunity equal. New York: Wiley Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gosseries, Axel, Alain Marciano, and Alain Strowel (eds.). 2008. Intellectual property and theories of justice. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grunwald, Armin. 2009. Technology assessment: Concepts and methods. In Philosophy of Technology and Engineering Sciences, edited by Anthonie Meijers, 1103–1146. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halpert, Madeleine-Thérèse, and M Jahi Chappell. 2017. Prima facie reasons to question enclosed intellectual property regimes and favor open-source regimes for germplasm. F1000Research 6:284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, Neil D. 2008. Feeding the world’s future: Agrarian justice and the rule of law. Drake Journal of Agricultural Law 13: 545–560.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hassoun, Nicole. 2016. Individual responsibility for promoting global health: The case for a new kind of socially conscious consumption. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 44 (2): 319–331.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hicks, Daniel J. 2017. Genetically modified crops, inclusion, and democracy. Perspectives on Science 25 (4): 488–520.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinsch, Wilfried. 2001. Global distributive justice. Metaphilosophy 32 (1–2): 58–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollis, Aidan, and Thomas W. Pogge. 2008. The health impact fund: Making new medicines accessible for all. In Oslo & New Haven: Incentives for Global Health. http://www.healthimpactfund.org/hif_book.pdf. Accessed 31 March 2012.

  • Holt-Giménez, Eric. 2002. Measuring farmers’ agroecological resistance after Hurricane Mitch in Nicaragua: a case study in participatory, sustainable land management impact monitoring. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 93 (1–3): 87–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoyningen-Huene, Paul. 2008. Systematicity: The nature of science. Philosophia 36 (2): 167–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • ICSU Study Group on Science and Traditional Knowledge. 2002. Science and Traditional Knowledge: Report from the ICSU Study Group on Science and Traditional Knowledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • IPBES. 2019. Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Bonn: IPBES secretariat.

    Google Scholar 

  • James, Aaron. 2012. Fairness in practice: A social contract for a global economy. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jefferson, Richard A. 2006. Science as social enterprise: The CAMBIA BiOS initiative. Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization 1 (4): 13–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, Kirsten. 2018. Setting energy justice apart from the crowd: Lessons from environmental and climate justice. Energy Research & Social Science 39: 117–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, Kirsten, Darren McCauley, Raphael Heffron, Hannes Stephan, and Robert Rehner. 2016. Energy justice: A conceptual review. Energy Research & Social Science 11: 174–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonas, Hans. 1979. Das Prinzip Verantwortung: Versuch einer Ethik für die technologische Zivilisation. Frankfurt am Main: Insel-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaebnick, Gregory E. 2007. Putting concerns about nature in context: The case of agricultural biotechnology. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 50 (4): 572–584.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klerkx, Laurens, Barbara Van Mierlo, and Cees Leeuwis. 2012. Evolution of systems approaches to agricultural innovation: Concepts, analysis and interventions. In Farming Systems Research into the 21st century: The new dynamic, ed. Ika Darnhofer, David Gibbon, and Benoît Dedieu, 457–483. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kloppenburg, Jack. 2005. First the seed: The political economy of plant biotechnology, 2nd ed. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koepsell, David. 2010. Back to basics: How technology and the open source movement can save science. Social Epistemology 24 (3): 181–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koepsell, David. 2016. Scientific integrity and research ethics: An approach from the ethos of science. Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lacey, Hugh. 2012. Reflections on science and technoscience. Scientiae studia 10 (SPE): 103–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lappé, Frances Moore, Jennifer Clapp, Molly Anderson, Robin Broad, Ellen Messer, Thomas Pogge, and Timothy Wise. 2013. How we count hunger matters. Ethics & International Affairs 27 (03): 251–259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lemley, Mark A. 2012. The myth of the sole inventor. Michigan Law Review, 709–760.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leopold, Aldo. 1949. A Sand County almanac: Sketches here and there. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lever, Annabelle (ed.). 2012. New frontiers in the philosophy of intellectual property. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linares Salgado, Jorge. 2013. “Valoración social del riesgo tecnocientífico controversias sobre el desarrollo y la innovación.” In Aproximaciones a la filosofía política de la ciencia, edited by Carlos López-Beltrán and Ambrosio Velasco Gómez, 489–508. Mexico, DF: Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lolas, Fernando (ed.). 2006. Ética e innovación tecnológica. Santiago: Centro Interdisciplinario de Estudios en Bioética.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lolas, Fernando. 2014. Ética y conducta alimentaria: la obesidad y sus desafíos. O Mundo da Saúde 38 (3): 349–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loo, Clement. 2014. Towards a more participative definition of food justice. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 27 (5): 787–809.

    Google Scholar 

  • Louwaars, Niels, Bram De Jonge, and Peter Munyi. 2013. Intellectual property rights in the plant sciences and development goals in agriculture: An historical perspective. In Knowledge Management and Intellectual Property, edited by Stathis Arapostathis and Graham Dutfield, 252–272. Cheltenham & Northampton: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Love, James, and Tim Hubbard. 2007. The big idea: Prizes to stimulate R&D for new medicines. Chicago-Kent Law Review 82 (3): 1519–1554.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macnaghten, Phil, Richard Owen, Jack Stilgoe, A. Brian Wynne, A.De Azevedo, Jason Chilvers Campos, R. Dagnino, G. Di Giulio, and Emma Frow. 2014. Responsible innovation across borders: tensions, paradoxes and possibilities. Journal of Responsible Innovation 1 (2): 191–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazloumian, Amin, Dirk Helbing, Sergi Lozano, Robert P. Light, and Katy Börner. 2013. Global multi-level analysis of the ‘Scientific Food Web. Science Reports 3 (1167). https://doi.org/10.1038/srep01167.

  • Mazoyer, Marcel, and Laurence Roudart. 2006. A history of world agriculture: From the neolithic age to the current crisis. New York: Monthy Review Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McIntyre, Beverly D., Hans R. Herren, Judi Wakhungu, and Robert T. Watson. 2009. International assessment of agricultural knowledge, science and technology for development (IAASTD): synthesis report with executive summary: A synthesis of the global and sub-global IAASTD reports. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McMichael, Anthony. 2017. Climate change and the health of nations: Famines, fevers, and the fate of populations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • El Mujtar, Veronica, Nacira Muñoz, Barbara Prack Mc Cormick, Mirjam Pulleman, and Pablo Tittonell. 2019. Role and management of soil biodiversity for food security and nutrition; where do we stand? Global Food Security 20: 132–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milanovic, Branko. 2011. Worlds apart: Measuring international and global inequality: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicholls, Clara I, and Miguel A Altieri. 2018. Caminos para la amplificación de la agroecología. Medellín: Centro Latinoamericano de Investigaciones Agroecológicas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nyéléni Forum for Food Sovereignty. 2007. Declaration of Nyéléni. Sélingue: Nyéléni Forum for Food Sovereignty.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ooms, Gorik. 2010. Why the West is perceived as being unworthy of cooperation. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 38 (3): 594–613. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-720X.2010.00514.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Outterson, Kevin. 2014. New business models for sustainable antibiotics. In Centre on Global health Security Working Group Papers, Working Groups on Antimicrobial Resistance, Paper 1. London: Chatham House (The Royal Institute of International Affairs).

    Google Scholar 

  • Owen, Richard, Phil Macnaghten, and Jack Stilgoe. 2012. Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society. Science and public policy 39 (6): 751–760.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paine, Thomas. 1797. “Agrarian justice.” Baltimore: Social Security Administration. https://www.ssa.gov/history/paine4.html.

  • Pant, Laxmi Prasad. 2019. Responsible innovation through conscious contestation at the interface of agricultural science, policy, and civil society. Agriculture and Human Values 36: 183–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papaioannou, Theo. 2018. Inclusive innovation for development: meeting the demands of justice through public action. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patel, Raj, and Jason W. Moore. 2017. A history of the world in seven cheap things: A guide to capitalism, nature, and the future of the planet. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patterson, James J., Thomas Thaler, Matthew Hoffmann, Sara Hughes, Angela Oels, Eric Chu, Aysem Mert, Dave Huitema, Sarah Burch, and Andy Jordan. 2018. Political feasibility of 1.5 C societal transformations: The role of social justice. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 31: 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pesch, Udo, Aad Correljé, Eefje Cuppen, and Behnam Taebi. 2017. Energy justice and controversies: Formal and informal assessment in energy projects. Energy Policy 109: 825–834.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piketty, Thomas. 2014. El capital en el siglo XXI. Mexico, DF: Fondo de Cultura Económica.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pogge, Thomas W. 2008. World poverty and human rights: Cosmopolitan responsibilities and reforms. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popp, József, Károly Pető, and János Nagy. 2013. Pesticide productivity and food security. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 33 (1): 243–255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pretty, Jules. 2008. Agricultural sustainability: Concepts, principles and evidence. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 363 (1491): 447–465.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ravn, Tine, Mathias Wullum Nielsen, and Niels Mejlgaard. 2015. Metrics and Indicators of Responsible Research and Innovation: Progress report D3.2. Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiss, Julian. 2010. In favour of a Millian proposal to reform biomedical research. Synthese 177: 427–447.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnik, David B. 2009. International standards for research integrity: An idea whose time has come? Accountability in research 16 (4): 218–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richards, Paul. 1993. Cultivation: Knowledge or performance? In An anthropological critique of development: The growth of ignorance, ed. Mark Hobart, 73–90. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rip, Arie. 2014. The past and future of RRI. Life sciences, society and policy 10: 17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robaey, Zoë, and Cristian Timmermann. 2018. Fair agricultural innovation for a changing climate. In Food Justice, the Environment, and Climate Change, edited by Erinn Cunniff Gilson and Sarah Kenehan, 213–230. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodney, Walter. 1972. How Europe underdeveloped Africa. London: Bogle-L’Ouverture Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Röling, Niels. 2009. Pathways for impact: Scientists’ different perspectives on agricultural innovation. International journal of agricultural sustainability 7 (2): 83–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosset, Peter M., and Miguel A. Altieri. 1997. Agroecology versus input substitution: A fundamental contradiction of sustainable agriculture. Society & Natural Resources 10 (3): 283–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruger, Jennifer Prah. 2015. Governing for the common good. Health Care Analysis 23 (4): 341–351.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlosberg, David, and David Carruthers. 2010. Indigenous struggles, environmental justice, and community capabilities. Global Environmental Politics 10 (4): 12–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Schomberg, René. 2012. Prospects for technology assessment in a framework of responsible research and innovation. In Technikfolgen abschätzen lehren, ed. Marc Dusseldorp and Richard Beecroft, 39–61. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Schomberg, René. 2015. Responsible innovation: The new paradigm for science, technology and innovation policy. In Responsible Innovation: Neue Impulse für die Technikfolgenabschätzung, ed. A. Bogner, M. Decker, and M. Sotoudeh, 47–70. Nomos: Baden-Baden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schroeder, Doris, and Balakrishna Pisupati. 2010. Ethics, justice and the convention on biological diversity. Nairobi: United Nations Environmental Program.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen, Amartya. 1981. Poverty and famines. An essay on entitlement and deprivation. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shrader-Frechette, Kristin. 2002. Environmental justice: Creating equality, reclaiming democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shue, Henry. 1996. Basic rights: subsistance, affluence, and U.S. foreign policy, 2nd ed. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siipi, Helena. 2008. Dimensions of naturalness. Ethics and the Environment 13 (1): 71–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Springmann, Marco, Michael Clark, Daniel Mason-D’Croz, Keith Wiebe, Benjamin Leon Bodirsky, Luis Lassaletta, Wim de Vries, Sonja J Vermeulen, Mario Herrero, and Kimberly M Carlson. 2018. Options for keeping the food system within environmental limits. Nature 562: 519–525.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stilgoe, Jack, Richard Owen, and Phil Macnaghten. 2013. Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy 42 (9): 1568–1580.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sunder, Madhavi. 2012. From Goods to a Good Life: Intellectual Property and Global Justice: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, Paul B. 2017. The spirit of the soil: Agriculture and environmental ethics. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tierney, William G., and Karri A. Holley. 2008. Inside Pasteur’s quadrant: knowledge production in a profession. Educational Studies 34 (4): 289–297.

    Google Scholar 

  • Timmermann, Cristian. 2013. Life sciences, intellectual property regimes and global justice. Ph.D. diss., Philosophy Group, Wageningen University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Timmermann, Cristian. 2014a. An assessment of prominent proposals to amend intellectual property regimes using a human rights framework. La Propiedad Inmaterial 18: 221–253.

    Google Scholar 

  • Timmermann, Cristian. 2014b. Sharing in or benefiting from scientific advancement? Science and Engineering Ethics 20 (1): 111–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Timmermann, Cristian. 2018. Contributive justice: An exploration of a wider provision of meaningful work. Social Justice Research 31 (1): 85–111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-017-0293-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Timmermann, Cristian, Georges F. Félix, and Pablo Tittonell. 2018. Food sovereignty and consumer sovereignty: Two antagonistic goals? Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 42 (3): 274–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2017.1359807.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Timmermann, Cristian, and Zoë Robaey. 2016. Agrobiodiversity under different property regimes. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 29 (2): 285–303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-016-9602-2.

  • Tittonell, Pablo. 2013. Farming systems ecology: Towards ecological intensification of world agriculture. Wageningen: Wageningen Universiteit.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tittonell, Pablo. 2016. Feeding the world with soil science: embracing sustainability, complexity and uncertainty. SOIL Discuss. https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-2016-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tittonell, Pablo, Laurens Klerkx, Frederic Baudron, Georges F. Félix, Andrea Ruggia, Dirk van Apeldoorn, Santiago Dogliotti, Paul Mapfumo, and Walter A.H. Rossing. 2016. Ecological intensification: local innovation to address global challenges. Sustainable Agriculture Reviews 19: 1–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torrance, Andrew W., and Eric von Hippel. 2015. The right to innovate. Michigan State Law Review 2015 (2): 793–829.

    Google Scholar 

  • UN Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights. 1999. General Comment No. 12. The right to adequate food (article 11) (E/C.12/1999/5). Geneva: United Nations Economic and Social Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • UN Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights. 2006. General Comment No. 17: The Right of Everyone to Benefit from the Protection of the Moral and Material Interests Resulting from any Scientific, Literary or Artistic Production of Which He or She is the Author (Art. 15, Para. 1 (c) of the Covenant, E/C.12/GC/17). Geneva: United Nations Economic and Social Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • van den Belt, Henk. 2010. Robert Merton, Intellectual Property, and Open Science. In The commodification of academic research: Science and the modern university, ed. Hans Radder, 187–230. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Est, Rinie, Bart Walhout, and Frans Brom. 2012. Risk and technology assessment. In Handbook of risk theory: Epistemology, decision theory, ethics, and social implications of risk, ed. Sabine Roeser, Rafaela Hillerbrand, Per Sandin, and Martin Peterson, 1067–1091. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Haperen, P.F., B. Gremmen, and J. Jacobs. 2012. Reconstruction of the ethical debate on naturalness in discussions about plant-biotechnology. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 25 (6): 797–812.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanloqueren, Gaëtan, and Philippe V. Baret. 2009. How agricultural research systems shape a technological regime that develops genetic engineering but locks out agroecological innovations. Research Policy 38 (6): 971–983.

    Google Scholar 

  • Via Campesina. 1996. The right to produce and access land. Rome: Via Campesina.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wezel, Alexander, Stéphane Bellon, Thierry Doré, Charles Francis, Dominique Vallod, and Christophe David. 2009. Agroecology as a science, a movement and a practice. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 29 (4): 503–515.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, Justine M., and Eric Holt-Giménez. 2017. Land justice: Re-imagining land, food, and the commons. Oakland: Food First Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wise, Timothy A. 2019. Eating tomorrow: agribusiness, family farmers, and the battle for the future of food. New York: The New Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wynberg, Rachel, Doris Schroeder, and Roger Chennells (eds.). 2009. Indigenous peoples, consent and benefit sharing: Lessons from the San-Hoodia case. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ziegler, Jean. 2011. Destruction massive: Géopolitique de la faim. Paris: Seuil.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zwart, Hub, Laurens Landeweerd, and Arjan van Rooij. 2014. Adapt or perish? Assessing the recent shift in the European research funding arena from ‘ELSA’to ‘RRI’. Life Sciences, Society and Policy 10: 11.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Interdisciplinary Center for Studies in Bioethics, University of Chile, Santiago, Chile

    Cristian Timmermann

Authors
  1. Cristian Timmermann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cristian Timmermann .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Timmermann, C. (2020). The Multiple Dimensions of Social Justice Affected by Agricultural Innovation. In: Social Justice and Agricultural Innovation. The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics, vol 31. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56193-2_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation