Progress in Crisis, Genetic Engineering and Philosophy of Technology

  • N. Dane Scott
Part of the The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics book series (LEAF, volume 28)


This chapter sets the stage for the rest of the book by characterizing central themes and ideas: the narrative of progress, technological optimism, technological pessimism, and precautionary ethics. The chapter begins by developing the idea that the polarized debate over genetic engineering in agriculture is at least in part the result of a narrative crisis created by a clash between technological optimism and technological pessimism. The ultimate goal of the book is to investigate possibilities for moving beyond the current polarized debate over genetic engineering. This chapter aims to start the process of identifying obstacles to, and possibilities for moving beyond the current narrative crisis and to develop a narrative of sustainabilty. To that end, the chapter investigates and identifies hindrances to research and development in agricultural biotechnology from making greater contributions to creating more just and sustainable societies. I identify three obstacles: (1) costly and time-consuming precautionary regulations, (2) market failures in the private sector and (3) limited public sector funding for social-goods research. Chapter  2 will explore ideas for moving beyond these three obstacles.


Genetic Engineering (GE) Technological Pessimism Ethical Precautions Precautionary Regulation Crisis Narrative 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Arnold, P.C. 2014. Lab to farm: Applying research on plant genetics and genomics to crop improvement. PLoS Biology 12 (6). Accessed 24 May 2016.
  2. Barrows, G., S. Sexton, and D. Zilberman. 2014. Agricultural biotechnology: The promise and prospects of genetically modified crops. The Journal of Economic Perspectives 28 (1): 99–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berry, W. 1993. Why I am not going to buy a computer. In Technology and the future, ed. A. Teich, 66–72. New York: Saint Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  4. Berry, W., Herman. J., and Michael, C. 2007. ‘Our biotech future’: An exchange. The New York Review of Books. Accessed 5 May 2016.
  5. Biotechnology Innovation Organization. 2016. Biotechnology Innovation Organization. Accessed 24 May 2016.
  6. Borlaug, N. 2000. Ending world hunger: The promise of biotechnology and the threat of antiscience zealotry. Plant Physiology 124 (2): 487–490. Accessed 24 May 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Byerlee, D., and K. Fischer. 2002. Accessing modern science: Policy and institutional options for agricultural biotechnology in developing countries. World Development 30 (6): 931–948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Charles, D. 2001. Lords of the harvest: Biotech, big money, and the future of food. Cambridge: Perseus Publishing.Google Scholar
  9. Dawidoff, N. 2009. The civil heretic. New York Times Magazine. Accessed 25 May 2016.
  10. Diamond, J. 2005. Collapse: How societies choose to fail or succeed. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
  11. Dyson, F.J. 1999. The sun, the genome, and the internet: Tools of scientific revolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. ———. 2006. The scientist as rebel. New York: New York Review Books.Google Scholar
  13. ———. 2007. Our biotech future. New York Review 54(12) http:// www. nybooks. com/ articles/ 20370. Accessed 6 May 2016.
  14. Fernandez-Cornejo, J., Wechsler, S., Livingston, M., and Mitchell, L. 2014. Genetically engineered crops in the United States. Economic research report No. 162, United States Department of Agriculture. Accessed 24 May 2016.
  15. Food and Agriculture Organization Ethics Series. 2010. The ethics of sustainable agricultural intensification. In The ethics of intensification, agricultural development and change, ed. P.B. Thompson, 19–41. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  16. Glenna, L.L., and K. Jones. 2015. Genetically engineered crops and rural society. In Plant biotechnology: Experiences and future prospects, ed. A. Ricroch, S. Chopra, and S. Fleischer, 93–106. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  17. Glenna, L.L., R. Welsh, D. Ervin, W.B. Lacy, and D. Biscotti. 2011. Commercial science, scientists’ values, and university biotechnology research agendas. Research Policy 40 (7): 957–968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hill, C.T. 1989. Technology and international competitiveness: Metaphor for progress. In Science technology and social progress, Research in technology studies, ed. S. Goldman, vol. 2, 33–47. Bethlehem: Lehigh University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Jasanoff, S. 2005. Let them eat cake’: GM foods and the democratic imagination. In Science and citizens: Globalization and the challenge of engagement, ed. M. Leach, I. Scoones, and B. Wynne, 183–198. London/New York: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  20. Jonas, H. 1979. Das prinzip verantwortung: Versuch einer ethik für die technologische zivilisation. Auflage: Suhrkamp Verlag. English edition: Jonas, H. 1985. The imperative of responsibility: In search of an ethics for the technological age (trans: Jonas H and Herr D). Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  21. Lasch, C. 1989. The idea of progress in our time. In Science technology and social progress, ed. S. Goldman, 229–239. Bethlehem: Lehigh University Press.Google Scholar
  22. MacIntyre, A. 1980. Epistemological crises, dramatic narrative, and the philosophy of science. In Paradigms and revolutions: Applications and appraisals of Thomas Kuhn’s philosophy of science, ed. G. Gutting, 54–74. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  23. Marx L (1994) The idea of “technology” and postmodern pessimism. In: Ezrahi Y, Mendelsohn, E, Segal H (eds) Technology, pessimism, and postmodernism. University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst, p 11–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Marx, L., and B. Mazlish. 1996. Introduction. In Progress: Fact or illusion? ed. L. Marx and B. Mazlish, 1–8. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Miller, H.I., and G. Conko. 2004. The frankenfood myth: How protests and politics threaten the biotech revolution. Santa Barbara: Praeger.Google Scholar
  26. National Science Foundation. At a glance. National Science Foundation. Accessed 24 May 2016.
  27. Porter, J.R., and J. Rasmussen. 2009. Agriculture and technology. In A companion to philosophy of technology, ed. V. Hendricks, J. Olsen, and S. Pedersen, 285–288. Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  28. Sandel, M.J. 2009. Justice: What’s the right thing to do? New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
  29. ———. 2012. What money can’t buy: The moral limits of markets. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.Google Scholar
  30. Sheingate, A.D. 2006. Promotion versus precaution: The evolution of biotechnology policy in the United States. British Journal of Political Science 36 (2): 243–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Thompson, P.B. 1997. Food biotechnology in ethical perspective. London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
  32. ———. 1998. Agricultural ethics: Research, teaching, and public policy. Ames: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
  33. ———. 2007. Food biotechnology in ethical perspective. 2nd ed. Springer.Google Scholar
  34. ———. 2010. The agrarian vision: Sustainability and environmental ethics. Lexington: The University of Kentucky Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. UCI News. 2014. UC Irvine establishes Institute for Innovation to expedite technology transfer and commercialization of research. UCI News. Accessed 23 May 2016.
  36. United Nations General Assembly. 1948. The universal declaration of human rights. United Nations. Accessed 25 May 2016.
  37. United Nations Human Rights, Office of the High Commissioner. 1975. Declaration on the use of scientific and technological progress in the interests of peace and for the betterment of mankind. OHCHR. Accessed 24 May 2016.
  38. van den Belt, H. 2003. Debating the precautionary principle: “Guilty until proven innocent” or “innocent until proven guilty”? Plant Physiology 132 (3): 1122–1126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. van den Belt, H., and B.G. Gremmen. 2002. Between precautionary principle and “sound science”: Distributing the burdens of proof. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 15 (1): 103–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Welsh, R. 2006. Considering the role of the university in conducting research on biotechnologies. Social Studies of Science 36 (6): 926–924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Welsh, R. and Glenna L. 2006. Considering the role of the university in agri-biotechnology research. Soc Stud Sci 36(6) 929–942CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wohlsen, M. 2011. Biopunk, DIY scientists hack the software of life. New York: Penguin Group.Google Scholar
  43. Wright, R. 2004. A short history of progress. New York: Carroll & Graff Publishers.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • N. Dane Scott
    • 1
  1. 1.W.A. Frank College of Forestry & ConservationThe University of MontanaMissoulaUSA

Personalised recommendations