Equity and Participation in Decisions: What Can Nanotechnology Learn from Biotechnology in Kenya?

  • Matthew Harsh
Part of the Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society book series (YNTS, volume 2)


Discussions of equity and technology often focus on the distribution of risks and benefit. But key to addressing these issues is how power to make decisions that shape those issues is distributed. In the last chapter, Bal reported that members of the American public expressed a desire for equity once they were given a voice in nanotechnology decision making. In this chapter, Matthew Harsh looks at how biotechnology regulation was developed in Kenya to help think about how nanotechnology might be regulated in a developing country. A variety of horizontal inequalities criss-cross his account, but they are different from the categories presented in the first part of this book: Europeans versus Kenyans; government versus non-government; and experts versus lay people.


Distributive Justice Green Revolution Intellectual Property Right Agricultural Biotechnology Institutional Mechanism 
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. ABSP. 2002. Biotechnology research and policy activities of ABSP in Kenya: 1991–2002. Michigan State University: Agricultural Biotechnology Support Project.Google Scholar
  2. AHarvest. 2005. Africa harvest helping Africa fight hunger and malnutrition with biofortified sorghum. Accessed 17 November 2008.
  3. Baldwin, Derek. 2009. Green dream: A world in a grain of sand. Accessed 6 May 2009.
  4. Barben, D., E. Fisher, C. Selin, and D. Guston. 2008. Anticipatory governance of nanotechnology: Foresight, engagement, and integration. In The handbook of science and technology studies, ed. Edward J. Hackett, Olga Amsterdamska, Michael Lynch, and Judy Wajcman, 979–1000. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Beintema, N., F. Murithi, and P. Mwangi. 2003. Agricultural science and technology indicators: Kenya. The Hague: International Service for National Agricultural Research.Google Scholar
  6. Bourzac, Katherine. 2009. A hybrid nano-energy harvester: The device harnesses both sunlight and mechanical energy. Accessed 6 May 2009.
  7. CGIAR. 2009. The consultative group on international agricultural research. Accessed 6 May 2009.
  8. Chambers, R. 1983. Rural development: Putting the last first. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  9. Clark, N., A. Hall, R. Sulaiman, and G. Naik. 2003. Research capacity building: The case of an NGO facilitated post-harvest innovation system for the Himalayan Hills. World Development 31: 1845–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cohen, Joel I., and Robert Paarlberg. 2004. Unlocking crop biotechnology in developing countries: A report from the field. World Development 32: 1563–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cornwall, A., and G. Pratt. 2003. The trouble with participatory rural appraisal: Reflections on dilemmas of quality. Participatory learning and action notes 47: 1–7.Google Scholar
  12. Cozzens, Susan E. 2007. Distributive justice in science and technology policy. Science and Public Policy 34: 85–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cozzens, Susan E., Isabel Bortagaray, Sonia Gatchair, and Dhanaraj Thakur. 2008. Emerging technologies and social cohesion: Policy options from a comparative study. Paper presented at the PRIME Latin America Conference, September 2008. Accessed 3 August 2010.Google Scholar
  14. Cozzens, Susan E., and Jameson Wetmore. 2008. Introduction to the workshop on nanotechnology, equity, and equality. Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University, Center for Nanotechnology in Society.Google Scholar
  15. David, Kenneth, and Paul B. Thompson, eds. 2008. What can nanotechnology learn from biotechnology? Burlington, MA: Academic.Google Scholar
  16. Dickson, David. 2009. How nanotech can meet the poor’s water needs. Accessed 6 May 2009).
  17. Doughton, Sandi. 2009. Gates foundation takes on a partner in new venture. Accessed 6 May 2009.
  18. Ferguson, James. 1994. The anti-politics machine: Development, depoliticization, and bureaucratic power in lesotho. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  19. Gathura, G. 2004. GM technology fails local potatoes. The Daily Nation Accessed 14 January 2004.
  20. Gill, Victoria. 2009. Mobile technology battles HIV. Accessed 6 May 2009.
  21. Guston, David H., and Daniel Sarewitz. 2002. Real-time technology assessment. Technology in society 24: 93–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hajer, Maarten A., and Hendrik Wagenaar, eds. 2003. Deliberative policy analysis: Understanding governance in the network society. Theories of Institutional Design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Harsh, Matthew. 2005. Formal and informal governance of agricultural biotechnology in Kenya: Participation and accountability in controversy surrounding the draft biosafety bill. Journal of International Development 17: 661–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Harsh, Matthew. 2008. “Living technology and development: Agricultural biotechnology and civil society in Kenya.” Science and Technology Studies, PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  25. Harsh, Matthew. 2009. Non-governmental limits: Governing biotechnology from Europe to Africa. In The limits to governance, ed. Catherine Lyall, Theo Papaioannou, and James Smith. London: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  26. Harsh, M., and J. Smith. 2007. Technology, governance and place: Situating biotechnology in Kenya. Science and Public Policy 34: 251–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Horsch, R., and J. Montgomery. 2004. Why we partner: Collaborations between the private and public sectors for food security and poverty alleviation through agricultural biotechnology. The Journal of Agrobiotechnology, Management, & Economics 7: 80–83.Google Scholar
  28. ILRI. 2003. New biosciences facility for east and central Africa. Nairobi: International Livestock Research Institute.Google Scholar
  29. Krimsky, S. 1984. Beyond technocracy: New routes for citizen involvement in social risk assessment. In Citizen participation in science policy, ed. James C. Petersen. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press.Google Scholar
  30. Levidow, Les. 2007. European public participation as risk governance: Enhancing democratic accountability for agbiotech policy? East Asian Science, Technology and Society 1: 19–51.Google Scholar
  31. Mehta, MD. 2004. From biotechnology to nanotechnology: What can we learn from earlier technologies? Bulletin of science, technology & society 24: 34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mody, Cyrus C.M. 2007. Nanotechnology: Where did it come from? What is it for? Accessed 6 May 2009.
  33. Nelkin, D. 1984. Science and Technology Policy and the Democratic Process. In Citizen Participation in Science Policy, ed. James C. Petersen. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press.Google Scholar
  34. New Scientist. 2004. Monsanto’s showcase project in Africa fails. New Scientist 2433: 7.Google Scholar
  35. Odame, H., P. Kameri-Mbote, and D. Wafula. 2003a. Innovation and policy process: The case of transgenic sweet potato in Kenya. Nairobi: African Centre for Technology Studies.Google Scholar
  36. Odame, H., P. Kameri-Mbote, and D. Wafula. 2003b. Globalisation and the international governance of modern biotechnology implications for food security in Kenya. Nairobi: African Centre for Technology Studies.Google Scholar
  37. Paarlberg, R.L. 2000. Governing the GM crop revolution: Policy choices for developing countries. Food, Agriculture, and the Environment Discussion Paper 33: 1–44.Google Scholar
  38. Pearse, A. 1980. Seeds of plenty, seeds of want: Social and economic implications of the green revolution. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  39. Pestre, Dominique. 2008. Challenges for the democratic management of technoscience: governance, participation and the political today. Science as Culture 17: 101–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Petersen, James C, ed. 1984. Citizen participation in science policy. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.Google Scholar
  41. Pierre, Jon, and B. Guy Peters. 2000. Governance, politics and the state. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  42. Qaim, Matin. 1999. The economic effects of genetically modified orphan commodities: Projections for sweet potato in {Kenya}. International Service for the Acquisition and Application of Agricultural Biotechnology Brief 13: 1–47.Google Scholar
  43. Rayner, Steve. 2003. Democracy in the age of assessment: Reflections on the roles of expertise and democracy in public-sector decision making. Science and Public Policy 30: 163–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rhodes, R. 1997. Understanding governance: Policy networks, governance, reflexivity and accountability. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Smith, J. 2005. Context-bound knowledge production, Capacity building and new product networks. Journal of International Development 17: 647–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Smith, James. 2007. Culturing development: Bananas, petri dishes and ‘mad science’. Journal of Eastern African Studies 1: 212–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tvedt, T. 2006. The international aid system and the non-governmental organisations: A new research agenda. Journal of International Development 18: 677–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. UNEP-GEF. 2003. UNEP-GEF Project on the implementation of the national biosafety framework of Kenya: State of developments. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Program.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Nanotechnology in Society, Arizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations