Abstract
Agricultural biotechnology dates from the last two decades of the twentieth century. It involves the creation of plants and animals with new useful traits by inserting one or more genes taken from other species. New legal possibilities for patenting transgenic organisms and isolated genes have been provided to promote the development of this new technology. The applications of biotechnology raise a whole range of value issues, like consumer and farmer autonomy, respect for intellectual property, environmental sustainability, food security, social justice, and economic growth. Hitherto the field has not yet witnessed any deliberate attempt at value-sensitive design or design for values. The reason is that under the influence of strong commercial motivations, applications have been developed first and foremost with simple agronomic aims in view, such as herbicide tolerance and insect resistance, traits which are based on single genes. The opportunities for value-sensitive design appear to be constrained by the special character of the biological domain. Many desirable traits like drought tolerance are genetically complex traits that cannot be built into organisms by the insertion of one or a few genes. Another problem is that nature tends to fight back, so that insects become immune to insect-resistant crops and weeds become invulnerable to herbicides. This leads to the phenomenon of perishable knowledge, which also calls the so-called patent bargain into question. The possibilities for value-sensitive design will likely increase with synthetic biology, a more advanced form of biotechnology that aims at making biology (more) “easy to engineer.” Practitioners of this new field are acutely aware of the need to proceed in a socially responsible way so as to ensure sufficient societal support. Yet synthetic biologists are currently also engaged in a fundamental debate on whether they will ultimately succeed in tackling biological complexity.
Keywords
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
References
African Centre for Biosafety (2013) Africa bullied to grow defective Bt Maize: the failure of Monsanto’s MON810 maize in South Africa. African Centre for Biosafety, Melville
Agapakis CM (2014) Designing Synthetic Biology. ACS Synthetic Biology 3(3):121–128
Banning C (2012) Restafval van planten als alternatief voor aardolie. NRC Handelsblad, 2 Mar 2012
Bernauer T (2003) Genes, trade, and regulation. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Bindraban PS, Bulte EH, Gordijn SG (2009) Can large-scale biofuels production be sustainable by 2020? Agr Syst 101:197–199
Böhme G, van den Daele W, Krohn W (1973) Die Finalisierung der Wissenschaft. Zeitschrift für Soziologie 2(2):128–144
Bowman v. Monsanto Co et al (2013) No 11–796, slip op (S.Ct. 13 May 2013)
Carson R (1962) Silent spring. Houghton Mifflin, New York
Charles H, Godfray J, Beddington JH, Crute IR, Haddad L, Lawrence D, Muir JF, Pretty J, Robinson S, Thomas SM, Toulmin C (2010) Food security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science 327:812–819
Correa CM (2006) La disputa sobre soja transgénica: Monsanto vs. Argentina. Le Monde Diplomatique/El Dipló, Apr 2006
Darwin C (1972 [1859]) The Origin of Species. Penguin Books, Harmondsworth
De Schutter O (2011) The right of everyone to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and the right to food: from conflict to complementarity. Hum Rights Q 33(2011):304–350
Doorman M (2012) Rousseau en ik. Bert Bakker, Amsterdam
Edmeades GO (2013) Progress in achieving and delivering drought tolerance in maize – an update. ISAAA, Ithaca
Glover D (2009) Undying promise: agricultural biotechnology’s pro-poor narrative, ten years on. STEPS working paper 15. STEPS Centre, Brighton
Graham-Rowe D (2011) Beyond food versus fuel. Nature 474:S6–S8
GRAIN (2007) The end of farm-saved seed? Industry’s wish list for the next revision of UPOV, GRAIN briefing, Feb 2007, Barcelona
Grant H (2008) Our commitment to produce more, conserve more. http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/OurCommitmenttoProduceMore,ConserveMore.aspx
Griffiths P, Stotz K (2013) Genetics and philosophy: an introduction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
Gurian-Sherman D (2012) High and dry. Why genetic engineering is not solving agriculture’s drought problem in a thirsty world. Union of Concerned Scientists, Cambridge, MA
Harhoff D, Régibeau P, Rockett K (2001) Some simple economics of GM food. Econom Policy 16(33):265–299
Herring RJ (2007) Stealth seeds: bioproperty, biosafety, biopolitics. J Dev Stud 43(1):130–157
IAASTD (2008) Synthesis report of the international assessment of agricultural science and technology for development. Washington, DC. http://www.agassessment.org/
James C (2012) Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops: 2012, vol 44, ISAAA brief. ISAAA, Ithaca
Jasanoff S (2005) Designs on nature: science and democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Keim B (2012) New GM crops could make superweeds even stronger. Wired, 1 May 2012
Kilman S (2010) Superweed outbreak triggers arms race. Wall Street J, 4 June 2010
Kitney R, Freemont P (2012) Synthetic biology – the state of play. FEBS Lett 586:2029–2036
Kuhn T (1970) The structure of scientific revolutions. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Kwok R (2010) Five hard truths for synthetic biology. Nature 463:288–290
Mittler R, Blumwald E (2010) Genetic engineering for modern agriculture: challenges and perspectives. Annu Rev Plant Biol 61:443–462
Mortensen DA, Egan JF, Maxwell BD, Ryan MR, Smith RG (2012) Navigating a critical juncture for sustainable weed management. BioScience 62(1):75–84
Outterson K (2005) The vanishing public domain: antibiotic resistance, pharmaceutical innovation and global public health. Univ Pittsbur Law Rev 67:67–123
Rousseau JJ (1966 [1762]) Emile ou de l’éducation. Garnier-Flammarion, Paris
Scoones I (2002) Can agricultural biotechnology be pro-poor? A sceptical look at the emerging “consensus”’. IDS Bull 33(4):114–119
Vaidyanathan G (2010) A Search for regulators and a road map to deliver GM crops to third world farmers. The New York Times, 31 Mar 2010
Van den Berg J, Hilbeck A, Bøhn T (2013) Pest resistance to Cry1Ab Bt maize: field resistance, contributing factors and lessons from South Africa. Crop Prot 54:154–160
Wang S, Just DR, Instrup-Andersen P (2006) Tarnishing silver bullets: Bt technology adoption, bounded rationality and the outbreak of secondary pest infestations in China. Paper presented at American agricultural economics association annual meeting, Long Beach, 22–26 July 2006
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this entry
Cite this entry
van den Belt, H. (2014). Design for Values in Agricultural Biotechnology. In: van den Hoven, J., Vermaas, P., van de Poel, I. (eds) Handbook of Ethics, Values, and Technological Design. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6994-6_23-1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6994-6_23-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-6994-6
eBook Packages: Springer Reference Religion and PhilosophyReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Humanities