Date post: | 24-Jun-2015 |
Category: |
Technology |
Upload: | steps-centre |
View: | 391 times |
Download: | 1 times |
Biosafety Regulations Implementation in Kenya: Kenya’s experience
Ann Kingiri
Research into Use (RIU) Program
Introduction
Biotech innovation unique?– In several respects it involves multiple actors with diverse perspectives
Proponents….Unique Opponents…..Risky
– The different views driven largely by mixed reactions related to benefits, fear, anxieties, uncertainties related to use of new applications like genetic engineering
– Differences in perspectives reflect controversies linked to diverse social and economic/scientific rationalities
Biosafety regulation endeavours to manage controversies and embedded uncertainties
Why analyse biotech innov system?– Biotech innovation is knowledge intensive and is largely mode 2 research– Biosafety governance thro appropriate regulation adds to the complexity because
of management of regulatory knowledge that is value laden
33
Issues for contemporary actors involved in biotech governance……
Increased challenges associated with globalisation-trade, informed society demanding increased accountability
For scientists reduced public funding for research resulting in increased collaborative research (public and private sector)
Biotech research is trans-disciplinary in nature with increased integration & cooperation (engaged scholarship)
For policy scientists, inadequate capacity for putting in place regulatory systems (again collaborative & donor supported)
Regulatory demands & implementation challenges
4
Issues for contemporary actors cont’d……
Consequently, the new institutional and knowledge production terrain has affected the role & practice of contemporary actors (e.g. scientists and mode 2 research)
Biosafety regulation as a means to manage controversies and embedded uncertainties is linked to certain complex & politically driven forms of knowledge (regulatory, policy, institutional etc); scientists inevitably get entangled in this
Challenges Adaptation of actors to deal with the dynamic & challenging
institutional terrain (limited research done) Immediate setback is the management of diverse forms of
knowledge emanating from this trans-disciplinary and multi actor setting
Actors roles & engagement in biotech regulatory policy-Kenya’s context
(Based on empirical research conducted between 2006 – 2009) Weak formal mechanisms for actors engagement Actors roles characterised by:
– Active distinct pro and anti policy groups – Proliferation of coalitions and collaborations – Behind the scene actors (Biotech industry, pro-biotech and anti-biotech
funding bodies) Multiple & conflicting roles of scientific community:
– Knowledge drivers as experts (biosafety & advanced biotech science) – Policy targets in implementing biosafety regulations as innovators or researchers of GE
science – Policy enforcers as regulators and policy agents Scientific community are both knowledge producers & knowledge users in the
normative scientific field and regulatory process respectively
Implications
Politicised regulatory process & tensions!!!!
– Policy process polemic and polarised
– Articulation of multiple roles confounded by conflicting obligations, values and interests (individual and institutional levels)
– Policy process skewed towards scientific expertise & marginalising other types of knowledge input
The politicised regulatory issues masks the overall goal-food security agenda
How can a meaningful process be managed in Africa context?
Arguably, biotech policy may address governance & actors engagement issues but can work for or against the prominent discourse for the poor
– (prominent discourse is GE is good for food security…cf FAO, 2004; Nepad report “Freedom to Innovate” by Juma, and Serageldin, 2007)
However, this is complex – Issue is biotech innovation versus broader food security issues on one hand
& uncertainty/fear/controversies on the other Proposed model must accept that values and interests energise actors
to pursue diverse lines of argument & to undertake certain persuasive strategies
Insights from innovations systems approach, social technologies & mode 2 practice
– Learning, interaction and knowledge use must embrace system or holistic thinking
– Mode 2 thinking calls for socially desirable knowledge use-for the different types of knowledge to “speak back to science”
Prodve mgt of diverse knowledge types
New ways of managing knowledge in biotech innovation calls for
– Reflexivity (all actors)– Building multi-layered skills capacities that cultivate new
culture of learning that considers different belief systems and different values (Lyall et al. 2009)
– Realisation of the fact that knowledge accumulates and becomes usable and meaningful if it is shared, in a transparent manner
Conclusion
It is imp to understand how current discourses around biotech innovation are framed and with what implications for food security and safety
The context specific issues that confront Africa & localised needs call for context specific stakeholders’ engagement strategies
Rethinking role of scientific knowledge in informing policy processes and stakeholders’ engagement
Final note
All players must dialogue & listen to each other because…..– All players have a role to play:
As knowledge suppliers or users in the knowledge production & governance continuum
& in the recontextualised process as “experts” and as stakeholders not as “actors”
11
Thank you for your attentionThank you for your attention