59
Responsible innovation and GM crops A governance framework for university-industry- government collaboration Phil Macnaghten Durham University UNICAMP
Responsible innovation and GM crops A governance framework for university-industry-
government collaboration
Phil Macnaghten Durham University
UNICAMP
‘Unless we examine why GM crops have not been universally accepted
as a public good, we will fail to understand the conditions under
which “GM crops can help to feed the world”’
The research: a story of collaboration
• Broad-based interdisciplinary project team at Durham – Anthropology (Dr Yulia Egorava) – Geography (Prof. Phil Macnaghten PI) – Physics (Prof Tom McLeish FRS, PVC-R) – Biological Sciences (Prof Keith Lindsey) – Religious studies (Dr Joanildo Burity)
• Local research teams and advisors – Dr Julia Guivant (UFSC, Brazil) – Dr Marta Astier (UNAM, Mexico) – Dr Rajiswari Raina (NISTADS, India)
• Advisory panel • Common methodology
Full Group
Mexico Brazil India
Management Group
Executive Group
Understanding the GM crop controversy
The big academic questions 1. How do we understand the factors that
have facilitated the transition of some countries and regions to GM agriculture and not others?
2. What are the limits of science-based approaches to regulation?
3. What other factors have contributed to the debate, and how can we understand them?
4. What lessons can be learnt from the experience of the ‘rising powers’ for agricultural sustainability?
Three global rising powers
• Maize in Mexico
• Soya in Brazil
• Cotton in India
The methodology
For each country • Review of the debate over GM crops in
each country • Ethnography with farmers and other
actors in a rural setting • Set of interviews and a questionnaire
with stakeholders • Series of focus discussion groups with
mostly urban publics • Lab ethnography with scientists in a
public national research laboratory • Deliberative workshop with
stakeholders asking how to advance the debate on GM crops.
‘if we are to govern GM crops in a socially robust fashion, we need to engage with the issue within the terms of the debate
as it is considered by an inclusive array of actors,
including publics and farmers’
The methodology
‘if we are to govern GM crops in a socially robust fashion, we need to engage with the issue within the terms of the debate
as it is considered by an inclusive array of actors,
including publics and farmers’
For each country • Review of the debate over GM crops
in each country • Ethnography with farmers and other
actors in a rural setting • Set of interviews and a questionnaire
with stakeholders • Lab ethnography with scientists in a
public or nonprofit national research laboratory
• Series of focus discussion groups with mostly urban publics
• Deliberative workshop with stakeholders asking how to advance the debate on GM crops.
‘Although the rise of genetically modified (GM) crops has been dramatic, its uptake has not been the smooth nor universal transition predicted by its advocates. Controversy has been marked even in countries where its growth has been impressively rapid. All too commonly its regulation has been challenged as
inadequate, even biased.’
Understanding the controversy
The key factors underpinning the various controversies were analysed to be social and institutional 1. the perceived authority of the
regulatory agencies 2. The level of trust in the (global)
agro-chemical and seed companies 3. the cultural resonance of the crops
in question 4. the level of intensity of protest
movements 5. the extent to which GM can
become represented as the symbol of wider struggle
6. the degree of sustained effort by institutional actors to engage the public
Importantly, these factors extended beyond the question of technical risk: the extent to
which GM crops would (or would not) pose a risk to
human health and the environment.’
The methodology
‘if we are to govern GM crops in a socially robust fashion, we need to engage with the issue within the terms of the debate
as it is considered by an inclusive array of actors,
including publics and farmers’
For each country • Review of the debate over GM crops in
each country • Ethnography with farmers and other
actors in a rural setting • Set of interviews and a questionnaire
with stakeholders • Lab ethnography with scientists in a
public national research laboratory • Series of focus discussion groups with
mostly urban publics • Deliberative workshop with
stakeholders asking how to advance the debate on GM crops.
Field ethnography: Mexico
• Pátzcuaro Lake area, in the State of Michoacán • Indigenous and non-indigenous rural
communities • A time of social change and crisis • Enduring traditional and communal practices
around maize agriculture • GM maize seen as intrusion on traditional
agricultural practices for small family farmers • Factors mediating concern
– Absence of reliable information – Unknown effects on farming practices – Seen as being developed by outside and
‘untrusted’ institutions – Seen as impacting on traditional practices such as
seed exchange – Seen as likely to benefit the usual constituencies
(multinationals, politicians etc.) – Ontological rejection (an artificial man-made
construct)
• Western part of Santa Catarina around Chapecó • Ethnography with small family farmers some cultivating
GM crops others not • Serious crisis in countryside • Main option for family farming lies in GM soya
– Ease of application, better productivity and prices
• Non-GM crops often used for domestic consumption – Taste, health and quality – Background unease about safety
• Organic farmers complaining about GM farms intoxicating their farms with herbicides
• Evidence of conflict between farmers cultivating GM crops and technicians from the seed companies, each blaming each other for the increasing prevalence of glyphosate-resistant weed species
Field ethnography: Brazil
• Kalahandi district in the West of Odissa • Small family farmers both in organic and conventional
farming villages • Rapid uptake of Bt cotton in the conventional village,
partly due in part to marketing from the seed companies
• Bt cotton crops becoming affected by increased attacks from bollworms and other pests and have led farmers to consider previously available seed varieties.
• Farmers find themselves often ‘locked-in’ to using Bt cotton with indigenous seeds no longer so easily available
Field ethnography: India
Comparisons: Brazil and India
• Successful marketing from seed companies leading to widespread adoption
– GM soya – GM cotton
• Increase of weed resistance – Mutual blame from farmers and
technicians from seed companies – Difficulty to return to non GM
agriculture and previously available (indigenous) seeds
The methodology
‘if we are to govern GM crops in a socially robust fashion, we need to engage with the issue within the terms of the debate
as it is considered by an inclusive array of actors,
including publics and farmers’
For each country • Review of the debate over GM crops in
each country • Ethnography with farmers and other
actors in a rural setting • Set of interviews and a questionnaire
with stakeholders • Lab ethnography with scientists in a
public national research laboratory • Series of focus discussion groups with
mostly urban publics • Deliberative workshop with
stakeholders asking how to advance the debate on GM crops.
National Centre for Soy Research: Embrapa Soja
– CNPSO
National Laboratory of Genomics for Biodiversity – Langebio
International Centre for Genetics and
Biotechnology – ICGEB
Lab ethnography Mexico – Langebio (GM maize)
Context to research • Ethnography with Maize Genetics and
Genomics group • No research being undertaken on the
development of GM maize One Finding • Clear distinction within the laboratory,
between senior and older researchers who were more in favour of GM technologies, including GM maize
• Younger and more junior researchers who were more cautious and nuanced
• For the latter, extreme care was advocated in any attempt to restructure the maize genome
Context to research • Proud tradition within CNPSO – responsible
for the expansion and adaptation of the soybean to the climes of the Cerrado biome
• Embrapa losing out to multinational seed companies in control of soybean cultivars
Findings • Clear and unqualified optimism on potential
of GM technologies • Perceived necessity for GM research to have
a strong national base • Little evidence of structured and sustained
debate with society
Lab ethnography Brazil – CNPSO (Embrapa soya)
Context to research • In 2013, the Indian Supreme Court issued
an indefinite moratorium on food crops (with the exception of Bt cotton which is widely cultivated)
Findings • All scientists opposed to the moratorium • Constructed the position of anti-GMO
actors as ‘ignorant’ or aimed at ‘publicity’ seeking
• India could not afford the risk of ‘falling behind’ in the development of biotechnology
Lab ethnography India – ICGEB (Bt cotton)
Some comparisons: role and mission
All three labs had strong social missions, aimed at providing solutions to the pressing problems of the global South, yet were experiencing a crisis of confidence Langebio (Mexico) • No research being undertaken on the
development of GM maize Embrapa Soja – CNPSO (Brazil) • Lost group to foreign-owned
multinational seed companies ICGEB (India) • Continue research in the lab in the
hope that the moratorium is lifted in the near future.
Some comparisons: postcolonial critique
All three labs situated their mission within nationalistic contexts Langebio (Mexico) • Need for care and sensitivity in any
modification of the maize germplasm Embrapa Soja – CNPSO (Brazil) • Apprehension that national science
was losing out to foreign owned seed companies
ICGEB (India) • Social responsibility defined as
helping the nation to become more economically competitive, feed its growing population and develop its science base
Some comparisons: reductionist discourse
Dominant discourse at level of ontology • Genetic modification as no different
in kind from conventional forms of breeding
• Plants considered as an amalgam of genetic material (rather than as a product of social practices)
• There exist apparently limitless possibilities for genetic improvement
• Genetic modification seen as allowing for the indefinite extension of human intervention of nature
Some comparisons: Inclusion
• Little evidence of a structured and sustained debate with society at large
• Lay opinion tended to be dismissed as ill-informed and as overly focused on the negative aspects of the technology
• Any existing dialogue with those outside the laboratory was largely restricted to farmers and academic peers
• Human and social scientists were often mistrusted in their scientific credentials
• Laboratory scientists did not feel they need “to sell” their achievements by convincing the wider public
• Rather, according to these scientists, it is up to the market and for individual consumers to decide whether or not to adopt GM
• The target stakeholder for the research laboratories was viewed as the farmer, not the consumer
Some comparisons: lack of reflexivity in the labs
Lacking in three ways 1. Little motivation to understand why GM
crops have become controversial in each country, preferring instead to regard such resistance as ill-informed, ideological and ignorant
2. Lack in structural motivation and encouragement to work with social scientists, preferring instead to view such disciplines as lacking in relevance and/or competence
3. Lack of debate on the national and strategic context of the research lab, or sensitivity to the different framings of the issues
The methodology
‘if we are to govern GM crops in a socially robust fashion, we need to engage with the issue within the terms of the debate
as it is considered by an inclusive array of actors,
including publics and farmers’
For each country • Review of the debate over GM crops in
each country • Ethnography with farmers and other
actors in a rural setting • Set of interviews and a questionnaire
with stakeholders • Lab ethnography with scientists in a
public national research laboratory • Series of focus discussion groups with
mostly urban publics • Deliberative workshop with
stakeholders asking how to advance the debate on GM crops.
The context
• Lack of informed and comprehensive public debate on GMOs across the 3 national settings
• Little knowledge exists on what ordinary people actually think about GM crops and foods
– What are public attitudes? – Do attitudes differ between and within
countries? – Does this depend of the particular crop
being modified? – What social factors structure public
responses? – Is it possible to develop meaningful
research with publics when they are not familiar with the technology?
The research methodology
• In-depth focus group with (mainly) urban publics
• A methodology developed in the UK • Design aimed at developing conversations
on GMOs even when publics lack familiarity • Sample
– Housewives, professional men and women, students, religious group
– No prior involvement with GMOs
• Discussion guide – Changing cultures and practices around food – Concept of GMO and current practices in
agriculture – Current debates on GM, both pro- and anti- – Roles and responsibilities of different actors
Focus group findings: Brazil
• Food quality and safety as a topic of growing salience • Concern with the industrialization of foods • Desire to consume foods as organic and local as possible (for
better off) • Little knowledge or awareness about GM crops and foods and
genuine surprise about the extent of its adoption • Development of largely negative opinions
– Uncertainties concerning health impacts – because the technology was seen as benefiting the producer (not the
consumer) – because they had not been consulted
• Concern that the public debate had been restricted to scientists, government actors, and seed companies at the expense of wider civil society
• Wider unease that these actors may have ‘manipulated’ the debate to promote their own interests.
• Call for wider responsibility for government – more robust regulation and oversight – for raising consciousness – for promoting the public interest
Focus group findings: Mexico
• Appreciation of maize products and cooking – as a part of Mexican identity – and as a medium in the maintenance of diverse
social practices
• A general negative reaction to GM foods and crops, especially to GM maize but to other GM crops too
– lack of unambiguous and reliable information – lack of labelling – mistrust in the motives of those producing them – the unknown dangers GM foods may bring – the lack of proven necessity
• Government often seen as in collusion with the large corporations, at the expense of the public interest
• Regulatory bodies lacking in credibility
Focus group findings: India
Majority of research participants developed a negative view of GMOs • Lack of trust in the government and the local
authorities • Claimed preference to avoid the consumption of
GM food. • Lack of reliable information on GMOs • For rural groups GM seeds seen as interfering
with the preservation of indigenous seeds
Comparisons: tone of response
• Little public enthusiasm for GM foods and crops
• Considered an intrinsically unsettling technology (with a few exceptions)
• Tone – Suspicion, outrage, betrayal, anger
Why? • Brazil
– Because they felt they had not been consulted
– Uncertainties of potential health impacts
• Mexico – Because food companies were opposed to
labelling of GM foods – Suspicion and outrage that their “right to
know” was being usurped
"I feel betrayed”
"we are all guinea pigs” "even with our level of enlightenment,
we ignored it [...]” "[this] is a leap in the dark"
(Brazilian respondents)
Comparisons: factors shaping responses
• Why it was needed had not been demonstrated (Mexico) • Limited current capacities of scientists to predict future harms (Mexico) • Regulatory agencies were not trusted (Mexico) • The good intentions of the seed companies were not trusted (Mexico) • It would benefit the large producer at the expense of the family farmer (Brazil
and Mexico), • They saw few consumer benefits (Brazil) • Those promoting the issue (scientists, government actors and seed companies)
were “manipulating” the debate to suit their own interests (Brazil) • The promise that GM crops would promote sustainability was seen as a
contradiction in terms (India) • The claim that GM crops and foods could feed the world was seen as largely
implausible by most participants (across all sites) in the face of the existing political economy surrounding GM crops. (All)
The methodology
‘if we are to govern GM crops in a socially robust fashion, we need to engage with the issue within the terms of the debate
as it is considered by an inclusive array of actors,
including publics and farmers’
For each country • Review of the debate over GM crops in
each country • Ethnography with farmers and other
actors in a rural setting • Set of interviews and a questionnaire
with stakeholders • Lab ethnography with scientists in a
public national research laboratory • Series of focus discussion groups with
mostly urban publics • Deliberative workshop with
stakeholders asking how to advance the debate on GM crops.
General findings: reopen the debate
• General agreement on need to reopen the
debate (beyond its risk dimensions) India
– to develop novel forms of public consultation – to develop constructive and critical public
engagement – and to widen and deepen the debate and to
listen to a wider range of stakeholders
Mexico – to advocate for transparent, inclusive and
democratic debates – Call for active moratorium as pre-condition
for debate to take place
Brazil – call for concerted action to communicate
reliable information – for proper channels of citizen participation in
strategic decisions – the organization of deliberative policy
conferences
and
Though basically considered as an issue that has been ‘settled’ by scientists, seed companies and government officials, GM crops and foods were poorly and ambivalently understood in the absence of an informed public debate
Our participants agreed on the need to reopen a public debate on GM crops: on its regulation and
oversight, on the need to communicate reliable information, and for proper channels of citizen
participation in strategic decisions.
Our results revealed large gaps in public knowledge, disputed evidence as to the benefits of GM crops, and distinct social impacts arising
from its pattern of adoption by farmers
Our research suggests that public and stakeholder concerns over GM crops and foods
extend beyond the question of technical risk: the extent to which GM crops would (or would not)
pose a risk to human health and the environment.’
Lack of ‘authoritative governance’
‘An institutional void’
A situation where there are ‘no generally accepted rules and norms according to which policy making and politics is to be conducted’
(Hajer 2003: 175).
Challenge of how to govern beyond risk?
How to open up the debate in Brazil, Mexico and India on the governance of GMOs?
Anticipative •From predictive to participatory •Expectations and Imaginaries •Tools •Anticipatory Governance •Vision assessment •Scenarios
•Barriers to anticipation •Guston, 2012; van Lente, 1993; •Fortun, 2005; Barben et al, 2008
Inclusive •The ‘new’ scientific governance •Dialogue and ‘mini-publics’ •The challenge of legitimacy •Input and outputs
•Wilsdon and Willis, 2004; Grove-White et al, 1997; •Goodin and Dryzek, 2006; Irwin et al, 2013; • Lovbrand et al 2011
Reflexive •From 1st to 2nd order •Tools •Codes of conduct •Midstream Modulation
•Wynne, 1993; Schuurbiers, 2011; •Swiestra, 2009; Fisher et al, 2006
Responsive •Answering and reacting •Diversity and resilience •Value-sensitive design •De facto governance •Political economy of innovation •Responsibility as metagovernance •Pellizoni, 2004; Collingridge, 1980; Friedman, •1996; Stirling, 2007; Kearnes and Rip, 2009
Responsible innovation
What is responsible innovation?
“Responsible Research and Innovation is a transparent, interactive process by which societal actors and innovators become mutually responsive to each other with a view on the (ethical) acceptability,
sustainability and societal desirability of the innovation process and its marketable products ( in order to allow a proper embedding of scientific
and technological advances in our society)” (von Schomberg, 2011)
“taking care of the future through collective stewardship of science and
innovation in the present” (Stilgoe, Owen and Macnaghten 2013)
Responsible innovation (AIRR dimensions) Anticipative
(describing and considering possible intended and unintended broad impacts)
Reflexive (reflecting upon embedded commitments and assumptions)
Inclusive (deliberating with and involving stakeholders, users and wider publics)
Responsive (answerable to outside questions and flexible enough to adjust)
Responsible Innovation
How can we ‘anticipate’ future impacts (and better understand current impacts)?
A public research programme (with industry participation) • What is known? • What is not known? • What is possible? • What is plausible? • What if…? • Under what conditions? • Who needs to be involved?
• What are the risks and benefits of GM crops?
• How are the risks and benefits distributed?
• What other impacts can we anticipate?
• How might these change in the future?
• How do we analyse current and often contradictory claims?
– Can GM crops can feed the world? – Do GM crops transgress natural
boundaries? – Do GM crops benefit (large) producers
rather than smallholders or consumers? – Do GM crops impact on biodiversity? – Are (or could) GM crops operate in the
public interest?
How can we develop more ‘inclusive’ decision-making processes (and a public debate)?
• Reliable and ‘trusted’ information – What is known? – What is not known? – What is possible? – What is plausible?
• Public dialogue exercises including a government sponsored public and stakeholder dialogue
– Broad consultation – Diverse groups – Open agendas – Care given to the group design – Plurality of information provision – Two-way dialogue – Continuous is the discussion?
• Under what conditions, if at all, is GM publicly acceptable?
• What are the risks and benefits of GM crops?
• How are the risks and benefits distributed?
• What other impacts can we anticipate?
• How might these change in the future?
• How do we analyse current and often contradictory claims?
– Can GM crops can feed the world? – Do GM crops transgress natural
boundaries? – Do GM crops benefit (large) producers
rather than smallholders or consumers? – Do GM crops impact on biodiversity? – Are (or could) GM crops operate in the
public interest?
How can we develop more reflexive research cultures (including in private sector labs)?
• Techniques – Training – Curricula – Embedded social scientists and ethicists – Exposure and outreach – Encouragement
• Developing more reflexive scientific cultures
– Mirror to one’s own commitments – Mindful of framing of issues – Aware of limits of knowledge – Self-referential critique – Second order reflexivity – models of
nature, ontology
• Institutional reflexivity – a public matter
• What are the risks and benefits of GM crops?
• How are the risks and benefits distributed?
• What other impacts can we anticipate?
• How might these change in the future?
• How do we analyse current and often contradictory claims?
– Can GM crops can feed the world? – Do GM crops transgress natural
boundaries? – Do GM crops benefit (large) producers
rather than smallholders or consumers? – Do GM crops impact on biodiversity? – Are (or could) GM crops operate in the
public interest?
What would responsiveness look like?
• Developing more responsive institutions
– Ability to respond to new knowledge – Ability to answer new views and
norms – Ability to embrace diversity – Commitment to the public interest
and to sustainability – Seek alignment with science’s
political economy – Seek to make good choices between
competing interests and contrasting visions in inclusive, transparent and considered manner
– Leadership and openness
• What are the risks and benefits of GM crops?
• How are the risks and benefits distributed?
• What other impacts can we anticipate?
• How might these change in the future?
• How do we analyse current and often contradictory claims?
– Can GM crops can feed the world? – Do GM crops transgress natural
boundaries? – Do GM crops benefit (large) producers
rather than smallholders or consumers? – Do GM crops impact on biodiversity? – Are (or could) GM crops operate in the
public interest?
A policy workshop in Brasilia with university-industry-government
participation?
Thank you
Working Paper: http://bit.ly/1p957cb Policy Brief: http://bit.ly/1si5N4A
Blog: http://steps-centre.org/2014/blog/gm-crops-people-global-south-really-think/
Thanks to Marta Astier, Brian Black, Joanildo Burity, Susana Carro-Ripalda, Julia Guivant, Keith Lindsey, Kamminthang Mantuong, Tom
McLeish, Michael Northcott, Bob Simpson and Brian Wynne
