Joyce Tait

The economy-wide impact of pandemic influenza on the UK: a computable general equilibrium modelling experiment

Objectives To estimate the potential economic impact of pandemic influenza, associated behavioural responses, school closures, and vaccination on the United Kingdom. Design A computable general equilibrium model of the UK economy was specified for various combinations of mortality and morbidity from pandemic influenza, vaccine efficacy, school closures, and prophylactic absenteeism using published data. Setting The 2004 UK economy (the most up to date available with suitable economic data). Main outcome measures The economic impact of various scenarios with different pandemic severity, vaccination, school closure, and prophylactic absenteeism specified in terms of gross domestic product, output from different economic sectors, and equivalent variation. Results The costs related to illness alone ranged between 0.5% and 1.0% of gross domestic product (£8.4bn to £16.8bn) for low fatality scenarios, 3.3% and 4.3% (£55.5bn to £72.3bn) for high fatality scenarios, and larger still for an extreme pandemic. School closure increases the economic impact, particularly for mild pandemics. If widespread behavioural change takes place and there is large scale prophylactic absence from work, the economic impact would be notably increased with few health benefits. Vaccination with a pre-pandemic vaccine could save 0.13% to 2.3% of gross domestic product (£2.2bn to £38.6bn); a single dose of a matched vaccine could save 0.3% to 4.3% (£5.0bn to £72.3bn); and two doses of a matched vaccine could limit the overall economic impact to about 1% of gross domestic product for all disease scenarios. Conclusion Balancing school closure against “business as usual” and obtaining sufficient stocks of effective vaccine are more important factors in determining the economic impact of an influenza pandemic than is the disease itself. Prophylactic absence from work in response to fear of infection can add considerably to the economic impact.

Proactive and reactive approaches to risk regulation: The case of biotechnology☆

Abstract The evolution of regulatory systems to control the development and use of products containing live genetically manipulated organisms (GMOs) is raising important questions about the nature and desirability of proactive approaches to risk regulation and their impact on industrial innovation. This article attempts to elucidate some of the complex issues underlying pressures for so-called product-based (as opposed to process-based) approaches to the regulation of GMOs, to relate the product/process argument to the more general objectives of promoting reactive or proactive approaches to risk regulation and to compare the situation of GMOs with broader issues of precautionary risk regulation. In conclusion the implications of these issues for the future development of the biotechnology-based industries and for risk regulation in general are discussed.

Upstream engagement and the governance of science. The shadow of the genetically modified crops experience in Europe

Synthetic biology represents a fusion of the pragmatic and the idealistic, which is motivated by the drive for a better understanding of biological processes, and the desire to deliver the social and commercial benefits that the science seems to promise (Tait, 2009). Most scientists working in universities and commercial companies are guided by a mixture of these motivations. However, in the background, a shadow looms over many of the life sciences, pointing to a complex and possibly difficult future—the question of public acceptance of the science and technology. Echoing this tension, many European governments, including the European Union (EU) itself, are caught between a desire to promote innovation, and the political need to accommodate a wide range of public‐interest groups with precautionary concerns about environmental and health issues. > …a shadow looms over many of the life sciences, pointing to a complex and possibly difficult future—the question of public acceptance of the science and technology The shadow over the life sciences is most substantive in the context of genetically modified (GM) crops—any discussion among scientists and policy‐makers about future developments comes around, eventually, to the need to avoid a repetition of the European debate on GM crops and its outcome. Although this controversy was most virulent during the period from 1998 to 2002, it rapidly resurfaces in response to any positive or even neutral news item about GM crops. The effect of this opposition to GM crops by public‐interest groups should not be underestimated. Publications and reports that do not take an anti‐GM perspective regularly come under attack. A recent explanatory review of a range of GM crop issues (Sense about Science, 2009) led to challenges related to the independence of the scientists who had contributed to it (Corbyn, 2009). The publication of a report showing that GM crop technology is …

Ethical Framework for Biofuels

Biofuels policies must protect human rights and the environment. Biofuels made from renewable biomass are promoted as offering greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions savings and as one of the few options to replace liquid fossil fuels for transport. Mandatory targets for introduction and blending of biofuels have been introduced. For example, renewable fuels must account for 10% of transport fuel by 2020 in the European Union (EU) (1) and 36 billion gallons by 2022 in the United States (2). However, many claims that biofuels reduce GHG emissions have been contested (3, 4), and there are serious concerns about negative effects on food security, the environment, and the rights of farmers and landholders in developing countries (5–7).

Assessing end-use relevance of public sector research organisations

Abstract Measuring the effective impact of research and its relevance to society is a difficult undertaking but one that the public sector is keen to embrace. Identifying end-users of research and capturing their views of research relevance are challenging tasks and not something that has been extensively reported. The evaluation of end-use relevance demands a shift in organisational mindset and performance indicators away from readily quantifiable outputs towards a consideration of more qualitative end-user outcomes that are less amenable to measurement, requiring both a greater tolerance of ambiguity and a willingness to learn from the evaluation process.

Systemic Interactions in Life Science Innovation1

Abstract Adopting a sectoral systems of innovation approach, this paper seeks to explain the remarkable long term robustness of the innovation trajectories of pharmaceutical and agrochemical multinational companies. Three case studies, GM crops, pharmaco-genetics and stem cells, are used to explore the circumstances that determine whether innovative technologies have incremental or disruptive impacts on firms, and if the latter, the extent of that disruption, for example in leading to a Schumpeterian wave of creative destruction. The experience of agro-biotechnology companies in developing GM crops has some parallels with the stresses being faced by pharmaceutical companies today. Our analysis identifies particularly the onerous nature of the regulatory systems for these industry sectors and also the specialised nature of the markets, in acting as a barrier to entry for new firms, as being primarily responsible for the overall stability of the sectoral innovation systems to date. However, we also point to the importance of simultaneous impacts of innovative technologies on regulatory systems, markets and sectoral innovation systems as potentially providing a challenge that is sufficient to shift the overall innovation trajectory in life sciences.

New Modes of Governance : Developing an Integrated Policy Approach to Science, Technology, Risk and the Environment

Contents: New Approaches To Governance: Shifting policy debates and the implications for governance, Catherine Lyall and Joyce Tait The governance of technology, Perri 6 The governance challenges of breakthrough science and technology, Graham Spinardi and Robin Williams. Developing An Integrated Policy Approach: Life science innovation: policy and foresight, Thomas Reiss and Joyce Tait Developing an integrated approach to risk: the ILGRA network, James McQuaid Rural policy: a highlands and islands perspective, Frank Rennie. The Limits To Integration: Hypermobility: a challenge to governance, John Adams Environmental policy integration for sustainable technologies: rationale and practical experiences at EU level, Julia Hertin and Frans Berkhout The challenges of policy integration from an international perspective: the case of GMOs, Joseph Murphy and Joanna Chataway A new mode of governance for science, technology, risk and the environment?, Joyce Tait and Catherine Lyall Index.

Sustainable development of agricultural systems: competing objectives and critical limits

Abstract The sustainability of agricultural systems has become a major focus for debates about future human survival. Much of the argument appears to rely on simplistic interpretation of ecological models, and fails adequately to define what sustainability objectives are being sought. We explore the implications of two alternative approaches to agricultural sustainability: the Critical Limits view which would require future farming systems to accept the ecosystem-imposed limits on the number of people in the world and the lifestyle they can enjoy; and the Competing Objectives view would balance agricultural sustainability with economic viability, reduction of environmental harm and fulfilling public demands for food and landscape benefits. The development of farming systems of the future will depend on which of these views is adopted by planners and policy makers. This paper challenges some of the ecological assumptions underlying the Critical Limits approach and questions the conventional view that extensive farming systems are more sustainable agriculturally than intensive systems. We may be able to deal more effectively with the environmental side effects of intensive farming systems by treating them as unwanted externalities and taking direct action to avoid or remove them rather than attempting to change fundamentally the nature of modern farming systems. To cope with the increasingly complexity and inter-connectedness of modern farming systems in the context of globalisation and potential perturbations like climate change, we need a pluralistic approach to policy, which can cope with the high levels of uncertainty in these areas and which allows maximum flexibility of response to changing circumstances.

Global food security and the governance of modern biotechnologies

Food security has become an issue of serious concern because global food supplies are threatened by systemic collapse. Increasing demand for food caused by global population growth, changing lifestyles in developing countries, climate change and competition with biofuels are combining to create a ‘perfect storm’ (Godfray et al , 2010). Moreover, short‐term weather pattern changes leading to floods and droughts and associated fires in key grain‐producing areas of the world encourage speculation in agricultural commodities and cause wild price fluctuations. Drastic price hikes for staple foods during the past few years have triggered famine and revolts in developing countries, where people are hardest hit (Henn, 2011). > European regulatory systems—instead of scientific progress—will therefore determine whether technology‐based solutions are part of the future of agriculture… Basic research into plant, animal and microbial physiology and molecular processes has yielded extensive knowledge about plants, their pathogens and symbiotic partners. Scientists and policy‐makers are confident that the application of this knowledge could lead to new and more efficient approaches to crop production that will eventually improve food security. In this context, Europe has a particularly important role, as it contains highly fertile land and is agriculturally very productive. However, European countries find it difficult to respond constructively to these challenges, given their divergent opinions on how to address food‐security issues, particularly in terms of whether and how science and technology should be part of the solution. In addition, individuals and interest groups opposed to genetic modification and related technologies have influenced policy making in agriculture. Unfortunately, the European Union (EU) has yet to develop a coherent approach that allows European citizens to reap the benefits of scientific progress and prevents special interests from dominating decision‐making processes. European regulatory systems—instead of scientific progress—will therefore determine whether technology‐based solutions are part of the future of agriculture …

Towards a more open debate about values in decision-making on agricultural biotechnology

Regulatory decision-making over the use of products of new technology aims to be based on science-based risk assessment. In some jurisdictions, decision-making about the cultivation of genetically modified (GM) plants is blocked supposedly because of scientific uncertainty about risks to the environment. However, disagreement about the acceptability of risks is primarily a dispute over normative values, which is not resolvable through natural sciences. Natural sciences may improve the quality and relevance of the scientific information used to support environmental risk assessments and make scientific uncertainties explicit, but offer little to resolve differences about values. Decisions about cultivating GM plants will thus not necessarily be eased by performing more research to reduce scientific uncertainty in environmental risk assessments, but by clarifying the debate over values. We suggest several approaches to reveal values in decision-making: (1) clarifying policy objectives; (2) determining what constitutes environmental harm; (3) making explicit the factual and normative premises on which risk assessments are based; (4) better demarcating environmental risk assessment studies from ecological research; (5) weighing the potential for environmental benefits (i.e., opportunities) as well as the potential for environmental harms (i.e., risks); and (6) expanding participation in the risk governance of GM plants. Recognising and openly debating differences about values will not remove controversy about the cultivation of GM plants. However, by revealing what is truly in dispute, debates about values will clarify decision-making criteria.