Sarah Hartley

Responsible innovation across borders: tensions, paradoxes and possibilities

In March 2014 a group of early career researchers and academics from Sao Paulo state and from the UK met at the University of Campinas to participate in a workshop on ‘Responsible Innovation and the Governance of Socially Controversial Technologies’. In this Perspective we describe key reflections and observations from the workshop discussions, paying particular attention to the discourse of responsible innovation from a cross-cultural perspective. We describe a number of important tensions, paradoxes and opportunities that emerged over the three days of the workshop.

Against the tide of depoliticisation: The politics of research governance

Research has identified a general trend towards depoliticisation. Against this trend, we identify opportunities for politicisation through the international emergence of a research governance tool: ‘responsible research and innovation’ (RRI). Drawing on face-to-face interviews with university staff, we reveal two factors that influence whether research governance becomes a site of politics: actors’ acknowledgement of their societal responsibilities, and the meanings these actors attribute to RRI. RRI provides a focus for political struggles over the public value of research and innovation at a time when science policy is given a privileged role in driving economic growth.

Essential Features of Responsible Governance of Agricultural Biotechnology

Agricultural biotechnology continues to generate considerable controversy. We argue that to address this controversy, serious changes to governance are needed. The new wave of genomic tools and products (e.g., CRISPR, gene drives, RNAi, synthetic biology, and genetically modified [GM] insects and fish), provide a particularly useful opportunity to reflect on and revise agricultural biotechnology governance. In response, we present five essential features to advance more socially responsible forms of governance. In presenting these, we hope to stimulate further debate and action towards improved forms of governance, particularly as these new genomic tools and products continue to emerge.

Responsible Innovation and political accountability: genetically modified mosquitoes in Brazil

ABSTRACTIn this paper, we analyse the introduction of genetically modified (GM) mosquitoes in Brazil and use this case to probe the notion of Responsible Innovation and its applicability to the development of new public health biotechnologies in the global South. OX513A, a strain of GM Aedes aegypti mosquitoes developed by the British firm Oxitec, has been used experimentally in Brazil since 2009, when it was imported into the country as a promising new tool in the fight against dengue. We discuss the regulatory history of OX513A in Brazil, as well as the forms of ‘community engagement’ that have accompanied the release of transgenic mosquitoes. We argue that the conduct of a scientific research project is only part of a broader effort to localise insect biotechnology in Brazil, an effort that has enjoyed very visible support from political authorities across the country. We conclude by arguing that if the framework of Responsible Innovation is to have purchase on this sort of transnational and multifacet...

Why are NGOs sceptical of genome editing

NGOs’ opposition to agricultural biotechnologies is rooted in scepticism about the framing of problems and solutions, rather than just emotion and dogma.

Policy masquerading as science: an examination of non-state actor involvement in European risk assessment policy for genetically modified animals

ABSTRACT In 2013, at the request of the European Commission, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) announced a new risk assessment policy: Guidance on the environmental risks of genetically modified (GM) animals (‘Guidance’). This policy specifies the issues to be addressed in future risk assessments for GM animals. EFSA is the European Commissions scientific arm, responsible for food-related risk assessment. EFSA relies heavily on independent experts and consults non-state actors. Employing expert interviews and documentary analysis, the article explores non-state actor involvement in a traditionally expert domain through a case study. Analysis of EFSAs consultation demonstrates the inability of non-state actors to influence policy. The article argues that despite international legal obligations to develop risk assessment policy, the European Commission failed to recognize the Guidance as policy. When policy masquerades as science, unjustified restrictions are placed on non-state actor involvement and value judgements are cloaked from public scrutiny.

Reply to Tagliabue

EMBO Reports (2018) e45954 Since our article “Why are NGOs sceptical of genome editing?” [1] was published, we received correspondence, both critical and supportive, but written in the same spirit we employed: attempting to build mutual understanding between diverse perspectives on the role of genome editing in agriculture and food production. In our article, we highlighted one strategy for building such understanding, reflecting on what Rayner describes as “uncomfortable knowledge” [2]: the knowledge that we all downplay when framing complex issues such as genome editing or food security. We presented NGOs’ knowledge regarding the political aspects of agricultural biotechnology and food security, which diverges from technical arguments about yield and economic value and is uncomfortable for some correspondents, such as Giovanni Tagliabue [3]. While we thank him for his comments, we would highlight the weaknesses in his technical arguments and his overall approach to this debate. Tagliabues response exhibits …