Theo Papaioannou

Divergent Paradigms of European Agro-Food Innovation The Knowledge-Based Bio-Economy (KBBE) as an R&D Agenda

The Knowledge-Based Bio-Economy (KBBE) has gained prominence as an agricultural R&D agenda of the European Union. Specific research policies are justified as necessary to create a KBBE for societal progress. Playing the role of a master narrative, the KBBE attracts rival visions; each favours a different diagnosis of unsustainable agriculture and its remedies in agro-food innovation. Each vision links a technoscientific paradigm with a quality paradigm: the dominant life sciences vision combines converging technologies with decomposability, while a marginal one combines agro-ecology with integral product integrity. From these divergent visions, rival stakeholder networks contend for influence over research policies and priorities, especially within the Framework Programme 7 (FP7) on Food, Agriculture, Fisheries and Biotechnology (FAFB), which has aimed to promote a Knowledge-Based Bio-Economy. Although the FAFB programme has favoured a life sciences vision, agro-ecological approaches have gained a presence, thus overcoming their general lock-out from agricultural research agendas. In their own way, each rival paradigm emphasises the need for collective systems to gather information for linking producers with users, as a rationale for the public sector to fund distinctive research priorities.

EU agri-innovation policy: two contending visions of the bio-economy

The knowledge-based bio-economy has gained prominence as a research and innovation policy of the European Union. As a policy framework the knowledge-based bio-economy has attracted two contending visions, which can be analyzed as imaginaries – strategic discourses prefiguring a possible, desirable future. In the dominant vision, life sciences will enhance productivity for European competitive advantage in global value chains. A rival vision links agroecology and shorter food supply chains, as a means for farmers to gain more from the value that they add. Each vision favors a different diagnosis of unsustainable agriculture and eco-efficient remedies. Each extends a different paradigm of agri-innovation, foreseeing an economic community that can gain from future markets. These two contending visions give different meanings to the same key terms – knowledge, biological resources and economy. In the EUs research program for a knowledge-based bio-economy, a life sciences vision dominates the priorities, though agroecology has also gained a significant place in response to proposals from stakeholder networks. Through these efforts, research policy priorities have been opened up to more plural agri-innovation pathways.

How inclusive can innovation and development be in the twenty-first century?

Innovation is crucial for development. Addressing twenty-first century developmental challenges requires innovative processes and products, which help in reducing and/or eliminating the gap between rich and poor in the society. Such innovations can meet basic needs of low- and middle-income groups in developing countries, providing them with capabilities to function. The aim of this paper is to answer the question of how inclusive (of people and places) innovation and development can be in the twenty-first century. The paper therefore reviews new models of innovation for development, including ‘frugal’ and ‘grassroots’ or ‘below the radar’ innovation models. The argument put forward is that their inclusiveness depends not only on their diffusion to the poor but also on their generation according to principles of participation and equity derived from contemporary theories of global justice. These are conditions with direct impact on meeting the poors basic needs and increasing their capabilities to function.

Technological innovation, global justice and politics of development

The importance of innovation in human development is undeniable. Since the 1780s, successive scientific and technological revolutions have introduced new products and services with tremendous impact on well-being and general welfare. Yet innovation has not been available to all individuals and their societies. There are still countries in the developing world which lack proper access to fundamental innovations such as medicines, electricity, information and communication technologies (ICTs) and so on. Unequal generation and diffusion of innovation constitutes a major problem of global justice. However, neither innovation theory nor the theory of global justice provides solutions. On the one hand, innovation theory has so far refused to engage with questions of fairness and justice in the generation and diffusion of new technologies. On the other hand, emerging approaches to global justice have been almost indifferent to the prominence of new technologies in the fight against poverty and inequality. The aim of this article is to bridge the gulf between the literatures of technological innovation and global justice. It will be argued that technological innovation can satisfy minimum requirements of global justice only through successful public action and campaigning against unjust innovation diffusion. This implies that politics of development should support redistributive systems and global social movements against current Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) regimes, providing alternative incentives for successful generation and application of new knowledge.

Knowledge Ecologies and Ecosystems? An Empirically Grounded Reflection on Recent Developments in Innovation Systems Theory

Recent academic and policy debate on innovation indicates that there has been some shift from a more traditional systems approach to ecologies and ecosystems. The latter are concepts transferred from the world of biology to the social world in order to explain the evolutionary nature of interrelations between different individuals, their innovative activities, and their environment. We evaluate the concept of knowledge ecology and the theory of innovation ecosystem on two fundamental grounds; firstly, on the grounds of theoretical plausibility and conceptual consistency; secondly, on empirical grounds of the case of public–private interrelations of biotech innovation in Cambridge. The argument is that the concept of knowledge ecology and the theory of innovation ecosystems can lead to problems of reductionism and functionalism. This is due to their development in abstraction from more grounded analysis of historical processes of the social division of labour. Knowledge and innovation need to be looked at in the context of historically founded processes of socioeconomic development.

Innovation and development in search of a political theory of justice

Recent approaches to innovation and development have slowly started shifting their emphasis from economic growth to social equality and justice. These two concepts were prominent in the 1970s, but were sidelined during the neo-liberal era and are currently being rediscovered. Thus, innovation and development researchers now agree that ‘making new things in new ways’ has positive and negative impact on equality and socio-economic and political relations within and between countries. They recognise that innovation and technical change are significant from the point of view of distributive justice. However, despite their recognition, none of them adequately defines these concepts or provides a set of principles which ought to guide socially equitable or just innovation and development. This paper explains why innovation and development studies need to move towards the normative terrain in search of a plausible theory of distributive justice. Unless such a theory can be found and defended against other competing theories, the recent shift from economic growth to equality and social justice will be temporary and without any substantial impact on global policies for poverty reduction.

UK biofuel policy: envisaging sustainable biofuels, shaping institutions and futures

Technoscientific innovation has played a central role in UK biofuel policy. When the government was proposing mandatory targets in 2007–08, public controversy over ‘unsustainable biofuels’ was channelled into prospects for future biofuels to avoid environmental harm and land-use conflicts. This vision serves as an imaginary—a feasible, desirable future. Societal benefits have been envisaged according to specific models of economic competitiveness, valuable knowledge, and environmental sustainability—together comprising a prevalent imaginary of future ‘sustainable biofuels’. This has informed institutional change along two lines. First, targets are envisaged as a temporary transition until future ‘advanced biofuels’ make liquid fuel more sustainable. Second, UK research institutes realign their priorities towards seeking investment from foreign counterparts and global energy companies, in the name of making UK science and industry more competitive. Together these measures have been justified as necessary for a transition to advanced biofuels which would better contribute to a low-carbon economy. Although this imaginary may eventually be transformed into reality, initially realised has been institutional change that reinforces infrastructural dependence on liquid fuel for the internal combustion engine. As an imaginary, then, ‘sustainable biofuels’ can help explain how a policy agenda promotes one future, while marginalising alternatives. Keywords: imaginaries, un/sustainable biofuels, low-carbon economy, innovation policy, technofix, waste hierarchy

Democratic governance of genomics: the case of UK Biobank

Biobanks are collections of human biological tissue used for genomics research. This promises a better understanding of the gene-based contribution to common disease and development of a more personalized approach to healthcare with safer drugs and more effective treatment. However, biobanks are also controversial owing to the ethical, legal, social and political issues raised about their collection and use of biological samples. Therefore, their democratic governance is not only a normative challenge but also an empirical one. This paper is concerned with both challenges: it attempts to “evaluate” processes of democratic governance of genomics by focusing on the case of UK Biobank. The overall argument is that although the UK Biobank performs well in terms of general democratic governance structures, there are epistemological and practical limits to specific democratic governance processes.

From consultation to deliberation? a qualitative case study of governing science and technology projects for the public good

The concept of ‘public consultation’ and the idea of ‘democratic deliberation’ describe different forms of engagement of various citizens and stakeholders in the governance of science and technology projects (STPs). On the one hand, public consultation is concerned with enhancing the quality of decisions through public understanding of a complex STP. On the other hand, democratic deliberation is concerned with taking quality decisions through communicative action and free argumentation between all parties affected. This article focuses on the STP of the UK Biobank, addressing the following question: which form of upstream engagement is required in governing the next phase of the UK Biobank for the public good of health? Drawing on political theory debates and qualitative evidence, it is argued that although ideal democratic governance of the (next phase of) UK Biobank requires transition from public consultation to democratic deliberation the latter faces practical limitations. Thus, deliberative engagement cannot be full in specific STPs for the public good of health.

Public--Private Collaboration for New Life Sciences Innovation and Regional Development: The Cases of Cambridge and Scotland

Today, bioscientific research and commercialization are considered to be critical for improving a number of areas of social and economic life. Especially in the sector of human healthcare, the recent developments in new life sciences and biotechnology appear to constitute the main driving force of change. The most important characteristic of the new paradigm of technological change and innovation in life sciences is the close collaboration between all actors involved, including companies and research institutes, public policy initiatives and regional impacts. This paper examines in depth the complex collaborative relationships between public policy, public research and private firms in genomics and biotechnology, focusing on the cases of Cambridge and Scotland. On the basis of empirical evidence, it is argued that although these relationships are uneven and contradictory in both regions, they play significant roles in building firm-based and policy-making capabilities. Therefore, public–private collaborations in genomics and biotechnology are inevitable for regional innovation and development within the contemporary capitalist knowledge-based economy.