Search

Agricultural biotechnology is typically analyzed critically by means of a political ecological focus on the science and its ecological implications – agbio science as a radical, and ‘non-natural’, break with ‘normal’ trajectories for ‘new plant science’. Surprisingly, less attention has been paid to a range of key political economic issues, many of which were important in the last big food production technology ‘revolution’, the Green Revolution. This paper will focus on three areas of political economy. First, we discuss the corporate drivers of agricultural biotechnology, and examine whether these drivers have already set the technology so that it cannot be changed. Second, we investigate the present economics and technology of genetic modification in plants, and its possible future. Third, we examine empirical evidence for alternative visions of the technology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Multinational companies in the life science sector are heavily influenced by government policies and regulations and in turn attempt to influence these actors nationally and internationally. This paper focuses on recent and on-going research, principally on the agro-biotechnology and, to a lesser extent, on the pharmaceutical industries, covering the evolution of policy and regulation in Europe, how policies are influenced by stakeholder pressures and how policy in turn influences company strategies for product development. We focus particularly on new ‘governance’ agendas in Europe and consider the relative impacts of enabling, constraining, discriminating and indiscriminate policies on company strategies as part of our development of an integrated approach to policy and governance. We also consider changes in external operating environments for multinational companies and compare past histories and present pressures on agro-biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies. The paper argues, with evidence, that a more enabling and discriminating policy and regulatory environment can achieve public goals more efficiently and effectively, taking account of impacts on innovation, than more blunt policy instruments. This type of environment takes into account the resources and capabilities available to firms and research laboratories rather than relying on broad brush carrot and stick approaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Biotechnology represents hope for those who believe that new technology can contribute to overcoming a range of pressing productivity and environmental constraints facing poor farmers. Pouring money into the science and technology however without recognizing institutional and systemic complexities associated with creating ‘pro-poor’ technologies is unlikely to deliver much for those farmers. Moreover, there are a range of economic and political contextual factors which further complicate efforts to put the technology to use for poorer farmers. This article outlines some of the issues and possible new approaches which are discussed in more detail in later articles in this special issue. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article comments on the progress of the United Nations' Millennium Development Goals in eradicating poverty and hunger through crop biotechnology partnership in sub-Saharan Africa. This is one of the eight goals set by the organization with the specific target of alleviating poverty by 50 percent between 1990 and 2015. Reports and analyses conducted showed that food production is way behind its population growth due to poor governance, poverty, plant diseases and calamities.

A letter to the editor is presented in response to the editorial on the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development Report published in the March 2008 issue.

Science and technology -- and particularly biotechnology -- is increasingly central to development agendas in Africa and elsewhere. Implicit within the centrality of science and technology lie a set of policy issues regarding how best to shape contextually appropriate, innovative and sustainable science and technological products in, with and for developing countries. The work of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) is a case in point and we draw our empirical material from the evolution of two biotech bovine vaccine development programmes housed in a CG Centre. In the paper, we seek to show that broadening our understanding of scientific 'excellence' can lead to more innovative, systemic research that may produce more appropriate technological solutions. We believe this has key implications for science policy, development policy and the practice of science for development itself. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]