Search

Global shortages of critical equipment and supplies induced by COVID-19 forced countries to rapidly build and ramp up their indigenous testing and production capacities. However, the many ways in which institutional and organizational change occurred has not been sufficiently captured. Building domestic capacity requires the leveraging and repurposing of existing domestic scientific and technological capabilities, coupled with intensified global outreach to new and existing partners and suppliers. Using the framework of institutional variety, this paper looks at two facets of the UK's COVID emergency industrial response: (1) building its laboratory testing capabilities and (2) for increasing production of personal protective equipment; assessing the institutional capacities and relations that were leveraged in this regard. It uses these findings together with observations of 'innovation processes under emergency conditions' and the potential uses of a 'critical equipment policy' to sharpen some of the recommendations made in the UK's post-COVID Research and Development Roadmap. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is potentially tension between world class research and global standards on the one hand and local contexts of engineering and development practice on the other. One aims at scientific status and entirely new knowledge, suggesting just one standard of quality. The other at building products and processes that might bring socio‐economic development, often prizing pragmatism and bricolage. The UK‐funded programme 'Understanding Sustainable Energy Solutions in Developing Countries' (USES) was set up on the understanding that such tensions, if they exist, can be transcended. It was funded by two organisations, the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council and the UK international development agency, Department for International Development. This paper analyses the USES research programme, looking at the processes of its establishment, partnership building, the research undertaken and its early impact. The paper shows that the USES programme goes beyond 'normal' pure versus applied, research versus policy and low‐tech versus high‐tech dualities. Instead, it throws up a complex series of issues that require attention if research is to lead to long standing and sustainable economic and social development. The paper suggests that the concept 'liquid engineering' might be a good way to conceptualise the ways in which the programme, without denying the tensions of dualistic realities, has moved towards a more fluid process to take account of its multiple and complex goals. The programme highlights that progress can be made towards engineering and development being accepted as a legitimate area of engineering theory and practice. © 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For the first time, the UK research evaluation system, known as the Research Excellence Framework, considered 'measures' of impact in the 2014 review. Here, we focus on impact case studies that had an engineering and international development orientation. We found that writers of impact case studies commonly chose to employ an ecological modernization (economic, environmental, and social value) discourse to shape value claims. We also found that the type of engineering and international development research that appears in impact case studies tends to be high tech, best-with-best, and exclusive, rather than low tech, humanitarian, and inclusive. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Public controversy has intensifed over the environmental effects of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) amid contending accounts of sustainable agriculture. In regulating these products, the UK has extended its 'consultative' style, seeking to maintain the appearance of expert neutrality. To anticipate and incorporate potential dissent, the government adopted precautionary legislation and established a broadly-based advisory committee. Although the UK regulation is officially 'risk-based', in practice it involves a qualitative assessment of the acceptability and plausibility of potential effects. In this way, the risk debate has become scientized: some uncertainties are translated into technical criteria, while others are downplayed or deferred. These official judgements have been seriously challenged, especially at the commercial stage of herbicide-tolerant crops. Pressure groups hold regulators publicly accountable for controlling risks which the government had excluded from GMO regulation. In all those ways, the UK consultative style has come under strain. The regulatory procedure faces dilemmas- between setting narrow regulatory boundaries versus gaining legitimacy for products; between enabling commercial use versus extending precautionary controls; and between providing some public access versus limiting participation. These strains are illuminated here by two theoretical perspectives- 'reflexive scientization' and 'national regulatory styles'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Examines the problems associated with work on environment product development projects experienced by engineers in Great Britain. Legislation for environmental protection; Development of innovative products and processes generated by environmental concerns; Problems affecting innovative product development in business organizations.