Search

Future food production will need to deliver a healthy diet to a growing world population whilst also contributing to policy objectives such as achieving Net Zero emissions and addressing biodiversity loss. This article looks at circular economy solutions to this challenge, comparing McArthur Foundation and other approaches to both the circular material economy (e.g. focusing on steel, plastics, aluminium, and cement) and the circular bioeconomy (operating in sectors that include agriculture, food production and industrial biotechnology). A case study based on salmon farming in Scotland considers the roles of innovation from a range of technology sectors in contributing to these objectives. The concept of circularity, and the closed-loop thinking that it encourages, could attract attention towards less optimal production options just because they can be accommodated within a circular model. A ‘networked bioeconomy’ model, guided by cascading principles and fast-tracked using innovative technologies, may be more powerful than one based on rigid closed-loop circularity, in enabling policy makers and producers to understand how they can best contribute both to the conservation of biodiversity and to mitigating climate change.

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is one of today’s greatest public health threats and reducing antimicrobial use in livestock is essential to prevent its spread, requiring rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) to ensure that the drug prescribed matches the sensitivity of the disease organism. However, despite decades of research on RDTs and a relatively permissive regulatory environment in the UK, few devices are in commercial use. Challenges discussed by RDT developers included identifying commercially-viable targets, and management of the innovation ecosystem, e.g. to create clear pathways to market supporting positive interactions between farmers, vets, and other actors along the value chain. Future support for RDT development could be provided through incorporation in: assured food systems;business service packages provided by centralised laboratories;or animal health monitoring packages related to the spread of AMR. Breeding stock sales could require an accompanying health package including RDTs, vaccines and/or antibiotics, linking to precision agriculture approaches. Unlike the example of RDT development for COVID-19, it seems that the urgency of the issue and the clarity of links between animal and human health outcomes are not yet sufficient to support a fast-tracking programme for the development of RDTs to combat AMR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Technology Analysis & Strategic Management is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This paper focuses on business models and value chains to analyse sectoral innovation systems involving synthetic biology and gene editing, as potentially disruptive platform technologies in the life sciences. In the context of industrial biotechnology, we propose that the extent to which an innovation is expected to be disruptive, and the location of that disruption in existing value chains, are relevant to policy decision making on how to govern innovative technologies. Policy decisions on how to regulate or support an innovative technology will be among the most important factors determining the extent to which it is able to deliver its disruptive potential, leading to sectoral transformations through new business models and value chains. This mode of thinking about disruption and innovation could be incorporated in standard procedures for policy makers to guide decisions designed to support translation from basic scientific research to societally useful products and processes.

‘Governance’ is a highly plastic concept that has spilled over from the political sciences and has been adopted, in some cases rather uncritically, by scholars from other social science traditions. We argue that there are limits to this all-pervasive notion of governance. Some of these limitations could potentially be addressed by the ‘tentative governance’ approach if it can create new opportunities for learning in order to cope with the problems of uncertainty at an early stage of new and emerging technologies in areas such as the life sciences. In order to move beyond these limits, we may be able to use the heuristic device offered by tentative governance as a step towards developing and adopting new rules of engagement. These new rules of engagement need (i) to recognise that consensus may not always be possible in areas of new and emerging technology and (ii) to accept a more balanced approach to governance that acknowledges the role of policy and politics. In order to achieve this, we need to go beyond science and technology studies (STS) and innovation studies and adopt a more interdisciplinary approach that acknowledges the contributions already made to this governance debate by a wide range of scholars, including those in the political sciences.

In this paper we explore how the politics of European regulation and risk governance for innovative agricultural biotechnologies, with the continuing emphasis on the precautionary principle, has problematised conventional norms of evidence-based risk-related decision-making. Based on a study we conducted that analysed how the EU regulatory system had operated in practice in the context of two of the company Syngenta’s genetically modified (GM) crops (Bt11 and GA21), and through stakeholder workshops, we highlight the tensions in the current regulatory system in Europe, the implications for the future regulation of new and emerging advanced agricultural biotechnologies in the EU, and suggest areas where there may be a need for further regulatory adjustment.

Focusing on Europe and the United States, and using policy/regulatory document analysis, qualitative interviews, and quantitative cost-scenario analysis, we explore regulatory and market influences on the commercial development of novel antimicrobial drugs and diagnostics to meet the global antimicrobial resistance crisis. We show that regulation of clinical trials previously inhibited firms’ ability to develop commercially viable antimicrobials, but now unattractive commercial prospects are the main barrier. Our findings improve understanding of the challenges of drug development in the context of market failure and highlight unique problems of antimicrobial resistance in terms of the alignment of different incentive structures and value(s), including clinical norms and practices.

This paper identifies, characterises and analyses six evolving regenerative business (RM) models in the UK based on 10 cases we studied. Our conceptual framework extracts four key elements from contemporary business model and value chain literature; architecture/structure, value creation and extraction, networks and linkages, and governance. Using the case study method, we identified the following business models: materials and service provision; early exit: Phase I/II; manufacturing and scale up; translational services; virtual; and integrated. All the business models are still pre-revenue, except for manufacturing and scale up which generates revenue from contract manufacturing therapies for clinical trials. The RM sector is still evolving and consequently the business models are still in flux. Two key challenges for the sector are scalability and sustainability, which creates challenges for pre-emptive policy and practice interventions. We conclude that pre-emptive policy design should support value chain upgrading, paying particular attention to short, medium and long-term sustainability of the RM innovation eco-system, especially evolution of a broad base of SMEs that can take over when public funding is withdrawn. A proportionate and adaptive regulatory environment will be critical to supporting evolving business models even as value chain upgrading occurs.

This article focuses on 10 case studies of companies/organizations that are part of the current innovation ecosystem of regenerative medicine (RM) in the United Kingdom. It analyzes the actors, linkages, and influences that will determine the future shape of the RM industry sector and its capacity to live up to its initial expectations.Using the case study approach, purposive sampling was used to get 18 interview respondents from 10 RM companies/organizations in the United Kingdom. We used semistructured interviews for data gathering and thematic analysis for identifying gaps in the RM value chain (ie, the range of activities required for bringing a product from conception to market and end-use) and the influences of the innovation ecosystem on the evolving RM business models.RM promises to address currently unmet health care needs by restoring the normal form and function of cells, tissues, and organs. The innovations emerging to support the progress of RM to satisfy these important health care markets will disrupt the business models of incumbent industry sectors, particularly pharmaceuticals. Companies involved in this area must develop innovative business models and value chains and negotiate the complex influences of the innovation ecosystem, including regulatory systems and standards, financial support systems, and new market dynamics.This article highlights the needs for more systemic analyses of the needs of potentially disruptive innovations, in RM and more widely, and for policymakers to give greater attention to these insights in planning regulatory and other supporting initiatives, with the promotion of innovation in mind.

Aims This study aimed to explore breast cancer patients' understanding and acceptability of implanted biosensors (BS) within the primary tumour to personalise adjuvant radiotherapy, and to determine optimal design and number of BS, and evaluate potential clinical benefits as well as concerns about tolerance, toxicity, dwell time, and confidentiality of data. Patients and methods A total of 32 patients treated by surgery (29 breast conserving, 3 mastectomy), postoperative radiotherapy and systemic therapy for early breast cancer, were recruited from a posttreatment radiotherapy clinic at a cancer centre. Patients participated in semistructured interviews. Interview transcripts were analysed using qualitative methods. Results Participants were aged 39 to 87 years, with a median age of 62 years. Most (N = 23[72%]) were unfamiliar with biosensors. The majority (N = 29[90.6%]) were supportive of the technology's potential use in future breast cancer treatment and were willing to accept biosensors (N = 28[88%]) if they were endorsed by their breast cancer consultant. Only 3 patients expressed concerns, predominantly about uncertainties on their role in the diagnostic and treatment pathway. Patients were flexible about the size and shape of BS, but had a preference for small size (N = 28 [87.5%]). Most (N = 22[69%]) would accept implantation of more than 5 BS and were flexible (N = 22[69%]) about indefinite dwell time. Patients had a strong preference for wireless powering of the BS (N = 28[87.5%]). Few had concerns about loss of confidentiality of data collected. All patients considered biosensors to be potentially of important clinical benefit. Conclusions While knowledge of biosensors was limited, patients were generally supportive of biosensors implanted within the primary tumour to collect data that might personalise and improve breast cancer radiotherapy in future., Aims: This study aimed to explore breast cancer patients' understanding and acceptability of implanted biosensors (BS) within the primary tumour to personalise adjuvant radiotherapy, and to determine optimal design and number of BS, and evaluate potential clinical benefits as well as concerns about tolerance, toxicity, dwell time, and confidentiality of data. Patients and methods: A total of 32 patients treated by surgery (29 breast conserving, 3 mastectomy), postoperative radiotherapy and systemic therapy for early breast cancer, were recruited from a posttreatment radiotherapy clinic at a cancer centre. Patients participated in semistructured interviews. Interview transcripts were analysed using qualitative methods. Results: Participants were aged 39 to 87 years, with a median age of 62 years. Most (N = 23[72%]) were unfamiliar with biosensors. The majority (N = 29[90.6%]) were supportive of the technology's potential use in future breast cancer treatment and were willing to accept biosensors (N = 28[88%]) if they were endorsed by their breast cancer consultant. Only 3 patients expressed concerns, predominantly about uncertainties on their role in the diagnostic and treatment pathway. Patients were flexible about the size and shape of BS, but had a preference for small size (N = 28 [87.5%]). Most (N = 22[69%]) would accept implantation of more than 5 BS and were flexible (N = 22[69%]) about indefinite dwell time. Patients had a strong preference for wireless powering of the BS (N = 28[87.5%]). Few had concerns about loss of confidentiality of data collected. All patients considered biosensors to be potentially of important clinical benefit. Conclusions: While knowledge of biosensors was limited, patients were generally supportive of biosensors implanted within the primary tumour to collect data that might personalise and improve breast cancer radiotherapy in future.

Advances in biological engineering are likely to have substantial impacts on global society. To explore these potential impacts we ran a horizon scanning exercise to capture a range of perspectives on the opportunities and risks presented by biological engineering. We first identified 70 potential issues, and then used an iterative process to prioritise 20 issues that we considered to be emerging, to have potential global impact, and to be relatively unknown outside the field of biological engineering. The issues identified may be of interest to researchers, businesses and policy makers in sectors such as health, energy, agriculture and the environment.

Theories of governance draw on a range of disciplinary perspectives and operate at multiple levels. The governance debate has its origins in various disciplines spanning institutional economics, international relations, organisational studies, development studies, political science, and public administration. Vertical integration is thus mainly a function of the institutional structures determined by policy-making at senior government levels and its most important constituents are effectiveness of communications across levels of government. The emerging system of global governance is being mediated through international organisations like the World Trade Organization. Horizontal integration takes place across departmental boundaries, for example the ideal, but so far patchy, integration between science and technology policy and social and environmental policies in the UK in the development of new approaches to governance. The chapter also presents an overview of the key concepts discussed in this book.

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.

This paper presents an approach developed by the Innogen Centre for the analysis of systems of innovation. The approach, developed through the study of innovation in the life sciences, is unique in that it features a triangular view, alongside consideration of the behaviours and interactions between innovators, regulators and policymakers, and advocacy and public interest groups. Furthermore, while the approach can be characterised as co-evolutionary and system-based, it also allows for the user to shift from the macro to micro - considering the impact of institutions on actors and innovation within an institutional milieu, but also considering the individual behaviours and business plans or actions of the actors involved. This paper presents both the approach itself and how the approach was developed.

A survey has been launched this week by the University of Bristol’s veterinary school along with the universities of Exeter and Edinburgh, and actively supported by the BVA, to better understand the role of diagnostic technologies in targeting the use of antimicrobials in livestock systems. The large-scale online survey is part of a study entitled ‘Diagnostic Innovation and Livestock (DIAL): Towards …

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.

Scientific advances in methods of producing genetically modified (GM) animals continue, yet few such animals have reached commercial production. Existing regulations designed for early techniques of genetic modification pose formidable barriers to commercial applications. Radically improved techniques for producing GM animals invite a re-examination of current regulatory regimes. We critically examine current GM animal regulations, with a particular focus on the European Union, through a framework that recognises the importance of interactions among regulatory regimes, innovation outcomes and industry sectors. The current focus on the regulation of risk is necessary but is unable to discriminate among applications and tends to close down broad areas of application rather than facilitate innovation and positive industry interactions. Furthermore, the fields of innovative animal biosciences appear to lack networks of organisations with co-ordinated future oriented actions. Such networks could drive coherent programmes of innovation towards particular visions and contribute actively to the development of regulatory systems for GM animals. The analysis presented makes the case for regulatory consideration of each animal bioscience related innovation on the basis of the nature of the product itself and not the process by which it was developed.

The encouragement of innovation at the regional level has been the subject of a series of EU initiatives, but there is, as yet, no overarching framework that provides clear, effective and widely accepted guidance for policy-makers. We identify some of the limitations facing innovation policy in Europe and put forward some ideas based on interdisciplinary thinking and methods which may help overcome these limitations. We propose two approaches to address the challenge of innovation policy formulation: first, an evolutionary life cycle approach to deal with the dynamic nature of innovation and the development of emerging sectors; and second, an approach to value chain and value system analysis to determine areas of potential growth or possible bottlenecks in the delivery of innovation. These two approaches address innovation challenges from the perspectives of policy-makers and of innovators, and can help to overcome the policy and societal challenges facing Europe. Copyright The Author 2013. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com, Oxford University Press.

Mandatory targets for biofuels have led to their rapid global adoption, but ethical problems with their large-scale production are widely reported. Research is underway to find new biofuel technologies that mitigate climate change and can be produced sustainably and economically. Following an 18-month inquiry, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics has developed an ethical framework for biofuels policy-making. Based on a number of widely held ethical values, six ethical principles are introduced that should be considered in biofuels policy-making. Many current biofuels policies fail this ethical ‘test’. An overarching ethical standard for biofuels is proposed that includes the protection of human rights and the environment, full life cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions, trade principles that are fair, access and benefit-sharing schemes to encourage equitable distribution of costs and benefits, and instruments to incentivize the development of promising new approaches. The Council goes on to make recommendations for changes to current policy. © 2011 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

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 …

The rapid development and adoption of biofuels has been driven by a wide range of targets and other policy instruments, but first-generation biofuels have been widely criticized. In light of the development of new biofuel technologies that aim to avoid the problems of the past, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics conducted an 18-month inquiry on the ethical, social and policy issues raised by both current and future biofuels. The Council concludes that many biofuels policies fail to take consideration of important ethical principles, such as protecting human rights, environmental sustainability, climate change mitigation, just reward, and equitable distribution of costs and benefits. It proposes an overarching ethical standard for biofuels, enforced by a certification scheme for all biofuels produced in and imported into Europe and ideally worldwide.

The pharmaceutical and agro-biotechnology industries have been confronted by dwindling product pipelines and rapid developments in life sciences, thus demanding a strategic rethink of conventional research and development. Despite offering both industries a solution to the pipeline problem, the life sciences have also brought complex regulatory challenges for firms. In this paper, we comment on the response of these industries to the life science trajectory, in the context of maturing conventional small-molecule product pipelines and routes to market. The challenges of managing transition from maturity to new high-value-added innovation models are addressed. Furthermore, we argue that regulation plays a crucial role in shaping the innovation systems of both industries, and as such, we suggest potentially useful changes to the current regulatory system.

Some industrially advanced developing countries have, in the last decades, built substantial pharmaceutical scientific and industrial capabilities. The more advanced of these countries have built chemical and biological R&D, generic and reverse engineering, and drug discovery capabilities. There have been tremendous barriers to entry but nevertheless a range of imitative approaches have evolved, with some significant scientific, health and industrial advances. Opportunities in India are in part created by the problems of maturity being faced by big pharmaceutical firms in developed countries. Big pharmaceutical firms are searching for novel approaches to retain a high value-added model of innovation for drug development. These difficulties provide opportunities for innovative companies in developing countries. This paper explores the challenges faced under these circumstances by Indian pharmaceutical companies. Are they attempting to 'catch-up' by chasing a failing model of innovation? Do they have an alternative model? Or can they become an important part of a transformed new global model of pharmaceutical innovation?

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...

So far the public reaction to new biotechnology industries has been largely benign, at least in the UK, but it is questionable how deeply held and how stable this attitude is. Biotechnology has some features in common with classic risk related issues, like nuclear power and pesticides, and could provoke an equally adverse public response. This paper examines what we currently know about perceptions of biotechnology with the conclusion that the ‘public’ has yet to make up its mind. Factors that could influence the future public response include: rural social disruption caused by further increases in the productivity of agricultural land; any failure to control the new technology effectively, leading to a loss of public trust in the regulatory system; and intrinsic moral and ethical issues surrounding genetic manipulation, particularly in higher animals.

Why do corporations develop technologies which can be associated with the generation of various environmental risks and how are the technologies that they develop governed by factors within and around firms? The authors examine the factors that have motivated and guided technological innovation, based on an examination of multinational companies developing genetically modified (GM) crops for the European market. The analysis is based on an inherently interdisciplinary approach to the study of innovation, which incorporates factors that are governed endogenously through the processes within companies (that is, strategic decisionmaking) and exogenously through interactions between firms and their external constituents (that is, government policies and regulations, and stakeholder and public perspectives and engagements). It is found that the introduction of GM technologies in Europe has been shaped significantly by public perception and societal reactions. It is also found that the aspects of industry strategies which contributed most to the course of European public opposition to GM crops were: (a) the choice of first-generation GM products; (b) interactions between pesticide-product and biotechnology-product strategies in different companies, and industry's efforts to present their sector and its products as contributing to sustainable development; (c) cultural and world-view differences between companies; and (d) company responses to European biotechnology policies and risk regulation. It is demonstrated that actions which seem rational to individual actors (corporations, governments, public interest groups) can have counterintuitive, and often counterproductive, outcomes in the longer term and when considered from the perspective of interactions within broader governance processes.

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 evid...

Companies innovating in agriculture-related biotechnology currently confront a complicated and controversial policy environment. Using analytical frameworks of technological trajectories and paradigms this paper examines R&D strategy in large companies. A large research project found that R&D related decisions taken by managers reflect company distinctiveness and can be characterised as cumulative in important respects. 'Economising' and 'strategising' strategies combine in different ways. But in many instances managers did not sufficiently recognise the importance of complex interactions between public policy and public opinion and failed adequately to incorporate public policy into strategic R&D decision making. This blind spot compounded initial difficulties in bringing products to market and has had significant impact on the rate and direction of innovation in this area, including contributing to the demise of the idea of an integration of agro and health sectors based on life sciences. The paper raises important questions about the relationship between technological paradigms, industry and sector level trajectories and decision making in firms.

This paper describes an investigation into the experience of researchers and research managers involved in the European Union Fifth Framework Programme (FP5) with its ambitious encouragement of more integrated problem-oriented approaches to research. We used a series of workshops, a questionnaire survey, individual telephone interviews and six detailed case studies to examine the extent to which these ambitions for ‘interdisciplinary integration’ were being met and the issues involved. Various models of disciplinary integration were identified, which may be appropriate in particular settings. Whilst we found disappointingly few projects that seemed by our criteria to be clearly interdisciplinary, particularly in crossing the boundary between natural and social sciences, we did find a great deal of learning taking place about how to conduct interdisciplinary research and how to overcome some of the difficulties experienced. Researchers emphasised in particular the importance of careful consortium development and team building as a basis for effective interdisciplinary research, and the time and effort needed to establish effective communication between different specialisms. The paper identifies barriers to collaboration between disciplines and some strategies and measures through which closer integration, and its associated benefits, might best be secured.

Foresight is widely interpreted as the process of fostering scientific research to support technological innovation and hence regional and national competitiveness. Policy integration, across administrative levels, is seen as crucial to achieving these goals. Our analysis looks at policies and their integration in the contexts of science, Foresight and governance at regional, national, European and global levels and we draw some conclusions relevant to their implementation, particularly at the regional level. We use Scotland as an illustrative example, where the recent devolution settlement has, at least in some areas, allowed greater freedom of action. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

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.

The development and marketing of new products by the agrochemical, biotechnology and seed industries is strongly regulated by government policies. Relevant policies include those on science, technology and innovation, the environment and public health, and farm support. This survey of policies likely to influence company innovation strategy was conducted to provide essential background information, ahead of interviews within companies to determine actual influence. Since different policies interact, sometimes conflict and are subject to change, predicting their impact a priori is difficult. However, the survey suggested that environment and public health polices might be the most influential, as they become increasingly stringent. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

This article reports on a detailed study of large agro-biotechnology companies, conducted during the recent period of rapid industrial restructuring. The concept of life science synergy, involving a useful cross-fertilisation of ideas between the development of new drugs and new crop protection products, has floundered. Although negative public reaction to GM (genetically modified) crop development is a significant cause, our research suggests that there are other more subtle causes, such as organisational culture differences between agro-chemicals and biotechnology disciplines and between seeds and chemicals firms. We found three distinct approaches to life science and technology trajectory-seeking in top agro-biotechnology companies. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

The European Research Area (ERA) initiative is particularly relevant to agriculture and to the issues of science and governance. European policy development for agriculture increasingly focuses on multifunctionality as its target and its organizing principle. At all levels — regional, national, European and international — Europe will need creative and constructive policy thinking based on evidence from both social and natural sciences, integrated across the various research disciplines. This will provide the internal coherence and consistency that will give Europe the important voice it warrants in international negotiations. This paper notes some of the challenges and opportunities faced by European agriculture, particularly in coping with the major issues of enlargement of the EU, reform of the CAP and WTO negotiations on trade liberalization for agricultural products. The concept of multifunctionality, with its close links to sustainable development, will be an important strand in decision making on all these issues. However, Europe's agricultural system as a whole needs to be not just sustainable, but thriving on all levels if we are to achieve genuine multifunctionality. This will require a more constructive approach to technological innovation than is currently the case.

This paper analyses the range of risk-related problems that have arisen over the introduction of genetically modified (GM) crops and food products in the context of the adoption of the precautionary principle (PP) in Europe. Adoption of the PP was intended to avoid some of the environmental problems that arose from the earlier reactive/preventive regulatory system developed for pesticides and also to encourage public acceptance of the new technology but is failing to achieve either of these aims. It is argued that a distinction needs to be made between interest-based and ethical or valuebased responses to risk issues and different approaches to conflict resolution are needed in each case. The PP can be seen as having allowed ethical and value-based concerns to have a new role in risk debates in contexts where they were previously excluded. Despite journalistic references to 'Frankenstein foods' the major protagonists in the debate about GM crops and foods are more concerned about the Faustian bargain whic...

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.