12 research outputs found
Funding CRISPR: Understanding the role of government and philanthropic institutions in supporting academic research within the CRISPR innovation system
CRISPR/Cas has the potential to revolutionize medicine, agriculture, and
biology. Understanding the trajectory of innovation, how it is influenced and
who pays for it, is an essential research policy question, especially as US
government support for research experiences a relative decline. We use a new
method -- based on funding sources identified in publications' funding
acknowledgements -- to map the networks involved in supporting key stages of
highly influential research, namely basic biological research and technology
development. We present a model of co-funding networks at the two most
prominent institutions for CRISPR/Cas research, the University of California
and the Harvard/MIT/Broad Institute, to illuminate how philanthropic and
charitable organizations have articulated with US government agencies to
co-finance the discovery and development of CRISPR/Cas. We mapped foundational
US government support to both stages of CRISPR/Cas research at both
institutions, while philanthropic organizations have concentrated in co-funding
CRISPR/Cas technology development as opposed to basic biological research. This
is particularly true for the Broad/Harvard/MIT system, where philanthropic
investment clustered around particular technological development themes. These
network models raise fundamental questions about the role of the state and the
influence of philanthropy over the trajectory of transformative technologies.Comment: 17 pages, 2 figure
Debrief on the United Nations Food Systems Summit (UNFSS)
What are the roles and responsibilities of U.S. academia in global fora such as the United Nations Food Systems Summit? In an effort to be better global partners, the Inter-institutional Network for Food and Agricultural Sustainability (INFAS) accepted an invitation to participate in the UNFSS. INFAS then convened a debriefing for our members to hear from our colleagues about their experiences and any outcomes that may have emerged from the Food Systems Summit. The Food Systems Summit process was deeply flawed, resulting in confusion and power inequities, yet it stimulated coalition-building and reflection on how and why to participate in global food governance
How the most genetically versatile grain conquered the World
Thesis (S.M. in Science Writing)--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dept. of Humanities, Program in Writing and Humanistic Studies, 2003."September 2003."Includes bibliographical references (leaves 73-83).by Maywa Montenegro de Wit.S.M.in Science Writin
How the most genetically versatile grain conquered the World
Thesis (S.M. in Science Writing)--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dept. of Humanities, Program in Writing and Humanistic Studies, 2003."September 2003."Includes bibliographical references (leaves 73-83).by Maywa Montenegro de Wit.S.M.in Science Writin
Toward thick legitimacy: Creating a web of legitimacy for agroecology
Abstract Legitimacy is at the heart of knowledge politics surrounding agriculture and food. When people accept industrial food practices as credible and authoritative, they are consenting to their use and existence. With their thick legitimacy, industrial food systems paralyze the growth of alternative agricultures, including agroecology. Questions of how alternative agricultures can attain their own thick legitimacy in order to compete with, and displace, that of industrial food have not yet attracted much scrutiny. We show that both agroecological and scientific legitimacy grow out of a web of legitimation processes in the scientific, policy, political, legal, practice, and civic arenas. Crucially, legitimation often comes through meeting what we call âcredibility testsâ. Agroecologists can learn to navigate these co-constituted, multiple bases of legitimacy by paying attention to how credibility tests are currently being set in each arena, and beginning to recalibrate these tests to open more room for agroecology. Using a schematic of three non-exclusive pathways, we explore some possible practical interventions that agroecologists and other advocates of alternative agricultures could take. These pathways include: leveraging, while also reshaping, the existing standards and practices of science; extending influence into policy, legal, practical, and civic arenas; and centering attention on the ethical legitimacy of food systems. We conclude that agroecologists can benefit from considering how to build legitimacy for their work
Editorial: Resetting Power in Global Food Governance: The UN Food Systems Summit
Effective Protection of Fundamental Rights in a pluralist worl