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 ‘credibility tests’. 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