New Models of Technology Assessment for Development

This report explores the role that ‘new models’ of technology assessment can play in improving the lives of poor and vulnerable populations in the developing world. The ‘new models’ addressed here combine citizen and decision-maker participation with technical expertise. They are virtual and networked rather than being based in a single office of technology assessment (as was the case in the United States in the 1970s-90s). They are flexible enough to address issues across disciplines and are increasingly transnational or global in their reach and scope. The report argues that these new models of technology assessment can make a vital contribution to informing policies and strategies around innovation, particularly in developing regions. They are most beneficial if they enable the broadening out of inputs to technology assessment, and the opening up of political debate around possible directions of technological change and their interactions with social and environmental systems. Beyond the process of technology assessment itself, the report argues that governance systems within which these processes are embedded play an important role in determining the impact and effectiveness of technology assessment. Finally, the report argues for training and capacity-building in technology assessment methodologies in developing countries, and support for internationally co-ordinated technology assessment efforts to address global and regional development challenges

Developing capabilities in the seed industry: which direction to follow?

Since the 1990s, many developing country policy makers have assumed that plant genetic engineering represents the only technological frontier in seed innovation; that it has been the leading technology for improving seeds and agricultural performance in those countries where it has been adopted; and that it is the area of biotechnology in which domestic capabilities in seed innovation should be accumulated. In this paper we challenge all those assumptions through an exploration of the role that both genetic engineering and other seed innovation techniques have played in explaining dynamism in the seed market, and wider agricultural economy, in Argentina, focusing on the case of soy. We argue that existing analyses of the impact of plant genetic engineering in Argentina either ignore the performance gains from seed innovations based on techniques other than genetic engineering or misattribute them to genetic engineering. Our analysis, based on data of registered plant varieties, evidence of agricultural performance in Argentina, and interviews with company managers and public sector researchers, seeks to distinguish between the impacts that different approaches to seed innovation have had on the soy sector. We argue that, from the data available, non-genetic engineering seed innovations appear to have had a very significant direct effect on farm-level soy productivity, much more so than those based on genetic engineering, and that they offer just as plausible a contributing explanation for indirect effects on productivity that are normally attributed to genetic engineering. Our findings are preliminary, but they stand in stark contrast to the very widely held view that genetic engineering has played a central, transformative role in the revitalisation and internationally competitive performance of soy production in Argentina over the last two decades. They also have a number of potential implications for the allocation of resources and policy support to the seed industry, and, more generally to how technological options should be considered and assessed in strategies for developing technological capabilities. Our analysis is framed by and contributes to an emerging body of research within the innovation literature that challenges deterministic, unidirectional approaches to analysing technological change in emerging economies

Bioleft: open-source seeds for low-input farming systems

This article describes Bioleft, an ‘open source’, highly collaborative seed breeding initiative, in order to encourage reflection on potential synergies with fair trade ideas and practices. Bioleft aims to develop and redistribute collective agency over seed breeding, as a response to the emergence of an oligopolistic seed industry. It is experimenting with novel approaches to seed innovation that increase the diversity of crop varieties, in order to support agricultural practices that are ignored by mainstream seed firms, particularly smallscale family farming and more ecologically and socially sustainable agricultural practices. More generally it is experimenting with new forms of social and productive organization based on norms of sharing and solidarity.Fil: Cremaschi, Almendra. Universidad Nacional de San Martin. Escuela de Economia y Negocios. Centro de Investigaciones Para la Transformacion.; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Van Zwanenberg, Patrick. Universidad Nacional de San Martin. Escuela de Economia y Negocios. Centro de Investigaciones Para la Transformacion.; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentin

The Unravelling of Technocratic Orthodoxy?

This chapter argues that the contemporary politics of technology regulation play out through a key tension – between an established narrow framing of what is at stake in technology regulation, namely the optimisation of singular pathways of technological progress based on a control-based vision of risk management, and countervailing pressures to challenge those reductionist framings and open up questions about technological vulnerability, and ultimately technological choice, to wider deliberation and collective decision-making. Case studies of the European regulation of transgenic plant varieties and pesticides are drawn on to show how, in some political contexts, the uncertain, contested and provisional nature of much regulatory knowledge has been made explicit by actors and events, helping to force a partial ‘opening up’ of otherwise routine processes of knowledge closure, and potentially leading to a significant broadening of technology regulation. The cases also illustrate how such processes pose a fundamental challenge to the privileged position of incumbent industrial interests within orthodox regulatory practice, and how many institutions and industry bodies have responded by trying to reassert an orthodox technocratic depiction of regulation, and in doing so avert experimentation with more ambitious, potentially transformative, forms of technology policy

How to improve the socio-economic benefit of public private R&D partnerships in agricultural biotechnology? : the case of cotton in Mercosur

This policy brief summarises the main findings of a study conducted in Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay to investigate the potential for public-private partnerships in transgenic crop R&D, and whether such partnerships could contribute to the development and commercialisation of biotechnologies aimed at solving the production problems of small farmers. The study used the case of cotton, and possible transgenic seed solutions to a pest known as the ‘picudo del algodonero’ or cotton boll weevil as a lens with which to explore this topic

El papel transformador de la innovación. Favorecer la inclusión

Es común afirmar que la inversión en ciencia y tecnología favorece el bienestar general y el desarrollo social. Lo cierto es que, en la práctica, las políticas de ciencia y tecnología se orientan principalmente a la generación de conocimientos con aplicación comercial y a la transferencia de tecnología a empresas. Dados los persistentes niveles de desigualdad en nuestro país y las dificultades de la población para acceder a bienes básicos como agua, saneamiento, salud y vivienda, es esencial que la ciencia y la tecnología contribuyan concretamente al desarrollo y la inclusión social. Para ello, se requieren políticas de ciencia y tecnología que se orienten en este sentido.Fil: Fressoli, Mariano. Centro STEPS América Latina; Argentina.Fil: Marín, Anabel. Centro STEPS América Latina; Argentina.Fil: van Zwanenberg, Patrick. Centro STEPS América Latina; Argentina.Fil: Arza, Valeria. Centro STEPS América Latina; Argentina

Open and Collaborative Developments

Experimentation with radically open and collaborative ways of producing knowledge and material artefacts can be found everywhere, from the free/libre and open-source software movement to citizen science initiatives, and from community-based fabrication laboratories and makerspaces to the production of open-source scientific hardware. Spurred on by the widespread availability of networked digital infrastructure, what such initiatives share in common is the (re)creation of knowledge commons, and an attempt to redistribute innovative agency across a broad array of actors. In this working paper we reflect on what these emerging practices might mean for helping to cultivate more equitable and sustainable patterns of global development. For many commentators and activists such initiatives promise to radically alter the ways in which we produce knowledge and material artefacts – in ways that are far more efficient, creative, distributed, decentralised, and democratic. Such possibilities are intriguing, but also not without critical challenges. We argue that key to appreciating if and how collaborative, commons-based production can fulfil such promises and contribute to more equitable and sustainable patterns of development, are a series of challenges concerning the knowledge politics and political economy of the new practices. We ask: what depths and forms of participation are being enabled through the new practices? In what sense does openness translate into the ability to use knowledge? Who is able to influence and control open and collaborative production? Who is able to allocate resources to, and to capture benefits from, the new initiatives? And will open and collaborative forms of production create new relations with, or even transform, markets, states, and civil society, or will they be captured by sectional interests?ESR

Transformative spaces in the making: key lessons from nine cases in the Global South

Creating a just and sustainable planet will require not only small changes, but also systemic transformations in how humans relate to the planet and to each other, i.e., social–ecological transformations. We suggest there is a need for collaborative environments where experimentation with new configurations of social–ecological systems can occur, and we refer to these as transformative spaces. In this paper, we seek a better understanding of how to design and enable the creation of transformative spaces in a development context. We analyse nine case studies from a previous special issue on Designing Transformative Spaces that aimed to collect examples of cutting-edge action-oriented research on transformations from the Global South. The analysis showed five design phases as being essential: Problem Definition Phase; Operationalisation Phase; Tactical Phase; Outcome Phase; and Reflection Phase. From this synthesis, we distilled five key messages that should be considered when designing research, including: (a) there are ethical dilemmas associated with creating a transformative space in a system; (b) it is important to assess the readiness of the system for change before engaging in it; (c) there is a need to balance between ‘safe’ and ‘safe-enough’ spaces for transformation; (d) convening a transformative space requires an assemblage of diverse methodological frameworks and tools; and (e) transformative spaces can act as a starting point for institutionalising transformative change. Many researchers are now engaging in transdisciplinary transformations research, and are finding themselves at the knowledge–action interface contributing to transformative space-making. We hope that by analysing experiences from across different geographies we can contribute towards better understanding of how to navigate the processes needed for the urgent global transformations that are being called for to create a more equitable and sustainable planet Earth