Institutions and the R&D of GM-crops

Ecological Economics

Volumn 68, Issue 10, 2009, Pages 2688-2695

  Kvakkestad, Valborg ^a  

^a NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCES   (Norway)

Author keywords

GM crops; Institutional shaping; Technology

Indexed keywords

BIOSAFETY; ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS; EUROPEAN UNION; FOOD SAFETY; FOOD SECURITY; GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISM; INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK; PROPERTY RIGHTS; PUBLIC SPENDING; RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

EID: 67649097130     PISSN: 09218009     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.05.004     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Caldart C.C. Industry investment in university research. Science, Technology & Human Values 8 2 (1983) 24-32
2. Dasgupta P., and David P.A. Towards a new economics of science. Research Policy 23 (1994) 487-521
3. Eaton D., Van Tongeren F., Louwaars N., Visser B., and Van der Meer I. Economic and policy aspects of 'terminator' technology. Biotechnology and Development Monitor 49 (2002) 19-22
4. Eurostat, 2008a. Table APRO_CPP_CROP = Crops products (excluding fruits and vegetables) (annual data). Available at http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/extraction/evalight/EVAlight.jsp?A=1&language=en&root=/theme5/apro/apro_cpp_crop.
5. Eurostat, 2008b. Table APRO_CPP_FRUVEG = Fruits and vegetables (annual data). Available at http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/extraction/evalight/EVAlight.jsp?A=1&language=en&root=/theme5/apro/apro_cpp_fruveg.
6. Gibbons M. Science's new social contract with society. Nature 402 6761 (1999) C81-C84
7. GM Science Review Report. An open review of the science relevant to GM crops and food based on the interests and concerns of the public. First Report. Prepared by the GM Science Review Panel, UK (2003). http://www.gmsciencedebate.org.uk/report/default.htm#first Available at http://www.gmsciencedebate.org.uk/report/default.htm#first
8. Goeschl T., and Swanson T. The development impact of genetic use restriction technologies: a forecast based on the hybrid crop experience. Environment and Development Economics 8 (2003) 149-165
9. Kloppenburg J.R. First the Seed: the Political Economy of Plant Biotechnology: 1942 to 2000 (2004), University of Wisconsin Press, Madison
10. Lacy, W.B., Glenna, L., Biscotti, D. and Welsh, R., in press. Agricultural biotechnology, socioeconomic effects, and the fourth criterion. In: A. Seidel (Editor), Wiley Encyclopedia of Industrial Biotechnology.
11. Lheureux, K., Libeau-Dulos, M., Nilsagård, H., Cerezo, E.R., Menrad, K., Menrad, M. and Vorgrimler, D., 2003. Review of GMOs under research and development and in the pipeline in Europe. Technical Report. Available at http://ipts.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/pub.cfm?prs=1091.
12. Marris C., Wynne B., Simmons P., and Weldon S. Public perceptions of agricultural biotechnologies in Europe. Final Report of the PABE Research Project (2001). http://csec.lancs.ac.uk/pabe/docs.htm Available at http://csec.lancs.ac.uk/pabe/docs.htm
13. Metcalfe S. The economic foundation of technology policy: equilibrium and evolutionary perspectives. In: Stoneman P. (Ed). Handbook of the Economics of Innovations and Technological Change (1995), Blackwell, Oxford 409-512
14. Newberg J.A., and Dunn R.L. Keeping secrets in the campus lab: law, values and rules of engagement for industry-university R&D partnerships. American Business Law Journal 39 2 (2002) 187-240
15. Pistorius R., and van Wijk J. The Exploitation of Plant Genetic Information: Political Strategies in Crop Development (1999), CABI Publishing, Wallingford
16. Pray C.E., and Umali-Deininger D. The private sector in agricultural research systems: will it fill the gap?. World Development 26 6 (1998) 1127-1148
17. Purdue News. (April 18). Terminator Tussle: Controversial Technology Needed, Experts Say (2002). http://news.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/020418.Thompson.terminator.html http://news.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/020418.Thompson.terminator.html.
18. Ruttan V.W., and Hayami Y. Towards a theory of induced institutional innovation. The Journal of Development Studies 20 4 (1984) 203-223
19. Shorett P., Rabinow P., and Billings P.R. The changing norms of the life sciences. Nature Biotechnology 21 2 (2003) 123-126
20. Srinivasan C.S., and Thirtle C. Potential economic impacts of terminator technologies: policy implications for developing countries. Environment and Development Economics 8 (2003) 187-205
21. Van Wijk J. Terminating piracy or legitimate seed saving? The use of copy-protection technology in seeds. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 16 1 (2004) 121-141
22. Vatn A. Efficient or fair: ethical paradoxes in environmental policy. In: Bromley D.W., and Paavola J. (Eds). Economics, Ethics and Environmental Policy: Contested Choices (2002), Blackwell, Oxford 148-163
23. Vatn A. Institutions and the Environment (2005), Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
24. Welsh R., and Glenna L. Considering the role of the university in conducting research on agri-biotechnology. Social Studies of Science 36 (2006) 929-942