Local variation or global convergence in agricultural biotechnology policy? A comparative analysis

Science and Public Policy

Volumn 36, Issue 5, 2009, Pages 361-371

  Kleinman, Daniel Lee ^a   Kinchy, Abby J ^b   Autry, Robyn ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^b RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOTECHNOLOGY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; GOVERNANCE APPROACH; POLICY APPROACH; SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY;

EID: 69949172471     PISSN: 03023427     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3152/030234209X442043     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Abraham, J and G Lewis 2000. Regulating Medicines in Europe: Competition, Expertise and Public Health. London: Routledge.
2. Baber, Z 1996. The Science of Empire: Scientific Knowledge, Civilization, and Colonial Rule in India. Albany, NY: SUNY Press
3. Barham, B L, D B Jackson-Smith and S Moon 2001. Uses and implications of Bovine Somatotropin for the Wisconsin dairy sector in the 1990s. PATS Research Report, No. 9. College of Agricultural Life Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
4. Brown, Paul 2005. EU votes to continue ban on GM crops, Britain warns ministers of threat of trade war with US, The Guardian, UK, 25 June 2005.
5. Cohen, Joel I and Robert Paarlberg 2004. Unlocking crop biotechnology in developing countries--a report from the field. World Development, 23(9), 1563-1577.
6. Collier, R 2000. Regulation of rbST in the US., AgBioForum 3(2 and 3), 156-163.
7. Drori, Gili S, John W Meyer, Francisco O Ramirez and Evan Schofer 2003. Science in the Modern World Polity: Institutionalization and Globalization. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
8. European Food Safety Authority 2004. Guidance document of the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms for the risk assessment of genetically modified plants and derived food and feed. The EFSA Journal, 99, 1-94.
9. Finnemore, Martha 1996. Norms, culture, and world politics: Insights from sociology's institutionalism. International Organization, 50(2), 325-347.
10. Gottweis, Herbert 1998. Governing Molecules: The Discursive Politics of Genetic Engineering in Europe and the United States. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
11. Health and Consumer Protection Directorate-General 1999. Scientists: BST use causes animal welfare problems. Press Release, 18 March 1999. Brussels: European Commission.
12. Huang, Jikun and Qinfang Wang 2002. Agricultural biotechnology development and policy in China. AgBioForum, 5(4), 122-135.
13. Jang, Yong Suk 2003. The global diffusion of ministries of science and technology. In Science in the Modern World Polity: Institutionalization and Globalization, Gili S Drori, John W Meyer, Francisco O Ramirez and Evan Schofer eds. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
14. Jasanoff, Sheila 2005. Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
15. Kinchy, Abby J, Daniel Lee Kleinman and Robyn Autry 2008. Against free markets, against science? Regulating the socioeconomic effects of biotechnology. Rural Sociology, 73(2), 147-179.
16. Kleinman, Daniel Lee and Abby J Kinchy 2003. Why ban bovine growth hormone? Science, social welfare, and the divergent biotech policy landscapes in Europe and the United States. Science as Culture, 12(3), 375-414.
17. Kleinman, Daniel Lee and Abby J Kinchy 2007. Against the neoliberal steamroller? The Biosafety Protocol and the social regulation of agricultural biotechnology. Agriculture and Human Values, 24(2), 195-206
18. Levidow, Les 2001. Precautionary uncertainty: regulating GM Crops in Europe. Social Studies of Science, 31(16), 842-874.
19. McAfee, Kathleen 2003. Neoliberalism on the molecular scale: economic and genetic reductionism in biotechnology. Geoforum 34(2), 203-219.
20. Meyer, J W, J Boli, G M Thomas and F O Ramirez 1997. World society and the nation state. American Journal of Sociology, 103(1), 144-181.
21. Odame, Hannington, Patricia Kameri-Mbote and David Wafula 2002. Innovation and policy practice: the case of transgenic sweet potato in Kenya. Economic and Political Weekly, 37, 27.
22. Odame, Hannington, Patricia Kameri-Mbote and David Wafula 2003. Governing Modern Agricultural Biotechnology in Kenya: Implications for Food Security, Working Paper 199. Institute of Development Studies, Brighton, England.
23. Office of Technology Assessment 1991. U.S. Dairy Industry at a Crossroad: Biotechnology and Policy Choices: Special Report. OTA-F-470. Washington, DC: Superintendent of Documents, US Government Printing Office.
24. Paarlberg, Robert 2001. The Politics of Precaution: Genetically Modified Crops in Developing Countries. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univeristy Press.
25. Prakash, Aseem and Kelly L Kollman 2003. Biopolitics in the EU and the US: A race to the bottom or convergence to the top? International Studies Quarterly, 47(4), 617-641.
26. Schenkelaars, Peir 2005. Regulating GM crops in the Netherlands: precaution as societal-ethical evaluation. Science and Public Policy, 32(4), 309-316.
27. Schneider, K 1993. U.S. approves use of drug to raise milk production, The New York Times, 6 November 1993. Available at , last accessed 15 May 2009.
28. Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare (SCAHAW) 1999. Report on Animal Welfare Aspects of the Use of Bovine Somatotrophin. Available at , last accessed 15 May 2009.
29. Seifert, Franz and Helge Torgersen 1997. How to keep out what we don't want: an assessment of 'sozialverträglichkeit' under the Austrian Genetic Engineering Act. Public Understanding of Science, 6(4), 301-327.
30. Sewell, William H 1996. Three temporalities: toward an eventful sociology. In The Historic Turn in the Human Sciences, Terrence J McDonald ed. pp 245-280. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
31. Skocpol, Theda 1984. Emerging agendas and recurrent strategies in historical sociology. In Vision and Method in Historical Sociology, Theda Skocpol ed., pp 356-391. New York: Cambridge University Press.
32. Torgersen, Helge 2002. Austria and the transatlantic biotechnology divide. Science Communication, 24(2), 173-183.
33. USDA (US Department of Agriculture), Foreign Agricultural Service 2006. Kenya Biotechnology Report, GAIN Report Number: KE6006. Available at , last accessed 18 March 2008.
34. st Session, 22 June. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
35. Wright, Susan 1994. Molecular Politics: Developing American and British Regulatory Policy for Genetic Engineering, 1972-1982. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.