The genetically modified organism shall not be refused? Talking back to the technosciences
| Autor: | Anneleen Kenis, Barbara Van Dyck, Andrew Stirling |
|---|---|
| Jazyk: | angličtina |
| Rok vydání: | 2022 |
| Předmět: |
Environmental Engineering
Geography Planning and Development Social Sciences Context (language use) GIFT Development Management Monitoring Policy and Law 050905 science studies Politics 0502 economics and business technosciences TECHNOLOGY BIOTECHNOLOGY Sociology Law and Political Science GeneralLiterature_REFERENCE(e.g. dictionaries encyclopedias glossaries) POLITICS Nature and Landscape Conservation 2. Zero hunger genetical modification (GMO) Field (Bourdieu) 05 social sciences Environmental ethics SCIENCE POLICY food sovereignty innovation Genetically modified organism Food sovereignty Politics of refusal peasant autonomy JUSTICE Earth and Environmental Sciences DEBATE FIELD TRIAL CONTROVERSY 0509 other social sciences 050203 business & management |
| Zdroj: | ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING E-NATURE AND SPACE Van dyck, B, Kenis, A & Stirling, A 2022, ' The genetically modified organism shall not be refused? Talking back to the technosciences ', Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 1230-1251 . https://doi.org/10.1177/25148486211042307 |
| ISSN: | 2514-8486 2514-8494 |
| DOI: | 10.1177/25148486211042307 |
| Popis: | Starting from Marcel Mauss’ observation that “one has no right to refuse a gift”, this paper explores the politics of refusal in the context of field trials with genetically modified organisms in Flanders (Belgium). Based on a decade of activist research, and focusing on the genetically modified organism field trials of the Flemish Institute for Biotechnology, we show that the business model of this strategic research center – with its triple mission of carrying biotechnology research, technology transfer, and the promotion of biotechnology through communication and lobby activities – fosters a climate in which innovations in the technosciences have to “be accepted”. The future is laid out without including the possibility of refusal. Consternation is great when this is exactly what happens. Irrational fears and lack of understanding or lack of familiarity are invoked to explain refusal. Language of precision, innovation, safety, and control are deployed to re-assure the public. Refusal is not considered a legitimate option. Yet, if farmers and grassroots initiatives would accept the gift of genetically modified organisms, it would mean the acceptance of their dispossession and the impossibility of diverse food sovereignties. Starting from theoretical work on “the gift” and “the politics of refusal”, we argue that recognizing innovation as the intrinsically plural and divergent process it is, entails including options to refuse particular pathways as a first step to open up others. As we will argue, saying no to genetically modified organisms is part of saying yes to peasant autonomy, agrobiodiversity, and peoples’ food sovereignties. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|