Search

Partnerships between U.S. universities and industries have existed for several decades and in recent years have become generally more varied, wider in scope, more aggressive and experimental and higher in public visibility. In addition, in the last few decades, public and private interests have advocated for government policies and laws to globally promote the commercialization of university science. This paper examines the persistence or convergence of the two cultures of science and the implications of this commercialization for university-industry relationships in agriculture biotechnology. The perceptions and values of over 200 U.S. university and industry scientists, managers and administrators who participate in or oversee research collaborations in agricultural biotechnology were analyzed. The findings revealed that the participants in these research relationships continue to perceive very distinct cultures of science and identify a wide range of concerns and disadvantages of these partnerships. Several actions were discussed to ensure that the two cultures serve complementary roles and that they maximize the public benefits from these increasing collaborations. © 2014 Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences.

Societal Impact Statement: A growing body of research indicates that intellectual property policies for agricultural biotechnologies are hindering research and limiting the use of the technologies. Research also indicates that public resistance to agricultural biotechnologies, including transgenic and gene‐edited crops, is at least in part motivated by concerns about intellectual property restrictions. Therefore, changing the policies governing agricultural biotechnologies promises to reduce public resistance and to enhance the diffusion of research outputs. Because so many patents related to gene editing are held by universities and because so much cutting‐edge research is conducted by public scientists, exploring the scientists' perspectives on these policies offers insights into possibilities for policy changes. Summary: After the European Court of Justice's ruling that gene‐edited crops would be regulated the way transgenic crops are regulated, the European Commission consulted with stakeholders and concluded that policies governing gene‐edited crops are not fit for purpose. This research explores whether public scientists in Germany also consider intellectual property policies not fit for purpose.The data come from intensive interviews with 10 scientists working at German universities and research institutes.The interviewed scientists describe how intellectual property policies limited the use of transgenic breeding techniques and how they now limit applications of gene‐editing techniques. They overwhelmingly support policy changes that facilitate the use of their scientific breakthroughs to solve problems in the world, and they do not want to see large companies use the technologies to consolidate economic power or to profit at the expense of solving problems.Because intellectual property policies are often cited as a key reason for the resistance to agricultural biotechnologies and because research indicates that current policies are not enhancing crop innovations or social welfare, a change in intellectual property policies is likely to reduce resistance to the new crop breeding technologies and yield more social benefits. A growing body of research indicates that intellectual property policies for agricultural biotechnologies are hindering research and limiting the use of the technologies. Research also indicates that public resistance to agricultural biotechnologies, including transgenic and gene‐edited crops, is at least in part motivated by concerns about intellectual property restrictions. Therefore, changing the policies governing agricultural biotechnologies promises to reduce public resistance and to enhance the diffusion of research outputs. Because so many patents related to gene editing are held by universities and because so much cutting‐edge research is conducted by public scientists, exploring the scientists' perspectives on these policies offers insights into possibilities for policy changes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article is a book review of "Barons: Money, Power, and the Corruption of America's Food Industry" by Austin Frerick. The review highlights the corruption in the US agriculture and food system, as well as the political system. It discusses how campaign contributions can be used to buy political influence and calls out the concentration of power in sectors such as pork, grain, coffee, meat packing, and grocery. The review also mentions the need for laws and regulations to protect the environment and benefit people, and proposes practical solutions to address the issues. The book is recommended for multiple audiences and can be used as a resource for further research. [Extracted from the article]

In 2005, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America's (ELCA) Churchwide Assembly authorized the formation of a task force to prepare a social statement on genetics and faith. Although the Churchwide Assembly voted to adopt the social statement in August of 2011 by a wide margin, there had been an earlier controversy. In June 2010, an article in the Dakota Farmer questioned whether the ELCA was accusing farmers of "sin" for planting genetically engineered crop seeds. At least two churches in rural North Dakota cited this factor as a reason for leaving the ELCA. Seven synods with strong farmer constituencies proposed resolutions challenging the social statement. This paper explores how the opposition used agrarianism and libertarianism to attack the ELCA's use of the Christian concept of the common good in the social statement. This case reveals the challenges that the Church faces when contributing to ethical deliberations on controversial issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent advances in gas and oil drilling technology have led to dramatic boomtown development in many rural areas that have endured extended periods of economic decline. In Pennsylvania's Marcellus gas fields, the recent development of unconventional shale gas resources has not been without controversy. It has been variously framed as a major opportunity for economic revitalization at the local and regional levels and energy independence at the national level, but also as a significant environmental risk, with uncertain and uneven economic benefits. We use data from a survey conducted in 309 school districts located within Pennsylvania's Marcellus Shale region to study the ways local stakeholders perceive both risk and opportunity associated with gas extraction from Marcellus Shale. Our analyses indicate that there is a strong positive association between perceptions of risk and opportunity associated with gas extraction. Further, the intensity of perception of both risk and opportunity is directly associated with the amount of local drilling, suggesting the complexity of local contexts within which local stakeholders evaluate rapid boomtown-associated community change. In total, these findings complicate the framing of unconventional gas extraction in the Marcellus Shale region, and indeed boomtown growth overall, as fundamentally polarizing issues. (Contains 4 tables, 1 figure, and 5 footnotes.)

The number of the world's food insecure rose at the end of the first decade of the twenty-first century. Despite these negative developments, however, a 2010 United Nations report argues that food security could be improved if development efforts are supported by government programs that target smallholder farmers. This report is significant because it challenges the neoliberal perspective, which tends to promote a private-enterprise market system and favor large-scale producers. These competing visions for agricultural development frame our evaluation of the impact of the Africa Rice Center's (AfricaRice) efforts to promote new rice varieties among smallholder farmers to narrow the rice consumption-production gap in Ghana. We begin by distinguishing the outreach efforts to help farmers increase production and the political-economic conditions that limit the longevity of that outreach effort. We reviewed program documents revealing expenditures and yields among the smallholder farmers, and we conducted intensive interviews with the farmers. Although we find that the program succeeded in mobilizing farmers to increase rice production, we question the sustainability of the program's impact because state funding for the program has ended. (Contains 1 figure and 1 table.)

Rural and development sociology studies have tended to credit globalization with low-wage, extractive, environmentally destructive outcomes. Concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) have been treated as a local manifestation of the destructive tendencies of globalization. However, recent scholarship on globalization suggests that globalization may also be credited with high-wage, value-added, environmentally friendly economic growth. Moving beyond a general emphasis on the destructive tendencies of globalization, these studies reveal that variation in industry, national and international policies, firm characteristics, and local geography (socio-economic and biophysical) may influence socioeconomic and ecological outcomes. We discuss how these factors help to create a more complex understanding of the relationship between agrifood globalization and local manifestations of CAFOs. We then highlight an example of a rural Bulgarian CAFO that is locally owned and has come to internalize its waste stream. Our findings support recent scholarship that distinguishes between global neo-liberalism and global ecologically modernization and that emphasizes a more complex understanding of how local socio-economic and biophysical factors interact with global processes to influence rural development. (Contains 1 table and 1 figure.)

Following a rise in university-industry relationships (UIRs), scholars began questioning the efficacy of those relationships, as well as whether industry and university research interests and integrity are being compromised. Although many of these studies focus on the university, few examine the perspectives of industry participants. We conducted intensive interviews with 63 managers and scientists at agricultural biotechnology companies involved in UIRs related to agricultural biotechnology. Our analysis of their comments reveals nuanced critical perspectives of UIRs and creative ideas for reforming policies and practices. Industry representatives listed many advantages of UIRs, but some also expressed an interest in reforming policies to preserve a public-interest emphasis for university research. We conclude by considering the structural relationships that may explain the industry representatives' critical evaluations and by identifying policy implications. (Contains 2 tables and 1 footnote.)

Following a rise in university-industry relationships (UIRs), scholars began questioning the efficacy of those relationships, as well as whether industry and university research interests and integrity are being compromised. Although many of these studies focus on the university, few examine the perspectives of industry participants. We conducted intensive interviews with 63 managers and scientists at agricultural biotechnology companies involved in UIRs related to agricultural biotechnology. Our analysis of their comments reveals nuanced critical perspectives of UIRs and creative ideas for reforming policies and practices. Industry representatives listed many advantages of UIRs, but some also expressed an interest in reforming policies to preserve a public-interest emphasis for university research. We conclude by considering the structural relationships that may explain the industry representatives' critical evaluations and by identifying policy implications.