IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v167y2021ics0040162521001529.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Societal acceptability conditions of genome editing for upland rice in Madagascar

Author

Listed:
  • Nlend Nkott, Anny Lucrèce
  • Temple, Ludovic

Abstract

The evolution of varietal creation methods led in 2012 to the advent of the genome editing technique, CRISPR-CaS9. This technique would make it possible to create new varieties quickly and cheaply. Although some consider CRISPR-CaS9 to be revolutionary, others consider it a potential societal threat. To document the controversy, we explain the socioeconomic conditions under which this technique could be accepted for the creation of a rainfed rice variety in Madagascar. The methodological framework is based on 38 individual and semistructured interviews, a multistakeholder forum with organizations interviewedo, and a survey of 148 rice producers. Results reveal that the acceptability of genome editing requires (i) strengthening the seed system through the operationalization of regulatory structures and the upgrading of stakeholders' knowledge of genetically modified organisms, (ii) assessing the effects of the edited variety on biodiversity and soil nitrogen dynamics, and (iii) strengthening the technical and human capacities of the biosafety body. Structural mechanisms for regulating the seed system are necessary to ensure safe experimentation of genome editing techniques. Organizational innovation also appears to be necessary. The study documents how collective learning between communities of scientists and nonscientists is a component of systemic processes of varietal innovation.

Suggested Citation

  • Nlend Nkott, Anny Lucrèce & Temple, Ludovic, 2021. "Societal acceptability conditions of genome editing for upland rice in Madagascar," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:167:y:2021:i:c:s0040162521001529
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120720
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162521001529
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120720?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vanloqueren, Gaëtan & Baret, Philippe V., 2009. "How agricultural research systems shape a technological regime that develops genetic engineering but locks out agroecological innovations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 971-983, July.
    2. Pierre-Benoit Joly & Arie Rip & Michael Callon, 2010. "Re-inventing Innovation," Chapters, in: Maarten J. Arentsen & Wouter van Rossum & Albert E. Steenge (ed.), Governance of Innovation, chapter 2, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Joëlle Forest, 2009. "Penser la production de connaissances pour repenser la politique des clusters," Revue d'économie industrielle, De Boeck Université, vol. 0(4), pages 101-120.
    4. Blandine Laperche & Sophie Mignon, 2018. "Innovation Drivers: A Multi-Scale Approach," Journal of Innovation Economics, De Boeck Université, vol. 0(1), pages 3-8.
    5. Carlsson, Bo & Jacobsson, Staffan & Holmen, Magnus & Rickne, Annika, 2002. "Innovation systems: analytical and methodological issues," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 233-245, February.
    6. Andy Hall, 2005. "Capacity development for agricultural biotechnology in developing countries: an innovation systems view of what it is and how to develop it," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(5), pages 611-630.
    7. Alain de Janvry & Elisabeth Sadoulet & Emerick Kyle & Manzoor Dar, 2015. "L’adoption des technologies agricoles : quelles leçons tirer des expérimentations de terrain ?," Revue d’économie du développement, De Boeck Université, vol. 23(4), pages 129-153.
    8. Sanni, Maruf, 2018. "Drivers of eco-innovation in the manufacturing sector of Nigeria," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 303-314.
    9. Nathalie Krief & Véronique Zardet, 2013. "Analyse de données qualitatives et recherche-intervention," Post-Print hal-00914102, HAL.
    10. Spielman, David J. & Kennedy, Adam, 2016. "Towards better metrics and policymaking for seed system development: Insights from Asia's seed industry," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 111-122.
    11. G. Hodgson, 2007. "What Are Institutions?," Voprosy Ekonomiki, NP Voprosy Ekonomiki, issue 8.
    12. Vivien, F.-D. & Nieddu, M. & Befort, N. & Debref, R. & Giampietro, M., 2019. "The Hijacking of the Bioeconomy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 189-197.
    13. Jean-Marc Touzard & Ludovic Temple & Guy Faure & Bernard Triomphe, 2015. "Innovation systems and knowledge communities in the agriculture and agrifood sector: a literature review," Journal of Innovation Economics, De Boeck Université, vol. 0(2), pages 117-142.
    14. Patrick Peretti-Watel, 2003. "Risque et innovation : un point de vue sociologique," Innovations, De Boeck Université, vol. 18(2), pages 59-72.
    15. Blandine Laperche & Sophie Mignon, 2018. "Innovation Drivers: A Multi-Scale Approach," Post-Print hal-02528676, HAL.
    16. Dosi, Giovanni, 1993. "Technological paradigms and technological trajectories : A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 102-103, April.
    17. Benoît Lallau, 2008. "Les agriculteurs africains entre vulnérabilité et résilience. Pour une approche par les capabilités de la gestion des risques," Revue française de socio-Economie, La découverte, vol. 0(1), pages 177-198.
    18. Ludovic Temple & Danielle Barret & Genowefa Blundo Canto & Marie-Hélène Dabat & Agathe Devaux-Spatarakis & Guy Faure & Etienne Hainzelin & Syndhia Mathé & Aurelie Toillier & Bernard Triomphe, 2018. "Assessing impacts of agricultural research for development: A systemic model focusing on outcomes," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 27(2), pages 157-170.
    19. repec:hal:journl:hal-02390892 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Pavleska, Marija & Kerr, William A., 2020. "Linking investment decisions and future food security to the regulation of genetic-based technologies," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    21. Hellin, Jon & Lundy, Mark & Meijer, Madelon, 2009. "Farmer organization, collective action and market access in Meso-America," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 16-22, February.
    22. Karim Hussein, 2001. "Producer Organizations and Agricultural Technology in West Africa: Institutions that give farmers a voice," Development, Palgrave Macmillan;Society for International Deveopment, vol. 44(4), pages 61-66, December.
    23. Horbach, Jens, 2008. "Determinants of environmental innovation--New evidence from German panel data sources," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 163-173, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. John C. Beghin & Christopher R. Gustafson, 2021. "Consumer Valuation of and Attitudes towards Novel Foods Produced with New Plant Engineering Techniques: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-17, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Akimowicz, Mikaël & Del Corso, Jean-Pierre & Gallai, Nicola & Képhaliacos, Charilaos, 2022. "The leader, the keeper, and the follower? A legitimacy perspective on the governance of varietal innovation systems for climate changes adaptation. The case of sunflower hybrids in France," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    2. Pigford, Ashlee-Ann E. & Hickey, Gordon M. & Klerkx, Laurens, 2018. "Beyond agricultural innovation systems? Exploring an agricultural innovation ecosystems approach for niche design and development in sustainability transitions," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 116-121.
    3. Ciarli, Tommaso & Ràfols, Ismael, 2019. "The relation between research priorities and societal demands: The case of rice," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 949-967.
    4. Kuokkanen, A. & Nurmi, A. & Mikkilä, M. & Kuisma, M. & Kahiluoto, H. & Linnanen, L., 2018. "Agency in regime destabilization through the selection environment: The Finnish food system’s sustainability transition," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(8), pages 1513-1522.
    5. Kotsemir, Maxim & Meissner, Dirk, 2013. "Conceptualizing the Innovation Process – Trends and Outlook," MPRA Paper 46504, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Dewick, Paul & Maytorena-Sanchez, Eunice & Winch, Graham, 2019. "Regulation and regenerative eco-innovation: the case of extracted materials in the UK," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 38-51.
    7. Alfonso Ávila-Robinson & Kumiko Miyazaki, 2013. "Evolutionary paths of change of emerging nanotechnological innovation systems: the case of ZnO nanostructures," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(3), pages 829-849, June.
    8. Antje Wahl & Gary Bull, 2014. "Mapping Research Topics and Theories in Private Regulation for Sustainability in Global Value Chains," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 124(4), pages 585-608, November.
    9. Kok, Kristiaan P.W. & Klerkx, Laurens, 2023. "Addressing the politics of mission-oriented agricultural innovation systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 211(C).
    10. Bajmócy, Zoltán & Vas, Zsófia, 2012. "Az innovációs rendszerek 25 éve. Szakirodalmi áttekintés evolúciós közgazdaságtani megközelítésben [25 years of innovation systems. A literature review from the angle of evolutionary economics]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(11), pages 1233-1256.
    11. Rengs, Bernhard & Scholz-Wäckerle, Manuel & van den Bergh, Jeroen, 2020. "Evolutionary macroeconomic assessment of employment and innovation impacts of climate policy packages," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 332-368.
    12. Davies, Jocelyn & Maru, Yiheyis & Hall, Andy & Abdourhamane, Issoufou Kollo & Adegbidi, Anselme & Carberry, Peter & Dorai, Kumuda & Ennin, Stella Ama & Etwire, Prince Maxwell & McMillan, Larelle & Njo, 2018. "Understanding innovation platform effectiveness through experiences from west and central Africa," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 321-334.
    13. Dirk Meissner & Maxim Kotsemir, 2016. "Conceptualizing the innovation process towards the ‘active innovation paradigm’—trends and outlook," Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 1-18, December.
    14. Pilar Portillo-Tarragona & Sabina Scarpellini & Jose M. Moneva & Jesus Valero-Gil & Alfonso Aranda-Usón, 2018. "Classification and Measurement of the Firms’ Resources and Capabilities Applied to Eco-Innovation Projects from a Resource-Based View Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-23, September.
    15. Adrián Rabadán & Ángela Triguero & Ángela Gonzalez-Moreno, 2020. "Cooperation as the Secret Ingredient in the Recipe to Foster Internal Technological Eco-Innovation in the Agri-Food Industry," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(7), pages 1-19, April.
    16. Rakas, Marija & Hain, Daniel S., 2019. "The state of innovation system research: What happens beneath the surface?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    17. Enrique Acebo & José‐Ángel Miguel‐Dávila & Mariano Nieto, 2021. "External stakeholder engagement: Complementary and substitutive effects on firms' eco‐innovation," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(5), pages 2671-2687, July.
    18. Ben Zhang & Lei Ma & Zheng Liu, 2020. "Literature Trend Identification of Sustainable Technology Innovation: A Bibliometric Study Based on Co-Citation and Main Path Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-20, October.
    19. Schnebelin, Éléonore, 2022. "Linking the diversity of ecologisation models to farmers' digital use profiles," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    20. Vantoch-Wood, Angus & Connor, Peter M., 2013. "Using network analysis to understand public policy for wave energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 676-685.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:167:y:2021:i:c:s0040162521001529. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00401625 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.