IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/agrhuv/v38y2021i4d10.1007_s10460-021-10237-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Democratizing ownership and participation in the 4th Industrial Revolution: challenges and opportunities in cellular agriculture

Author

Listed:
  • Robert M. Chiles

    (Penn State University
    Penn State University)

  • Garrett Broad

    (Fordham University)

  • Mark Gagnon

    (Penn State University)

  • Nicole Negowetti

    (Harvard Law School)

  • Leland Glenna

    (Penn State University)

  • Megan A. M. Griffin

    (Penn State University)

  • Lina Tami-Barrera

    (Penn State University)

  • Siena Baker

    (Penn State University)

  • Kelly Beck

    (Penn State University)

Abstract

The emergence of the “4th Industrial Revolution,” i.e. the convergence of artificial intelligence, the Internet of Things, advanced materials, and bioengineering technologies, could accelerate socioeconomic insecurities and anxieties or provide beneficial alternatives to the status quo. In the post-Covid-19 era, the entities that are best positioned to capitalize on these innovations are large firms, which use digital platforms and big data to orchestrate vast ecosystems of users and extract market share across industry sectors. Nonetheless, these technologies also have the potential to democratize ownership, broaden political-economic participation, and reduce environmental harms. We articulate the potential sociotechnical pathways in this high-stakes crossroads by analyzing cellular agriculture, an exemplary 4th Industrial Revolution technology that synergizes computer science, biopharma, tissue engineering, and food science to grow cultured meat, dairy, and egg products from cultured cells and/or genetically modified yeast. Our exploration of this space involved multi-sited ethnographic research in both (a) the cellular agriculture community and (b) alternative economic organizations devoted to open source licensing, member-owned cooperatives, social financing, and platform business models. Upon discussing how these latter approaches could potentially facilitate alternative sociotechnical pathways in cellular agriculture, we reflect upon the broader implications of this work with respect to the 4th Industrial Revolution and the enduring need for public policy reform.

Suggested Citation

  • Robert M. Chiles & Garrett Broad & Mark Gagnon & Nicole Negowetti & Leland Glenna & Megan A. M. Griffin & Lina Tami-Barrera & Siena Baker & Kelly Beck, 2021. "Democratizing ownership and participation in the 4th Industrial Revolution: challenges and opportunities in cellular agriculture," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(4), pages 943-961, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:agrhuv:v:38:y:2021:i:4:d:10.1007_s10460-021-10237-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s10460-021-10237-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10460-021-10237-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10460-021-10237-7?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. Matthew S. Clancy & GianCarlo Moschini, 2017. "Intellectual Property Rights and the Ascent of Proprietary Innovation in Agriculture," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 9(1), pages 53-74, October.
    2. JoAnn Jaffe & Michael Gertler, 2006. "Victual Vicissitudes: Consumer Deskilling and the (Gendered) Transformation of Food Systems," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 23(2), pages 143-162, June.
    3. Comino, Stefano & Manenti, Fabio M., 2011. "Dual licensing in open source software markets," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 234-242.
    4. Uma Lele & Sambuddha Goswami, 2017. "The fourth industrial revolution, agricultural and rural innovation, and implications for public policy and investments: a case of India," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 48(S1), pages 87-100, November.
    5. Jennifer Clapp & Sarah-Louise Ruder, 2020. "Precision Technologies for Agriculture: Digital Farming, Gene-EditedCrops, and the Politics of Sustainability," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 20(3), pages 49-69, August.
    6. Keith O. Fuglie & Andrew A. Toole, 2014. "The Evolving Institutional Structure of Public and Private Agricultural Research," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 96(3), pages 862-883.
    7. Michael Carolan, 2020. "Acting like an algorithm: digital farming platforms and the trajectories they (need not) lock-in," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 37(4), pages 1041-1053, December.
    8. Matthew S. Clancy & GianCarlo Moschini, 2017. "Intellectual Property Rights and the Ascent of Proprietary Innovation in Agriculture," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 9(1), pages 53-74, October.
    9. Zia Mehrabi & Daniel Jimenez & Andy Jarvis, 2018. "Smallholders need access to big-data agronomy too," Nature, Nature, vol. 555(7694), pages 30-30, March.
    10. Welsh, Rick & Glenna, Leland & Lacy, William & Biscotti, Dina, 2008. "Close enough but not too far: Assessing the effects of university-industry research relationships and the rise of academic capitalism," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(10), pages 1854-1864, December.
    11. Marie-Laure Salles-Djelic & Sigrid Quack, 2007. "Overcoming path dependency: path generation in open systems," Post-Print hal-01891993, HAL.
    12. Lei, Zhen & Juneja, Rakhi & Wright, Brian D, 2009. "Patents versus patenting: implications of intellectual property protection for biological research," MPRA Paper 34640, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Juma, Calestous, 2016. "Innovation and Its Enemies: Why People Resist New Technologies," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780190467036.
    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. Sarah Hackfort, 2021. "Patterns of Inequalities in Digital Agriculture: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-18, November.
    2. Lorena Espina-Romero & José Gregorio Noroño Sánchez & Humberto Gutiérrez Hurtado & Helga Dworaczek Conde & Yessenia Solier Castro & Luz Emérita Cervera Cajo & Jose Rio Corredoira, 2023. "Which Industrial Sectors Are Affected by Artificial Intelligence? A Bibliometric Analysis of Trends and Perspectives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(16), pages 1-18, August.
    3. Kok, Kristiaan P.W. & Klerkx, Laurens, 2023. "Addressing the politics of mission-oriented agricultural innovation systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 211(C).
    4. da Silveira, Franco & da Silva, Sabrina Letícia Couto & Machado, Filipe Molinar & Barbedo, Jayme Garcia Arnal & Amaral, Fernando Gonçalves, 2023. "Farmers' perception of the barriers that hinder the implementation of agriculture 4.0," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 208(C).
    5. Asioli, Daniele & Fuentes-Pila, Joaquìn & Alarcón, Silverio & Han, Jia & Liu, Jingjing & Hocquette, Jean-Francois & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2022. "Consumers’ valuation of cultured beef Burger: A Multi-Country investigation using choice experiments," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    6. Moritz, Jana & McPartlin, Maria & Tuomisto, Hanna L. & Ryynänen, Toni, 2023. "A multi-level perspective of potential transition pathways towards cultured meat: Finnish and German political stakeholder perceptions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(9).
    7. William Lacy, 2023. "Local food systems, citizen and public science, empowered communities, and democracy: hopes deserving to live," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 40(1), pages 1-17, March.
    8. Katrin Martens & Jana Zscheischler, 2022. "The Digital Transformation of the Agricultural Value Chain: Discourses on Opportunities, Challenges and Controversial Perspectives on Governance Approaches," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-15, March.
    9. Claire Brown & Áine Regan & Simone van der Burg, 2023. "Farming futures: Perspectives of Irish agricultural stakeholders on data sharing and data governance," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 40(2), pages 565-580, June.
    10. Ingram, Julie & Maye, Damian & Bailye, Clive & Barnes, Andrew & Bear, Christopher & Bell, Matthew & Cutress, David & Davies, Lynfa & de Boon, Auvikki & Dinnie, Liz & Gairdner, Julian & Hafferty, Caitl, 2022. "What are the priority research questions for digital agriculture?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    11. Karly Burch & Julie Guthman & Mascha Gugganig & Kelly Bronson & Matt Comi & Katharine Legun & Charlotte Biltekoff & Garrett Broad & Samara Brock & Susanne Freidberg & Patrick Baur & Diana Mincyte, 2023. "Social science – STEM collaborations in agriculture, food and beyond: an STSFAN manifesto," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 40(3), pages 939-949, September.
    12. Räty, Niko & Tuomisto, Hanna L. & Ryynänen, Toni, 2023. "On what basis is it agriculture?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    13. Claudiu George Bocean, 2024. "A Cross-Sectional Analysis of the Relationship between Digital Technology Use and Agricultural Productivity in EU Countries," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-24, March.

    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. Aline Fugeray-Scarbel & Stéphane Lemarié, 2024. "The amplified effect of market size on innovation: A comparative analysis of pea and wheat seed value chains in France," Post-Print hal-04631965, HAL.
    2. Mercedes Campi & Alessandro Nuvolari, 2021. "Intellectual Property Rights and Agricultural Development: Evidence from a Worldwide Index of IPRs in Agriculture (1961-2018)," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 57(4), pages 650-668, April.
    3. Federico Ciliberto & GianCarlo Moschini & Edward D. Perry, 2019. "Valuing product innovation: genetically engineered varieties in US corn and soybeans," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 50(3), pages 615-644, September.
    4. Seungki Lee & Yongjie Ji & GianCarlo Moschini, 2021. "Agricultural Innovation and Adaptation to Climate Change: Insights from Genetically Engineered Maize," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 21-wp616, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    5. Sarah Hackfort, 2021. "Patterns of Inequalities in Digital Agriculture: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-18, November.
    6. Adrien Hervouet & Stéphane Lemarié, 2023. "The Economics of Royalty Rates in Plant Breeding," Working Papers 2023-03, Grenoble Applied Economics Laboratory (GAEL).
    7. Clancy, Matthew S., 2018. "How deep are the roots of agricultural innovation? Evidence from patents," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274377, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    8. Matthew Clancy & Paul Heisey & Yongjie Ji & GianCarlo Moschini, 2020. "The Roots of Agricultural Innovation: Patent Evidence of Knowledge Spillovers," NBER Chapters, in: Economics of Research and Innovation in Agriculture, pages 21-75, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Matin Qaim, 2020. "Role of New Plant Breeding Technologies for Food Security and Sustainable Agricultural Development," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(2), pages 129-150, June.
    10. Danilo Bertoni & Daniele Cavicchioli & Franco Donzelli & Giovanni Ferrazzi & Dario G. Frisio & Roberto Pretolani & Elena Claire Ricci & Vera Ventura, 2018. "Recent Contributions of Agricultural Economics Research in the Field of Sustainable Development," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-20, December.
    11. Michael J. Andrews, 2021. "Historical patent data: A practitioner's guide," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(2), pages 368-397, May.
    12. Luo, Jinjing & Moschini, GianCarlo & Perry, Edward D., 2023. "Switching costs in the US seed industry: Technology adoption and welfare impacts," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    13. Minyu Zhou & Ian Sheldon & Jihyun Eum, 2018. "The role of intellectual property rights in seed technology transfer through trade: evidence from U.S. field crop seed exports," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 49(4), pages 423-434, July.
    14. Summer Sullivan, 2023. "Ag-tech, agroecology, and the politics of alternative farming futures: The challenges of bringing together diverse agricultural epistemologies," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 40(3), pages 913-928, September.
    15. Engelhardt, Sebastian v. & Freytag, Andreas, 2013. "Institutions, culture, and open source," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 90-110.
    16. Zarina Anita, 2010. "Path dependency and landscape biographies in Latgale, Latvia: a comparative analysis," European Countryside, Sciendo, vol. 2(3), pages 151-168, January.
    17. Mamen Cuéllar-Padilla & Ernesto Ganuza-Fernandez, 2018. "We Don’t Want to Be Officially Certified! Reasons and Implications of the Participatory Guarantee Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-15, April.
    18. McBride, Karen, 2021. "A French connection; paths to a ‘new system’ of accounting for the Royal Navy in 1832," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(2).
    19. McGrath, Karen & Brown, Claire & Regan, Áine & Russell, Tomás, 2023. "Investigating narratives and trends in digital agriculture: A scoping study of social and behavioural science studies," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 207(C).
    20. Alexandrine Lapoutte & Clara Lohier-Fanchini & Séverine Saleilles, 2017. "De l’aide à la justice alimentaire : Étude d’un partenariat entre Biocoop et des épiceries sociales et solidaires," Post-Print halshs-01660289, HAL.

    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:spr:agrhuv:v:38:y:2021:i:4:d:10.1007_s10460-021-10237-7. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.