Comparing Sociotechnical Imaginaries for Gene Editing in Food and Agriculture is a cross-country comparative research project that aims to identify and compare the nation-specific values and visions asserted about the role of agricultural gene editing in desired collective futures. We focus on which social factors impact the governance and acceptance of gene editing in food and agriculture in the US, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands, Canada, and New Zealand.
PROJECT GOALS
The goals of this project are to identify and compare 1) key competing sociotechnical imaginaries within and between six case study countries; 2) what social forces inform them; and 3) how they influence public acceptance and shape public and private efforts to govern GEAF, such as the development of laws, policies, international agreements, or food labels. Our findings will highlight the diverse social, cultural, and political considerations that should be included in efforts to build trustworthy biotechnologies and to address calls for more inclusive deliberations and diverse input into the governance of gene editing.
OVERARCHING RESEARCH QUESTIONS
- Which actors in each case study country create dominant and competing sociotechnical imaginaries for GEAF?
- How are cultural and political resources and practices used to de/stabilize particular sociotechnical imaginaries within each national context?
- How do similarities and particularities in imaginaries across our case study countries manifest in institutions that could inform more inclusive, global governance frameworks for GEAF?
- How can deliberative workshops engage key stakeholders to inform more inclusive and trustworthy governance approaches for GEAF?
OUR RESEARCH APPROACH
Comparative Analysis
Comparative methods are invaluable for studying sociotechnical imaginaries which are defined as "collectively imagined forms of social life and social order reflected in the design and fulfillment of nation-specific scientific and/or technological projects spread by other organized groups, such as corporations, social movements, and professional societies, in addition to governments" (Jasanoff & Kim, 2009, p. 120). Rather than assuming a universal sociotechnical imaginary against which other imaginaries are measured, cross country comparisons will allow us to identify how epistemologies and governance discourses and practices are culturally and politically situated. Our six cases have been selected to represent countries with distinct governance approaches to GMOs, a history of civil society engagement around agricultural biotechnologies, and where we expect efforts to build social license and new governance frameworks for GEAF will be contested by different constellations of actors. Read more about each of our case study countries here.
Multi-Method Approach
We will address our research objectives using a combination of media content analysis, in-depth interviews of key actors, and deliberative workshops. This plurality of methodologies will support a more nuanced understanding of how both dominant and counter sociotechnical imaginaries emerge and circulate in each case study country.
Dissemination of Results
We will disseminate our findings to key publics involved in GEAF in each of our case study countries through a wide variety of venues, including policy briefs, scholarly journal articles, white papers, digital storytelling projects, a website, a virtual policy panel, and professional presentations. We will also share our findings with STS scholars and other stakeholders engaged in efforts to create forums, organizations, or protocols intended to share information on the social and ethical implications and governance of GEAF.
PUBLICATIONS
|