Qualified for Evaluation? A GM Potato and the Orders of Rural Worth

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Helena Valve (1) helena.valve@ymparisto.fi
• 关键词：Evaluation – Orders of worth – GM potato – Script – Focus group
• 刊名：Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics
• 出版年：2012
• 出版时间：June 2012
• 年：2012
• 卷：25
• 期：3
• 页码：315-331
• 全文大小：248.4 KB
• 参考文献：1. Akrich, M. (2000). The de-scription of technical objects. In W. Bijker & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping technology/building society (pp. 205–223). Cambridge, London: MIT Press. (3rd printing, first published in 1994).
  2. BASF (2010). A new weapon against Phytophtora–Fortuna, the potato variety for your peace of mind. http://www.basf.com/group/corporate/en/function/conversions:/publish/content/products-and-industries/biotechnology/images/Fortuna_VC.pdf. Accessed Aug 2010.
  3. Binimelis, R., Pengue, W., & Monterroso, I. (2009). Transgenic treadmill: Responses to the emergence and spread of glyphosate-resistant johnsongrass in Argentina. Geoforum, 40, 623–633.
  4. Blake, A. (2009). BASF halts GM potato research in the UK. http://checkbiotech.org/node/26598. Accessed Aug 2010.
  5. Borowiak, C. (2004). Farmers’ rights: Intellectual property regimes and the struggle over seeds. Politics and Society, 32, 511–543.
  6. Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
  7. Brown, N., Rappert, B., & Webster, A. (Eds.). (2000). Contested futures. A sociology of prospective techno-science. Aldershot: Ashgate.
  8. Carolan, M. S. (2008). The multidimensionality of environmental problems: The GMO controversy and the limits of scientific materialism. Environmental Values, 17, 62–82.
  9. Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing council directive 90/220/EEC [2001] L106/1, Official Journal of the European Communities 44, 17 April 2001.
  10. European Commission (2010). Communication from the commission to the European Parliament, the council, the economic and social committee and the committee of the regions on the freedom for member states to decide on the cultivation of genetically modified crops. COM(2010) 375 final.
  11. GMO Compass (2010). GM potatoes: BASF at work. http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/news/492.gm_potatoes_basf_at_work.html. Accessed Apr 2010.
  12. Jalonen, P., Valve, H., Kettunen, R., Niemi, K., Kauppila, J., Teeri, T., et al. (2008). Perunaruttoa kest?v?n muuntogeenisen perunan hyv?ksytt?vyys: ESGEMO-ohjelman ty?paja. Helsingin yliopisto, soveltavan biologian laitos, Julkaisuja 35, Helsinki.
  13. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social. An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
  14. Litosseliti, L. (2003). Using focus groups in research. London and New York: Continuum.
  15. Mascarenhas, M., & Busch, L. (2006). Seeds of change: Intellectual property rights, genetically modified soybeans and seed saving in the United States. Sociologia Ruralis, 46, 22–137.
  16. Mayer, S., & Stirling, A. (2002). Finding a precautionary approach to technological developments—lessons for the evaluation of GM crops. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 15, 57–71.
  17. Stengers, I. (2000). The invention of modern sciences. Minneapolis, London: University of Minnesota Press.
  18. Thévenot, L. (2001). Organized complexity. Conventions of coordination and the composition of economic arrangements. European Journal of Social Theory, 4(4), 405–425.
  19. Thévenot, L. (2002). Which road to follow? The moral complexity of an equipped humanity. In A. Mol & J. Law (Eds.), Complexities. Social studies of knowledge practices (pp. 53–87). Durham: Duke University Press.
  20. Thrift, N. (2003). Practicing ethics. In M. Pryke, G. Rose, & S. Whatmore (Eds.), Using social theory (pp. 105–121). London: Sage.
  21. Valve, H. (2008). GM plants as sources of im/possibility: A developmental systems view of stabilization. New Genetics and Society, 27(4), 339–352.
• 作者单位：1. Finnish Environment Institute, P.O. Box 140, 00251 Helsinki, Finland
• 刊物类别：Humanities, Social Sciences and Law
• 刊物主题：Philosophy
  Ethics
  Evolutionary Biology
  Agricultural Economics
  Theory of Medicine and Bioethics
  Plant Sciences
  
• 出版者：Springer Netherlands
• ISSN：1573-322X

文摘

This paper examines a small-scale attempt to support collective evaluation of a transgenic potato variety. By mobilizing Laurent Thevénot’s ideas on the connectedness of the ontological and normative, it investigates how the controversial object was associated with coordinating perspectives or “orders of worth” in two focus groups. In these groups, the GM potato qualified for evaluation in relation to deterministic market forces. However, it was unclear whether the potato would operate as a beneficial market asset or merely as an accelerator of ever tougher competition. The innovation also had a tendency to disappear out of sight or to receive capacities as a transgenic application of whatever kind. Hence, it was only with effort that the discussions delved into the specific realities and circumstances of the Finnish potato production. When they did, some particular demands posed by the blight resistant potato became visible and discussable. These scripts concerned the counterparts of contract production, possibly favoring the reorganization of producers into larger associations of highly specialized professionals. However, since practical implications and possibilities received little attention, the paper suggests that more attention needs to be put into organization and preparation of multi-stakeholder evaluations. The emergence of learning potential greatly depends on the abilities and willingness of the participants to engage with speculative experiments or reality tests. This is a risky strategy for anyone who hopes that a meeting will remain within a particular scope or that it will reach a particular conclusion.