z-logo
Premium
Intellectual Property, Scientific Independence, and the Efficacy and Environmental Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops
Author(s) -
Glenna Leland L.,
Tooker John,
Welsh J. Rick,
Ervin David
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
rural sociology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.083
H-Index - 65
eISSN - 1549-0831
pISSN - 0036-0112
DOI - 10.1111/ruso.12062
Subject(s) - commercialization , intellectual property , independence (probability theory) , legitimacy , private sector , politics , agriculture , agricultural biotechnology , genetically engineered , political science , economic growth , business , economics , law , geography , biology , biochemistry , statistics , mathematics , gene , archaeology
Neoliberalism is the political ideology behind efforts to commercialize university science. The development of genetically engineered ( GE ) crops has facilitated the commercialization process because GE crops generally have more restrictive intellectual property protections than conventional crops. Those restrictions have led some to question whether long‐term university research and innovations are being compromised to protect short‐term intellectual property interests. This concern is evident in two letters submitted by public‐sector entomologists in February 2009 to the U . S . E nvironmental P rotection A gency ( EPA ). The letters asserted that scientists are prohibited from conducting fully independent research on the efficacy and environmental impact of GE crops. In response to the letter, the A merican S eed T rade Association ( ASTA ) negotiated an agreement between university scientists and seed companies to protect industry property rights while enabling university scientists to conduct research with more independence. Through a survey of public‐ and private‐sector entomologists who are members of two regional entomologist research groups, we document scientists' perspectives on the adequacy of the ASTA agreement and whether those scientists have experienced limitations on their research projects involving efficacy and environmental impacts. Our findings show that limitations exist and that certain forms of public knowledge about crops are likely being compromised. These findings have implications for the legitimacy of current risk management institutions, as well as for future technological breakthroughs and innovations.

This content is not available in your region!

Continue researching here.

Having issues? You can contact us here