Genomics and Society: Reinventing Life? - Re-examining the politics of life science innovation in developing countries

The ESRC Genomics Network has examined the politics of innovation, especially in terms of public-private partnerships in health and agriculture, where different actors have disparate or conflicting interests. We have looked at the roles of the state, of non-governmental organisations, of donors, and of trans-national organisations and treaties. This session will reflect on this work to ask: what drives life science innovation in developing countries? How are innovation trajectories set?

The heated debate over genetically modified (GM) crops, though polarised between expected (economic) benefits versus risks to health, the environment and food security, has tended to portray the outcomes as inherent in ‘the technology’. I argue instead that technology must be analysed as a socio-technical ensemble - a complex assembly of material and social elements. Technology in particular agriculture technologies like crops are intrinsically physical and social context ridden. It is therefore unhelpful to try to transfer Western debates wholesale to developing countries. An historical survey of the evolution of rice technology in China is used to unfold the discussion, which examines the rice ‘technology trajectory’ from the traditional farming system to GM rice today, emphasises the specificity of technology development and its socioeconomic outcomes.

With challenges in Agricultural sector under the African context, new advances in biotechnology have been viewed as some of the many interventions that may address these challenges. The Genetic Engineering (GE) technology has been perceived to have both beneficial aspects and concerns by proponents and opponents respectively. The need to balance these two diverse perspectives of the technology has resulted into the need to establish sustainable regulatory systems.

This paper presents the regulatory challenges the crop biotech trials in Kenya have undergone during the biosafety regulatory policy evolution process since the first transgenic crop was approved in 1998. The paper argues that the tests these trials have been subjected to have been a requisite learning process. Consequently, this testing has considerably shaped the process, taking both the scientists and non-scientists perspectives into consideration. The regulatory process when evaluated using regulatory science thinking provides more insights into the nature of complexity associated with “wicked problems” linked to Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) debate. A hypothetical consensus-building oriented approach is recommended, paving way to further discussion in this matter.

The empirical data to support the paper has been generated from Kenyan secondary data and specific interviews from key scientists involved in the biotech trials as well as non scientists interested in this science.

An analysis was made into existing and new impetus for cross-national regulatory systems for modern biotechnology sparked in southern Africa by the 2002/03 food aid crisis. The study examined the roles the African Union (AU), the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) and the Southern African Development Community (SADC), who, together with other regional and international bodies have initiated processes to assist the 14-country SADC region towards cross-national similarity or convergence of biosafety systems. This case study research was guided by the three factor conceptualisation of Per Olof Busch and Helge Jorgens (2005), which proposes harmonisation, diffusion and coercive imposition as three distinct international mechanisms causing policy change and policy convergence.

Different stakeholder understandings of convergence, and fluctuating motivations and fears regarding its emergence and implementation were observed. The processes towards a transnational framework were viewed as more important than the outputs thereof. Minimal, if any convergence had occurred in entire regulatory systems, or policies, while lower level targets such as policy scopes, objectives, institutional arrangements and regulations had converged to varying extents. The three SNOs had played different roles in this, singly or collectively, particularly via ideational and epistemic influence exerted through interplay between the three mechanisms proposed by Busch and Jorgens (2005), with diffusion of practices being most prominent.