IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/teinso/v45y2016icp48-57.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Broadening the lens for the governance of emerging technologies: Care ethics and agricultural biotechnology

Author

Listed:
  • Preston, Christopher J.
  • Wickson, Fern

Abstract

In this paper we argue that insights from feminist perspectives, particularly in the form of an ethics of care, have a number of advantages when used as a lens through which to consider questions relevant to the governance of emerging technologies. We highlight how an emphasis on central themes of importance in feminist theory and care ethics such as relationality, contextuality, dependence, power, affect, and narrative can shine a light on a number of salient issues that are typically missed by the dominant and largely consequentialist risk assessment frame. We argue that the care ethics lens is a better fit when technologies are understood not simply as devices designed to create a certain end experience for a user but as transformative systems that smuggle in numerous social and political interests. The advantages of these care ethics themes for emerging technologies are illustrated through a detailed consideration of agricultural biotechnology. We show how the feminist care ethics lens might have anticipated the very questions that have proved themselves to be the sticking points for this technology. We therefore suggest that applying a care ethics lens can significantly broaden the frame of appraisal processes used for the governance of emerging technologies and usefully grant legitimacy to questions and concerns that are prominent in public discourse but typically left out of practices of risk assessment.

Suggested Citation

  • Preston, Christopher J. & Wickson, Fern, 2016. "Broadening the lens for the governance of emerging technologies: Care ethics and agricultural biotechnology," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 48-57.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:teinso:v:45:y:2016:i:c:p:48-57
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2016.03.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160791X15300567
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techsoc.2016.03.001?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. Paul Slovic, 1999. "Trust, Emotion, Sex, Politics, and Science: Surveying the Risk‐Assessment Battlefield," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(4), pages 689-701, August.
    2. Michael Siegrist, 2000. "The Influence of Trust and Perceptions of Risks and Benefits on the Acceptance of Gene Technology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(2), pages 195-204, April.
    3. Stilgoe, Jack & Owen, Richard & Macnaghten, Phil, 2013. "Developing a framework for responsible innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1568-1580.
    4. Smits, Martijntje, 2006. "Taming monsters: The cultural domestication of new technology," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 489-504.
    5. Emily Waltz, 2009. "GM crops: Battlefield," Nature, Nature, vol. 461(7260), pages 27-32, September.
    6. Judy Wajcman, 2010. "Feminist theories of technology," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 34(1), pages 143-152, January.
    7. Guillaume Gruere & Debdatta Sengupta, 2011. "Bt Cotton and Farmer Suicides in India: An Evidence-based Assessment," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(2), pages 316-337.
    8. Les Levidow & Susan Carr, 1997. "How biotechnology regulation sets a risk/ethics boundary," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 14(1), pages 29-43, March.
    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. Hirt, Léon F. & Sahakian, Marlyne & Trutnevyte, Evelina, 2022. "What subnational imaginaries for solar PV? The case of the Swiss energy transition," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    2. Sætra, Henrik Skaug, 2020. "The foundations of a policy for the use of social robots in care," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    3. Fern Wickson & Rosa Binimelis & Amaranta Herrero, 2016. "Should Organic Agriculture Maintain Its Opposition to GM? New Techniques Writing the Same Old Story," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-19, October.
    4. Beate Friedrich, 2019. "Pathways of Conflict: Lessons from the Cultivation of MON810 in Germany in 2005–2008 for Emerging Conflicts over New Breeding Techniques," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-17, December.

    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. William J. Burns & Ellen Peters & Paul Slovic, 2012. "Risk Perception and the Economic Crisis: A Longitudinal Study of the Trajectory of Perceived Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(4), pages 659-677, April.
    2. Liu, Peng & Xu, Zhigang & Zhao, Xiangmo, 2019. "Road tests of self-driving vehicles: Affective and cognitive pathways in acceptance formation," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 354-369.
    3. Louie Rivers & Joseph Arvai & Paul Slovic, 2010. "Beyond a Simple Case of Black and White: Searching for the White Male Effect in the African‐American Community," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(1), pages 65-77, January.
    4. Monaghan, Conal & Bizumic, Boris & Van Rooy, Dirk, 2020. "An analysis of public attitudes in Australia towards applications of biotechnology to humans: Kinds, causes, and effects," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    5. Del-Real, Cristina & Díaz-Fernández, Antonio M., 2021. "Lifeguards in the sky: Examining the public acceptance of beach-rescue drones," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    6. Michael Greenberg & Charles Haas & Anthony Cox & Karen Lowrie & Katherine McComas & Warner North, 2012. "Ten Most Important Accomplishments in Risk Analysis, 1980–2010," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(5), pages 771-781, May.
    7. Martina Raue & Lisa A. D'Ambrosio & Carley Ward & Chaiwoo Lee & Claire Jacquillat & Joseph F. Coughlin, 2019. "The Influence of Feelings While Driving Regular Cars on the Perception and Acceptance of Self‐Driving Cars," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(2), pages 358-374, February.
    8. Michael Morrison & Stevienna de Saille, 2019. "CRISPR in context: towards a socially responsible debate on embryo editing," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-9, December.
    9. Kazuya Nakayachi, 2015. "Examining Public Trust in Risk‐Managing Organizations After a Major Disaster," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(1), pages 57-67, January.
    10. Steven J. Watson & Daniel J. Zizzo & Piers Fleming, 2017. "Risk, Benefit, and Moderators of the Affect Heuristic in a Widespread Unlawful Activity: Evidence from a Survey of Unlawful File‐Sharing Behavior," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(6), pages 1146-1156, June.
    11. Roxanne E. Lewis & Michael G. Tyshenko, 2009. "The Impact of Social Amplification and Attenuation of Risk and the Public Reaction to Mad Cow Disease in Canada," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(5), pages 714-728, May.
    12. Upham, Dr Paul & Sovacool, Prof Benjamin & Ghosh, Dr Bipashyee, 2022. "Just transitions for industrial decarbonisation: A framework for innovation, participation, and justice," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    13. Paredes-Frigolett, Harold, 2016. "Modeling the effect of responsible research and innovation in quadruple helix innovation systems," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 126-133.
    14. Luna, Jessie K. & Dowd-Uribe, Brian, 2020. "Knowledge politics and the Bt cotton success narrative in Burkina Faso," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    15. Kang, Min Jung & Park, Heejun, 2011. "Impact of experience on government policy toward acceptance of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3465-3475, June.
    16. Dutrénit, Gabriela & Natera, José Miguel & Puchet Anyul, Martín & Vera-Cruz, Alexandre O., 2019. "Development profiles and accumulation of technological capabilities in Latin America," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 396-412.
    17. Nicolás Bronfman & Pamela Cisternas & Esperanza López-Vázquez & Luis Cifuentes, 2016. "Trust and risk perception of natural hazards: implications for risk preparedness in Chile," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 81(1), pages 307-327, March.
    18. Lehoux, P. & Miller, F.A. & Williams-Jones, B., 2020. "Anticipatory governance and moral imagination: Methodological insights from a scenario-based public deliberation study," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    19. Sangsomboon Ploywarin & Yan Song & Dian Sun, 2018. "Research on Factors Affecting Public Risk Perception of Thai High-Speed Railway Projects Based on “Belt and Road Initiative”," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-13, June.
    20. Wang, Fei & Yuan, Yu & Lu, Liangdong, 2021. "Dynamical prediction model of consumers’ purchase intentions regarding anti-smog products during smog risk: Taking the information flow perspective," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 563(C).

    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:eee:teinso:v:45:y:2016:i:c:p:48-57. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/technology-in-society .

    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.