Can agroecology and CRISPR mix? The politics of complementarity and moving toward technology sovereignty

Can gene editing and agroecology be complementary? Various formulations of this question now animate debates over the future of food systems, including in the UN Committee on World Food Security and at the UN Food Systems Summit. Previous analyses have discussed the risks of gene editing for agroeco...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Agriculture and human values 2022-06, Vol.39 (2), p.733-755
Main Author: Montenegro de Wit, Maywa
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Agricultural Economics
Agricultural ecosystems
Agricultural Ethics
Agricultural industry
Agroecology
Complementarity
CRISPR
Development Studies
Education
Environmental Sociology
Food security
Food systems
Genetic engineering
Genetic modification
Genome editing
Humanities and Social Sciences
Modernity
multidisciplinary
Ontology
Ownership
Philosophy
Politics
Questions
Racism
Science
Science and technology
Sovereignty
Sustainable Development
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Can gene editing and agroecology be complementary? Various formulations of this question now animate debates over the future of food systems, including in the UN Committee on World Food Security and at the UN Food Systems Summit. Previous analyses have discussed the risks of gene editing for agroecosystems, smallholders, and the concentration of wealth by and for agro-industry. This paper takes a different approach, unpacking the epistemic, socioeconomic, and ontological politics inherent in complementarity. I ask: How is complementarity understood? Who is asking and defining this question? What are the politics of entertaining the debate at all? I sketch the epistemic foundations of science and technology that organize different notions of evidence used in agroecology and genetic engineering. On this base, I offer 8 angles on the compatibility question, exploring the historical contradictions that complementarity discourses reveal and the contemporary work they do. I work through questions of (1) technological neutrality, (2) “root cause” problems, (3) working with nature, (4) encoding racism, and dilemmas of (5) ownership and (6) access. These questions, I argue, require a reckoning with (7) ontologies of coloniality-modernity, which help us get underneath—and beyond—the complementarity question. Finally, I offer (8) a framework for thinking about and working toward technology sovereignty.
ISSN:0889-048X
1572-8366
DOI:10.1007/s10460-021-10284-0