000041808 000__ 02490cam\a22002535i\4500
000041808 001__ 41808
000041808 003__ SzGeWIPO
000041808 005__ 20240708145759.0
000041808 008__ 200615s2020\\\\sz\\\\\\r\\\\\000\0\eng\d
000041808 022__ $$a2325-1026
000041808 040__ $$aSzGeWIPO$$beng$$erda
000041808 041__ $$aeng
000041808 1001_ $$aMontenegro de Wit, Maywa
000041808 24503 $$aDemocratizing CRISPR?$$bStories, practices, and politics of science and governance on the agricultural gene editing frontier
000041808 264_1 $$aWashington DC, USA :$$bBioOne,$$c2020.
000041808 300__ $$a34 pages
000041808 336__ $$atext$$btxt$$2rdacontent
000041808 337__ $$aunmediated$$bn$$2rdamedia
000041808 338__ $$avolume$$bnc$$2rdacarrier
000041808 500__ $$aThis resource was extracted from the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
000041808 520__ $$aMany trends in agricultural biotechnology have extended fluidly from the first era of genetic modification using recombinant DNA techniques to the era of gene editing. But the high-profile, explicit, and assertive discourse of democratization with gene editing — especially CRISPR-Cas9 — is something new. In this paper, I draw on semi-structured interviews with gene editors, policy analysts, and communications experts as well as with critical academic and civil society experts. I use Science and Technology Studies and political ecology lenses to unpack democratization in three main parts. First is democratizing discourses: On what grounds is CRISPR said to be democratic? Who is saying so? How do dissident communities respond to these narratives? Second is agricultural applications, with a focus on the Innovative Genomics Institute’s work in developing gene-edited food crops, including a case of saveable clonal hybrid rice. Third is governance, where I contrast US Department of Agriculture regulations and the CRISPRcon conference as “closed” and “invited” spaces, respectively, for democratic participation. Next, I argue that “created spaces,” in which power is held by typically delegitimized actors and ideas, offer an opening for working out democracy on the terrain of biotechnology. I conclude with a set of principles and practices for CRISPR governance based on the idea that democratization of biotechnology requires epistemic justice. By gathering multiple, partial knowledges together, we move beyond narrow risk-benefit framings to better evaluate not just what CRISPR is and does, but what democracy means and whom it serves.
000041808 525__ $$aPublished in : Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene, vol. 8, no 1 (2020).
000041808 650_0 $$aGene editing
000041808 650_0 $$aCRISPR-Cas9
000041808 650_0 $$aIntellectual property
000041808 650_0 $$aDemocratization
000041808 650_0 $$aAgroecology
000041808 85641 $$uhttps://doaj.org/article/28109730be7041429dfe4eeb0b1770c5$$yView this resource
000041808 904__ $$aJournal article
000041808 980__ $$aBIB