Doctoral studentships on Social and Economic Research on Innovation in Genomics
The Economic and Social Research Council has awarded four doctoral studentships linked
to the new ESRC Centre for Social and Economic Research on Innovation in Genomics
(Innogen).
The studentships will start in October 2003, funded on the 1 + 3 model and are open to UK
and EU students. Candidates should have a good degree (at least 2:1) in a relevant social
science subject or a relevant scientific or technical field.
Applications are invited by Friday 20 June for these and other postgraduate research
opportunities arising (including a study of Stem Cell therapeutic innovation with colleagues
at Glasgow Caledonian University [D.J.Bower@gcal.ac.uk]). Further details of the projects
are provided below. Informal email enquiries can be made to the project supervisors.
Applications should be made to the relevant university.
The University of Edinburgh, Research Centre for Social Sciences

The changing sociality of life sciences: from molecular biology to genomics
(Professor Robin Williams: R.Williams@ed.ac.uk)

Donor Assisted Conception, Genetic Knowledge and the Meanings of Kinship
(Professor Janet Carsten: J.Carsten@ed.ac.uk)
Requests for information and applications should be submitted through
The Graduate School of Social and Political Studies
(Doctoral Programme in Social and Economic Research on Technology)
Adam Ferguson Building
George Square
Edinburgh EH8 9LL
Email soc.sci.gradschool@ed.ac.uk
Tel 0131 651 1560
www.ed.ac.uk/gsss
The Open University, Centre for Technology Strategy

Locational dynamics of the UK genomics industry
(Dr Suma Athreye: S.S.Athreye@open.ac.uk)

Innovation and diffusion of agricultural GMOs in Central and Eastern Europe
(Dr Joanna Chataway: J.C.Chataway@open.ac.uk)
Requests for information and applications should be submitted through
The Centre for Technology Strategy
Technology Faculty
The Open University
Walton Hall
Milton Keynes MK7 6AA
Email c.mcnulty@open.ac.uk
Tel 01908 653651
The changing sociality of life sciences: from molecular biology to genomics
A detailed study will be undertaken of the changing epistemic processes underpinning the
evolution and capitalisation of Genomics in the University of Edinburgh, a UK centre of
excellence in the field, exploiting the outstanding access opportunities afforded by the
collaboration with Professor Peter Ghazal, Director of the Scottish Centre for Genomic
Technology & Informatics (GTI). The study will focus on the changing dynamics and
organisation of scientific advance and its commercial exploitation, with larger scale and
increasingly interdisciplinary collaborative research.1
Aims and objectives
1) Undertake a detailed study of the changing ‘sociality’ of genomics, focusing on:
a) strategies and perceptions of the key players concerning collaborative challenges
in conducting and exploiting research; and
b) mapping the structure of epistemic communities and patterns of collaboration and
exchange.
2) Analyse new developments in knowledge sharing and research collaboration, focusing
on the emergence and significance i.a. of diverse and changing models and practices
with special reference to: research styles & culture, tools & mechanisms for
collaboration, information sharing and information integrity.
3) Explore, in discussion with research funders, managers and practitioners, the
implications for research policy and the strategies of research laboratories, and
disseminate findings to Genomics practitioners and policymakers and the socioeconomic research communities (national and international).
Background and motivation for the study
There has been surprisingly little systematic research into the differing social organisation
and dynamics of contemporary sciences; how these vary between fields and how they
may be changing. Knorr-Cetina’s classic (1994) study contrasted high energy physics and
molecular biology. Molecular biology involved large numbers of relatively small scale
research projects, dispersed across many sites. The research effort has involved a relatively
low and informal division of labour between projects in laboratories. This situation stands in
sharp contrast to fields like high-energy physics, in which a tightly knit research community
is focussed around particular facilities; research involves a few, large-scale collaborative
projects; research and analysis are highly collective with are marked divisions of labour and
expert knowledge (e.g. a separation of data generation from its analysis). Knorr-Cetina
draws attention to these sharp differences in these patterns of scientific collaboration and
in particular to the ‘cooperation problem’ in molecular biology.
the things which join individual units in molecular biology tend also to be the
things which divide -- which create tension, conflicts, resistance and feelings of
exploitation. … In high energy physics, everything everybody does is shared -participants use each other's results continually, and they combine them in
common products and goals. In molecular biology, some products benefit
others, and researchers look out for these and try to take advantage of them. But
when they do, conflicts ensue. (Karen Knorr-Cetina, Epistemic cultures, Indiana U
P, 1994.: 297-8)
1
We have two dynamic models for interdisciplinary collaboration:
1: Cross-field interdisciplinary research in biology e.g. combining neuroscience with immunity. These are
separate fields but genomics provides the opportunity to bring them together.
2: Cross-scientific fields: genomics requires the joint deployment of knowledges from diverse branches of
science and technology, including chemistry, engineering, physics and maths and their unification with
biology and medicine.
2
The emergence of genomics with its roots in (i.a.) molecular biology will be associated with
important changes in the scale of scientific research activities, bringing it closer to the
organisational model found in physics (e.g. larger-scale projects and established centres;
a more elaborate division of labour and knowledge, the industrialisation and automation
of research techniques, a separation from data generation from its analysis). These
developments have important implications for research policy and the strategies of
research laboratories, necessitating critical examination of the models of research
collaboration adopted.
Research Questions
Research styles and culture: These developments may call for departures from the styles of
research work traditionally adopted in the constituent fields including, for example, a shift
from individualistic modes of research towards a more formal collective and collaborative
approach. Existing models of large scale collaboration e.g. in the human genome project
have been based-upon (e.g. gene sequencing) facilities; in other fields, facilities may be
less important than knowledge sharing. Variations between domains and research sites
may be linked with particular exigencies of collaboration, disciplinary traditions etc..
Tools and mechanisms for collaboration and information sharing: What social measures
and tools are needed to underpin such remote collaboration (the role of face-to-face
meetings and intermediaries in enabling collaboration; in establishing best practice and
exchanging otherwise tacit knowledge)?
Information sharing: Information integrity: much of this research involves the use of very
large volumes of data compiled from various different sources, Issues arise about how the
integrity of data is to be assessed and maintained (e.g. regarding trust), which may have
important implications for scientific organisation.
Public-private research relationships: the growing role of commercial scientific research
organisations and the close relationships between public and private research activity in
the field has potentially important consequences for IPR, access to knowledge, the
commercial etc. exploitation of scientific knowledge.
Proposed methodology and timescales
The first part of the study will revolve around an ethnographic study and qualitative
interviews with participants in the Edinburgh Genomic Technology & Informatics Centre.
Ready access to the research site, ensured through the sponsorship of this project by the
Centre’s director, will enable fieldwork for the ethnographic element of the study, to begin
as soon as the formal research training elements have been completed. This will be
continued on a longitudinal basis to month 27.
The second part of the study will focus upon the systematic mapping of networks and
patterns of collaboration and exchange within and around GTI, using quantitative and
qualitative research methods, This work, to be undertaken in months 13 – 24, will adapt and
extend the methodology developed by Williams and Tierney2 to address the detailed
structure of formal and informal networks of collaboration and knowledge exchange
around genomics. The qualitative methods will focus on the changing dynamics of
collaboration (including different types of collaboration and their purposes incentives and
barriers and how these may be changing with the emergence of genomics); types of
knowledge exchange (including knowledge types [e.g. formal, informal]; tools and
mechanisms for information exchange) and broader issues e.g. regarding trust. The
quantitative element will explore some of these points in a larger scale and systematic
manner through a structured questionnaire circulated to network participants. This will
2
Reported in Williams and Procter (1998) 'Trading places: a case study of the formation and deployment of
computing expertise', in Williams et al. (eds) Exploring expertise, Chap. 13, p.197-222.
3
allow a detailed map to be built up of the contours of collaboration and information
exchange (focusing for example on key nodes and lacunae in the network), and the
different tools and methods of information exchange across various parts of the
collaborative network.
Within this analysis of collaborative networks, some assessment will be made, through brief
case-studies, of a selection of specific laboratories involved. This will seek to develop some
comparative insight into performance and outcomes, addressing changes over time and
the influence of different levels and types of collaborative strategy (eg high/low
collaboration, central/peripheral and in particular the ‘team science’/individual efforts).
Metrics in academic performance will be sought focussing on acceleration of knowledge in particular assessing the depth and breadth of expertise in the team science approach
versus independent/ individual efforts.
Analysis, writing up and early dissemination/discussion of implications for policy/practice
(months 25 – 36).
Outputs and dissemination
The intellectual outcome will be the first systematic study of the developing sociality of the
new and rapidly changing field of Genomics - and an important addition to our
understanding of the differing epistemic structuring of contemporary sciences. The study
will provide an important knowledge base and critically examine current models and
presumptions about the promotion and exploitation of Life Sciences, with important
implications for research policy and the strategies of research managers.
Early dissemination of research findings will be secured through presentations to
practitioners, research managers, funders and policymakers in the Genomics field, with
assistance from Prof Ghazal, and utilising the range of linkages and fora being established
by the INNOGEN Centre. These ‘research users’ will be engaged to advise on findings and
comment upon the implications for policy and practice. The primary objective will be the
timely production of a high quality thesis; subject to this requirement some working papers
will be circulated through the above channels, which may be suitable for journal
publication.
Supervision
Prof. Joyce Tait, Director, ESRC Innogen Centre
Prof. Peter Ghazal, Director, Genomic Technology & Informatics Centre
Prof. Robin Williams, Director, Research Centre for Social Sciences
4
Donor assisted conception, genetic knowledge and the meanings of kinship
The project aims to explore the meaning of kinship and genetic knowledge to sperm
donors in the UK in the context of public and academic debates about the regulation of
access to genetic information, genetic information as intellectual property, genetic
knowledge as kinship knowledge, and the multiple ownership of genetic information
(Finkler 2000; Haraway 1997; Kent 2003; Strathern 1992; 1999). Donors are accepted
politically and ethically as significant stakeholders in policy decisions about access to
genetic information for donor offspring, but to date there have been no mechanisms for
assessing their views. The research will contribute to theories about the meaning of genetic
knowledge, and views concerning its ownership in particular social contexts (Kent 2003;
Kerr and Cunningham-Burley 2001).
Aims and objectives
The research will explore the following questions:
1
Do sperm donors hold any sense of connection to people conceived as a result of
their donation? How do they locate it within their current family life, views about and
experience of relatedness, and the ‘cultural repertoire’ of kinship? (Edwards 1998;
2000).
2
Do donors perceive a change in their attitudes to their donation over their life course?
How are public debate and attitudes about the importance of genetics being
accommodated?
3
What are the attitudes of medical practitioners to the significance and use of genetic
information, and what connections do they perceive between social and genetic
identity? (Strathern1992).
Background
Having consulted publicly, the UK government has decided to postpone a decision on the
release of genetic information to donor offspring, pending consideration of how policy
should be developed and how to involve stakeholders – past donors, donor offspring,
donee parents, infertility treatment centres and the HFEA (Department of Health 2001).
One proposal is to establish a Voluntary Contact Register, which would provide a safe,
confidential, mediated system for donors and donor offspring to exchange information.
These dilemmas are closely linked to public debate about genetic information. Social
science research on sperm donation to date has focused on motivations for donating,
psycho-social needs of donors, and their attitudes towards information about themselves
being shared with donor offspring (Daniels and Haimes 1998). Whilst there has been
research into the social aspects of oocyte donation, and although sperm donation has
been practised since before the development of reproductive technology and the
heightened public interest in genetics, no study has been carried out on donors. Current
professional and stakeholder debates about information-sharing in donor-assisted
conception reveal contested views on similarities with adoption, rights to genetic
knowledge and the commodification of gamete donation (Blyth et al 2001). Although
increasing numbers of donor offspring and their legal/nurturing parents are contributing to
this discussion, no information is available on attitudes of sperm donors to these issues.
Proposed methodology and timescales
This research will be primarily qualitative and based on multi-sited ethnography (Rapp
2000). Data will be collected from real and virtual sites of performance and interaction
(mainly genetics, infertility and bioethics conferences and journal websites) of donors,
donor offspring and their parents, donor recruitment centres, the HFEA, and donor
conception support groups. Unstructured and semi-structured interviews will be carried out
with clinicians, practitioners, and with men who donated before 1991 (when clinics
5
organising gamete donation became subject to regulation) and before 1975 (before the
use of cryopreservation). Many of these interviewees will be former medical students, the
main source of donors in the past. Contact will be made through current clinicians’
personal contacts (‘snowballing’), and letters and articles in selected medical newspapers
and journals. Analysis will be made of the responses to the Department of Health’s
Consultation on Donor Information.
Collecting preliminary data and initiating contacts (months 1-9); conducting interviews and
site visits (months 7 - 24); writing up findings, and reviewing policy implications (months 12-24).
Dissemination and outputs
Planned outputs include the production of a PhD thesis; briefing of public health staff in the
Department of Health; articles in professional journals (Social Anthropology, Reproductive
Medicine, Bioethics, Infertility Counselling) and stakeholder newsletters (DC Network); and
presentations at conferences and workshops.
The project will provide vital information for forthcoming policy discussions initiated by the
Department of Health about the feasibility of a Voluntary Contact Register for donor
offspring and gamete donors. It will increase knowledge about professional and lay
understanding of the nature-culture relationship in an age of increasing interest in and use
of genetics in reproductive medicine and preventive health strategies. The study will
contribute to knowledge on identity, gender, personhood, and knowledge issues in kinship
studies (Carsten 2000), and will also pioneer social research into the long term implications
of sperm donation.
Supervision and relationship to programme
This project links to the research interests of several Innogen members in the areas of
genetic knowledge, personhood, and kinship. Prof Janet Carsten, will supervise with Dr
Wendy Faulkner and Dr Sarah Cunningham-Burley, with whom further research in these
areas will be developed in the coming year.
Bibliography
Blyth et al (2001) ‘The implications of adoption for donor offspring following donor assisted
conception’ Child and Family Social Work 2001, 6, 4, 295-304
Carsten, J. (2000) ‘Knowing where you have come from: ruptures and continuities of time and kinship
in narratives of adoption reunions’ J.Roy.anthrop.Inst. (N.S.) 6, 687-703
Daniels, K. and Haimes E.eds (1998) Donor Insemination: International Social Science Perspectives,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Department of Health (2001) Consultation on Donor Information, Department of Health, London.
Edwards, J. (1993), ‘Explicit connections: ethnographic enquiry in north-west England’ in Technologies
of Procreation: Kinship in the Age of Assisted Conception, J.Edwards et al., Manchester University
Press: Manchester.
Edwards, J. (1998) ‘Donor Insemination and ‘public opinion’’ in K.Daniels and E Haimes, eds. Donor
Insemination:International Social Science Perspectives Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Finkler, Kaja, 2000 Experiencing the New Genetics: Family and Kinship on the Medical Frontier.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Haraway D.J 1997 Modest_Witness@Second_Millenium.FemaleMan _Meets_OncoMouse: Feminsim
and Technoscience. New York, London: Routledge.
Kent, A (2003) ‘Consent and confidentiality in genetics: whose information is it anyway?’ J Med Ethics
2003, 29, 16-18
Kerr, A and Cunningham-Burley, S. ‘On Ambivalence and Risk: Reflexive Modernity and the New
Human Genetics’ Sociology 2001, Vol 34, No.2, pp283-304
Rapp, R. (2000) ‘Testing the Woman, Testing the Fetus: the Social Impact of Amniocentesis in
America’ , Routledge: New York and London.
Strathern, M. (1992) Reproducing the Future: Essays on anthropology, Kinship and the New
Reproductive Technologies, Manchester University Press: Manchester
Strathern, M. (1999) ‘Property, Substance and Effect’ , The Athlone Press: London.
6
Additional information on methodology
The research will be carried out mainly through multi-sited ethnography. The aim is to
obtain qualitative data from a variety of informants. This involves participating in and
observing situations and sites where potential research subjects interact. These include
conferences on the topics of infertility, genetics, infertility treatment regulation and
bioethics run regularly by the British Fertility Society, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology
Authority, and the PROGRESS Educational Trust. Other sites will be meetings of organisations
with stakeholder status in the field, including the National Gamete Donation Trust advisory
council, the Donor Conception Network, and the British Infertility Counselling Association.
Current sperm donation (Donor Insemination) progammes will be visited for meetings with
infertility clinic staff.
Semi-structured interviews will be carried out with up to 10 of the clinicians and scientists,
some retired, who set up the original programmes, in order to gain contextual perspectives
on the period when the sperm donors were recruited. Semi-structured interviews will also be
carried out with current Donor Insemination programme co-ordinators (concentrating on
Scotland and Greater London for practical reasons).
Qualitative and quantitative data, including basic socio-economic data, will be collected
from approximately 25 men who donated sperm before 1991 when they were medical
students in the UK in order to help childless couples. Prior to 1991, there was no obligation
for counselling to be offered to potential donors, no follow up support offered, and
financial payment was made. Before 1975, when cryo-preservation was introduced, the
main source of donors was medical schools. The men will be recruited through
‘snowballing’ techniques, using current and retired clinicians’ personal contacts with
former fellow students who donated. Letters and articles will be placed in selected
newspapers and journals, especially Hospital Doctor, the British Medical Journal and the
Lancet. Unstructured and semi-structured interviews will be carried out with these donors
and, if possible, with their current partners and any children. Fertility clinics will be
approached to request permission to distribute a questionnaire to a larger set of
anonymous informants. However, it is anticipated that because of the sensitivity of this
topic, there may be difficulties in accessing informants in this way. For comparative
purposes, the data collected will be compared with that produced in recent larger-scale
attitudinal surveys on donor insemination carried out in Britain ( Blyth and Hunt 1997; 1998;
MORI 2002).
Further quantitative data and analysis will be derived by asking informants to complete
family maps (Levin 1993), which will provide comparable information about how sperm
donors depict their kinship connections, where the donor offspring and their parents are
located, if at all, and whether there has been a change between the time of donation
and the present when the debates about genetic knowledge have moved into the public
arena. This method of collecting information is appropriate for informants who have not
discussed sensitive kinship issues before.
References
Blyth, E. and J. Hunt 1997 ‘Donor Assisted Conception and Information for Donor Offspring:
The Results of a Survey of Views from Licensed Centres on HFEA Donor Information Form’
(HFEA Register (91) 4) - conducted on behalf of The British Association of Social Workers'
Project Group on Assisted Reproduction.
Blyth, E. and Hunt, J. 1998 Sharing genetic origins information in donor assisted conception:
views from licensed centres on HFEA Donor Information Form (91) 4, Human Reproduction,
13, 11, pp. 3274-3277.
Levin, I 1993 ‘Family as Mapped Realities’, Journal of Family Issues, 14(1) pp. 82-91.
http://www.mori.com/polls/2002/cs.shtml
7
Locational dynamics of the UK genomics industry
The project will focus on the relationships between R&D institutions and the
genomics/biotechnology industry. It will research the complementarities between public,
charity and private R&D, and companies - those involved directly in genomics products
and processes and those marketing complementary assets of all kinds: scientific, technical
and non-technical, such as venture capital and financial. In comparison to research on
ICTs, relatively little detailed research has been published on industrial dynamics of the
R&D-rich pharmaceutical and life sciences industry in the UK, where linkages between
science, technology and industry are close and complex.
The project will investigate the extent to which linkages between different companies and
R&D institutions have possible locational causes and consequences, and whether clusters
have advantages in the development of the genomics industry.
One important
mechanism that favours clustering is the dominance of spin-off private firms exploiting
niche markets in technology generated by large universities. A second mechanism that
favours dispersion rather than concentration of activity is the use of patenting and sales
through specialised intermediate markets, which has been important for innovation in the
wider South East economy across a range of industries. The heavy capitalisation
requirements of genomic products and the need for coordination across the stages of
production, testing and marketing may however impose particular patterns and favour
firms as innovating entities rather than regions.
Aims and objectives
1
The study will explore the issue: to what extent is cluster and agglomeration analysis
useful in characterising the genomics industry. To what extent can regional innovation
systems be observed?
2
Build and gather data on biotechnology companies and institutes in major UK
locations.
3
Develop theoretical insights into emerging innovation styles and specialised
knowledge markets.
Background
Although there is a widely held hypothesis that industrial innovation can be highly
regionally agglomerated, there are no data-driven and multi-location studies of the
regional dynamic of the development of the UK genomics industry. There are local
agglomerations, which link research institutions with companies. Though it is not obvious
that such agglomerations will develop into genomics-based regional innovation systems,
differing local/regional characteristics in the early stages of emergence of the industry
merit investigation.
The project will link research being conducted in INNOGEN Project 1 (Innovation processes
in genomics industry) and Project 2 (public and private organisation of genetic
information).
Possible research questions:
The two key overarching questions will be:
1. In genomics, can we observe the development of a new, more specialized, and
horizontally organized, knowledge-based system of innovation?
2. What are the locational characteristics of the genomics/biotechnology industry?
These questions will allow a range of related issues to be investigated, such as:
8

The taxonomy of the genomics industry? (by size of company, sub-sector, research
focused/development focused, level of technology - say by generation (1st, 2nd , 3rd,
etc), agro/health;

To what extent can the dynamic of technical change be differentiated by location?

Can specific technological trajectories or sub-trajectories be observed in specific
locations? Do these trajectories suggest specific locational complementarities?
Proposed methodology and timescales
The first phase of research (Year 1 and beginning Year 2) will involve extensive data
collection, database selection, and preliminary analysis, together with the development of
a strong theoretical focus. Data from Dun and Bradstreet or if available the VAT registration
data will be used to map the location of genomics/biotechnology companies in the UK
and their period of entry. This mapping will be used to ascertain the existence or nonexistence of clusters. We will also contrast these results obtained for biotechnology with (i)
a randomly obtained sample of firms and (ii) with ICT firms, to ascertain the uniqueness (if
any) of the genomics locational dynamics. This data will also be used to generate a
taxonomy of the UK genomics industry taking into account factors such as size, sub-sector.
The second phase (Year 2) will involve in-depth study of selected locations: probably
Cambridge, Oxford, and London, with comparative data on Scottish cities, from a related
INNOGEN project starting in 2003. Having worked on the Cambridge hi-technology cluster
(Athreye, 2001), Athreye has access to major databases and the survey instrument used by
the ESRC Centre for Business Research for the Cambridgeshire and Oxfordshire regions,
which have been differentiated to pinpoint biotechnology companies and ICT companies.
Similar sample surveys of the mode of start-up and the characteristics of firms working in
selected regions of concentration (identified in the first stage through location mapping
exercises) will be used to gather data on these regions of concentration. Secondary data
from the respective county councils will be tapped to provide the sampling frame for the
surveys and to provide background information.
In this period, more intensive field work will be undertaken. Semi-structured interviews in at
least six biotech firm successes and failures in each region will be undertaken with a view
to preparing detailed case studies of the four regions. Half of the interviews will be of
successes and half of failures. Spin-off companies from universities, private firms and new
start-up firms will be selected. The aim of this stage of work is to prepare the ground for the
analysis of information contained in the survey and to establish the importance of
specialised knowledge markets for innovation and growth of the UK genomics industry.
The interviews and case-studies will attempt to understand the strategies towards
innovation and growth employed by UK firms (successful and less successful), their use of
public knowledge flows, private networks and available institutions.
The third phase (Year 3) will focus on further analysis and write-up. The secondary data will
be analysed to determine if the insights yielded by the case studies is validated. The aim of
this analysis will be to put the insights obtained from the case-studies and through the
detailed study of the four regions, through more rigorous empirical tests and to utilise the
regional and firm specific variation of the data to assess the prime factors that drive the
locational dynamics of the genomics industry in the UK.
Dissemination and outputs
Dissemination of research will be organised through presentations to local and regional
agencies, and national agencies with responsibility for regional concerns. The supervisors
have good contacts with many of these agencies in England (including previous CASE
studentship links), and (through INNOGEN) Scotland. We will invite the agencies to be
involved as research users. Though the PhD thesis is the key output, we plan a number of
conference and working papers, for future journal publication.
9
The project will allow development of theory, for example of specialised knowledge
markets, and of knowledge management in key locations. It will contribute to the empirical
databases of the genomics industry, especially to the locational differentiation of data. It
will, more generally, add to the scarce social science research skills in genomics.
Supervision
The project will be jointly supervised by Professor David Wield and Dr Suma Athreye, who
have considerable experience in this area of research. Prof Wield’s work on regional
innovation systems and the development UK science parks (e.g. Massey et al, 1992)
complements Dr Athreye’s (with the ESRC Centre for Business Research, and subsequently
with David Keeble), on the UK regional divide in innovative behavior (Athreye and Keeble,
2002) due to the emergence of specialised intermediate markets in technology (Athreye,
1998).
References
Athreye, S.S. (1998) ‘On markets in knowledge’, J. Management and Governance, 1, 231-253.
Athreye, S.S. (2001) ‘Agglomeration and growth: a study of the Cambridge hi-tech cluster’, Discussion
Paper 00-42 Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.
Athreye, S.S. and Keeble, D (2002) ‘Specialised markets and the behaviour of firms: evidence from
the UK’s regional economies’, Int. Reg. Sci. Rev. 25, 38-62.
Massey, D. Quintas, P. and Wield, D. (1992) High Tech Fantasies: Science Parks in Society, Science
and Space, Routledge.
10
Innovation and diffusion of agricultural GMOs in Central and Eastern Europe
A detailed study of how innovation systems in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) are
affected by the new biotechnology. The study will take advantage of the unparalleled
expertise in the Open and Edinburgh universities on globalisation dynamics of agricultural
biotechnology, whilst filling a major gap in understanding of how agricultural genomics will
affect technological capabilities in CEE countries.
Aims and Objectives
1. Explore innovation and diffusion of agriculture related genetically modified organisms
(GMOs) in CEE, focusing on the extent to which technological capabilities are being
transformed in the new social, political and economic environments of those countries.
2. Investigate, qualitatively and quantitatively, the nature of linkages between actors in
agri-related innovation systems in CEE, the EU and US.
3. Describe and analyse the institutional environment for the diffusion of agricultural GMO
products, and explore the relationship between innovation, diffusion and governance
in transition countries.
4. It will generate intensive and extenisive data data about innovation and diffusion of
agriculture-related GMOs in CEE, thereby enhancing understanding of the evolution of
innovation and governance systems for the development and diffusion of new
biotechnology in CEE.
5. This it will contribute to a key INNOGEN research centre aim of understanding
globalization dynamics in biotechnology and genomics.
Background
A preliminary desk study (Smith 2003) has shown that little published work exists on
innovation or institutional environments for diffusion of GMOs in Central and Eastern Europe
(CEE). (A partial exception is Tzotzos & Skyrabin 2000, though its broad coverage is at the
expense of detail and analysis.) This is the case even in countries that are shortly to
become part of the EU. This PhD study will look at how CEE agricultural innovation systems
are or are not incorporating the technology and at governance regimes for diffusion of the
technology. Two central sets of questions will guide the study:
1. How are innovation systems in Central and Eastern Europe affected by the new
technology? Are leading innovators of agricultural biotechnology in the US and
Western Europe linking to research institutes, universities and firms in CEE? What are the
nature of linkages? Have the technical capacities which existed previously in these
countries found outlets in the new economic order which have emerged?
2. Are GMO technologies being widely diffused in CEE countries? And if so within which
type of governance regime and institutional infrastructure? What kind of regulatory
procedures exist? What are the implications for EU accession?
CEE innovation systems have gone through dramatic changes in the last 15 years.
Although some countries had very significant scientific, technical and plant breeding
capacities, the critical issue of how these capacities have been incorporated into more
liberalised and internationalised economies is unclear.
A set of issues to do with the diffusion of GMO technology have emerged in the preliminary
Smith study mentioned earlier. A number of these relate to governance and institutional
structures and procedures deployed in GMO testing. The following issues have been
identified: Lack of institutional capacity, inconsistency of regulation between countries
(particularly important issues for EU accession countries) and the uncontrolled and illegal
dissemination of GMOs. An important area for investigation, linking the central sets of
questions, is whether or not governance and institutional environments overall are
supporting or deterring local innovators as opposed to multi-national producers.
11
Proposed methodology and timescales
First phase of research (first six -nine months of Year 1): Extensive data collection about
agriculture-related innovation and biotechnology and institutional contexts in Poland, the
Czech Republic and Hungary. Identify MNCs with interests in and linkages to CEE
innovators. Information collection will be shared with a database and typology being
constructed under INNOGEN centre projects 3 and 4. Develop theoretical frameworks.
Second phase of research (second half of Year 1 and Year 2): fieldwork in two of those
countries.
Intensive semi-structured interviews with local innovators, international
collaborators and policymakers. Construction of comparative picture of two countries in
transition with significant agricultural sectors and which previously had strong scientific and
technical capacities in this area. Year 3: Analysis and writing up.
Dissemination and Outputs
Dissemination will take the form of conference and discussion papers. Every opportunity will
be taken to present to policy makers in CEE countries, using the extensive contacts of Dr
Chataway. Conferences such as the EASST conference will be pinpointed for
presentations. The preliminary outputs at end of year one will include a preliminary report
of findings based on extensive data collection, and of the literature survey. The first
discussion paper for formal dissemination to policy makers and conferences will be finished
during year two. Year 3 will concentrate on thesis production, with one INNOGEN Working
Paper summarising findings and an INNOGEN seminar presentation.
Supervision
Dr Chataway will supervise this project jointly with Dr Joseph Murphy (whose work focuses
upon globalisation in Genomics). This project will be closely related to INNOGEN projects 3
Power of Knowledge and Technology Flows in Latin America and Asia (as well as Project 4
re Africa) which Dr Chataway leads, and to the Innogen cross-cutting theme on
Globalisation and Governance.
References
Cohen, M. and Murphy, J. (eds) (2001) Exploring Sustainable Consumption: Environmental Policy and
the Social Sciences, Pergamon (Elsevier Science Ltd): Oxford.
Gouldon, A. and Murphy, J. (1998) Regulatory Realities: The Implementation and Impact of Industrial
Environmental Regulation, Earthscan: London.
Heidi Smith (2003), Biotechnology in Central and Eastern Europe and Russia. Report for DPP, Open
University.
Murphy, J. (2000) Ecological Modernisation, Geoforum, Vol. 31, No 3. pp. 1-8.
Tzotzos, G and Skyrabin, K (eds) (2000) Biotechnology in the Developing World and Countries in
Economic Transition (CABI Publishing, ISBN 085199331)
12