Creating Markets for Biotechnology

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##

Published Jan 15, 2021
Vivien Walsh

Abstract

Much recent literature on biotechnology has focused on supply side issues such as technological opportunities and applications, or organisational changes in the innovating firms. This paper examines the demand side of biotechnology, focusing on GM foods in particular, and analysing the creation of a selection environment in which the innovation might diffuse. In neo-Schumpeterian economics, the concept of 'selection environment' is used to mean the features of the environment of the firm that determine whether innovations succeed or fail. Creating a market is not only an economic but also a social-shaping activity, and the selection environment is a wider and more complex and subtle concept than a market. This paper has drawn on several disciplinary perspectives to analyse the phenomenon, in particular on sociology, anthropology and evolutionary economics. The many elements of the selection environment for agrobiotechnology included the market of consumers; potential consumers (some of whom resisted the new technology); the regulatory system; retailers; policy makers; environmentalists; consumer organisations; the intellectual property régime; intermediaries which promoted the new products, which informed consumers, and which raised areas of concern; the politicisation of the whole process; and the market creation activities of the innovating firms (especially Monsanto). Monsanto's promotional activities, which would normally fall within the realm of traditional market creating behaviour, in the context of other elements of the selection environment had a counter effect. It generated a learning process in which the companies concerned discovered the merits of trying to open up a dialogue with other elements of the selection environment.

How to Cite

[1]
Walsh, V. 2021. Creating Markets for Biotechnology . The International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food. 10, 2 (Jan. 2021), 33-46. DOI:https://doi.org/10.48416/ijsaf.v10i2.332.
Abstract 14 | PDF Downloads 10

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##

References
Akrich, Madeleine. 1995. User representations, practices, methods and sociology. Pp 167-184 in Managing Technology in Society: the approach of constructive technology assessment, edited by Arie Rip, Thomas Misa and Johan Schot. London: Pinter Publishers.
AstraZeneca. 2000. Zeneca Agrochemicals and Cambridge Discovery Chemistry announce collaboration. http://www.astrazeneca.com/news/archive, last accessed April 30th, 2000.
Callon, Michel. 1987. Society in the making: the study of technology as a tool for sociological analysis. Pp 83-103 in The Social Construction of Technological Systems, edited by W. Bijker, T. Hughes and T. Pinch. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Callon, Michel. 1994. “Is science a public good?” Science, Technology and Human Values 19: 395-424, quoting Le Monde 29 October 1992.
Cassier, Maurice. 2002. “Private Property, collective property and public property in the age of genomics.” International Social Science Journal 171: 83-98.
Chesnais, François & Vivien Walsh. 1994. Biotechnology and the chemical industry: the relevance of some evolutionary concepts. Evolutionary Economics of Technological Change Conference, organised by the European Network on the Economics of Technological and Institutional Change (EUNETIC), Strasbourg, October.
Chesnais, François. 1997. La Mondialisation du Capital. Paris: Syros.
Conway, Gordon. 1997. The Doubly Green Revolution. London: Penguin Books.
--------. 2000. Crop biotechnology: benefits, risks and ownership. OECD conference on GM Food Safety: Facts, Uncertainties and Assessment. Edinburgh, UK 28th March. http://www.rockfound.org
--------. 2001. Grain of Hope. The Guardian, 21 March 2001.
Coombe, Rosemary. 1998. The Cultural Life of Intellectual Properties: Authorship, Appropriation and the Law. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Coughlan, A. 1998. Mutiny against Monsanto. New Scientist, 31st October.
Daly, Douglas. 1996. Interview 29th August. Daly is a botanist at New York Botanical Gardens, and was talking about his botanical expeditions to the tropical rainforest of the Amazon while being inteviewed in the context of a study of an anti-cancer drug found (in contrast) in the temperate rainforest of North America.
E. Merck AG. 1968. From Engel’s Angel Pharmacy to the World Wide Merck Group. Darmstadt: Merck Public Relations Group.
Faulkner, Wendy and Jacqueline Senker. 1995. Knowledge Frontiers: Public Sector Research and Industrial Innovation in Biotechnology, Engineering Ceramics and Parallel Computing. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Foray, Dominique. 1995. The economics of intellectual property rights and systems of innovation: the persistence of national practices versus the new global model of innovation. Pp 109-133 in Technical Change and the World Economy: Convergence and Divergence in Technology Strategies, edited by J. Hagedoorn. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Freeman, Christopher, and Luc Soete. 1997. The Economics of Industrial Innovation (3rd edition). London: Frances Pinter.
Gee, Sally. 2000. The Media and Public Opinion in the GM Foods Controversy: The USA and UK Compared. Final Year Dissertation, Manchester School of Management, UMIST, Manchester, UK.
Green, Kenneth. 1992. Creating Demand for Biotechnology: Shaping Technologies and Markets. Pp 164-184 in Technological Change and Company Strategies, edited by Rod Coombs, Paolo Saviotti & Vivien Walsh. London: Academic Press.
Green, Kenneth, Hull, Richard, McMeekin, Andrew, & Walsh, Vivien. 1999. “The Construction of the Techno-Economic: Networks vs Paradigms.” Research Policy, 28: 777-792.
Greenberg, Stan. 1998a. Report to The British Working Group, Monsanto, 5th October, http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/monsanto, accessed November 1998.
Greenberg, Stan. 1998b. Report to The German Working Group, Monsanto, 5th October. http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/monsanto, accessed November 1998.
Harvey, Penelope. 1998. “Exploitable Knowledge Belongs to the Creators of it: A Debate.” Social Anthropology, 6: 109-126.
Hennion, Antoine. 1989. “An Intermediary Between Production and Consumption: the Producer of Popular Music.” Science, Technology and Human Values, 14: 400-424.
Kloppenburg, Jack. 1988. First the Seed: The Political Economy of Plant Biotechnology 1492-2000. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Littler, Dale and Leverick, Fiona. 1990. “Strategic Marketing in New Technology Sectors: the Case of Mobile Communications.” 19th Annual Conference of the European Marketing Academy, Innsbruck, Austria, May.
Lundvall, Bengt-Åke. 1988. Innovation as an interactive process: from user-supplier interaction to national systems of innovation. Pp 349-369 in Technical Change and Economic Theory, edited by G. Dosi, C. Freeman, R. Nelson, G. Silverberg & L. Soete. London: Pinter Publishers.
--------. 1995. “The Social Dimension of the Learning Economy.” Inaugural Lecture, Department of Business Studies, Ålborg University, November 10th.
Mack, Debbie. 1998. Food for all. New Scientist, 31st October.
Maitland, Alison. 1996. Against the Grain: Controversy Around GM Crops May Have Caught Biotech Cos by Surprise. The Financial Times, 15th October.
Mangematin, Vincent & Callon, Michel. 1995. Technological Competition, Strategies of Firms and the Choice of the First Users: the Case of Road Guidance Technologies. Research Policy, 24: 441-458.
Mazzoleni, Roberto & Richard Nelson, 1998: The Benefits and Costs of Strong Patent Protection: a Contribution to the Current Debate. Research Policy, 27: 273-284.
Méadel, Cécile. 1992. Entre corporatisme et représentation: genèse du service public de l’audiovisuel. Culture Technique, 77-88.
Merges Robert and Nelson, Richard. 1994. On Limiting or Encouraging Rivalry in Technical Progress: the Effect of Patent Scope Decisions. Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organisation, 25: 1-24.
Miles, Ian. 1993. Bringing Computer Power to the Consumer Market. Technology Analysis and Strategic Managment, 5: 151-171.
Miles, Ian, Cawson, Alan & Haddon, Leslie. 1992. The Shape of Things to Consume. Pp 67-81 in Consuming Technologies, edited by R. Silverstone & E. Hirsch. Harlow: Longmans.
Monsanto. 2000. Scientists achieve major breakthrough in rice; data to be shared with worldwide research community. http://www.monsanto. com/monsanto /layout /media /00/o4-04-00.asp; http://www.monsanto. com/monsanto /layout/careers/ timeline/timeline6.asp. Last accessed 10.10.02.
Morse, Laurie. 1996. From Petri Dish to Supper Plate. The Financial Times, 15th October.
Nelson, Richard & Winter, Sidney. 1982. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
New Scientist, 31st October 1998, Editorial.
Nottingham, Stephen. 1998. Eat Your Genes. London: Zed books.
OECD. 1989. Biotechnology: Economic and Wider Impacts. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Radford, Tim. 1997. Geneticists Bring Speed and Accuracy to an Age-Old Craft. The Guardian, 15th December.
Rifkin, Jeremy. 1998. Apocalypse when? New Scientist, 31st October.
SAGB. 1990. Economic Benefits and European Competitiveness. Brussels: CEFIC (European Chemical Industry Council).
Schumpeter, Joseph. 1912. Theorie der wiritschaftlichen Entwicklung. Leipzig: Duncker & Humboldt. English translation: The Theory of Economic Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press 1934.
Strathern, Marilyn. 1996. Potential Property: Intellectual Rights and Property in Persons. Social Anthropology, 4: 17-32.
--------. 1999. Property, Substance and Effect. London: The Athlone Press.
Suchman, Lucy. 1987. Plans and Situated Actions: the Problem of Human Machine Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tampubolon, Gindo. 2002. “Globalisation, Technological and Organisational Change in the Agro-Food Industry.” Unpublished PhD thesis, Manchester School of Management, University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology, UK.
The Guardian, 15th December 1997 and subsequent days.
Vidal, John & Mark Milner. 1997. Food: the £250 billion gamble: big firms rush for profits and power despite warnings. The Guardian, 15th December.
Vidal, John. 1999. How Monsanto’s mind was changed. The Guardian 9th October.
von Hippel, Eric. 1988. The Sources of Innovation, New York: Oxford University Press.
von Hippel, Eric & M.J.Tyre. 1995. How Learning by Doing is Done: Problem Identification in Novel Process Equipment. Research Policy, 24: 1-12.
Walsh, Vivien. 1984. Invention and Innovation in the Chemical Industry: Demand Pull or Discovery Push? Research Policy, 13: 211-234.
--------. 1996. Design, Innovation and the Boundaries of the Firm. Research Policy, 25: 509-529.
--------. 1997. “Globalisation of Innovative Capacity in the Chemical and Related Products Industry.” Pp 89-125 in Technology, Innovation and Competitiveness, edited by J. Howells & J. Michie. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
--------. 1998. “Managing Technology and Organisational Change in the Globalised Chemical Industry.” Final Report to ESRC, H52427500796, December.
Walsh, Vivien, Jorge Niosi and Philippe Mustar. 1995. Small Biotechnology Firms in France, Canada and the UK. Technovation, 15: 303-327.
Walsh, Vivien, Paulina Ramirez and Gindo Tampubolon. 2000. “La mondialisation de l’activité innovatrice dans l’industrie pharmaceutique.” Pp 147-158 in Connaissance et Mondialisation, edited by M.Delapierre, P. Moati & E. M. Mouhoud. Paris: Economica.
Walsh, Vivien & Lodorfos, George. 2002. Technological and Organisational Innovation in Chemicals and Related Products. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management. 14: 273-298.
Wrong, Michela. 1999a. Fodder for the GM debate. The Financial Times, 18th November.
--------. 1999b: Monsanto Chief Admits Public Relations Disaster. The Financial Times, 7th October.
Section
Articles