Implementation of biotechnology research and development policy : implications for agricultural sustainability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biotechnology has been represented as the key to agricultural sustainability and as a means of increasing world food supply. The thesis examines the implementation of agricultural biotechnology policies in Canada, specifically canola and the effects of these policies on research and development and implications for agricultural sustainability. Concepts of sustainability were reviewed and a conceptual framework for assessing agricultural sustainability developed. Approaches to sustainable agriculture were divided into ; growth and conservation oriented approaches. Sustainability criteria were developed within a conservation-oriented approach. Public involvement was deemed necessary to identify priorities for sustainable agriculture and create a more socially responsive approach to policy making. Criteria for effective public involvement were identified through the literature. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) documents were assessed against the sustainability criteria. Most government documents subscribed to a growth- oriented, economic approach to agriculture which relegated sustainability concerns to secondary status. AAFC's emphasis on economic growth has affected public involvement, research and development in agriculture, particularly new canola variety development. The process for variety registration of new canola varieties involves two influential interest groups; both have strong links to industry and are pro-biotechnology. As a result, biotechnology has been supported through the process, to the detriment of other technologies. None of the sustainability criteria were addressed in the recommendation for acceptance for new canola varieties to AAFC. AAFC, as the decision-makers, accepted recommendations of the interest groups generally without question. Participation in the process was strictly limited and represented a narrow range of interests, largely the industrial sector. Public and private sector biotechnology researchers were interviewed to ascertain their views of biotechnology in agriculture. Contribution to sustainability was not a primary motive for identifying research goals and the majority of researchers did not support public involvement in policy making or technology assessment. Farmers, as users of biotechnology, were surveyed by mail. Results indicated that many farmers do not follow recommended agricultural practices and distrust government sources of information. AAFC does not have the information necessary for assessing the impact of biotechnology in agriculture. The thesis suggests methods by which the public could be involved in setting priorities for agricultural research, policy development and technology assessment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.056 | 0.079 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.028 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".