Suchergebnisse

This book compares and explains how differing political outcomes have occurred regarding GM food and crops in the UK, USA and the EU, thus throwing light on the relationship between science and politics.

The author analyses the performance of the United Kingdom's 'Renewables Obligation' (RO) in the context of other renewable energy procurement regimes. Prevailing wisdom suggests that market-based procurement regimes for renewable energy are more cost-effective than fixed-price ('feed-in tariff') arrangements. In addition, market-based regimes are thought to favour corporate, rather than locally owned, schemes. However, the analysis in this paper disputes these strands of conventional wisdom. An analysis of the returns to wind-power developers under the British market-based RO and the German 'renewable energy feed-tariff' (REFIT) reveals that financial returns per MW of installed capacity are much higher in the case of the market-based British RO than in the German REFIT. On the other hand, there is evidence that cultural factors are a bigger influence on the patterns of ownership of wind-power schemes than whether procurement systems are market based or fixed price.

Comparative study of GM food and crops may reveal the extent to which systems of scientific regulatory assessment are related to priorities which are derived through cultural influence rather than positivistic assessment. Differing regulatory outcomes, and differing priorities for scientific assessment of agricultural biotechnology, are visible in the UK, the USA and India. Explanations of these differences can be obtained by investigating the nature of the differing interest groups whose values underpin different national regulatory paradigms and also by investigating the way that these interest groups came to have influence.

Examines debate on genetically modified crops and food technology, changes in government policy, views of critics, research trials, and possibilities for future conflict; Great Britain.