This summer I presented the results of my study about the potential contributions that nanotechnology can make in the agricultural sector at a PhD student summer workshop in Finland. In the last part of my presentation one of my classmates from Ghana made a very intriguing comment: he said that nanotechnology seems like a very promising technology for the agriculture sector, but he was concerned that there is already enough technology for the agrifood sector, especially in developing countries where farmers know how to produce enough food. Why do we need nanotechnology? He added that farmers in Africa have enough problems to worry about without transferring new technologies and that nanotechnology could even aggravate their current problems of food security. I did not have, at that moment, a convincing answer to give him.
This episode reminded me of my own work experience few years ago as an agronomist working in the central valley of Chile. At that time, I enthusiastically supported introducing innovative crops and crop technologies in small farming systems. However very soon I discovered that those farmers’ businesses failed, not because they did not manage these new technologies, but because they, as well as the agricultural extension programs, were not well prepared to foresee the consequence of their entrepreneurial activities. Innovation in agriculture can be cruel, especially with those later adopters (generally small farmers). This was described by Cochrane as the technological treadmill theory, in which only early adopters obtain the benefits from innovations, when later adopters invest in the new technology it is to late to them to obtain the benefits from new technology price premium.
Just a few weeks after my summer workshop, and with that question from the African PhD student still in my mind, I made my first visit to South Africa to study the in situ application of nanotechnology research with applications in the agrifood sector. I was delighted with the passion of the South African scientists who spoke about their research and how their inventions could reach the market with patented applications and address the agrifood sector problems. They are studying ways to improve food nutrition, develop new packaging materials, and create nano-sensors to improve the diagnosis of disease in plant and animals. All these well intentioned nanotechnologies require the participation of companies to develop and commercialize them, but companies’ investments are based almost exclusively in terms of profit, and the potential consequences to users like farmers are not necessarily part of the analysis. During my time in South Africa I could not forget those small farmers in Chile that share many of the same problems with South African farmers, but they barely appeared in our conversations with the South African innovation system actors.
Then the response to the unanswered question from my Ghanaian friend suddenly came to my mind, technological change is not successfully implemented if it does not consider from the early research stages the participation of all actors of the system, especially those that will be exposed to the use of new technologies like my small Chilean farmers or other small farmers from places like South Africa. No matter the location, small farmers require new technology development, but under frameworks that foresee potential risks or disadvantage that the new technology can produce, with enough time to amend those negative consequences before the cost to the users is too high.
From my point of view, the role of S&T Policy is to make an inclusive innovation system from the first stages of research and development. This is crucial to guarantee a real innovation system, where the benefits are well spread-out among all actors of the system, and not only to the owners of the technologies. Only under those conditions will people want more technology development. But not any type of technology development, rather only development that guarantees the sustainable growth of the society in general.
About the Author: Rodrigo Cortes-Lobos is a Ph.D. student at Georgia Institute of Technology’s School of Public Policy and a member of the team from the CNS Thematic Research Cluster on Equity, Equality, and Responsibility researching how nanotechnology research and development in South Africa can benefit the poor.
This episode reminded me of my own work experience few years ago as an agronomist working in the central valley of Chile. At that time, I enthusiastically supported introducing innovative crops and crop technologies in small farming systems. However very soon I discovered that those farmers’ businesses failed, not because they did not manage these new technologies, but because they, as well as the agricultural extension programs, were not well prepared to foresee the consequence of their entrepreneurial activities. Innovation in agriculture can be cruel, especially with those later adopters (generally small farmers). This was described by Cochrane as the technological treadmill theory, in which only early adopters obtain the benefits from innovations, when later adopters invest in the new technology it is to late to them to obtain the benefits from new technology price premium.
Just a few weeks after my summer workshop, and with that question from the African PhD student still in my mind, I made my first visit to South Africa to study the in situ application of nanotechnology research with applications in the agrifood sector. I was delighted with the passion of the South African scientists who spoke about their research and how their inventions could reach the market with patented applications and address the agrifood sector problems. They are studying ways to improve food nutrition, develop new packaging materials, and create nano-sensors to improve the diagnosis of disease in plant and animals. All these well intentioned nanotechnologies require the participation of companies to develop and commercialize them, but companies’ investments are based almost exclusively in terms of profit, and the potential consequences to users like farmers are not necessarily part of the analysis. During my time in South Africa I could not forget those small farmers in Chile that share many of the same problems with South African farmers, but they barely appeared in our conversations with the South African innovation system actors.
Then the response to the unanswered question from my Ghanaian friend suddenly came to my mind, technological change is not successfully implemented if it does not consider from the early research stages the participation of all actors of the system, especially those that will be exposed to the use of new technologies like my small Chilean farmers or other small farmers from places like South Africa. No matter the location, small farmers require new technology development, but under frameworks that foresee potential risks or disadvantage that the new technology can produce, with enough time to amend those negative consequences before the cost to the users is too high.
From my point of view, the role of S&T Policy is to make an inclusive innovation system from the first stages of research and development. This is crucial to guarantee a real innovation system, where the benefits are well spread-out among all actors of the system, and not only to the owners of the technologies. Only under those conditions will people want more technology development. But not any type of technology development, rather only development that guarantees the sustainable growth of the society in general.
About the Author: Rodrigo Cortes-Lobos is a Ph.D. student at Georgia Institute of Technology’s School of Public Policy and a member of the team from the CNS Thematic Research Cluster on Equity, Equality, and Responsibility researching how nanotechnology research and development in South Africa can benefit the poor.
I certainly agree with your intentions of including small farmers from the outset; but, given that they are not presently included (and neither are those holding equivalent roles in most other emerging technologies), I'd prefer to see you echo the etc Group's old call for a moratorium until the inclusion occurs.
I wonder if you are not a bit too willing to offer sensible positive insights in lieu of hard-hitting critique? And as I have suggested for a long while, I continue to wonder whether the need to retain funding and the need to retain access to first-world nano researchers induces some in the U.S.-EU nano scholarship community to temper their criticisms? (I do not mean to single out Rodrigo or any other individual, partly because I do not know what is in anyone else's heart, partly because the moderate scholarly stance seems to be a collective phenomenon rather than something under any one person's control.)
Thanks again for your thoughtful commentary.