1 dept of politics & international studies. wyn grant, justin greaves. warwick hri. dave...
Post on 21-Dec-2015
215 views
TRANSCRIPT
1
• Dept of Politics & International Studies.Wyn Grant, Justin Greaves.
• Warwick HRI.Dave Chandler, Gill Prince.
• Dept of Biological Sciences.Mark Tatchell.
RELU project team at Warwick
2
Why are biopesticides useful?
• Often v. specific.
– ‘inherently less toxic than conventional pesticides’ (EPA).
• Compatible with other control agents.
• Little or no residue.
• Inexpensive to develop.
• Natural enemies used in ecologically-based IPM.
• Social benefits.
3
In the EU, microbes & biochemicals are registered as plant protection products
• National authorisations (PSD).
• Harmonisation of arrangements:
– Directive 91/414
– Active substances added to Annex I (existing & new substances).
– Mutual recognition.
– Tailored requirements for biopesticides.
4
Mutual recognition (EU)
• Commission admits this is not working.
• We are supposed to have an internal market.
• Would help to overcome problem of small market size.
• Need to support 91/414 revision that creates three ‘eco zones’ within EU.
• ‘Rebeca’ policy action
5
Why political science and biology can relate well
• Mackenzie’s Politics and Social Science has first main chapter on biological context
• Punctuated equilibrium models
• Nature of political science as a junction subject, ‘tolerant eclecticism’
• Biology concerned with adaptation to environment, also true of politics – EU and more interdependent world
6
More reasons for good relationship
• Heightened importance of environmental problems creates new cooperation opportunities
• Similar methodological challenges
• Collaboration with physics or chemistry might be more difficult
7
How we started work
• Concerns by biologists about partisanship, in both disciplines real differences between schools and disciplines
• Read and presented articles from each other’s disciplines
• Political science articles discursive
8
Shared methodological issues
• Categorisation issues – ‘lumpers’ and ‘splitters’ in biology
• Individualistic fallacy and ecological fallacy, although in biology individualistic fallacy overcome by data aggregation and mathematical models
• Molecular genetics led to ‘bottom up’ science, failure to address big questions, also EU studies?
9
Methodological challenges
• Replicated, controlled experiments in biology, model plant (Arabidopis thlania), no model citizen
• Protocols in science less flexible than semi-structured interviewing, also rhythms of planting, growing and harvesting
• Both disciplines use the comparative method
10
What each side gains
• Scientific research poses questions for regulators, e.g., species identity
• Need scientific knowledge to participate in highly technical regulatory debate
• Scientists had considerable knowledge of policy networks and decision-making processes, not placed in any systematic framework
11
More gains
• Biologists state that they have gained from more theoretical approach of political science, in applied biology more accustomed to identifying problem and looking for a solution
• Only social scientist in Rebeca, but industry needs more political sophistication
12
Lessons for EU studies
• Difficulties of cooperation between natural and social sciences exaggerated
• Given role of EU as regulatory state, real need for scientific and social science knowledge to be brought together
13
Visit our website
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/pais/biopesticides/