Complex mediascapes, complex realities: critically engaging with biotechnology debates in Ghana.

Q1 Arts and Humanities
Global Bioethics Pub Date : 2018-05-31 eCollection Date: 2018-01-01 DOI:10.1080/11287462.2018.1480253
Joeva Rock
{"title":"Complex mediascapes, complex realities: critically engaging with biotechnology debates in Ghana.","authors":"Joeva Rock","doi":"10.1080/11287462.2018.1480253","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The recent increase in research and commercialization of genetically modified (GM) crops in Africa has resulted in considerable and understandable interest from farmers, scholars, and practitioners. However, messy situations are often hard to critically engage in from afar, and the recent article published by Braimah et al. [(2017). Debated agronomy: Public discourse and the future of biotechnology policy in Ghana. <i>Global Bioethics</i>. doi:10.1080/11287462.2016.1261604] presents certain claims that further obfuscate - rather than clarify - an already complex landscape. In this commentary I first seek to clarify particular details of the Ghanaian \"GMO\" (as GM crops are colloquially called in Ghana) story with particular focus on certain actors and their stances. Next, I highlight some methodological shortcomings of <i>Debated Agronomy</i> and correct certain dubious quotations and claims. Finally, I suggest a more ethnographically and discourse-focused methodology to gain much needed insight into how Ghanaians are actively molding, contesting, and questioning GM discourse, funding, and use.</p>","PeriodicalId":36835,"journal":{"name":"Global Bioethics","volume":" ","pages":"55-64"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5990936/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Bioethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/11287462.2018.1480253","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2018/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The recent increase in research and commercialization of genetically modified (GM) crops in Africa has resulted in considerable and understandable interest from farmers, scholars, and practitioners. However, messy situations are often hard to critically engage in from afar, and the recent article published by Braimah et al. [(2017). Debated agronomy: Public discourse and the future of biotechnology policy in Ghana. Global Bioethics. doi:10.1080/11287462.2016.1261604] presents certain claims that further obfuscate - rather than clarify - an already complex landscape. In this commentary I first seek to clarify particular details of the Ghanaian "GMO" (as GM crops are colloquially called in Ghana) story with particular focus on certain actors and their stances. Next, I highlight some methodological shortcomings of Debated Agronomy and correct certain dubious quotations and claims. Finally, I suggest a more ethnographically and discourse-focused methodology to gain much needed insight into how Ghanaians are actively molding, contesting, and questioning GM discourse, funding, and use.

复杂的媒体景观,复杂的现实:批判性地参与加纳的生物技术辩论。
最近,转基因作物的研究和商业化在非洲不断增加,引起了农民、学者和从业人员相当大的兴趣,这是可以理解的。然而,混乱的局面往往难以从远处批判性地介入,Braimah 等人最近发表的文章[(2017 年).辩论农学:加纳生物技术政策的公共话语与未来。doi:10.1080/11287462.2016.1261604]提出的某些主张进一步混淆--而不是澄清--了本已复杂的局面。在这篇评论中,我首先试图澄清加纳 "转基因生物"(加纳对转基因作物的俗称)故事的具体细节,尤其关注某些参与者及其立场。接下来,我强调了《辩论农学》在方法论上的一些缺陷,并纠正了某些可疑的引文和说法。最后,我建议采用更注重人种学和话语的方法,以便深入了解加纳人是如何积极塑造、质疑和质疑转基因话语、资金和使用的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Global Bioethics
Global Bioethics Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
12
审稿时长
37 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信