1,720,974 research outputs found
Who Owns Biological Diversity? A Brief Description of the Debate over the Rights to Biological Diversity in the North-South Context
No full textFor a long time, the genetic resources and biological diversity of all types of living organisms on the Earth were considered the common heritage of all of humanity. However, there have always been great imbalances in the distribution of this natural wealth. The economically most interesting original regions in terms of agriculturally useful plants are primarily in the countries of the south. The countries of the north, relatively poor in species variety, exhibited great interest in the acquisition of plant genetic resources as early as the 18th and 19th centuries – for strategic and other reasons. However, until the 20th century, the primary topic of interest was in developing new species rather than varieties within a given species. By using them throughout the millennia, coupled with targeted selection and adaptation to existent conditions, farmers worldwide have developed a great deal of variety within species. In India, for example, there were more than 30,000 varieties of rice in the mid-20th century. This multitude, developed throughout many years, is of crucial importance for the ability to adapt to future environmental conditions, continued development of varieties, and breeding to resist against disease and pests. Modern, high-technology breeding builds on that gene pool as well. Simultaneously, however, modern breeding and the accompanying varieties protection laws in the Western industrialized countries have led to a decrease in this multitude of agricultural varieties; in some cases drastic. As early as the 1970s, the U.S. Academy of Sciences stated that “the process represents a paradox of social and economic development, in that the product of technology (breeding of high-yield and uniform varieties) destroys the resources upon which technology builds” (1978, cited by Flitner 1995). Primarily for the colonial powers, botanical gardens played a key role, and served as collection points to transport useful plants between the continents and to build up or break down monopolies on products of plant origin. Until the 1980s in Germany and other countries, large-scale collective imports led to those countries maintenance of large stocks of potato, carrot and barley varieties; some at private breeding companies and some at state-established gene banks. Now more than ever, these collections are of incalculable value. They represent the current storage of raw materials of the genetic technology industry and of private plant breeders. An added advantage is that profit sharing with the indigenous farmers who have cultivated these varieties and species is normally not necessary, since the varieties were taken to the industrialized countries long before the effective date of the Convention on Biological Diversity.
In 1992 at the environmental summit in Rio de Janeiro, the Convention on Biological Diversity was finally approved to work against the erosion of genetic diversity within species which accompanies the intensification of breeding and the global success of high-yield varieties, as well as the general loss of species occasioned by industrialization and environmental pollution, all of which have taken on dangerous proportions since the 1950s. This was the first internationally binding agreement obligating all member countries to undertake measures to protect biological diversity. By mid-1999, the Convention had been signed by 175 countries. As such, the Convention has more member countries than the World Trade Organization (134). Partially due to intensive lobbying by the American biotechnology industry, the USA have thus far not become a signatory to the Convention. As early as 1983, an international agreement was reached under the leadership of FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), which specifically addresses the conservation of plant genetic resources. However, the “International Undertaking for Plant Genetic Resources” is thus far not yet legally binding. It was decided in 1993 to revise the document. The technology conference, which took place in Leipzig in 1996 and was organized within the scope of the “Undertaking,” represented an important step toward integrating these two international agreements. The revisions are due to be completed by the end of 2000, and will lead to a legally binding agreement which will possibly become a part of the Convention on Biological Diversity.
The adoption of the Biosafety Protocol in January 2000, which regulates the international trade in genetically modified organisms, for the first time clarified the relationship between an agreement under the Convention on Biological Diversity and the WTO and GATT agreements. It was agreed that the two agreements would stand alongside one another and be given equal weight. The agreements discussed briefly herein represent the primary international instruments and forums which address and debate the status of biological diversity and appropriate ways to deal with it. The interests of the industrialized and developing countries clash sharply in this respect, and non-governmental organizations worldwide are fighting for effective preservation endeavors, and for a sustainable use of biological diversity which deserves description with that adjective. In the following, these various agreements will be introduced briefly and their most important statements will be summarized. This will make clear which contra-dictions and discordant aspects exist between the various agreements as well as the focus of the current political debate. We conclude with a short introduction of selected actors among the non-govern-mental organizations, some of which have had great success in their yearlong work for the preservation of biological diversity, against patents on life, and for self-determined and sustainable use of these valuable resources
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Get PDFThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Forschungsvielfalt für die Agrarwende - 20% der Forschungsmittel für eine zukunftsfähige Landwirtschaft
No full textMit der Verteilung von Forschungsgeldern wird Industrie- und Strukturpolitik gemacht - und das in einem von der Öffentlichkeit nur wenig beachteten Maß. Öffentlich diskutiert und in einem demokratischen Sinne legitimiert ist die Schwerpunktsetzung in der Forschung nur selten. Doch mit der Möglichkeit, auf der einen Seite den Geldhahn sprudeln und bei alternativen Verfahren diesen nur tröpfeln zu lassen oder gar ganz geschlossen zu halten, werden in der Regel sehr frühzeitig Weichen gestellt - hin zur Entwicklung bestimmter Technologien, zur Unterstützung ausgewählter Akteure und Strukturen. Forschungspolitik ist zunehmend Industriepolitik geworden, indem industrielle Akteure direkt in die Forschungsvorhaben eingebunden sind und ein (industrieller) Anwendungsbezug bereits in der Antragsphase skizziert werden soll. Die Patentierung und damit Privatisierung der Forschungsergebnisse ist Bestandteil dieses forschungspolitischen Konzeptes. Gegen public private partnership, wie solche Konzepte auch genannt werden, ist nichts einzuwenden, wenn dies nur ein Segment der Forschungspolitik ist und ein gemeinwohlorientiertes Segment gleichberechtigt daneben tritt. Im Bereich der Agrarforschung ist dies besonders wichtig. Denn die Interessen der industriellen Akteure, der Landwirte, des Naturschutzes oder der VerbraucherInnen sind häufig nicht identisch. Wenn eine ressourcen- und umweltschonende Landwirtschaft das Ziel ist, die auf chemischen Input weitestgehend verzichten will, stellen sich die Forschungsfragen anders, als wenn eine pestizidgestützte Landwirtschaft möglichst kostengünstig eine Pilzkrankheit bekämpfen möchte. Lösungen, in der Forschung entwickelt und direkt vom Landwirt einsetzbar, sind nicht im Interesse der Agrarindustrie, also wird sie sich daran auch nicht beteiligen. Für eine Agrarwende sind sie aber dringend notwendig. In den vergangenen Jahrzehnten ist schwerpunktmäßig in die Entwicklung einer industriellen Landwirtschaft investiert worden - auch auf der Forschungsseite. Die Weiterentwicklung des ökologischen Landbaus und einer entsprechenden Lebensmittelverarbeitung wurde allenfalls auf Sparflamme betrieben. Und doch hat bereits diese kleine Unterstützung vielfältige Ansätze und Lösungen hervorgebracht - die nicht nur für einen ökologischen Landbau spannend sind. Mit den folgenden Geschichten möchten wir einen kleinen Ausschnitt aus der Vielfalt der Ansätze und Lösungen vorstellen: faszinierende Forschung für eine zukunftsfähige Landwirtschaft. Das ist die Forschung, die die Agrarwende braucht
Variations on the Author
Get PDF“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
- …
