Numéro

Vol. 33 No 2 (2008): Afrique et développement

1 - Democratization of Science and Biotechnological Development: Public Debate on GM Maize in South Africa

https://doi.org/10.4314/ad.v33i2.57274
Pascal Newbourne Mwale
is Lecturer of Philosophy, Chancellor College, University of Malawi, Malawi, and currently Doctoral Research Fellow, The Constitution of Public Intellectual Life Research Project, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.

Corresponding Author(s) : Pascal Newbourne Mwale

pmwale2003@yahoo.co.uk

Afrique et développement, Vol. 33 No 2 (2008): Afrique et développement

Résumé

Le régime de Mandela qui est arrivé au pouvoir en 1994 avait fait de la démocrati- sation de la science et de la technologie une priorité en Afrique du Sud post- apartheid. Les idées qui vont avec les Sciences de la Communication et la Com- préhension de la Biotechnologie par les Populations sont ainsi devenues monnaie courante dans les efforts faits au niveau du secteur public sud-africain en vue de la démocratisation de la science. La démocratisation de la science et de la techno- logie implique que la population, les profanes inclus, fassent partie intégrante de toutes les délibérations sur les politiques, la réglementation et le contrôle de la science et de la technologie, notamment les débats ou discussions sur des ques- tions relatives à la biotechnologie. La démocratisation de la science et de la tech- nologie renvoie au contrôle sociopolitique de la science et de la technologie par la grande frange de la population, étant donné que des groupes sociaux malinten- tionnés pourraient en faire un mauvais usage pour causer du tort à d’autres groupes d’individus. Par ailleurs, certaines entreprises sans scrupule et corrom- pues, de surcroît, pourraient s’associer à l’Etat et/ou à des personnalités sociopolitiques puissantes et influentes de la communauté pour exploiter et abu- ser des ressources scientifiques locales ainsi que des modes endogènes de la connaissance scientifique spécialisée. Pour ce qui concerne la connaissance scien- tifique spécialisée, par exemple, ces entreprises pourraient évoquer les droits de propriété intellectuelle (DPI) pour breveter des ressources qui ne leur apparte- naient qui, historiquement, n’étaient pas les leurs. Par conséquent, le modèle idéal de la démocratie impose que les populations de l’Afrique du Sud et celles des autres sociétés africaines comprennent et participent activement à l’évolution de la science et de la technologie. Pour ce faire, il serait nécessaire qu’une plus grande attention cognitive soit accordée aux questions de la communication et de la compréhension de la science par les populations, notamment en ce qui con- cerne l’interconnexion entre la science, la société et la politique en Afrique aus- trale, plus particulièrement en Afrique du Sud. Ce document aborde le rôle et l’importance des mouvements sociaux dans le domaine de la communication scien- tifique et dans la compréhension, par les populations, de la biotechnologie en Afrique du Sud et en Afrique australe.

Mots-clés

démocratisation de la science biotechnologie maïs génétiquement modifié technologie mouvements sociaux société civile Afrique du Sud
[1]
Mwale, P.N. 2021. 1 - Democratization of Science and Biotechnological Development: Public Debate on GM Maize in South Africa. Afrique et développement. 33, 2 (oct. 2021). DOI:https://doi.org/10.4314/ad.v33i2.57274.
Télécharger la référence bibliographique
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX
Les références
  1. Atiku-Abubakar, J.J. and Shaw-Taylor, Y., 2003, ‘An empirical profile of weak states in sub-Saharan Africa’, Africa Development XXVIII (3&4): 168–185.
  2. Ballard, R., Habib, A. and Valodia, I. (eds), 2006, Voices of Protest: Social movements in post-apartheid South Africa, Scottsville: University of KwaZulu-Natal Press.
  3. Bashaw, Z.N., 2001, ‘NGO–government relations: Conflict and co-operation in development management for rehabilitation of demobilized soldiers: The case of Eastern Tigray, Ethiopia’, Africa Development XXVI (1&2): 251–294.
  4. Bratton, M., 1989, ‘Civil society and associational life in Africa’, World Politics 41(3): 407–430.
  5. Buck, J.A., Dent, E.B. and Umpleby, S.A., 2000, Commentary: Communicating science, Science Communication 22(1): 73–87.
  6. Callaghy, T.M., 1994, ‘Civil society, democracy, and the state in Africa: A dissenting opinion about resurgent societies’, in Haberson, J., Rothchild, D. and N. Chazan, N. (eds), Civil Society and the State in Africa, London: Lynne Rienner, pp. 231–254.
  7. Comaroff, J.L. and Comaroff, J. (eds), Civil Society and the Political Imagination in Africa: Critical perspectives, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  8. Chandhoke, N., 2001, ‘‘The ‘civil’ and the ‘political’ in civil society’’, Democratization 8(2) (Summer): 1–24.
  9. Chatterjee, P., 2001, ‘On civil and political society in postcolonial states, in Kaviraj, S. and Khilnani’, S. (eds), Civil Society: History and possibilities, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 165–178.
  10. Chinsembu, T. and Kambikambi, T., 2001, ‘Farmers’ perceptions and expectations of genetic engineering in Zambia’, Biotechnology and Development Monitor 47; 13–15.
  11. Cook, G., Robbins, P.T. and Pieri, E., 2006, ‘Words of mass destruction’: British newspaper coverage of the genetically modified debate, expert and non-expert reactions, Public Understanding of Science 15(1): 5–29.
  12. Corbett, J.B. and Durfee, J.L., 2004, ‘Testing public (un)certainty of science: Media representations of global warming’, Science Communication 26(2): 129–151.
  13. Deakin, N., 2001, In Search of Civil Society, Basingstoke: Palgrave.
  14. Ferguson, A., 1980, An Essay on the History of Civil Society, with a new introduction by L. Schneider, New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
  15. Fraser, N., 1993, ‘Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy, in Calhoun’, C. (ed.), Habermas and the Public Sphere, Cambridge, MA: Polity Press, pp. 109–142.
  16. Fukuyama, F., 2003, Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the biotechnology revolution, London: Profile Books.
  17. Gellner, E., 1995, ‘Civil society and its future, in Hall’, J.A. (ed.), Civil Society: Theory, History, Comparison, Cambridge, MA; MIT/Polity Press.
  18. Greenstein, R., 2005, ‘Social movements and public intellectual life, Johannesburg: University of the Witwatersrand’ (unpublished).
  19. Gutteling, J., Hanssen, L, van der Veer, N. and Seydel, E., 2006, ‘Trust in governance and the acceptance of genetically modified in the Netherlands’, Public Understanding of Science 15(1): 103–112.
  20. Habermas, J., 1989, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  21. Hawthorn, G., 2001, ‘The promise of ‘civil society’ in the South, in Kaviraj, S. and Khilnani’, S. (eds), Civil Society: History and possibilities, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 269–286.
  22. Hijmans, E., Pleitjter, A. and Wester, F., 2003, ‘Covering scientific research in Dutch newspapers’, Science Communication 25(2): 153–176.
  23. Horst, M., 2005, ‘Cloning sensations: Mass mediated articulation of social responses to controversial biotechnology’, Public Understanding of Science 14(2): 185–200.
  24. Howell, J. and Pearce, J., 2001, Civil Society and Development: A critical exploration, London: Lynne Rienner.
  25. HSRC Review, 2005, ‘Bio what? Public has scant knowledge of biotechnology’, HSRC Review,3(2) (July): 2.
  26. Huijer, M., 2003, ‘Reconsidering democracy: History of the Human Genome Project’, Science Communication 24(4): 479–502.
  27. Hutchful, E., 1998, ‘The civil society debate in Africa’, International Journal 51(1): 54–77.
  28. Joubert, M., 2001, ‘Report: Priorities and challenges for science communication in South Africa’, Science Communication 22(3): 316–333.
  29. Keane, J., 1998, Civil Society: Old images, new visions, Cambridge, MA: MIT/ Polity Press.
  30. Keane, J., 2003, Global Civil Society?, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  31. Khanna, J., 2001, ‘Science communication in developing countries: Experience from WHO workshops’, Science Communication 23(1): 50–56.
  32. Khembo, N.S., 2004, ‘The multiparty promise betrayed: The failure of neo-liberalism in Malawi’, Africa Development XXIX (2): 80–105.
  33. Khilnani, S., 2001, ‘The development of civil society, in Kaviraj’, S. and Khilnani, S. (eds), Civil Society: History and possibilities, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp 11–32.
  34. Larson, B.M.H., Nerlich, B. and Wallis, P., 2005, ‘Metaphors and biorisks: The war on infectious diseases and invasive species’, Science Communication 26(3): 243–268.
  35. Latour, B., 1987, Science in Action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  36. Logan, R.A., Park, J. and Shin, J., 2004, ‘Elite sources, context, and news topics: How two Korean newspapers covered a public health crisis’, Science Communication 25(4): 364–398.
  37. Mandela, N.R., 1994, cited in Preface to White Paper on Science and Technology, 4 September 1996, Department of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology, Republic of South Africa. Pretoria.
  38. Manzini, S., 2003, ‘Effective communication of science in a culturally diverse society’, Science Communication 25(2): 191–197.
  39. Mbembe, A., 2001, On the Postcolony, Berkeley: University of California Press.
  40. McInerney, C., Bird, N. and Nucci, M., 2004, ‘The flow of scientific knowledge from lab to the lay public: The case of genetically modified food’, Science Communication 26(1): 44–74.
  41. Migdal, J.S., 1988, Strong Societies and Weak States, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  42. Migdal, J.S., 2001, State in Society, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  43. Mountcastle-Shah, E., Tambor, E, Bernhardt, B.A. et al., 2003, ‘Assessing mass media reporting of disease-related genetic discoveries’, Science Communication 24(2): 458–478.
  44. Mwale, P.N., 2005a, ‘Public debates and societal deliberations: The case of the Zambian National Consultation on GM Maize Food Aid in 2002’, Paper presented at the Science and Democracy Conference 3, Institute of Philosophy, Naples, Italy, 20–22 October. See http://www.dipmat.unipg.it/~mamone/sci-dem/introduction.htm
  45. Mwale, P.N., 2005b, ‘GM Maize Food Aid in Zimbabwe (2001–2004)’, Johannesburg: University of the Witwatersrand (unpublished).
  46. Mwale, P.N., 2006, ‘Societal deliberation on genetically modified maize in southern Africa: The debateness and publicness of the Zambian national consultation on genetically modified maize food in 2002’, Public Understanding of Science 15(2): 89–102.
  47. Obadare, E., 2004, ‘The alternative genealogy of civil society and its implications for Africa: Notes for further research’, Africa Development XXIX (4): 1–18.
  48. Pelletier, D., 2005, ‘Food safety and consumer choice policy, in Owamo’, S.W. and von Grebmer, K. (eds), Biotechnology, Agriculture, and Food Security in Southern Africa, Washington, DC and Harare: IFPRI and FANRPAN, pp. 113– 156.
  49. Roche, J.P. and Muskavitch, M.A.T., 2003, ‘Limited precision in print and media communication of West Nile Virus risks’, Science Communication 24(3): 353– 365.
  50. Shoemaker, P.J. and Reese S.D., 1996, Mediating the Message: Theories of influences on mass media content, London: Longman.
  51. Smith, J., 2004, Seeds of Deception, London: Green Books.
  52. Tanner, A.H., 2004, ‘Agenda building, source selection, and health news at local television stations: A nationwide survey of local television health reporters’, Science Communication 25(4): 350–363.
  53. Tester, K., 1992, Civil Society, London and New York: Routledge.
  54. Trumbo, C.W., Dunwoody, S. and Griffin, R.J., 1998, ‘Journalists, cognition and the presentation of an epidemiological study’, Science Communication 19(3): 238–265.
  55. Van der Walt, W.J., 2000, ‘South Africa and the global biotechnology battle’, BIOY2K Combined Millennium Meeting: Programme and Abstracts, Grahamstown: Rhodes University, 23–28 January, pp. 34–35.
  56. Walters, L.M. and Walters, T.N., 2006, ‘It loses something in the translation: Syntax and survival of key words in science and nonscience press releases’, Science Communication 18(2): 165–180.
  57. Weigold, M.F., 2001, ‘Communicating science: A review of the literature’, Science Communication 23(2): 164–193.
  58. Weingart, P., Engels, A. and Pansegrau, P., 2000, ‘Risks of communication: Discourses on climate change in science, politics, and the media’, Public Understanding of Science 9: 263–283.
Read More

Biographie de l'auteur

Pascal Newbourne Mwale, is Lecturer of Philosophy, Chancellor College, University of Malawi, Malawi, and currently Doctoral Research Fellow, The Constitution of Public Intellectual Life Research Project, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.

is Lecturer of Philosophy, Chancellor College, University of Malawi, Malawi, and currently Doctoral Research Fellow, The Constitution of Public Intellectual Life Research Project, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa. E-mail: pmwale2003@yahoo.co.uk, Pascal-Mwale@wits.ac.za,

Télécharger ce document PDF
PDF (ENGLISH)
Statistic
Read Counter : 2209 Download : 62

Téléchargements

Les données relatives au téléchargement ne sont pas encore disponibles.

Articles similaires

<< < 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 > >> 

Vous pouvez également Lancer une recherche avancée de similarité pour cet article.