The New Age of Biodiplomacy

One of the most significant public policy developments of the new millennium is the growing recognition of the role of technological innovation in international relations. Critical global objectives such as improvements in human welfare, participation in the global economy, and the transition towards sustainability are no longer possible without the significant use of science, technology, and innovation. In fact, advances in science and technology are shaping the character and content of international relations. Agricultural biotechnology offers an example of how technological innovation and the associated institutional adjustments have the potential to lead to changes in the way nations relate to each other. Advances in agricultural biotechnology and ensuing public debates will induce changes in relations among countries. These changes are likely to lead to new forms of technologybased international partnerships that will alter the traditional patterns of international cooperation between developing countries. They will also reshape the structure and function of international relations by bringing about greater awareness of the role of science and technology in the practice of diplomacy. This paper first lays out the links between technological and international relations, using the Green Revolution as an example. The second section examines divergences in the use

[1]  J. Knight.  Crop improvement: A dying breed , 2003, Nature.

[2]  N. Zerbe,et al.  Feeding the famine? American food aid and the GMO debate in Southern Africa , 2004 .

[3]  G. Toenniessen,et al.  Securing The Harvest: Biotechnology, Breeding And Seed Systems For African Crops By J De Vries;Gary Toenniessen , 2001 .

[4]  T. Bernauer.  Genes, Trade, and Regulation: The Seeds of Conflict in Food Biotechnology , 2004 .

[5]  S. J. Scherr,et al.  Ecoagriculture: strategies to feed the world and save biodiversity. , 2003 .

[6]  Clive James,et al.  Global review of commercialized transgenic crops , 2003 .

[7]  G. Isaac.  Agricultural biotechnology and transatlantic trade :regulatory barriers to GM crops , 2002 .

[8]  C. Juma.  Biotechnology and international relations: forging new strategic partnerships , 2002 .

[9]  A. König.  Negotiating the precautionary principle: regulatory and institutional roots of divergent US and EU positions , 2002 .

[10]  Per Pinstrup-Andersen,et al.  Seeds of contention : world hunger and the global controversy over GM crops , 2001 .

[11]  E. Jones,et al.  Instability in Indian agriculture—a challenge to the Green Revolution technology , 2004 .

[12]  A. Gordon,et al.  Charting change in official assistance to agriculture , 2000 .

[13]  G. Toenniessen,et al.  Advances in plant biotechnology and its adoption in developing countries. , 2003, Current opinion in plant biology.

[14]  J. Perkins.  Geopolitics and the green revolution , 1997 .

[15]  Jeffrey A. McNeely,et al.  Book Review: Ecoagriculture; Strategies to Feed the World and Save Wild Biodiversity , 2002, Biodiversity & Conservation.

[16]  James Sumberg,et al.  Agricultural research in the face of diversity, local knowledge and the participation imperative: theoretical considerations , 2003 .

[17]  Leo Simon,et al.  Public-private alliances in biotechnology Can they narrow the knowledge gaps between rich and poor? , 2000 .

[18]  Biotechnology in the global economy. , 2000 .

[19]  R. Paarlberg,et al.  The Politics of Precaution: Genetically Modified Crops in Developing Countries , 2003 .

[20]  Jonathan H. Crouch,et al.  Applications of biotechnology for crop improvement: prospects and constraints , 2002 .

[21]  J. Perkins,et al.  Geopolitics and the Green Revolution: Wheat, Genes, and the Cold War , 1997 .

[22]  Mark Cantley,et al.  How should public policy respond to the challenges of modern biotechnology? , 2004, Current opinion in biotechnology.

[23]  S. Fan,et al.  Returns to investment in less-favored areas in developing countries: a synthesis of evidence and implications for Africa , 2004 .