Contents: Editorial - iris-sostenibilita.net · values has proved to be adaptive over the course of human evolution, developing into genetic inclinations over time. They inlude the

Visions for Sustainability IRIS – Interdisciplinary Research Institute on Sustainability

www.visionsforsustainability.net [email protected]

3 June 21st, 2015 21 giugno 2015

________________________________________________________________________________

Contents: Editorial A third series of visions, perspectives and approaches p. 02-04

Enzo Ferrara, Laura Colucci-Gray, Martin Dodman

Original Papers Loving openness towards Nature: Aldo Capitini and the moral value p. 05-15

of biophilia Gabriella Falcicchio, Giuseppe Barbiero

The contribution of psychology in connecting the civic and environmental p. 16-24 dimensions of sustainability Giulia Rossi, Martin Dodman

Gender and sustainability. Raising primary school children’s awareness p. 25-34 of gender stereotypes and promoting change in their attitudes Nadia Lucchini, Martin Dodman

The impact of genetically modified salmon: from risk assessment to p. 35-61 quality evaluation Alice Benessia, Giuseppe Barbiero

Commentary Undersea - Rachel Carson p. 62-67 Enzo Ferrara

P a g e | 1

Visions for Sustainability www.visionsforsustainability.net Direttore Responsabile: Luca Biamonte Proprietario: IRIS – Istituto Ricerche interdisciplinari sulla Sostenibilità Editore: IRIS – Istituto Ricerche interdisciplinari sulla Sostenibilità ISSN: 2384-8677

© IRIS – Istituto Ricerche Interdisciplinari sulla Sostenibilità Dipartimento di Scienze della Vita e Biologia dei Sistemi - Università degli studi di Torino Via Accademia Albertina, 13 – 10123 Torino - Italy www.iris.sostenibilita.net

Editors-in-Chief

Giuseppe Barbiero, Università della Valle d'Aosta - Université de la Vallée d'Aoste (I) Alessandro Cerutti, Università degli studi di Torino (I)

Editorial Board

Alice Benessia, Università della Valle d'Aosta –

Université de la Vallée d'Aoste (I) Elsa Bianco, IRIS – Interdisciplinary Research Institute

on Sustainability (I) Elena Camino, IRIS – Interdisciplinary Research

Institute on Sustainability (I)

Andrea Caretto, IRIS – Interdisciplinary Research


Laura Colucci-Gray, University of Aberdeen (UK)

Martin Dodman, IRIS – Interdisciplinary Research

Institute on Sustainability (I) Enzo Ferrara, Istituto Nazionale di Ricerca Metrologica,

Torino (I)

Silvano Folco, IRIS – Interdisciplinary Research


Donald Gray, University of Aberdeen (UK)

Anna Perazzone, Università di Torino (I)

VISIONS FOR SUSTAINABILITY is an indexed scientific journal published in open access by the Interdisciplinary

Research Institute on Sustainability (IRIS). The journal promotes a debate on how the concept of sustainability can be addressed and applied in existing and foreseeable societies worldwide. Particular emphasis is placed on facilitating communication between researchers of different disciplines, supporting educational projects and examining the role of contemporary science in dealing with issues related to sustainability. Papers are welcome from researchers and scholars of natural, political, social and other sciences as well as philosophical and humanistic disciplines, and in particular from anyone wishing to make a contribution which combines multiple viewpoints. The aim is to host as wide a range as possible of multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary perspectives on sustainability. Discussions or comments on articles which have previously appeared in the journal are also welcome. All submissions will be refereed before publication.

Articles can be submitted directly online at the journal website www.visionsforsustainability.net by authors through the login procedure. Any further questions and/or submission enquiries can be addressed to [email protected]

http://www.visionsforsustainability.net/

http://www.iris-sostenibilita.net/iris/vfs/article/index.asp

Visions for Sustainability 3: 02-04, 2015

P a g e | 2

EDITORIAL

A third series of visions, perspectives and approaches

Enzo Ferrara1, Laura Colucci-Gray2, Martin Dodman3 1 Istituto Nazionale di Ricerca Metrologica (Italy); 2 University of Aberdeen (UK); 3 Interdisciplinary Research Institute on Sustainability (IRIS)

ISSN 2384-8677 DOI: 10.7401/visions.03.01

Published: June, 21, 2015

Citation: Ferrara, E., Colucci-Gray L., Dodman M., (2015) A third series of visions, perspectives and experiences. Visions for Sustainability 3: 2-4.

Copyright: ©2014 Ferrara, Colucci-Gray, Dodman. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Corresponding Author: Enzo Ferrara, Istituto Nazionale di Ricerca Metrologica, Strada delle Caccie 91, 10135, Torino, Italy. E.mail: [email protected]

Perspective: Theoretical vision

Fields: Earth life support systems - Economy and technology - Social processes and structures

Issues: Bio-geological equilibrium and ecological decay

DOI:10.7401/visions.03.01

mailto:[email protected]


P a g e | 3

The third issue of Visions for Sustainability, coinciding with the 2015 summer solstice, is published while the controversial, glamorous exhibition of Expo 2015 is taking place in Milan, Italy from May 1st to October 31st. This international fair, “the biggest world event dedicated to nutrition”, purports to address technological socio-economic issues so as to enable worldwide access to food. More prosaically, the rationale of Expo 2015 “Feeding the planet. Energy for life” reproduces a series of rather anachronistic dangers for the environment and people’s minds in the name of technological progress. Grassroots movements ask for food sovereignty and equity in land distribution, yet over one million square meters of precious soil in the metropolitan area of Milan have been deployed to host oversized infrastructures whose destiny after the fair is open to question. Paradoxically, industrial producers of bottled water, pesticide resistant Genetically Modified products and junk food manufacturing industries support seminars and parades at Expo 2015 to promote themselves as defenders of genuine and safe agricultural production. Safe and sufficient food for people on Earth is a vital requirement, but this must also be compatible with respect for the planet we inhabit and its delicate equilibria. As a way of not forgetting this imperative, this issue pays tribute to an early teacher of environmentalism, Rachel Carson, re-proposing her first published essay, Undersea. As one of the earliest instances of ecological writings, it describes the enduring natural exchanges dominating ocean life and the material immortality of all biotic components, ranging from the larger humpback whale to the smallest sea plankton. Fundamental issues about the sustainability of extreme technology in industrial food production are presented by Alice Benessia and Giuseppe Barbiero, who discuss the complex and contentious issue of GM salmon through an analysis of The impact of

genetically modified salmon. The paper considers both epistemic and normative implications in the manufacture of transgenic salmons and proposes an assessment of its impact, risks, and promises, together with a reflection about the standards for estimating the ‘quality’ of genetically engineered food. In a subsequent dialogue between pedagogy and biology, Gabriella Falcicchio and Giuseppe Barbiero, explore the moral value of biophilia as it emerges from the philosophical and political thought of Aldo Capitini, founder of the nonviolent movement in Italy. Strong and deep-rooted conviction for nonviolence, they claim, can create connections with the natural world expressed as biophilic attitudes. The education section contains an essay by Nadia Lucchini and Martin Dodman on Gender and Sustainability. Lucchini and Dodman examining the relationship between gender and sustainability for the importance of education as a means for deconstructing stereotypes and promote awareness of both attitudes towards gender and ecology. Within a sustainability view, all members of humanity should be able to pursue their own personal pathways from an early age, without conditioning and discrimination. Additionally, Giulia Rossi and Martin Dodman examine The contribution of psychology in connecting the civic and environmental dimensions of sustainability, analyzing the role of social sciences within the practices of sustainability to promote viable human attitudes and behaviors. Their paper demonstrates the interdependence that exists between the civic and environmental dimensions of communities, in particular with respect to understanding how the psychological mechanisms bridging citizens, communities and environments can help build pathways to individual and planetary wellbeing.


P a g e | 4

This series of papers offers a further range of perspectives on diverse and much-debated endeavors to move towards more sustainable life trajectories. One clear implication is that at the time of Expo 2015 sustainability cannot be based on the dubious promises or expectations of messianic technological momentum. A similar message is contained in the papal encyclical on the environment “Laudato Sì” issued on June 18th 2015, a document that expresses the ecological concerns of Catholic teaching and includes harsh criticisms regarding the problems of income inequality and the plight of poor countries. Perhaps it makes more sense at this time to concentrate our efforts on the diverse set of ‘simple ways’ to living: a wider range of approaches that are spiritual, educational, as well as scientific and practical may offer the opportunity to address the daily needs for food, transport, education, housing and communication of a wider population living on a shared planet. Sustainability means ‘in’ not ‘ex’.

References

Benessia A., Barbiero G. (2015). The impact of genetically modified salmon: from risk assessment to quality evaluation. Visions for Sustainability, 3:35-61

Carson R.L. (1937). Undersea. Atlantic Monthly, 78:55–67

Falcicchio G., Barbiero G. (2015). Loving openness towards Nature: Aldo Capitini and the moral value of biophilia. Visions for Sustainability, 3:05-15

Francesco I, (2015) Laudato si. Encyclical Letter on care for our common home. http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html

Lucchini N., Dodman, M. (2015) Gender and sustainability. Raising primary school children’s awareness of gender stereotypes and promoting change in their attitudes. Visions for Sustainability, 3:25-34

Rossi G., Dodman, M. (2015) The contribution of psychology in connecting the civic and environmental dimensions of sustainability. Visions for Sustainability, 3:16-24


P a g e | 5

ORIGINAL PAPER

Loving openness towards Nature: Aldo Capitini and the moral value of biophilia

Gabriella Falcicchio1, Giuseppe Barbiero2,3 1

Dipartimento di Scienze della Formazione, Psicologia, Comunicazione, Università degli Studi di Bari "Aldo Moro", Italia 2

Laboratorio di Ecologia Affettiva, Dipartimento di Scienze Umane e Sociali, Università della Valle d’Aosta; 3Centro interuniversitario IRIS – Istituto Ricerche Interdisciplinari sulla Sostenibilità, Università degli Studi di Torino.

Abstract. Can the loving openness of human beings lead to “the liberation of qualities in animals that would

otherwise remain hidden?” This observation made in 1959 by Aldo Capitini, the Italian philosopher and promoter of nonviolent theory and action, not only poses a question relative to neo-Darwinism, but it also offers a new and radical perspective on human evolution, bringing to the fore the moral value of biophilia. According to Stephen Kellert (1996), the relationship between Man and Nature comprises of nine basic values, and together they constitute the biological tendency of Man to affiliate himself with the natural world. The expression of these values has proved to be adaptive over the course of human evolution, developing into genetic inclinations over time. They include the moral value of ‘biophilia’, which concerns Humanity’s ethical and spiritual affinity towards Nature. On the one hand, the formation of a ‘biophilic ethics’ enhances the inclination of Man to protect Nature; on the other hand, it entails the search for underlying meanings in Nature. Aldo Capitini was extremely concerned about the moral value of Nature, revealing very early on a biophilic sensibility that, he believed, fuelled his motivation to promote nonviolence and, at the same time, generated new and profound sentiments towards living creatures. Indeed, the above-mentioned observation by Capitini recalls the unity of all “beings that form life”, each one of which was intended to be treated ethically and to participate actively in a relationship of openness towards the ‘thou’ in everybody. He considered it a human responsibility to engage in joyous friendships with all living beings, an approach which led him to vegetarianism – a liberating act for those who practice it, because it opens up unexpected horizons for Man’s complex association with Nature, opening the way to true ‘Compresence’, that offers insights to achieve new visions for sustainability. Keywords: biophilia; love for life; moral values; Nature; nonviolence.

ISSN 2384-8677 DOI: 10.7401/visions.03.02

Article history: Accepted in revised form June, 06, 2015

Published online: June, 21, 2015

Citation: Falcicchio G., Barbiero G. (2015). Loving openness towards Nature: Aldo Capitini and the moral value of biophilia. Visions for Sustainability, 3:05-15

Copyright: ©2015 Falcicchio, Barbiero. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.


Corresponding Author: Giuseppe Barbiero, Università della Valle d’Aosta, Strada Cappuccini 2/a, 11100 Aosta, Italy.

E.mail: [email protected]


Fields: Human sciences

Issues: Sustainable transformation of conflicts, Geo-ethics

DOI: 10.7401/visions.03.02



P a g e | 6

And in the grand presence of the sun you move, sternly crossing the light.

If the storm rages with flashes of lightening all around, and the sky closes in over the humiliated land, you know that the sun will return.

And when it is upon you, to your heart you celebrate

shapes, colours, stable horizons.

Waves of light from east to west, and from west to east.

But you stop for a moment, and the streets, the hedgerows, the torrents, the villages seen as you pass by, are not enough for you.

You come upon and gather up a fallen swallow, sullen for its lost flight;

You release it and give it back its call.

You bring unison to Infinity, a melody of beginnings enclosing all thoughts, like the sun’s rays, the contours of the sunrise.

The sweet earth, opens up following man’s angry strike, and reveals its damp interior, you watch from close by.

The plants, you stoop down swiftly to touch them.

The strong trees, the hundreds of innumerable beasts,

with each glance upon them, love expands.1

1 “E nel grande cospetto del sole muovi, attraversi

severo la luce./ Se la tempesta scuote con le sue

folgori intorno, e il cielo chiude la terra umiliata, sai

che il sole ritorna./ E quando sta su di te, al tuo cuore

celebri/ forme, colori, costanti orizzonti./ Onde di

luce da oriente a occidente, e da occidente a oriente./

Ma ti fermi per poco, e le strade, i cespugli, i torrenti,

i paesi veduti in viaggio, non ti bastano./ Incontri e

raccogli la rondine, cupa per il volo perduto;/ la lanci

e ridesti il suo grido./ Porti unità con l’immenso, una

musica d’inizi cingenti tutti i pensieri, come i raggi

del sole le forme dell’aurora./ La soavissima terra,

dischiusa dal colpo nervoso dell’uomo, e svela il suo

umido interno, tu vicino la guardi./ Le basse piante,

rapido andando, ti chini e tocchi./ Gli alberi forti, le

This article introduces the figure of Aldo Capitini from a combined perspective that embraces both the human and the natural sciences, and it was motivated by the passion for nonviolence shared by the two authors. The work is the result of an interdisciplinary dialogue developing on two levels (see Camino, et al, 2005). In the first instance, it developed from the dialogue between two disciplines – pedagogy and biology – which are constituted by very different epistemological statutes, fields of research and methodological traditions. This dialogue turned out to be reciprocally fruitful because it brings together the various views on one of the most profound aspects of human beings: the love for life, biophilia. On the second level, by consciously choosing the nonviolent option as a personal standpoint, we have been able to look at and understand aspects of biophilia that elude the predominant mainstream values based on violence and thus gain new insights into the topic and the possibilities for humans to achieve a vision for sustainability.

1. Biophilia

Biophilia literally means ‘love for life’. The term was introduced by Erich Fromm (1964) to describe the psychological tendency to be attracted to all that is alive and vital. Twenty years later, Edward O. Wilson used biophilia to describe the bonds that human beings create with other living organisms (1984). Wilson developed the idea that biophilia is a fundamental need that emerges, often unconsciously, in many human activities; in our thoughts as in our artistic expressions. This human tendency seems to be genetically determined (Wilson, 1993) and has an evolutionally adaptive character. In other words, we could say that biophilia has

frotte d’innumerevoli bestie,/ ogni sguardo su loro,

affetto espande”, Capitini, A. (1943) Atti delle

presenza aperta. Firenze, Sansoni; now in (1998)

Scritti filosofici e religiosi. Edited by M. Martini.

Perugia: Protagon, p. 122.


P a g e | 7

evolved over the many thousands of years that our species spent in the African savannah, prior to our colonisation of the other four continents. The survival of our ancestors have depended on the capacity to accurately interpret their surrounding environment, starting with the plants and animals. The biophilia hypothesis suggests that the affiliation to life and to its connected processes has conferred important advantages in the human evolution, to the extent that humans have adapted, persisted and emerged, both as individuals and as a species. The distancing of humanity from Nature’s life cycles has led to an increasingly deprived and compromised existence in relation to a vast spectrum of emotive, affective, cognitive and reflective aspects. Regaining an intimate connection with Nature, reviving our biophilia, is necessary for mankind to re-establish its existence in a full and coherent manner.

2. The moral2 value of biophilia according to Stephen R. Kellert

Stephen R. Kellert, together with E.O. Wilson, has relentlessly sought to systematise the biophilia hypothesis (Kellert and Wilson, 1993), by exploring its presumable biological bases (Kellert, 1996). According to Kellert, the biophilic tendency takes nine, different forms of expression: utilitarian, naturalistic, ecological/scientific, aesthetic, symbolic, humanistic, dominant, moralistic and negative. Each form of expression has an evolutionary basis that first favours survival and then the full realisation of the Self.

Kellert thought that these values constitute a kind of “genetic inclination” to affiliate with natural processes. These values reflect an affinity for Nature that is adaptively

2 In some languages the word 'moral' usually refers to

the customs, habits of life. The word 'ethical'

concerns philosophical reflection that inspires

morality. Some Authors (i.e. Kellert, for example)

don’t use this distinction.

expressed through human evolution. Constituting “weak” biological tendencies, the functional and adaptive characteristics of these values are mediated in an important way through language, culture and experience. As a result, we can observe a high level of diversity and intensity of expression of these values across individuals and groups. Nonetheless, they are universal values present in all the known cultures spanning all latitudes, and their expression is both healthy and adaptive (Kellert, 1996).

The adaptive benefits associated with the formation of these values include an underlying sense that gives meaning to things, to orders, the inclination to protect and to treat Nature with kindness and respect, and to reinforce social exchange, sharing moral and spiritual convictions (Kellert, 2002). A strong sense of affiliation with Nature forms the basis of the moral value of biophilia and sustains our ethical responsibility for the natural world. Sometimes the sense of affiliation can be particularly intense, becoming pneumo-poietic (source of spiritual meanings). Thus, not infrequently, sensations of being connected with Nature have found their expression, not only in philosophical language, but also in the language of religion and art and, more recently, in science. In each case, the various languages draw upon the spiritual inspiration to preserve the integrity, the stability and the beauty of the living community (Leopold, 1966).

From an evolutionary point of view, the strong dependency upon Nature and connection of the human community with Nature has favoured the emergence of a set of moral laws centred on the panthesitic idea that the natural world is a living being, with which a profound relationship, vital for each human being, can be established. To cultivate a respectful attitude towards Nature has various advantages for a small group of humans that are mainly bound by family ties. The connection with one’s own environment


P a g e | 8

generates a sense of belonging and of loyalty, which extend from one group of humans to all of Nature and which favours cooperative and altruistic behaviours and mutual aid.

The processes of industrialisation and urbanisation have distanced large sections of the population from Nature, rendering such an experience ever the more difficult. The ethical and spiritual bonds that we have always held with the land (in the sense of Leopold) have been broken. The ethics of the land, that has informed generations of human beings living at all latitudes, has disintegrated in confrontation with the modern world. It is a physical, psychological and spiritual fracture that involves all human beings who live disconnected from the natural world. We have lost the physical and psychological well-being that is derived from a healthy connection with Nature, a connection that favours the sense of identity and trust in oneself (Thomashow, 1996). It is imperative that this bond is recovered, for our physical and psychological health, and for that of our future generations.

3. Aldo Capitini, father of the Italian nonviolence movement

Aldo Capitini (Perugia, 1899-1968) represents the key figure in Italy relevant to nonviolent theory and action. Born into a modest family in Perugia, his father worked for the council as custodian of the city’s bell tower. Capitini initiated his studies obtaining his diploma from Perugia’s Technical Institute, but then he continued his studies, autonomously at first, focussing on the classics, eventually becoming secretary of the Normale University of Pisa. During his adolescence, however, he abandoned the vitalistic impetuses of nationalism in face of the tragedy that was the First World War, to focus on and bring together the teachings bequeathed to us by St. Francis of Assisi, Giuseppe Mazzini, Immanuel Kant and Mohandas K. Gandhi. Capitini advanced a new and highly original line of thought, one that

was never disjointed from daily action, antifascist at first and then in opposition to all forms of war and violence. Capitini was a tireless activist: he launched countless initiatives, many of which are still in vigour today, such as the Nonviolent Movement, the Italian Vegetarian Society, the Perugia-Assisi Peace March and the Brotherhood of People. Capitini met with and became one of the most important intellectuals of his day, promoting the Italian culture of the 20th century that pertained to his line of thought. However Capitini was marginalised for his critical ideas and open dissent to all forms of violence, to the extent that he remains almost unknown to young Italians today.

In the violent context of fascism, Capitini worked as an antifascist, active on both the political and the social level. He was arrested twice and subject to police controls throughout his life, even after the fall of the regime (Cutini, 1988; Moscati and Maori, 2014). Capitini was a thinker capable of generating profoundly innovative visions on both the philosophical and religious levels. Capitini’s visions held nonviolence at its core, next to the “compresence of the living and the dead”, that started out from the initial “religious problem of finding a place for the ill, the worn out, and he who activist society throws out as something that is unproductive and without use” (Capitini, 1967). Capitini suggested to interiorise this problem, initiating an internal process of metanoia (intimate conversion), for changing our views. Of course, reality has its own limits (wickedness, disease, death), that we might also experience within ourselves. However, the moment which we open ourselves up to the ‘thou’ of the other, we become aware that the other incessantly gives us something precious; indeed, we receive this gift before we are even aware of it, and its existence imparts much joy to us. “Nonviolence, in fact, is saying a thou to each concrete being; it is to pay attention, to care, to respect, and to bestow affection towards the other; it is to feel joy that the other exists and was indeed


P a g e | 9

born, and that if he were not born, we would act such that he is born; let us take it upon us to see that he finds it to this world, we are like mothers” (Capitini, 1962).

The act of opening oneself up towards the other allows one to acquire the profound awareness that while I say ‘you’, I am saying ‘thank you’ for the gift that the utterance of this ‘you’ will continue to give me forever. One’s openness, stimulated by the “passionate awareness of finiteness” (Capitini, 1969), becomes an “infinite opening of the soul” (Capitini, 1937), in a restoring gesture that expands to encompass everyone. In fact, openness, by way of its own nature, cannot be anything but infinite and is thus directed towards each and every ‘you’ – what Capitini would call the ‘thou-everyone’, i.e. all forms that have come to life, including those that have died – because everyone, no one excluded, contributes to the collective production of values, i.e. the circulating good. Compresence is generated by means of this cooperation, by this chorality that cannot however be guaranteed (i.e. experienced and lived as a profound truth) without an affective and ethical act of loving openness towards ‘thou’.

Moreover, compresence can be thought about on two levels: as the possibility that it can be achieved by the single act of openness, or as an eschatological viewpoint. With loving openness, compresence is already in effect and becoming reality, starting a long-lasting process; we could say that today we are nourished by infinite acts of openness, and by the chorality of these acts, to the point that we can imagine a “hopeful tomorrow” in which compresence is perfect, full and complete. Capitini refers to that tomorrow as the “reality of everyone” or “reality liberated” from limits, with respect to limited reality, and to reality as it is now, or finally “celebration”. Celebration is the full realisation of that that we could already live today through nonviolence.

This is an extreme synopsis of a highly articulated and complex way of thinking, disseminated by Capitini through umpteen years of writing. The whole of Capitini’s writings contain references to Nature. Nature constituted a major protagonist in Capitinian contemplations. Capitini sought to demonstrate his sensibility towards Nature, and his sensibility was both prophetic and a precursor of visions that the western world only came to realise decades later, and in a very different environmental context: almost a confirmation of the heightened levels of awareness that Capitini expressed back in the 1930’s. Even if there is no single text or key text in which he offers a specific, focussed discussion about Nature, however in each of his books of philosophical and religious mould attention is directed towards Nature. Nature was also conferred a special place in his lyric productions.

4. Precognitions about biophilia by Capitini

To understand how Capitini conceived the natural world, we need to consider the following notions that he put forward; the everything/everyone; the past-present/future; and the limits/liberation notion. Nature is not an ‘everything’: it is not a background, a compact ensemble, an entity that is distinct and irreducible to human beings, or the expression of a distant alternative, and governed by structurally different laws. Instead, it is occupied by ‘thou’, singular and unique, individual beings endowed with subjectivity and relational capacity. Even inanimate objects (natural and artificial things) are included within the sphere of yous. With regards to these yous, nothing changes in relation to openness, since the intimate dynamic of opening oneself up necessarily implicates that it is incessant and oriented ideally towards all of the yous of the past and present. Nature – all beings that have come to life – are embraced by openness and are included in the concept of compresence. They are born into


P a g e | 10

compresence and they are implicated in the process of overcoming their limits.

Here, we come to the second characteristic of Nature according to Capitini: today, even Nature is affected by limits such as disease and death, and by the competitive philosophy of “big fish eat little fish” which characterise modern times. However, nothing is stopping the laws that may seem as unchanging today, intrinsic to natural dynamics, from entering into a process of (even radical) change or transmutation; i.e. the transformation at the ontological level of the structure of reality itself.

Thus, Nature appears as an archipelago, a constellation of subjects interacting according to laws that are not unchangeable. In fact, it is the quality of this interaction (whether in the name of violence or of nonviolence) that will initiate changes that may even be revolutionary, capable of overturning the logic that is today considered to be the “norm”, i.e. natural (like the law of life and death). So, what is the nature of this action we are referring to and who takes it? Capitini replies that it is that of nonviolent openness, and the only beings who can initiate such an act with full awareness are human beings.

When I open myself to the thou of an animal or a plant, listening and contemplating, I realise just how much I receive: “To live near to trees with openness is to receive much more from them than might seem; but this attention must be open and friendly, respectful of these life forms and of their exertion; and thus they reciprocate and bring peace” (Capitini, 1953).

To allow oneself to be pervaded by this peace, to be touched by the thou of a dying cat, or to experience deep down the harmony of a landscape coincides with the highest intention of not wishing any harm to come to nature, of the desire to repair the harm already inflicted (the wounded swallow, in the opening poem), and to choose actively not

to reiterate violent habits (like killing for feeding purposes3) as a profound conviction that these attitudes and choices of action will have real and tangible effects on changing the natural order, starting with the relationship between humans and other living things; a synergic dialogue that expands from the interaction with individual ‘yous’ (for example, the animal that ceases to be afraid of man, and that opens itself up in a trusting way, demonstrating previously undisclosed characteristics4) to the rapport between Humanity and Nature in general, until it changes the supreme laws of the being.

Thus the ultimate horizon that Capitini aimed towards was a conviction of fundamentally spiritual significance, one that can nevertheless be approached today through the nonviolent action of compresence; in this sense, order and harmony in Nature are not perfect in the present world, but they are visions to strive towards, in which compresence will be fully realised. At the centre of all of this is human responsibility, i.e. the act of openness, the unity and love for all beings that have come to life, without which harmony cannot exist.

3 “Vegetarianism makes an important contribution

towards the transformation of man and reality […]

Vegetarianism contributes towards this

transformation because it instates in man a sense of

solidarity with many beings, which man previously

considered to be things, and it develops a sense of life

that is choral and not egocentric”, Capitini A. (1959).

Aspetti dell’educazione alla nonviolenza. Pisa: Pacini

Mariotti, p. 6.

4 “Why not retain that previously undisclosed

qualities can also be awakened in animal individuals

that would otherwise remain hidden? So great is the

value of the act, of the encounter with the animal, of

that sense of safety it must feel in our presence, that it

must be left bewildered after the horror of all the

bloodshed that humanity has relentlessly caused to

the animal world! […] one can understand how the

pleasant surprise of such peace cannot but cause the

release of new inspirations in animals”, Aspetti

dell’educazione alla nonviolenza.


P a g e | 11

The nonviolent quality of openness qualifies human action in a very precise manner: it is not the action of homo faber5 that the western Weltanschauung (world view perception) has celebrated for thousands of years and consecrated with modernity: the action that intervenes aggressively with Nature and that rests on a mechanistic and deterministic view which dictate that humans are of a different substance from the rest of life and are hierarchically ordered at the ontological level such that man is permitted to exploit other beings endlessly. Without wanting to discard the positive outcomes of centuries of epistemological reflections, discoveries and knowledge, Capitini breaks away from the past and brings human action back to a religious essence: it will be the action of homo religiosus (that has little to do with the historical confessional institutions) that will be capable of modifying even the laws of nature, initiating and rendering solidarity ever more complete, and bringing about the collaboration between all beings in view of a common destination – liberation.

5. The nonviolent way and love for life: an anecdote

In order to unite the discourse on Capitinian nonviolence with the theorisations of Kellert, we turn to the narrative form; in this case, a short story. The events of this story actually occurred to one of the Authors (GF).

The sleeping beauty and the beetle

Once upon a time there was a young woman who lived in a cottage overlooking open fields. In the daytime she hung her washing out to dry, enjoying the view of the countryside; and in the evening, she brought her washing in, enjoying the fresh evening air and watching

5 Homo faber suae ipsius fortunae is the expression,

adopted by Pico della Mirandola, that represents the

humamist-renaissance ethic at the base of the modern

idea that human beings are the creators of their own

destinies.

the sun set, while the nocturnal birds stretched their wings in their nests, before setting out to search for their evening meal. Every so often, a small shiny green beetle would fly on to her washing, magnificent in its emerald green jacket, and go for a walk across the laundry hung out to dry. If one of her cottage windows was open, it would sneak inside to enjoy some warmth. The young woman, who also had two cats, would gently pick it up and take it back outside, placing it down on the plants on her balcony, fearing for its safety in the cats’ presence. She would warn the beetle about the four-legged dangers inside, but before too long the beetle would be found back inside the house again. One evening, the woman changed into her pyjamas and went to bed early; she read a story to her young daughter and turned off the light, quickly drifting off into a peaceful sleep. In the middle of the night, the strangest thing occurred. She was lying on her back when all of a sudden her eyes opened. There had been no strange noise to disturb her and she’d had no bad dream. But she opened her eyes, fully lucid. Then, she felt a slight tickling sensation on the inside of her leg, just above her left knee. Without questioning what was happening and without thinking, she acted quickly, performing a series of movements that seemed to know what to do on their own. She quickly brought her left hand down to the location of the tickle, cupping her hand over the mystery that moved inside her trousers, grasping it within a cocoon of pyjamas; she swung her legs down from the bed and whilst maintaining the gentle pressure of her grasped left hand she quickly removed her trousers in one swift movement using just her free hand. The woman moved towards the window. She turned her soft pyjama trousers inside-out and out of the cocoon it appeared, the brilliant green beetle that didn’t want to stay outside. “Oh, but it’s you!”, exclaimed the woman softly placing the beetle down onto the plant residing on her windowsill. She returned to bed and went straight back to sleep. The following morning, she reflected on her curious night time encounter…


P a g e | 12

It is a short and very simple story, nevertheless a true one, which is interesting to analyse. At a certain moment during the night, a woman becomes aware of the presence of a small unidentified animal, an insect, in direct contact with her body. It is to be found under her layers of clothing, whilst she is in the most private of places (her bed). Moreover, the events take place during nocturnal sleep, a situation in which primordial fears can be easily evoked, signalling the dangers that our ancestors would have actually experienced and that remain intact in our brains even today after hundreds of thousands of years and despite the relative safety of our present day surroundings. It would not be considered unusual if the woman had displayed a defensive-aggressive reaction, directed at destroying the intruder or at least getting rid of it in such a way, and using whatever means were available to put the intruder’s existence and integrity at risk in order to save oneself. This, however, did not occur, despite the sense of lucidity that the protagonist described, one that was very different from the usual conscious state, like a mental state that was independent of the self, automatic, and different from the conscious and rational form of analysis that involves the neocortex. She recalls a sensation of very rapid and clear thought, accompanied by perfectly synchronised, harmonic and precise actions conducted by the subcortex.

If it is so, the anecdote says a lot about the origins of nonviolence, rooted within the inner-being, where humanity can begin to detach from our simplified vision that laws of Nature are based on ‘fight or flight’ instincts. The only action usually perceived in front of a potential danger is to save one’s own life at the cost of another’s. But it is interesting to consider the two facets of nonviolent persuasion6: thought and action – ethical

6 According to Carlo R. Michelstädter (1887-1910),

‘persuasion’ is an intimate connection between

thought and action. Capitini was inspired by

choices that are therefore conscious, non-harming and at the same time internalisations of the choice via its practice. This connection is subtle and particularly important for the rapport that a nonviolence advocate has with him/herself: the interweaving between a person’s inner world and the practice of certain behaviours is so complex that we cannot simply say that they progress hand-in-hand, nor can we say that one of the two precedes the other. One might imagine the existence of a circular relationship between the two elements, one that is recursive and (in an attempt to provide a more dynamic image) helical or fractal, branching out and dividing in both directions, towards spiritual profundity (perhaps engaging subcortical dimensions?) and outwards towards the world itself.

In the first direction, the “sleeping beauty” reflects on her choice of action that night. She cannot avoid realising that her acting in such a non-harming way would, in turn, have left some trace within her inner being, taking hold and possibly becoming incorporated into the deepest of neuronal structures. It may be surprising to realise that such structures are not usually associated with ethical reflection, but are more attentive to the conscious dimensions of choices which are deliberated and mulled over. While it is undoubted that emotional connotations are involved, that level of neuronal activity would not usually be considered as influencing the structures that bring about action. In this sense, nonviolence opens up interesting situations and can form a basis for the recovery of the biophilic instinct.

In relation to the second direction, that goes from nonviolent action of the individual towards the external world (and to reality), one of Aldo Capitini’s phrases carries extraordinary weight: “We have tried to avoid death, neither by way of thought nor with

Michelstädter and he applied ‘persuasion’ to

nonviolence (Cfr. Taurino, 2014).


P a g e | 13

action; have we done so to see if reality will follow us?” (Capitini, 1998). One adventurous hypothesis is such: if metanoia takes place in one element of reality, our inner world and subjectivity, then we can propose that nonviolence is also able to change the structure of reality.

6. Nonviolence as a moral value of biophilia

Over the course of our reflections we realised that the moral value of human biophilia intersected in every respect with the theme of nonviolence. Biophilia (Wilson, 1984) and nonviolence (Sémelin, 1985) share a common phylogenetic structure that has been expressed in a profoundly adaptive manner over the course of humanity. If biophilia is indeed the result of genetically determined learning rules that favour our harmonisation within the natural environment (Wilson, 1993; Barbiero, 2011; Barbiero, 2014) no less so is nonviolence, which traces its origins to genetically determined learning rules that permit living creatures to be assertive and to express their own aggressiveness7 (Barbiero, 2004). And if in the absence of adequate stimuli biophilia can atrophy (Barbiero et al., 2014), remaining buried within the human soul, the same can happen to nonviolence, which without adequate relational experience can atrophy and remain buried. The abscence of biophilia stimuli and nonviolence experiences gives rise to biologically non-adaptive behaviours of destructive aggression that we can generically call ‘violence’ (Barbiero, 2004) or maladjustment by ‘nature-deficit’ (Louv, 2005). But the nostalgia for what “we could be but are not yet” can be the fly-wheel for a metanoia that regards not only our relationship with other

7 According to Sémelin (1985), based on Fromm

(1973), aggressiveness is a defensive reaction

(“benign aggression”) phylogenetically adaptive;

aggressivity is a human propensity to destroy and to

crave for absolute control (“malignant aggression”)

and is not philogenetically adaptive.

human beings but with all of Nature (Barbiero, et al., 2007). Nonviolence not only shares common evolutionary roots with biophilia, but it represents a legacy of moral principles from which an adaptive biophilia can emerge, a biophilia that allows us to reconnect with Nature and its equilibria (Barbiero, et al., 2015), regaining physical and psychological health. And yet, nonviolence is a stance towards action that originates from a profound connection with oneself and with the values of one’s own existence. As we see from the experiences of Aldo Capitini, strong and deeplyrooted nonviolence favours the formation of connections with the natural world that are expressed through a biophilic attitude. From a psychological point of view, this would imply an overall harmonic development of personality. The invitation to nonviolent action becomes fundamental when it is practiced in order to protect Nature, but also in relation to protecting ourselves.

Nonviolence recalls a conversion that progresses slowly, because it is a pursuit towards enchantment by Nature, from which new energy and lymph are derived. It is the ‘wildman’ that allows physicality to be regained, pleasure, intimate happiness and mystic joy. In nonviolence, life that flows is paramount, coming before all theoretical discussions; and hence this is the common root that connects nonviolence with biophilia: life that flows, love in action towards others (human and non human) with whom we have the opportunity to interact.

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge Stephanie Parsley for her accurate translation and polishing the manuscript, and the two reviewers for their very important critical suggestions.


P a g e | 14

References

Barbiero, G. (2004) “La violenza: il carattere patologico della combattività destrutturata”, in E. Camino e A. Dogliotti Marasso (a cura di), Il conflitto: rischio e opportunità. Torre dei Nolfi (AQ): Edizioni Qualevita, pp. 147-163.

Barbiero, G. (2011) “Biophilia and Gaia. Two hypothesis for an affective ecology”. Journal of Bio-Urbanism 1, 11-27. Also available from: http://www.journalofbiourbanism.org/2012/barbiero/

Barbiero G. (2014) “Affective Ecology for Sustainability”. Visions for Sustainability 1, 20-30.

Barbiero, G., Benessia, A., Bianco, E., Camino, E., Ferrando, M., Freire, D.D., Vittori, R. (2007) Di silenzio in silenzio. Cesena: Anima Mundi.

Barbiero, G., Berto, R., Freire, D.D., Ferrando, M., Camino, E. (2014) “Unveiling biophilia in children using active silence training: an experimental approach”. Visions for Sustainability 1, 31-38.

Barbiero, G., Gasparotti, F., Baruzzi, E. (2015) La verde pelle di Gaia. Limena, PD: Libreriauniversitaria.it.

Camino, E., Barbiero, G., Perazzone, A., Colucci-Gray, L. (2005) “Linking research and education to promote an integrated approach to sustainability”. Handbook of sustainability research. Peter Lang Europaischer Verlag Wissenschaften, pp. 535-561.

Capitini, A. (1937). Elementi di un’esperienza religiosa. Bari: Laterza.

Capitini, A. (1969). Il potere di tutti. Firenze: La Nuova Italia.

Capitini, A. (1943). Atti della presenza aperta. Firenze: Sansoni.

Capitini, A. (1951). L’atto di educare. Firenze: La Nuova Italia.

Capitini, A. (1953), Il fanciullo nella liberazione dell’uomo. Pisa: Nistri Lischi.

Capitini, A. (1959). Aspetti dell’educazione alla nonviolenza. Pisa: Pacini Mariotti.

Capitini, A. (1962). La nonviolenza oggi, Milano: Edizioni di Comunità.

Capitini, A. (1967). Educazione aperta. Firenze: La Nuova italia, vol. I.

Capitini, A. (1998). Scritti filosofici e religiosi. a cura di M. Martini. Perugia: Protagon.

Capitini, A. (2004). Le ragioni della nonviolenza. Antologia degli scritti. A cura di M. Martini. Pisa: ETS.

Cutini, C. (a cura di). (1988). Aldo Capitini. Uno schedato politico. Perugia: Editoriale Umbra.

Falcicchio, G. (2009). I figli della festa. Educazione e liberazione in Aldo Capitini. Bari: Levante.

Falcicchio, G. (2011). “Gli animali, con i bambini, nella città postmoderna tra sorveglianza, invisibilità e aperture nonviolente”, in F. Semerari (a cura di). Metropolitania. Aspetti e forme di vita nella città postmoderna. Milano: Ghibli. pp.151-186.

Falcicchio, G. (2011). “Noi e loro: spunti per un’educazione nonviolenta con i viventi (seconda parte). Azione Nonviolenta. 569. p. 24.

Falcicchio, G. (2011). “Noi e loro: spunti per un’educazione nonviolenta con i viventi (prima parte)”. Azione Nonviolenta. 568. p. 26.

Falcicchio, G. (2012). “Ma io non accetto. La religione aperta di Aldo Capitini”. Athanor. 1. pp.271-275.

Falcicchio, G. (2013) “Fecondità e apertura al vivente nel segno dell'andare nonviolento, per un'episteme pedagogica all'altezza dei tempi”. in G. Elia, A. Chionna (a cura di). Un itinerario di ricerca della pedagogia. Lecce: Pensa MultiMedia. pp.117-125.

Falcicchio, G. (2013). “Umani, troppo umani”. Azione nonviolenta. 591. p. 21.

Falcicchio, G. (2014), “La morte può finire. La morte nel pensiero filosofico e pedagogico di Aldo Capitini”. Educazione Democratica, 8. pp. 60-84.

Falcicchio, G. (2014). “L’abbraccio festivo. Riflessioni su educazione e nonviolenza”, Azione Nonviolenta. 51. pp. 8-11.

Falcicchio, G., Moscati, G., (a cura di). (2014). “Il pensiero di Aldo Capitini: percorsi di ricerca”. numero monografico di Educazione Democratica, n. 8. pp. 13-186.


P a g e | 15

Fioretti di San Francesco. A cura di D’Alatri (1982) Edizioni Paoline.

Fromm, E. (1964) The Heart of Man: Its Genius for Good and Evil, American Mental Health Foundation Books.

Fromm, E. (1973) The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness. Available from: http://filozofia.3bird.net/download/filozofia/fromm/filozofia-erich-fromm-the-anatomy-of-human-destructiveness.pdf

Kellert, S.R.(1997) Kinship to Mastery. Washington DC: Island Press.

Kellert, S.R. (1996) The Value of Life: Biological Diversity and Human Society. Washington (DC): Island Press.

Kellert, S.R. and Wilson E.O. (1993) The Biophilia Hypothesis. Washington (DC): Island Press.

Louv, R. (2005) Last Child in the Wood. Chapel Hill (NC): Algoquin Books.

Pullia, F. (2010). Dimenticare Cartesio. Ecosofia per la compresenza. Milano: Mimesis.

Pullia, F. (2012). Al punto di arrivo comune. Per una critica della filosofia del mattatoio. Milano: Mimesis.

Moscati, G., Maori, A. (a cura di). (2014). Dossier Aldo Capitini. Milano: Stampalternativa.

Sémelin, J. (1985). Per uscire dalla violenza. Torino: Edizioni Gruppo Abele.

Taurino, D. (2014). La via della Persuasione con Carlo Michelstaedter e Aldo Capitini. Educazione democratica, 8, 15-34.

Thomashow, M. (1996) Ecological Identity: Becoming a Reflective Environmentalist. Boston (MA): The MIT Press.

Wilson, E.O. (1984) Biophilia. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.

Wilson, E.O. (2006) The Creation. New York (NY): W. W. Norton & Company.


P a g e | 16

ORIGINAL PAPER

The contribution of psychology in connecting the civic and environmental dimensions of sustainability

Giulia Rossi1, Martin Dodman2 1

Free University of Bozen, Italy 2

Interdisciplinary Research Institute on Sustainability, Italy

Abstract. This paper examines the role of social sciences, and in particular that of psychology, in analyzing and defining the concept of sustainability and understanding ways of promoting sustainable human attitudes and behaviors. It is argued that there is a crucial interdependence between the civic and environmental dimensions of sustainable communities and that in this respect we need to explore how psychological bridging mechanisms between citizens, their communities and their environments can help build new pathways to individual and planetary wellbeing. Keywords: psychology, sustainability, civic environmentalism, individuals, communities

ISSN 2384-8677 DOI: 10.7401/visions.03.03



Citation: Rossi G., Dodman, M. (2015) The contribution of psychology in connecting the civic and environmental dimensions of sustainability. Visions for Sustainability, 3:16-24

Copyright: ©2015 Rossi, Dodman. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.


Corresponding Author: Martin Dodman, Interdisciplinary Research Institute on Sustainability, Via Accademia Albertina 13, 10123 Torino, Italy.


Perspective: Educational vision


Issues: Civic environmentalism

DOI: 10.7401/visions.03.03



P a g e | 17

1. Introduction

Human behavior has an enormous impact on the planet we inhabit. Sustainability literature contains innumerable examples of the potentially devastating ways in which humans are interacting with and managing the natural world. Because humans are the source of the problems as well as the hope for finding solutions, the role of the social sciences in analyzing and understanding the concept of sustainability has grown in importance (Saunders, 2003). In particular, the domain of psychology, where the focus is on human thought, feeling, and behavior (Myers, 2003), can be seen as an essential component of the search for sustainable human trajectories. Indeed, several branches of psychology endeavor to study psychological pathways underlying human action in relation to the environment, in order to identify which mechanisms and factors may enhance, for example, a more sustainable attitude towards and use of natural resources.

Developmental theorists may, for example, be interested in the moral processes which lead to pro-environmental attitudes, thereby identifying the mechanisms underlying the development of those values that may predict pro-environmental behavior (e.g. Kahn, 1997). Social psychologists may be more likely to interpret the relationship between humanity and the use of natural resources as a social dilemma situation (Bonaiuto et al., 2008), where often acting pro-environmentally (e.g. using public means of transport) implies that individual interests (e.g. convenience of private means) may clash with a general collective interest (e.g. production of more CO2), thereby trying to identify in which social conditions people are more likely to think with a collectivistic perspective and thus act pro-environmentally. Environmental psychology may be interested in analyzing the environmental characteristics of the contexts in which people are daily embedded, in terms of how they may hinder or facilitate their

engagement towards sustainability (Vining & Ebreo, 1992), whereas the focus of conservation psychology is more on the study of the relationship between human beings and nature with the aim of finding new strategies for encouraging people to care about and take care of the natural world (Saunders, 2001).

Thus, by investigating different and intersecting perspectives, psychology may furnish an important contribution to the understanding of how humans can move from an exploitative to a sustainable paradigm in the way they interact with the world they live in.

2. Sustainability and psychological discourse

In current psychological literature, the word “sustainability” rarely appears. Instead, we most commonly find the term “pro-environmental”, which may refer to both pro-environmental attitudes (e.g. concern, norms, values) and behaviors (e.g. recycling, preventing waste, boycotting). One of the most widely shared definitions of pro-environmental behavior is that proposed by Stern (2000), who considers it broadly as “all types of action that change the availability of materials or energy from the environment or alter the structure and dynamics of ecosystems or the biosphere”. Typical distinctions are then made between (Stern, 2000; Stern, Dietz, Abel, Guagnano, & Kalof, 1999):

- environmental activism: committed environmental activism (e.g. active involvement in environmental organizations and demonstrations), which is the major focus of research on social movement participation;

- non-activist behaviors in the public sphere: behaviors affecting the environment only indirectly, by influencing public policies (e.g. petitioning


P a g e | 18

on environmental issues, joining and contributing to environmental organizations, stated approval of environmental regulations, willingness to pay higher taxes for environmental protection). This is also referred to as environmental citizenship;

- private-sphere environmentalism: behaviors in the private sphere (e.g. the purchase, use, and disposal of personal and household products that have environmental impact).

Moreover, it is useful to subdivide these according to the types of decisions they involve: the purchase of major household goods and services that are environmentally significant in their impact (e.g., automobiles, energy for the home, recreational travel), the use and maintenance of environmentally important goods (e.g., home heating and cooling systems), household waste disposal, and “green” consumerism (purchasing practices that consider the environmental impact of production processes, such as purchasing recycled products and organically grown foods) (Stern, 2000).

Going beyond the specificity of different branches within the field of psychology - social, environmental, developmental, etc. -, most psychological studies that focus on human pro-environmental concerns and behaviors refer to four main theoretical models: the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen 1991), the value belief norm model (Stern, 2000), the activation theory (Schwartz, 1977) and the theory of normative conduct (Cialdini, Reno, & Kallgren, 1990).

Those theories focus on different processes that may influence people’s attitudes towards the environment. However, they all consider variables at the level of the person as individual as the starting point of an explanatory process which may lead to pro-environmental engagement. In the theory of planned behavior personal attitudes,

subjective norms and perception of behavioral control are considered to be crucial variables (Ajzen, 1991), whereas personal norms, awareness of consequences and ascribed responsibilities are central to the norm activation model of Schwartz (1977). While personal values, beliefs and norms are determining factors in the value-belief norm theory of environmentalism (Stern et al., 1999), in the theory of normative conduct (Cialdini, Reno, & Kallgren, 1990) the focus is rather on social circumstances (e.g. personal benefits vs. social sanctions), descriptive norms (the norms driving the behavior that is considered as most “normal” because “everybody is doing so”), and injunctive norms (the norms that underline a moral judgment in behaving in a particular way).

These theoretical frameworks have been considered variously useful in the understanding of those mechanisms that underlie behaviors such as household recycling (Kaiser & Gutscher, 2003), choice of travel mode (Bamberg & Schmidt, 2003; Harland et al. 1999), use of water (Harland et al., 1999), and waste composting (Mannetti, Pierro, & Livi, 2004). At the same time, the factors considered in influencing people’s pro-environmental behavior are clearly involved in reciprocal relationships of mediation or moderation and hence each situation results multi-faceted (Gifford & Nilsson, 2014). The need to consider in more detail the role of contextual factors has also emerged (Steg & Vlek, 2009; Wakefield et al, 2006). Currently several approaches to the development of sustainability argue that what is crucial is people’s action within communities, therefore at local level (e.g. Agenda 21). However, what is lacking in psychological studies dealing with the topic of sustainability is adequate focus is on how people perceive their local community (Steg & Vlek, 2009; Wakefield et al, 2006; Uzzell, Pol, & Badenas, 2002) and which psychological mechanisms underline an


P a g e | 19

active engagement in terms of community safeguarding (Lewicka, 2010).

3. Civic environmentalism as an approach to the understanding of sustainability

The concept of civic environmentalism underlines the importance of considering the social relations within communities in the understanding of sustainability. Hempel (1999) defines a sustainable community as “a community in which economic vitality, ecological integrity, civic democracy, and social well-being are linked in complementary fashion, thereby fostering a high quality of life and a strong sense of reciprocal obligation among its members”. This definition implies a holistic approach to sustainability by integrating the social and the ecological aspects of sustainability considered as both “process” and “phenomenon”. Sustainability can be considered as a dynamic concept where these two aspects are strictly correlated, and it is indeed this correlation that is necessary for its development. In this sense, the concept of civic environmentalism is associated in particular with the concept of environmental citizenship (a kind of pro-environmental behavior) and can be defined as “a holistic appreciation of the inextricable links between environmental, social and economic characteristics of sustainable communities” (Agyemann & Angus, 2003), implying “local, collaborative decision making processes to generate innovative, non-regulatory solutions to a host of environmental problems” (Layzer, 2002). As Dobdon (2010) has argued, “though definitions vary, ‘environmental citizenship’ can be thought of as pro-environmental behavior, in public and in private, driven by a belief in fairness of the distribution of environmental goods, in participation, and in the co-creation of sustainability policy”. In all these definitions we can find three key concepts: participation, cooperation between citizens and between policies and citizens. A participatory approach in the management of

environmental policy is therefore needed, because it allows to “move the focus from the ‘rights’ of a citizen to participate in policy making to the ‘responsibilities’ that a citizen has within his or her community” (Agyemann & Angus, 2003). The concept of civic environmentalism points to the fact that it is “the civic” and not just “the environmentalism” that has to be the focus of policies (Shutkin, 2000). By engaging people in inclusionary procedures, a sense of collective responsibility may thus be achieved. The concept of civic science also moves in the same direction, in that “it recognizes that science must become an increasingly interactive process between lay and expert people, reconnecting science and its cultural context… science must increasingly be linked to empowerment and activism and involve transfers of respect and power” (Warburton, 1988, p.3).

The same position is identifiable in Agenda 21, still, over 20 years after its publication, considered one of the most important frameworks on which environmental policies are based. For example, the document contains the following proposals: “Individual cities should, as appropriate: a) Institutionalize a participatory approach to sustainable urban development, based on a continuous dialogue between the actors involved in urban development (the public sector, private sector and communities), especially women and indigenous people; b) Improve the urban environment by promoting social organization and environmental awareness through the participation of local communities in the identification of public services needs, the provision of urban infrastructure, the enhancement of public amenities and the protection and/or rehabilitation of older buildings, historic precincts and other cultural artifacts. In addition, "green works" programmes should be activated to create self-sustaining human development activities and both formal and informal employment opportunities for low-income urban residents


P a g e | 20

[…] empower community groups, non-governmental organizations and individuals to assume the authority and responsibility for managing and enhancing their immediate environment through participatory tools, techniques and approaches embodied in the concept of environmental care” (United Nations Division for Sustainable Development, 1992).

Three principal concepts are recurrent - empowerment, public awareness and participation - and would seem to be the key processes through which people can influence the development of a sustainable society. Moreover, these processes occur at local level, in the communities where people’s lives are embedded on a daily basis.

All the frameworks considered - civic environmentalism, environmental citizenship, the programme proposed by Agenda 21 - can be seen as a call to explore social processes within local communities as a vital component of being able to develop sustainability as a whole. The reference is to a definition of sustainability that underlines the need to recognize the importance of both the civic and the environmental dimensions and how they interact within communities, thereby considering that the development of sustainable communities should start through studying the relationships that exist between people within the community and between community members and their environment (Uzzell, Pol, & Badenas, 2002).

4. Psychology and civic environmentalism

The relationship within the concept of sustainability between both civic and environmental engagement can also be considered in terms of a bi-dimensional conceptualization of the local community: social (people sharing the place) and physical (the environment where people’s lives take place). Both dimensions are crucial in the understanding of how people perceive their

contexts and several studies have shown the importance of both social networks and physical environment within communities for people’s wellbeing. Focus on the social aspect of place has emphasized the importance of the concept of social capital, which can be defined as “the shared knowledge, understandings and patterns of interactions that a group of people brings to any productive activity…. It contributes to stronger community fabric, and, often as a by-product of other activities, builds bonds on information, trust, and interpersonal solidarity” (Roseland, 1998, p.8). Other studies have shown that an active engagement at community level can benefit individuals in several ways, in that it is positively related to a person’s mental and physical health (Fitzpatrick and LaGory, 2000; Putnam, 2000; Scheufele and Shah, 2000) and happiness (Rose, 1999; Kim and Kawachi, 2006; Scheufele and Shah, 2000; Cooper et al., 1999). Moreover, it enhances affective support and mutual respect between citizens (Wilkinson, 1996; Kawachi and Berkman, 2000). From the perspective of the environmental dimension, having regular contact with natural elements is seen as being particularly beneficial at both individual and community level. Various studies have, for example, shown that workers who come into contact with nature demonstrate greater job productivity and satisfaction, together with reduced absenteeism (Kaplan, 1993), that playing in places with trees and vegetation has benefits for the development of children’ skills and cognitive abilities (Taylor et al., 1998), or that hospital patients who are able to at least see nature around them recover faster from surgery and require less pain-reducing medication (Ulrich, 1984). Moreover, green spaces within places enhance the development of people’s social capital by offering interaction opportunities for knowing each other and, in turn, developing affective ties between citizens and to the whole community (Kuo, 2003).


P a g e | 21

Thus it would seem that there is a clear link between individual, community and planetary wellbeing. The literature analyzing the processes underlying the relationship between people and their local life contexts contains concepts such as place attachment, place identity, community attachment, and sense of community, each of which are closely correlated (Giuliani 2002) and sometimes considered as overlapping (Lewicka, 2010). Studies have, however, offered different results concerning the exploration of the link between those processes and local action (Lewicka, 2010) and relatively few studies have explored it in terms of investigating sustainable development. Uzzell, Pol & Badenas (2002) showed that social cohesion within the community was associated with people’s social identity, which in turn affected their pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors. Other studies have shown that the degree of people’s identification with a place is associated with their engagement in their places (Pretty, Chipuer, and Bramston, 2003; Vaske & Kobrin, 2001), together with resulting increasing levels of mutual cooperation (Bonaiuto et al. 2008; Twigger-Ross, Bonaiuto, & Breakwell, 2003). Bonaiuto et al. (2008) found that the highest levels of voluntary cooperation in a water conservation project were detected among people with high local identity and those who perceived higher legitimacy for the local authority. The authors argue that: “The extent to which people identify with their local community is then a potentially important factor in determining the shift from a self- to a collective-interest in human behavior”. If, on the other hand, projects or policies are perceived as a threat, some community members may show resistance (Manzo & Perkins, 2002), developing negative attitudes towards proposals. Edelstein (2003) argues that when residents are able to take control of the situation themselves and identify common interests and targets, they are more likely to be mobilized toward action and be empowered, thereby suggesting that by engaging people in inclusionary procedures a

sense of collective responsibility may be achieved.

The dynamic relationship between people and their environment therefore depends on a number of variables: to what extent they are attached to it, the role it plays for their identity and consequently for their wellbeing, to what extent they feel involved in its conservation. Moreover, what is crucial for the legitimacy of local authorities is the empowerment of people and to what extend they feel that they are able to make decisions about their places and be involved in their implementation.

The various studies analyze multiple aspects of the complex interrelationship occurring between the person, the whole community and the environment, while, at the same time, emphasizing the need to explore which bridging mechanisms may underpin this process in terms of the understanding of sustainability. What emerges is that a peaceful cohabitation between human beings and their environment is possible only if we redefine both the relations between people and the environment and between people themselves.

5. Conclusions

The aim of this paper is to emphasize the importance of the concept of civic environmentalism in the understanding of sustainability and to consider how psychological research may contribute to this.

A part of psychological literature endeavors to understand which mechanisms and factors are associated with individual pro-environmental values and behaviors. However, consideration of sustainability as a process that takes place in a context determined by both social and environmental interacting forces still needs to be further developed. In this respect, the concept of civic environmentalism can be considered as a holistic understanding of sustainability,


P a g e | 22

which considers both civic and pro-environmental aspects as crucial and intersecting dimensions for its achievement. As is stated in Agenda 21, this bi-dimensionality underlines the important role played by the interactions between different actors within local communities in the understanding of how a more respectful use of natural resources can be achieved. Both collaboration (helping each other according to an understanding of reciprocal needs and roles) and cooperation (working together to achieve common aims and products) (Roschelle & Teasley, 1995; Smith, 1995; Dillenbourg, 1996) are required, in order to develop a shared collective sense of responsibility, which in turn may motivate collective actions towards sustainability.

Various psychological mechanisms, such as social identity, place identification and a sense of empowerment, may underlie and determine people’s willingness to act in collaborative and cooperative ways at local level. However, so far few studies have explored the association between those mechanisms and sustainable engagement. Individual, community and planetary wellbeing would seem to be clearly linked and dependent on the same crucial factors. It is to be hoped that more research will be done on the concept of civic environmentalism in the endeavor to identify which mechanisms in particular may enhance people’s actions together within communities, in order to render them sustainable and protective of the environment of which they are a part and on which they depend.

References

Agyemann, J., Kollmuss, A. (2010). Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behaviour? Environmental Education Research, Vol. 8, No. 3, 2002.

Agyemann, J., Angus B. (2003). The role of Civic Environmentalism in the Pursuit of Sustainable

Communities. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 46(3), 345-363.

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.

Bamberg, S., & Schmidt, P. (2003). Incentives, morality or habit? Predicting students’ car use for university routes with the models of Ajzen, Schwartz and Triandis. Environment and Behaviour, 35, 264–285.

Bonaiuto, M., Bilotta,E., Bonnes, M., Ceccarelli, M., Martorella H. (2008). Local Identity and the Role of Individual Differences in the Use of Natural Resources: The Case of Water Consumption. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38, 4, pp. 947–967.

Cialdini, R.B., Reno, R.R., Kallgren, C.A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public spaces. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 1015-1026.

Cooper, H., Arber, S., Fee, L. and Ginn, J. (1999). Social capital and health. London: Health Education Authority

Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M. Blaye, A & O’Malley, C. (1996). The evolution of research on collaborative learning. in Learning in humans and machines: Towards an interdisciplinary learning science, Spada, E. & Reiman, P. (eds) pp.189–211. Oxford: Elsevier.

Dobson, A. (2010). Environmental citizenship and pro-environmental behavior. Keele University, November 2010, available from: www.sd-research.org.uk

Edelstein, Michael R. 2003. Contaminated communities: Coping with residential toxic exposure. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Fitzpatrick, K., and LaGory, M. (2000). Unhealthy Places: The Ecology of Risk in the Urban Landscape. New York: Routledge.

Gifford, R., Nilsson, A. Personal and social factors that influence pro-environmental concern and behavior: A review. International Journal of Psychology. DOI: 10.1002/IJOP.12034

Giuliani, M. V. (2003). Theory of attachment and place attachment. In M. Bonnes, T. Lee, & M. Bonaiuto (Eds.), Psychological theories for


P a g e | 23

environmental issues (pp. 137e170). Ashgate, Hants.

Harland, P., Staats, H., & Wilke, H. A. M. (1999). Explaining pro-environmental intention and behaviour by personal norms and the theory of planned behaviour. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29: 2505–2528.

Hempel, L.C. (1999). Conceptual and analytical challenges in building sustainable communities, in: D.A. Mazmanian & M.E. Kraft (Eds) Towards Sustainable communitites: Transition and Transformations in Environmental Policy (Cambridge, MA, MIT Press).

Kahn, P.H., Jr. (1997). Children’s moral and ecological reasoning about the Prince William Sound oil spill. Developmental Psychology, 33, 1091-1096.

Kaiser, F.G., Gutscher, H. (2003). The proposition of a general version of the theory of planned behaviour (TPB): predicting ecological behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 396-417.

Kaplan, R. The Role of Nature in the Context of the Workplace. Landscape and Urban Planning, 26, 1-4, 1993, pp. 193-201.

Kawachi I, Berkman LF. Social cohesion, social capital, and health. In: Berkman LF, Kawachi I, eds. Social Epidemiology. New York: Oxford University Press; 2000: 174–190.

Kim, S., Kawachi, I. (2006). A Multilevel Analysis of Key Forms of Community- and Individual-Level Social Capital as Predictors of Self-Rated Health in the United States. Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 83( 5): 813-826.

Kuo, F.E. 2003. The role of arboriculture in a healthy social ecology. Journal of Arboriculture 29, 3:148-155.

Layzer, J. (2002). Science, Citizen Involvement, and Collaborative Enviornmental Policymaking. A research proposal for Tufts University.

Lewicka, M. (2010). Place attachment: How far have we come in the last 40 years? Journal of Environmental Psychology 31: 207-230.

Mannetti, L., Pierro, A., & Livi, S. (2004). Recycling: planned and self-expressive behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 227-236.

Manzo, L. C., & Perkins, D. D. (2006). Finding common ground: The importance of place attachment to community participation and planning. Journal of Planning Literature, 20, 335e350.

Myers, D.G. 2003. Psychology, 7th Edition. New York: Worth Publishers

Pretty, Grace, H., Chpiuer, H., Bramson, P. (2003). Sense of place amongst adolescents and adults in two rural Australian towns: The discrimating features of place attachment, sense of community and place dependence in relation to place identity. Journal of Environmental Psychology 23(3): 273-87.

Putnam, R. (2000) Bowling Alone. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Rose, R. (1999). ‘What Does Social Capital Add to Individual Welfare? An Empirical Analysis of Russia’. The World Bank Social Capital Initiative Working Paper, No. 15.

Roschelle, J., & S. Teasley. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving, in Computer supported collaborative learning, O’Malley, C. E. (ed.) pp. 69–97, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.

Roseland, M. (1998). Towards Sustainable Communities: Resources for Citizens and their Governments. Gabriola Isalnd, BC, Ne Society Publishers.

Schwartz, S. H. (1977). Normative influences on altruism. In L. Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 221–279). New York: Academic Press.

Shutkin, W.A. (2000). The Land that Could Be: Environmentalism and Democracy in the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge, MA, The MIT Press.

Scheufele, D. A., and Shah, D. V. (2000). “Personality Strength and Social Capital: The Role of Dispositional and Informational Variables in the Production of Civic Participation,” Communication Research, 27, 107–131

Smith, K. A. (1995). Cooperative learning: Effective teamwork for engineering classrooms. Paper


P a g e | 24

presented at the annual ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Atlanta. http://fie-conference.org/fie95/2b5/2b54/2b54.htm

Steg, L., Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behavior: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology 29: 309–317.

Stern, P. C. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues 56: 407–424.

Stern. P.C., Dietz,T., Abel,T., Guagnano G.A., & Kalof L. (1999). A Value-Belief-Norm Theory of Support for Social Movements: The Case of Environmentalism. Human Ecology Review, Vol. 6: 81-97.

Saunders C.D. The Emerging Field of Conservation Psychology. Human Ecology Review, Vol. 10 (2)

Taylor, A.F., Kuo, F.E. & W.C. Sullivan. Views of Nature and Self-Discipline: Evidence from Inner City Children. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22, 2002, pp. 49-63.

Twigger-Ross, C., Bonaiuto, M., & Breakwell, G. (2003). Identity theories and environmental psychology. In M. Bonnes, T. Lee, & M. Bonaiuto (Eds.), Psychological theories for environmental issues (pp. 203–233). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

Ulrich, R. S. (1986) Human Responses to Vegetation and Landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 13, pp. 29-44.

United Nations Division for Sustainable Development (1992). Agenda 21

Uzzell, D., Pol, E., Badenas, D. (2002). Place identification, social cohesion, and environmental sustainability. Environment and Behavior, 34, 26-53.

Vaske, J.J., Kobrin, K.C. (2001). Place Attachment and Environmentally Responsible Behavior. The Journal of Environmental Education, 32 (4), 16-21.

Vining, J., & Ebreo, A. (1992). Predicting recycling behavior from global and specific environmental attitudes and changes in recycling opportunities. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 1580-1607.

Wakefield, S. E. L., Elliott, S., Eyles, J.D. & Cole, D.C. (2006). Taking Environmental Action: The Role of Local Composition, Context, and Collective. Environmental Management Vol. 37, No. 1, pp. 40–53.

Warburton, D. (1988) (Ed). Community and Sustainable Development. London: Earthscan

Wilkinson, R. (1996). Unhealthy societies: the afflictions of inequality. London: Routledge


P a g e | 25

ORIGINAL PAPER

Gender and sustainability. Raising primary school children’s awareness of gender stereotypes and promoting change in their attitudes.

Nadia Lucchini1, Martin Dodman2 1 Free University of Bozen, Italy

2 Interdisciplinary Research Institute on Sustainability, Italy

Abstract. This paper examines one aspect of the importance of the concept of gender for the promotion of sustainable communities from the perspective of the role of education. It is argued that it is important and possible to deconstruct gender stereotypes already present at an early age in order to build counter stereotypes that will help individuals pursue their own personal pathways without being subjected to prejudice and discrimination. A small-scale research project conducted in a primary school in Italy, using semi-quantitative methods of data collection and analysis, is proposed as an example of how learning activities can create awareness of gender stereotypes and promote changes in attitudes in young children. Keywords: gender, sustainability, stereotypes, awareness, perspectives

ISSN 2384-8677 DOI: 10.7401/visions.03.04



Citation: Lucchini N., Dodman, M. (2015) Gender and sustainability. Raising primary school children’s awareness of gender stereotypes and promoting change in their attitudes. Visions for Sustainability, 3:25-34

Copyright: ©2015 Lucchini, Dodman. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.


Corresponding Author: Martin Dodman, Interdisciplinary Research Institute on Sustainability, Via Accademia Albertina 13, 10123 Torino, Italy.




Issues: Gender and sustainability - Educational processes

DOI: 10.7401/visions.03.04



P a g e | 26

1. Introduction

Hempel (1998) describes a sustainable community as being healthy inasmuch as it maintains “social and ecological balance” in terms both of the lives of individuals and their collective enterprises and the endeavour to build lasting, sustainable forms of justice, prosperity, security, and environmental quality based on the passage from “vision to action”. The question of gender equity is crucial for each of these characteristics. All cultures elaborate constructs on the basis of the biological differences between women and men in order to build a set of social norms and expectations concerning what behaviours, roles and activities are both typical of and appropriate for women and men, together with what rights, power and resources they should possess or access.

In all kinds of communities, the social construction of the roles of women and men has, both historically and currently, continued to create gender-based disparities that discriminate and exclude women, thereby frustrating their personal development and consequently that of sustainable communities (Shiva, 1989, 1994). The question is both one of personal injustice in denying women the right to fully develop their potential as individuals and at the same time denying society the important benefits of their contribution to the wellbeing of the community. While on the one hand much sustainability literature is concerned with the unsustainable over-exploitation of natural resources, it is equally unsustainable that gender biases should cause exclusion and thereby under-exploitation of such important human resources. Over the past twenty years a number of instruments, such as the Gender-related Development Index (GDI), the Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM) and the Gender Inequality Index (GII), have been developed in order to promote gender-oriented analysis of the characteristics of societies and institutions with regard to

sustainable ways of being and processes underlying sustainability policy and practices at international, national, regional, local and personal levels (Permanyer, 2011).

At the same time, an increasing number of publications have addressed both theoretical questions concerning sustainability and sustainable development in terms of gender, economics and environment within the broad field of socio-ecological research and produced gender-based empirical studies on various aspects and consequences of the environmental consciousness and behaviour of women and men (Agarwal, 1997, Reeves & Baden, 2000, Casimir & Dutilh, 2003, Swedish Ministry of Sustainable Development, 2006, OECD, 2008, Silverstein & Sayre, 2009, Mwangi, Meinzen-Dick & Sun, 2011, Cruz-Torres & McElwee (eds), 2012).

All studies in this field recognise that gender is a dynamic concept and thereby subject to change, both through a diversification of its manifestations - which risks consolidating certain aspects and introducing others while maintaining gender inequity - and also in terms of different forms of action designed to raise levels of consciousness and modify underlying paradigms. In this respect, the role of education is seen as an essential aspect of the endeavour to create awareness and promote positive change within all age groups and, in particular, for young children. Gender-based attitudes are socially constructed and learned through educational agencies of all kinds: formal (such as schools and universities), non-formal (such as families and workplaces) and informal (such as social relationships and recreational activities). This paper describes a small-scale research project conducted with primary school children and designed both to raise their levels of awareness of gender stereotyping and measure eventual changes in their points of view concerning gender stereotypes and possible counter stereotypes in three areas: personal characteristics, recreational activities and professions.


P a g e | 27

2. Background to the study

The research was conducted in a primary school in Brixen, a town in the South Tyrol area in the North East of Italy and involved in two classes comprising a total of 38 children (20 girls and 18 boys) of 8 and 9 years of age, 5 female teachers and 26 parents (11 fathers and 15 mothers). The sample is obviously small and has no pretence at having general statistical validity in terms of children’s or adults’ attitudes, but is rather an attempt to explore how learning activities can address the question of stereotypes with a view to bringing them to the surface and therefore rendering them potentially subject to reflection and change. Each step was conducted by Nadia Lucchini as part of work carried out during teaching practice and as part of the elaboration of her degree thesis.

In a first phase, the children were interviewed in order to ascertain if they were influenced by already existing gender stereotypes in terms of adjectives used to describe personal characteristics and whether they were typically associated with a particular gender, recreational activities considered typical of a given gender and professions considered as the domain of one gender or another. The aim was to establish the areas to be focussed on but not use an existing questionnaire or prepare one a priori so as allow the children’s most commonly shared ideas to freely emerge and not predetermine examples to be considered, attitudes or outcomes. Subsequently a questionnaire was prepared in order to elicit specific responses to questions related to the attitudes and opinions that emerged during the interviews. The answers to the questions posed were then used to plan a series of learning activities designed promote reflection and awareness concerning stereotypes, prejudice and discrimination with particular reference to the area of recreational activities. After these activities the questionnaire was used once again to determine if there had been a change in

attitudes and opinions. At the same time, a parallel questionnaire was used to ascertain the points of view of teachers and parents concerning the same areas.

The research methodology employed combined both quantitative and qualitative elements within a perspective of reciprocal interdependence. The initial emphasis was on allowing the children’s ideas to freely emerge during the interviews in order to then create the instrument necessary to gather more quantitative data (albeit with relatively limited samples) that could be comparable for the groups of children, teachers and parents. Statistical analysis then permitted in particular a comparison between the attitudes of girls and boys. The results obtained were then used to build the specific reflection and awareness-raising activities proposed.

Although not involving a medium or long-term longitudinal study, the approach used during the activities was based on the methodology of action research (Lewin, 1946), combining intersecting cycles of planning, action, observation and reflection. Data collection during the activities involved field notes and audio recordings. Each new activity was developed on the basis of the observation of the children during the previous one. The results of the questionnaire re-used after the series of activities was finished were then analysed using techniques typical of quantitative research procedures.

The questionnaire used for the children contained closed questions constructed on the basis of a Likert attitude scale with values ranging from 1 to 7, with 1 corresponding to “male” and 7 to “female” or 1 corresponding to “yes” and 7 to “no”, in all cases with reference to the three areas of personal characteristics, recreational activities and professions. The questionnaire used for the teachers and the parents contained open questions that encouraged the free expression of ideas or opinions.


P a g e | 28

The results of the first questionnaire used with the children were tabulated via Excel for the mean values attributed by the children to each of the variables. The data were analysed using the SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Science) programme in order to determine standard deviation for each mean value and compare answers given by girls and by boys. The results were then analysed independently of gender categories through ANOVA (Analysis of Variance), whereby relevant data must demonstrate a Sig. ˂ 5 and a Partial Eta Squared ˃ 0,15 and thereby show a difference between the attitudes of females and males. Where the results do not satisfy these criteria, the attitudes that emerge are common to both genders.

3. The results of the questionnaires

From the initial analysis of the questionnaires, the adjectives “weak” and “shy” are considered by both groups as typically characteristic of females and “courageous”, “strong” and “lively” as typical of males. Although it is important to remember that such words spontaneously emerged from the initial interviews from the children and were not pre-selected on the basis of the assumptions of the researcher, at the same time many studies have shown how one of the principal reasons for such shared gender bias would seem clearly linked to the stereotyped characters and images widespread in the literature for children to which they are accustomed from an early age (Fox, 1993, Kortenhaus & Demarest, 1993, Rutledge, 1997). Biemmi (2010) shows how “the characters in adventure stories are over 70% male and only 20% female, thereby consolidating the stereotype whereby adventure is a male domain” (p. 87). Since adventure requires characteristics such as strength, courage and dynamism, the implicit message is clear. Females are often represented as weak and shy, unable to resolve the problematic situations in which they find themselves without the aid of the male figure. Gianini Belotti (2002), drawing

on early feminist research at Princeton University, concludes that “exciting activities are reserved for boys, whereas girls are depicted as either delightfully incapable or as worthy helpers” (p. 104).

At the same time, “play with toy cars and motorbikes” was considered a clearly male activity. Once again the influence of the toys given to children from an early age is clear, in that particular toys are considered by parents and relatives to be appropriate for a given gender. Gianini Belotti describes how “I have seen little girls of 18-20 months spend hours and hours taking out of a bag a series of toy cars, ships and trains, putting them in line, […] and moving them with the same delight and concentration as little boys. [….] Later this phenomenon disappears [as] children learn to request the ‘right’ toy because they know that they will be denied the ‘wrong’ one (p. 90). In the same way, “play with dolls” was considered a clearly female activity, since from an early age little girls are encouraged to “take care” of dolls and thereby develop a particular sensibility toward child care, something considered inappropriate for boys. In a study conducted in Turin “Games for boys, for girls … and for both”, of 143 boys between 6 and 12 years of age interviewed only five said they played with dolls. As one seven year old said: “I play with my sister’s dolls, but Daddy doesn’t want me to” (Venera, 2005, p. 165). By the same token, “playing at being Mummy or a Princess” was considered an exclusively female game.

As Ricchiardi (2005) puts it, “the absence of playing with dolls can have decidedly negative consequences. In playing family roles the child can change roles, take on the point of view of the adult, see situations from different perspectives in a way otherwise not possible. We can frequently observe games in which children reproduce negative experiences (such as being scolded) with their parents. In the absence of the same capacity as the adult to verbalise experiences, the child needs other more simple ways of


P a g e | 29

elaborating them. Reliving interactions more or less positive with parents through playing with dolls is something of great importance” (p. 126).

Both “artistic gymnastics” and “volleyball” were associated with girls by both genders. Here we can see the influence of sports models proposed by parents to their children. “Take, for example, a ball. A girl will be asked to throw it, gracefully and carefully, while it seems ‘natural’ that a boy will kick it energetically” (Ulivieri, 2007, p. 91). “Football” and “karate” were considered inappropriate for girls. Among the activities considered, football was considered the least appropriate of all. On the other hand, “dance” was widely considered unsuitable for boys, probably because gradually associated with characteristics such as grace, elegance and delicacy, qualities generally not encouraged in boys, for whom activities should permit the development of “ male personalities: tough, aggressive, rough, violent” (Ulivieri, 2007, p. 91).

Out of 26 professions considered by the children, only 8 reached the mean threshold value of 4, showing that both boys and girls had indicated as typically female less than one third. This suggests opinions widely-held and shared by both genders and could be taken to express the idea that work in general is more suited to men than to women. More detailed analysis shows that jobs requiring strength, astuteness, ingenuity, calculating and within the field of transport are considered typically male. Professions in which the body is instrumental or exhibited or which are essentially static are indicated as typically female. The professions considered most typically male are “pilot”, “secret agent”, “soldier” and “electrician”, while those that are female are “fashion stylist”, “volleyball player”, “model” and “cashier”. As Ruspini (2003) asserts, parents encourage and push their children’s development so that they “participate in activities with specific gender connotations. For example, boys are much

more like to be given tasks for repairing and maintenance in the house and with the development of skills outside the domestic sphere, while girls are mostly required to collaborate in activities such as cleaning, washing and cooking” (p.19).

As regards the answers to questionnaires of the teachers and the parents, two opposing lines of thought emerge. The majority is aware of a problem concerning gender discrimination and consider this an impediment to realising one’s potential for many individuals. Moreover, they believe that the school should play an important role in removing the stereotypes that cause discrimination. However, it clearly emerges that almost all the parents do not have a clear idea of what the school is or can do in this respect. On the other hand, a minority of both teachers and parents do not consider gender biases as harming children’s development. On the contrary, in some cases these are deemed to be important models that enable the individual to grow in the “right” way and fulfil roles considered socially appropriate.

4. The learning activities

On the basis of the results that emerged from the questionnaires, it was decided to construct learning activities based on games and recreational activities carried out in the children’s free time, since these are most common to their daily lives, and to concentrate on the stereotypes that were most widespread and deeply-rooted. In particular, two male (“playing football” and “playing with toy cars and motorbikes”) and two female (“playing volleyball” and “dancing”) stereotypes were selected. The series of activities was intended as three phases: analysis of the stereotype, elaborating the stereotype through drawing, deconstruction of the stereotype and construction of an counter stereotype.

During the first phase the children read stories based on the lives of four real-life


P a g e | 30

people: a female footballer from Florence, a female pilot from Rome, a male volleyball player from Trento and a male dancer from Naples. The stories were written as biographies with two distinct parts. In each case, the first part contained activities and games that tended to confirm the expectations of the stereotype, while in the second part emerged the counter stereotype represented by each character and the professions they have today.

In this way, the pupils began the series of activities by activating a part of their given knowledge and then gradually discovering new information, thereby favouring a process of assimilation of the new to the given. Thus, they are “able to act on them, integrate and correlate, destructure and reassemble” (Gattico, 2005, p. 176) the information they now possess. This process was facilitated by a methodology of cooperative learning based on the Jigsaw technique whereby each member of a previous group brought information to the members of the new group of which s/he was a part. The information exchange and the analysis of the situation were built around the consideration of three central factors in each story: the role of peer groups and that of the family in influencing or determining choices, and the particular characteristics of the protagonist in bowing to pressure or demonstrating resilience and determination to make and maintain personal choices.

In the second phase, the pupils were asked to divide a sheet of paper in four parts and draw in each one representing the four salient moments or events in the story read, adding captions to explain what was being represented. Drawing is a particularly powerful way of elaborating new concepts. “Creativity is a multi-fold process [….] in that it is a psychic act that engages the individual on the intellectual, affective, ethical and social levels” (Rosati, 1997, pp. 52 - 53).

During the third phase the children were presented with four new stories that contained the same activities but with different developments. Whereas the original stories contained gender stereotypes that evolved into counter stereotypes, in this case the stories tell of girls and boys forced to abandon their desires because of peer and family pressure based on prejudice. The task presented was to work in groups in order to change the development of the stories so as to produce a positive outcome. In this way the children are encouraged to autonomously deconstruct the stereotype and build a counter stereotype (Rubin, Paolini & Crisp, 2013) through their own narration. They invent new stories but “the relationship with reality is constant and, as in a circular process, the outcomes that are a product of their fantasy create a new way of seeing reality, through broadening their perceptions, and enable them to evaluate it critically and thereby transform it” (Falcinelli, 1997, p. 88).

If during the first and second phase there is a process of assimilation of the new - in terms of non-stereotypical models - to the given, the third phase promotes the stable assumption of different terms of reference and perspectives and thereby a process of accommodation (Piaget, 1961) producing lasting change in mental schemata.

5. The results after the learning activities

One month after the learning activities the initial questionnaire was again used to see to what extent and what types of change had been brought about. The results of the first use of the questionnaire (time 0) were compared with those of the second (time 1) in terms of the same categories of adjectives relating to personal characteristics, recreational activities and professions. What follows contains only some examples of what emerges.


P a g e | 31

The results show a change of opinion in the boys as regards the adjective “weak” (F(1,18)=4.59, η2p=0.20). This characteristic was initially considered almost uniquely female (6.11±1.36), whereas the value declines in such a way as to get close to being neutral (4.78±1.30). As regards the girls, while the adjective “strong” was almost entirely male (1.45±0.68), their opinion shows a change in the values attributed (2.18±1.25). A similar change involves the adjective “affectionate”, previously considered inappropriate for a male 4.54±0.72) and now perceived differently (2.81±0.65).

A change also occurs as regards “artistic gymnastics” (F(1,18)=5.80, η2p=0.24) and “volleyball” (F(1,18)=23.68, η2p=0.56), both previously considered almost exclusively suitable for girls with values at 6.45±0.45) and (6.00±0.44). In both cases the levels drop appreciably, although “artistic gymnastics” remains linked particularly to females with a value of (5.09±0.36).

Changes also occur in respect of “play with toy cars and motorbikes” (F(1,18)=29.34, η2p=0.62), from (1.53±0.34) a (3.39±0.32; “riding a bicycle” (F(1,18)=20.88, η2p=0.53), from (3.79±0.46) to (1.43±0.25); “playing football” (F(1,18)=50.39, η2p=0.73), from (5.84±0.38) to (2.00±0.42); “karate” (F(1,18)=21.82, η2p=0.54), from (5.69±0.32) to (2.94±0.55). In all cases, an activity previously considered unsuitable for girls has been reconsidered and now appears appropriate. The same also occurs for “dancing” (F(1,18)=14.39, η2p=0.44), an activity first held to be characteristic of females (5.04±0.48) but for which the values have been decidedly modified (3.02±0.38).

Both boys and girls have also clearly changed opinion concerning various professions. For example, “volleyball player” (F(1,18)=17.41 goes from a high level of association as a female sport (5.89±0.29) to much lower values tending towards neutrality

(4.70±0.30). At the same time, “pilot”, although it maintains a certain male gender bias, sees a rising level of suitability for females, (1.54±0.17) to (2.70±0.30). Analysis of values of particular statistical significance, shows that the girls have changed opinion about various professions such as “footballer” (F(1,18)=19.42, η2p=0.51), “cashier” (F(1,18)=5.90, η2p=0.24), “soldier” (F(1,18)=7.56, η2p=0.29) e “stylist” (F(1,18)=4.25, η2p=0.19). A particularly noticeable change regards, for example, “footballer”, a profession initially considered almost exclusively male, with a change from (1.63±0.36) to (3.81±0.26), while all the other examples show a tendency to much more neutral values. For the boys, similar changes have taken place for the professions “architect” (F(1,18)=5.27, η2p=0.22), “electrician” (F(1,18)=3.57, η2p=0.16), “shopkeeper” (F(1,18)=3.75, η2p=0.17), “police(wo)man” (F(1,18)=4.70, η2p=0.20) and “computer programmer” (F(1,18)=4.41, η2p=0.19), each of which move from high male-biased values toward neutrality.

6. Conclusions

The research conducted shows that at the outset both of the classes in which the questionnaire was used were already highly influenced by gender stereotypes within the areas of adjectives relating to personal characteristics, recreational activities and professions. Such a situation is in line with a wide range of literature containing studies over the past 40 years and demonstrating how environmental conditioning is heavily responsible for building and perpetuating stereotypes and how these stereotypes deprive women of the chance to play many and important roles in society, thereby depriving communities of women’s vital contribution to the social and ecological balance necessary for sustainability.

In Italy, the country where this research was conducted, analyses have been conducted, for example, of children’s literature and school


P a g e | 32

textbooks that show girls as being alone and helpless and boys as being adventurous and active (Gianini Belotti, 2002; Biemmi, 2010), cartoons that present the male as a hero and the female as an object of desire (Ulivieri, 2007), games directed at either boys or girls on the basis of traditional male and female roles (Ricchiardi & Venera, 2005), the automatic allocation of domestic roles to women (Romano, Mencarini & Tanturri, 2012), television that typically presents women in roles that are humiliating while men are dominant and intelligent (Zanadro, 2010), the grammars of language systems that prioritize masculine in respect of feminine gender (Sabatini, 1993).

These are only some of the innumerable ways in which children come into contact with stereotypical models and images and the initial results of the research clearly demonstrate the consequences in terms of well-defined mental schemata that lead to precise distinctions between male and female roles and thwart the natural development of individuals in terms of their inclinations and aptitudes. If the creation of a sustainable community depends on promoting fulfilling lives for individuals and harnessing them to collective enterprises, thereby building lasting, sustainable forms of justice, prosperity, security, and environmental quality, then a new paradigm based on gender equality in terms of opportunity and achievement is a priority.

Clearly, building this paradigm requires concerted action at all levels of society, but the role of education, particularly at the level of early years and primary school, must be considered of vital importance. Gender issues are present in the lives of every individual and “social, cultural, religious and political groups practice gender education that inevitably conditions lives without even posing this objective” (Leonelli, 2011, p.2) or indeed being aware of what they are doing in this respect. Recent research by the National Bureau of Economic Research suggests that

schools may also be responsible for this in various ways and that gender bias at primary school may have long-term implications for pupils (Lavy & Sand, 2015). The study examined various groups of students who took two examinations, one of which was marked blind by outside examiners while the other was marked by teachers who knew the students’ names. In Mathematics, girls outperformed boys in the examination with blind marking, whereas boys outperformed girls when the assessment was carried out by teachers who knew the children’s names, thereby suggesting that they had overestimated the boys’ abilities and underestimated those of the girls. The authors conclude that biased behavior on the part of teachers in the early years of schooling has long-term implications for occupational choices and earnings at adulthood and show that the impact is greater for children from families where the father is more educated than the mother and most damaging for girls from a low socioeconomic background.

It is therefore vital that schools should become places that consciously promote gender education in such a way as to “respect the relationship between identity and difference that constitutes our very being, encourage pluralism, awareness and critical attitudes (Mapelli, Bozzi Tarizzo & De Marchi, 2001, p.12). After the learning activities described above, significant changes in attitude emerged. This can be taken as a confirmation that, if educational processes and agencies plan and pursue educational pathways with such characteristics, then it is possible to move society from a still negatively gender-biased and thereby inevitably discriminatory and impoverishing framework of reference toward a more sustainable, positively gender-based, empowering and enriching trajectory.


P a g e | 33

References

Agarwal, B. (1997) Gender Perspectives on Environmental Action: Issues of Equity, Agency and Participation. in J. Scott/K. Caplan/D. Keates (eds.) Transitions, Environments, Translations. Feminisms in International Politics. New York/London: Routledge

Biemmi, I. (2010). Educazione sessista. Stereotipi di genere nei libri delle elementari. Torino: Rosenberg & Sellier.

Casimir, G., Dutilh, C. (2003) Sustainability: a gender studies perspective. in International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 27, 4 pp. 316–325 DOI: 10.1046/j.1470-6431.2003.00323.x

Cruz-Torres, M.L., McElwee, P. (eds.) (2012) Gender and Sustainability. Lessons from Asia and Latin America. University of Arizona Press.

Falcinelli, F. (1997). L’uomo come soggetto creativo. in Rosati, L. (ed.), Creatività e risorse umane (pp. 67 - 109). Brescia: La Scuola.

Fox, M. (1993). “Men who weep, boys who dance: The gender agenda between the lines in children's literature”. Language Arts, 70, 84-89.

Gattico, E. (2005). Epistemologia genetica e costruttivismo. In E. Gattico & G. P. Storari, Costruttivismo e scienze della formazione (pp. 127 - 177). Milano: Unicopli.

Gianini Belotti, E. (2002). Dalla parte delle bambine. Milano: Feltrinelli.

Hempel, L. C. (1998). Sustainable Communities. From Vision to Action. Claremont, CA: Claremont Graduate University, 1998

Hempel, L.C. (1999). Conceptual and analytical challenges in building sustainable communities, in Mazmanian, D.A, Kraft, M.E. (eds.) Towards Sustainable communities: Transition and Transformations in Environmental Policy (Cambridge, MA, MIT Press).

Kortenhaus, C.M. and Demarest, J. (1993), Gender Role Stereotyping in Children’s Literature: An Update, in Sex Roles, Vol. 28, n. 3/4

Lavy, V. & Sand, E., (2015) On The Origins of Gender Human Capital Gaps: Short and Long Term Consequences of Teachers' Stereotypical Biases, National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 20909

Leonelli, S. (2011). La Pedagogia di genere in Italia: dall’uguaglianza alla complessificazione. Ricerche di pedagogia e didattica. Pedagogia di genere, vol. 6, n. 1

Lewin, K. (1946) Action Research and Minority Problems, in Lewin, G.W. (ed.) (1948) Resolving social conflicts. New York: Harper and Row

Mapelli, B., Bozzi Tarizzo, G. & De Marchi, D. (2001). Orientamento e identità di genere. Crescere donne e uomini. Milano: La Nuova Italia.

Mwangi, E., Meinzen-Dick, R, Sun, Y. (2011) Gender and sustainable forest management in East Africa and Latin America. Ecology and Society 16(1): 17. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss1/art17/

OECD (2008) Gender and Sustainable Development – Maximising the Economic, Social, and Environmental Role of Women. Paris: OECD. Available at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/58/1/40881538.pdf

Permanyer, I. (2011), Are UNDP Indices Appropriate to Capture Gender Inequalities in Europe?, Social Indicators Research, pp. 1-24

Reeves, H., Baden, S. (2000) “Gender and Development: Concepts and Definitions”. BRIDGE Report no. 55, University of Sussex, Institute of Development Studies.

Ricchiardi, P. (2005). I bambini e la scelta di giocattoli differenziati per genere: Il contributo della ricerca educativa. In P. Ricchiardi & A. M. Venera. Giochi da maschi, da femmina e… da tutti e due. Studi e ricerche sul gioco e le differenze di genere (pp. 112 - 142). Bologna: Junior.

Romano, M. C., Mencarini, L. & Tanturri, M. L. (eds), (2012). Uso del tempo e ruoli di genere. Tra lavoro e famiglia nel ciclo di vita. Roma: Istat.


P a g e | 34

Rosati, L. (1997) La creatività come scommessa per il terzo millennio. in Rosati, L. (ed.), Creatività e risorse umane (pp. 15 - 60). Brescia: La Scuola.

Rubin, M., Paolini, S. & Crisp, R.J. (2013) Linguistic Description Moderates the Evaluations of Counterstereotypical People, Social Psychology, Vol. 44, No. 4, pp. 289-298

Ruspini, E. (2003). Le identità di genere. Roma: Carrocci.

Rutledge, M. (1997). Reading the subtext on gender, Education Leadership, 54, 71-73.

Sabatini, A. (1993). Il sessismo nella lingua italiana. Roma: Istituto poligrafico e zecca dello stato.

Shiva, V. (1989) Staying Alive: Women, Ecology and Development. London: Zed Books.

Shiva, V. (ed), (1994) Close to Home: Women Reconnect Ecology, Health and Development Worldwide. Philadelphia: New Society Publishers.

Silverstein, M., Sayre, K. (2009) The Female Economy. Harvard Business Review: September 2009, pp. 46-53

Swedish Ministry of Sustainable Development (2006) Initial Study of Lifestyles, Consumption Patterns, Sustainable Development and Gender: Do Women Leave a Smaller Ecological Footprint than Men? Stockholm: Swedish Ministry of Sustainable Development. Available at http://www.sweden.gov.se/content/1/c6/06/72/73/1bd9aa9c.pdf.

Ulivieri, S. (1995/2007). Educare al femminile. Pisa: ETS.

Venera, A. M. (2005). Bambole, macchinine e videogiochi: i giocattoli preferiti dalle bambine e dai bambini che frequentano la scuola primaria e secondaria di primo grado. In P. Ricchiardi & A. M. Venera. Giochi da maschi, da femmina e… da tutti e due. Studi e ricerche sul gioco e le differenze di genere (pp. 159 - 171). Bologna: Junior.

Zanardo, L. (2010). Il corpo delle donne. Milano: Feltrinelli


P a g e | 35

ORIGINAL PAPER

The impact of genetically modified salmon: from risk assessment to quality evaluation

Alice Benessia1,2, Giuseppe Barbiero1,2 1

Laboratorio di Ecologia Affettiva, Dipartimento di Scienze Umane e Sociali, Università della Valle d’Aosta; 2Centro interuniversitario IRIS – Istituto Ricerche Interdisciplinari sulla Sostenibilità, Università degli Studi di Torino.

Abstract. In this paper we address the complex and controversial issue of the possible commercialization of a

genetically engineered (GE) salmon for human consumption: the AquAdvantage Salmon®, by one of the leading US aquaculture corporations, AquaBounty Technologies Inc (ABT). This analysis follows and deepens our reflections on the notion of impact assessment, in the framework of biotechnology for food production. In the first part, we consider the epistemic and normative implications involved in the regulatory process of the transgenic salmon, starting with a review of the scientific research on genetic engineering applied to the taxonomic family Salmonidae. We explore the inextricable relationship between facts and values, and their mutual dependence on the high stakes implied in the controversy. In the second part, we challenge the identification of impact assessment with future developments, the risks and promises of the GE salmon. We propose a shift to from prediction to diagnosis, and we provide a brief account of the driving forces that bring the transgenic fish into the world, along the path-dependent trajectory of technoscientific innovation. We conclude by proposing to open a collective space for reflection about the criteria for evaluating the quality of GE salmon in our present. Keywords: impact assessment, genetically engineered salmon, biotechnology for food production, quality, innovation

ISSN 2384-8677 DOI: 10.7401/visions.03.05



Citation: Benessia A., Barbiero G. (2015). The impact of genetically modified salmon: from risk assessment to quality evaluation. Visions for Sustainability, 3:35-61

Copyright:©2015 Benessia, Barbiero. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.


Corresponding Author: Alice Benessia, Università della Valle d’Aosta, Strada Cappuccini 2/a, 11100 Aosta, Italy.



Fields: Earth life support systems (Ecological systems)


DOI: 10.7401/visions.03.05



P a g e | 36

1. Introduction

The word “impact” entails the idea that something is already into the world and it is “pressing” against a target1. In the still dominant, modern ideal, assessing the impact of technoscientific open-field experimentations means identifying the target and evaluating the consequences of this pressure, on the basis of scientific evidence collected by purposely-selected experts, for the needed regulatory aims. In this model, the certain, objective and exhaustive scientific evidence speak for themselves and rational decisions about the governance of technology can be made in the form of logical deductions (Wildavsky 1979).

In our previous work, we have discussed some of the inadequacies of this framework in the context of biotechnology for food production (Benessia and Barbiero 2012, Guarnieri et al. 2008). By focusing on the research, implementation and regulation of genetically modified organisms in industrial agriculture, we have shown that this modern model can be applied only at the price of selectively obscuring the normative dimension inherent in the process of impact assessment. Indeed, the framing of what constitutes an evidence, the ways in which the designated significant data are collected and evaluated, the questions to be answered and the conclusions to be drawn are intrinsically value-based practices, embedded in the technical, scientific procedures. The needed expertise and the corresponding epistemic culture of the actual experts do not automatically emerge from a predefined laboratory setting in which the impact is set up to happen (Hardin 2004, Knorr Cetina 1 The etymology of the term impact is to "press

closely into something,": from Latin impactus, past

participle of impingere "to push into, dash against,

thrust at". Originally sense preserved in impacted

teeth (1876). Sense of "strike forcefully against

something" first recorded 1916. Figurative sense of

"have a forceful effect on" is from 1935 (see online

etymology dictionary www.etymnline.com).

1999). They are the result of choices, based on specific aims, and they produce a plurality of perspectives, all valid in the context in which they emerge and most often mutually exclusive, therefore controversial (Sarewitz 2004).

Moreover, open field technoscientific experiments, such as GMO’s for food production, imply high stakes, as they require considerable investments, they are designed to be carried out on a global scale and, in case of failure, cannot be reversed. Finally, as they are performed on socio-ecological systems, including the agents performing them, they entail the presence of emergent complexity and radical uncertainty (Funtowicz and Ravetz 1994). As a result, in the evaluation of their impact, facts and values are inextricably entangled, uncertain and disputed, a condition that can be defined as post-normal (Funtowicz and Ravetz 1993).

Based on these premises, in this paper we address the complex and controversial issue of the possible commercialization of a genetically engineered salmon for human consumption: the AquAdvantage Salmon®, by one of the leading US aquaculture corporations, AquaBounty Technologies Inc (ABT). According to ABT, through the addition of a growth-hormone gene construct, the patented fish is designed to reach the market size in about 18 months, close to half of the average time-to-market of conventionally farmed salmon. Moreover, the total feed required to produce the same fish biomass is reduced by 25%, giving the producer a significant net overall economic gain. As the AquaBounty narrative goes, this saving would make economically viable to rear the fish in otherwise too costly, physically contained inland facilities, isolated from marine ecosystems, therefore less polluting and more environmentally sustainable (AquaBounty Technology 2010).

Over the past two decades, a number of different stakeholders, ranging from activists,

http://www.etymnline.com/


P a g e | 37

to concerned citizens and scientists, traditional fisheries and the aquaculture industry have been contesting these promised economic advantages and ecological benefits. At the same time, the environmental risks of genetic pollution of the wild salmon population and the possible hazards for human health have been widely discussed, prompting the need for precaution in the adoption of this new technological product. The scientific and political controversy around the AquAdvantage Salmon® has dominated the debate about the extension of genetic engineering from plants to animals, stalling the regulatory process and discouraging the research and development of other cases (Pollack 2012a).

We consider here this exemplary case, in order to revisit and deepen our investigation on the notion of impact assessment, along two routes.

In the first part, we consider the issue of scientific uncertainties and the normative implications, the complexity and controversy implicit in the impact assessment procedure. Indeed, as we will explicitly review, the research, implementation and commercialization of transgenic salmon involves a number of uncertain facts and contrasting values, concerning the definition, detection, measurement and evaluation of both the possible risks and the declared benefits.

Moreover, the stakes are high; One the one hand the authorization for human consumption would constitute a precedent and open the doors to genetically engineered animals in food production systems, creating a whole new economy for industrial farming. On the other hand, the possible interactions of transgenic salmon with the wild species could induce irreversible damages to global marine ecosystems.

Finally, even though the genetically engineered salmon has been under the

attention and then the review of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) since 1995, the regulatory, decision-making process is embedded in a narrative of urgency. As we will explore, the global growing need for animal protein, the raising concerns about ocean degradation and depletion, the US seafood trade deficit and the possible competitive disadvantage with other countries eventually ahead in the market of transgenic animal food, are some of the main arguments in favor of a fast and effective approval of the AquAdvantage salmon in the US. Ultimately, and way more specifically, the financial survival of AquaBounty Technologies itself is at stake in the waiting.

This narrative of urgency will be explored in the second part of the paper, where we extend our analysis by concentrating on the logically former, fundamental premise of the whole framework of analysis, namely the strong and implicit normative stance according to which we identify impact evaluation with future developments.

This assumption is the grounding pillar of the modern principle of responsibility, according to which we need to predict the future in order to justify our action in the present (Jonas 1985). If we follow these premises, we are lead to paradoxical situation in which we need to know about the future consequences of our implementation in order to act, but we are prevented from knowing the future developments, as a consequence of the intrinsic nature of the very same implementation (Benessia et al., 2012). A way out of this inherent contradiction is to shift our attention back to the present and to divert our analytical and reflective capacity from prediction to diagnose and from responsibility under risk to commitment in times of change (Funtowicz and Strand 2011).

The idea is then to divert our focus from the possible targets and the consequences of the impact, to the impacting object itself,


P a g e | 38

considering the driving forces that bring it into being and determine its trajectory. In other words, we propose to suspend for a moment the scenario of the future developments, risks and promises, and ask in what kind of world this technoscientific product - a genetically engineered, fast-growing salmon - has a meaning that justifies the scientific and economic effort of actually fabricating it, proposing to sell it and being confident that someone will buy it. These issues have to do with how we collectively value the salmon at stake and therefore with it’s quality: as a living being embedded into a net of socio-ecological systems, as a technoscientific commodity, and as food.

As we will see, in this framework, the AquAdvantage salmon can be interpreted as a belonging to the path-dependent trajectory of technoscientific innovation and its main drivers of optimization and substitution (Benessia and Funtowicz 2015).

With these elements in mind, let’s begin our investigation with the scientific uncertainty and disputed values embedded in the research and implementation of genetically engineered salmon.

2. GE salmon: scientific uncertainties and normative implications

As any other technoscientific product, GE salmon depend on scientific research in at least three ways: for its production, impact evaluation and regulation. Accordingly, different epistemic and normative cultures, modes of analysis and decision-making praxes can be applied to its implementation and regulation. More specifically, as we have extensively developed in our previous work (Benessia and Barbiero 2012), both the production and the regulation are driven by the epistemic culture of innovation2, whereas

2 Innovation science (Wynne quoted by Jasanoff,

2005) is typically carried out by private industries,

not rarely granted with public funds (Goldenberg

the impact evaluation can and should be conducted by focusing on the so-called negative or liminal knowledge (Kastenhofer 2007, Knorr Cetina 1999) within the epistemic culture of precautionary science3, in order to deconstruct the main pillars of the innovation approach and leave room for a democratized, post-normal evaluation of biotechnology applied to aquaculture. In what follows, we will start by reviewing the main results emerging from the scientific literature regarding the research behind the production of the AquaBounty GE salmon. We will then move to the complexity and controversy inherent in its possible commercialization.

2011), with the explicit aim of developing and

introducing new (bio)technological products in the

market. The prevalent goal of this type of endeavor is

to make things work. This, in turn, entails a

methodology founded on laboratory trial-and-error

iterative approximation to the desired result, through

the design and management of linear cause-effect

relationships between a limited or limitable number

of variables (i.e. a specific gene for a specific

property, according the central dogma ideal which we

will discuss in the following section). The

corresponding epistemic culture of innovation

science is therefore essentially based on determinism,

reductionism and mechanism, applied in vitro, to

small and de-contextualized temporal and spatial

horizons, and resulting in the production of so-called

hard facts, namely new goods, characterized by a

given set of properties, with the externalization of

uncertainty.

3 Precautionary science (Ravetz, 2004) is normally

undertaken within research institutions such as

universities, and it involves the understanding and the

management of the consequences of large-scale

techno-scientific implementation. Its main focus is

therefore the complexity of interaction between the

organisms involved – conceived and treated as

processes – and the environment. The correlated

epistemic culture of this type of scientific research is

based on observation in situ, through systemic

approaches over large population systems and

extended temporal and spatial horizons, involving

highly non-linear causal links, such as retroaction

mechanisms, dependence on initial conditions etc.


P a g e | 39

Salmon are osteichthyes belonging to the taxonomic family Salmonidae and they are divided into two genera: Oncorhynchus, which includes 14 species of salmon and trout that live in the Pacific Ocean, and Salmo, which includes 29 species of salmon and trout that live in the Atlantic Ocean. The most widely studied genetically modified salmon is the transgenic Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), into which the promoter region4 of a gene regulator controlling the expression of the growth hormone (GH) gene has been inserted. The promoter is directly inserted into fertilized eggs using a vector. Since the fertilization and development of fish eggs occurs externally, no process of internal re-implantation is necessary. Once the females have spawned, their eggs can be collected and subsequently fertilized without any apparent effects upon the development of the salmon fry (Fletcher and Davies 1991). GH stimulates cell division, muscular and skeletal growth, the hepatic production of insulin-like growth factor (IGF) and the immune system. The production of GH is, in turn, inhibited by the presence of glucocorticoids, which have an anti-inflammatory function, and by somatostatin, which inhibits the production of insulin. In addition to Coho salmon, other species of salmon have been engineered to overexpress GH, including the Cherry salmon (Oncorhynchus masou) and, as we will see, the Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar).

2.1 Physiopathology of GE salmon

An analysis of the literature offers a fragmented view of the physiology of genetically modified salmon: studies have been conducted on different Salmoninae subfamily species using different methodologies and with different research objectives. It is therefore difficult to delineate a coherent overall picture. Nevertheless, it appears clear that genetically modified salmon, independent of the originating

4 Originating from the Sockeye salmon,

Oncorhynchus nerka.

species, differ from corresponding non-transgenic on at least three levels: growth, deregulation of the GH axis, and reproduction.

2.1.1 Growth

The most studied species of salmon that has been genetically modified to continually produce GH is the Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). This transgenic salmon grows at a faster rate than non-transgenic Coho salmon as a result of its greater consumption of food (Sundström et al. 2005). Six months post hatching, genetically modified Coho salmon reach the weight and degree of coloration that non-transgenic Coho salmon achieve after 24 months (Devlin et al. 2004). When fed identical quantities of food, genetically modified Coho salmon do not grow faster than their non-transgenic homologues (Stevens and Devlin 2005). Furthermore, if farmed with insufficient access to food, fitness levels in the transgenic Coho salmon are drastically reduced compared to those of non-transgenic Coho salmon farmed under the same conditions, which instead adapt better to conditions of food insufficiency (Delvin et al. 2004).

A more in depth study was performed on Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) by Deitsch and colleagues (2006). As for Coho salmon, transgenic Atlantic salmon grow quicker than non-transgenic salmon of the same species: transgenic Atlantic salmon achieve a body mass index (BMI) that is 21-25% greater than that of the non-transgenic ones. However, as expected, oxygen consumption is unchanged in transgenic Atlantic salmon compared to the non-transgenic, as the gill surface area is not influenced by GH activity. Whatever the cause, transgenic Salmon grow to become much bigger fish, although much less efficient. Transgenic Atlantic salmon have a metabolic rate that is 18% lower and a critical swimming speed that is 9% slower than non-transgenic. On the other hand, transgenic Atlantic salmon possess a cardiac volume that


P a g e | 40

is 29% larger, a cardiac output that is 18% greater and a post-stress blood hemoglobin concentration that is 14% higher than that of non-transgenic homologues. These physiological modifications, associated with significant anatomical aberrations in transgenic salmon, may represent adaptations resulting from the excessive strain placed upon the fish’s metabolic system. This, in turn, might have a negative impact upon swimming performance (Hu et al. 2010).

Thyroid function plays a key role in growth. In a study conducted to investigate thyroid function in relation to salmon growth, Eales and colleagues (2004) considered three groups of Coho salmon: non-transgenic salmon fed to satiation (NTS), transgenic salmon fed to satiation (TS) and transgenic salmon fed the same ratio of food consumed by the non-transgenic salmon (TNT). As expected, the TS group grew twice as fast as NTS and TNT fish. Eales and colleagues then evaluated the plasma concentration of the thyroid hormones T3 and T4. While no differences were found in T4 concentrations between the three groups, greater plasma concentrations of T3 were found in the transgenic salmon (TS and TNT) with respect to non-transgenic. At the same time, the activity of T3 (and T4) in the liver was less in the transgenic salmon (TS and TNT). Thus it seems that the plasma concentrations of T3 and T4 and their hepatic activities depend directly on the expression of GH and not on the quantity of food available.

2.1.2 Biochemical alterations caused by deregulated GH expression

In order to understand the chronic effects of the deregulated expression of GH, it is necessary to analyze the complex cascades of intra- and intercellular biochemical reactions. Although non-exhaustive, some lines of experimental evidence provide important information. For example, a study conducted on the expression of hepatic genes in

transgenic Cherry salmon (Oncorhynchus masou) revealed that the mRNA expression levels of the following proteins are all increased in these fishes: the enzyme haeme oxygenase; leukocyte cell-derived chemotaxin (LECT2); α-trypsin inhibitors; proteins linked to iron metabolism; and proteins linked to the reproductive system. On the other hand, the expression of lectin, D-6-desaturase, apolipoprotein and pentraxin were reduced in transgenic Cherry salmon. Pentraxin is involved in a specific immune processes, which appear to be weakened in second (F2) and third (F3) generations of transgenic Cherry salmon (Mori et al. 2007). In another study conducted on transgenic Coho salmon fed to satiation, increases were detected in: tissue levels of glutathione – a tripeptide that performs important antioxidant functions; glutathione reductase activity – which catalyzes the formation of glutathione disulfide; and γ-glutamiltranspeptidasi activity in the intestine – an enzyme critical for the catabolism of glutathione (Leggat, et al. 2007). However, all values lay within normal ranges if food ratio were restricted, demonstrating that the regulation of the antioxidant system is linked to accelerated growth and not to the direct activity of the transgene.

2.1.3 Reproduction

The reproductive behaviors of transgenic Coho salmon have been studied in relation to the ecological consequences of their interaction with wild Coho salmon in natural habitats. Bessey and colleagues (2004) observed that transgenic Coho salmon are able to mate with their non-transgenic homologues and give rise to fertile offspring. Transgenic Coho salmon reach sexual maturity at around 2-3 years of age – extremely early compared to non-transgenic Coho salmon that instead require 4-5 years. Female transgenic Coho salmon appear to be more fertile, even though they display less courtship behavior and produce fewer eggs of smaller dimensions compared to non-


P a g e | 41

transgenic females in the wild. Transgenic male Coho salmon do not differ from the non-transgenic males with regard to the production of gametes and courtship behavior in non-competitive conditions; but in competitive conditions, the transgenic males also display less courtship behavior.

2.2 Ecology

The second line of investigation is focused on the ecological impact of genetically modified salmon: i.e. the study of the relationships between the communities of genetically modified and wild (non-transgenic) salmon. Two issues constitute the heart of the debate: does the presence of the transgene change the reproductive fitness of transgenic salmon compared to that of wild salmon? And, what happens if a transgenic salmon mixes with a population of wild salmon? Three main areas of experimental investigation can thus be defined: (1) the potential competition between genetically modified and wild salmon populations; (2) the possible transfer of the transgene into the wild salmon population; and (3) the evaluation of the predatory behavior expressed by genetically modified salmon towards their non-transgenic homologues.

As the evaluation of reproductive fitness in natural environments is difficult to evaluate experimentally, several theoretical models have been developed. One of the most interesting model is the one proposed by Muir and Howard (1999) who coined the concept of the “Trojan Gene Effect”. The two scientists from Purdue University posit that when a transgene confers a survival disadvantage while at the same time a mating advantage, the mating advantage would drive the transgene into a natural population while the survival disadvantage would cause population numbers to gradually spiral downward and eventually result in local extinction of the wild population. In another theoretical model, the increase in the frequency of the transgenic genotype

corresponds with a reduction in the reproductive fitness of the wild population (Hendrick, 2001). Together, these models highlight the fact that the simple introduction of a genetically modified salmon into a natural environment, independent of its relative reproductive fitness that may be greater or less than that of the wild homologue, increases the risk of extinction of the wild species.

It is also interesting to note the observations of Devlin and colleagues (2004): according to these authors, when transgenic Coho salmon are farmed in the same tank as their non-transgenic homologues with an abundance of food available, the fish develop without interfering with each other. However, when farmed under conditions of limited food resources, the transgenic Coho salmon adopt more aggressive behaviors, expressing dominance over the non-transgenic and interfering with the latter’s growth to the extent that the GM fish may start to hunt and feed upon the smaller non-transgenic salmon; thus leading both populations towards extinction. Under the same food shortage conditions, the non-transgenic salmon farmed alone would have survived without any particular problem. Although it is difficult to establish conditions of food “shortage” or “abundance” in a natural environment, concerns remain relative to the danger represented by the accidental introduction of transgenic Coho salmon into a population of wild Coho salmon.

Overall, these studies seem to highlight a recurrent theme within the realm of ecology: even minimal variations in baseline conditions can result in very different results, making studies difficult to compare. It is therefore difficult to evaluate experimentally the risk associated with the introduction of GM salmon into aquatic ecosystems.


P a g e | 42

2.3. Towards the commercialization of GE salmon

When leaving the realm of research and stepping into the actual industrial production of a patented GE salmon for a possible commercial use, the reductionist framework of innovation and regulatory science clashes inevitably against the precautionary approach of ecology and physiology. The issues that we have explored so far become then inevitably controversial, facts and values entangled. Let’s see how.

As we have mentioned, AquAdvantage Salmon is the trade name of the genetically modified Atlantic salmon created by AquaBounty Technologies Inc. (ABT). AquAdvantage Salmon contains a genetic construct made by the promoter and the terminal region of an antifreeze gene extracted from the Ocean Pout (Zoarces americanus) genome and the growth hormone (GH) regulating gene from Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). In non-transgenic salmon, the gene promoter that regulates the production of GH is only expressed in response to specific environmental stimuli, including temperature and the duration of daytime light (Bjornsson 1997), while the promoter in genetically modified salmon is constantly active (Devlin et al. 1995). As gene expression systems are regulated by negative feedback, it is clear that the choice of a promoter obtained from a species that does not belong to Salmonidae was aimed at preventing the action of the growth regulators in Atlantic salmon; thus isolating the system that produces GM from the salmon’s own physiology5. GH in Atlantic salmon is very similar to that of Chinook salmon, although not identical. The mRNA nucleotide sequences of the two GH genes possess 90% homology (1013/1126

5 On the other hand, the choice of an Oncorhynchus

is not necessary from the biological point of view,

but it becomes essential to provide the transgenic fish

with a more reassuring identity as a “natural” fish.

nucleotides). A comparison of the protein sequences found that 198/210 of the amino acids were identical, 7/210 of the amino acids were similar, but 5/210 amino acids were effectively different (Bodnar 2010)6. The process of integrating the genetic construct – called EO-1α – resulted in the rearrangement of the promoter that reduced its potential expression. This transgenic salmon was then crossed with a non-transgenic Atlantic salmon and the EO-1α genetic construct was found to be stable in second (F2) and fourth (F4) generations (Yaskowiak 2006).

Female AquAdvantage Salmon homozygous for the EO-1α genetic construct are induced to transform into males (neomales) by treatment with 17-methyltestosterone. The male gametes produced (which do not contain male chromosomes, however, being derived from female chromosomes) are used to fertilize the eggs produced by non-transgenic salmon. In this way, all new-born are female and possess a copy of the EO-1α gene (Bodnar 2010) .

The data made available by ABT indicate that AquAdvantage Salmon grow in body weight approximately 2 times faster than non-transgenic Atlantic salmon and its feed conversion rate is about 10% lower than conventional salmon (AquaBounty Technology 2010). The idea is then to develop a fish product that is substantially equivalent to its wild type counterpart, but it is functionally different, namely more efficient, as it requires less time to grow and be ready for the market.

2.3.1. Growth rate and the standard Atlantic salmon

The official picture of the AquAdvantage salmon portrays two fish swimming in crystal clear waters over artificially blue pebbles,

6 This sex-reversal technique is a common practice in

trout farming, as female grow faster and with has

higher quality flesh (Dunham 2011).


P a g e | 43

side by side. They both look alike except the one is double the size of the other7. The image, first publicized by ABT itself and then filtered through all scientific and popular media, is meant to represent the difference in size – and size only – of two salmon of the same age, about 10 to 12 months old. In other words, it represents a growth rate and not the end state of development. The intrinsic ambiguity of the picture evokes ABT constant need to reassure the public of the fact the actual size of its trademarked salmon is not out of proportion when maturing and entering into the market. An overall larger size would indeed foster the stigma of abnormality associated with the GE fish and, even more importantly, raise ecological concerns about a possible mating advantage of the transgenic salmon over smaller non-transgenic populations8.

If the identity of the bigger fish – the GE salmon – is unequivocal, the other – the non-transgenic, standard comparator – is highly controversial. The technical-scientific counterpart of this photograph is the ABT growth diagram presented in the regulatory submission to the FDA, where weight is measured as a function of time (Aquabounty Technology 2010). There, we see the AquAdvantage growth curve comfortably above an unspecified “Standard Salmon” size development. The issue is to define what a “standard” farmed Atlantic salmon actually is. Indeed, different strains of salmon do not grow alike, and the traditional breeding technology has made enormous progress in optimizing growth-rates. In 2011, Norwegian grower Salmonbreed issued a press release showing that its own (non-transgenic) salmon grow as fast or faster than ABT salmon. In the document, within the same kind of diagram, the Salmonbreed growth curves are comparable or higher than the

7 See http://aquabounty.com.

8 Published studies report that, in some cases,

transgenic fish do not only grow faster, but also reach

a larger size (de la Fuente et al. 1999).

AquAdvantage salmon (Salmonbreed 2011). More recently, a governmental Canadian risk assessment draft review casted further doubts about the accelerated growth rates of the GE salmon (Colwell 2015, Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2013).

What is presented as an objective and certain scientific assertion becomes inevitably questionable - and it is questioned - when the stakes associated with the assertion begin to grow. In this case the European salmon farmers and breeders, particularly the Norwegian who dominate the aquaculture industry, a sector that globally amounts to a business of $107 billion-a-year, obviously look at the possible emergence of a US GE salmon into the international market with careful and competitive attention (Gibbs 2011).

2.3.2 Physiopathological problems and the data controversy

In a report addressed to the Center for Veterinary Medicine of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (CVM-FDA), ABT acknowledges that the first generations of AquAdvantage Salmon exhibited a high rate of malformations, although they then underline that after ten years of crosses “the health and well-being” of AquAdvantage Salmon does not differ from that of non-transgenic Atlantic salmon (AquaBounty Technology 2010). However, no scientific explanation of this phenomenon is supplied. The Veterinary Medicine Advisory Committee (VMAC) seemed to be surprised, above all because “the decrease in irregularities was not as notable in non-GE comparators”, but they then concluded that “it may be a function of the underlying genetics of the brood stock families used in the breeding crosses, or possibly, other factors” (VMAC 2010, p. 29). It would be interesting to know what these “other factors” are, as the data arising from only five years of investigation were


P a g e | 44

considered and, above all, the trend in the values of malformations seems to be random: for example, in the final year of analysis, the percentage of non-transgenic salmon, used as controls, presenting malformations was equal to 71.5% (Table 4, p. 28), a surprisingly high value.

In addition, a more complete understanding of animal physiopathological issues is problematic, as a consequence of the standard culling practice for selectively improving the brood stock and optimize the use of available space, the AquaBounty data about physiopathological problems were inherently biased (FDA–VMAC 2010 p.26). This issue has been acknowledged by the VMAC and the FDA suggested implementing “post-approval safety surveillance” measures, applying a controversial post-market regulatory approach (FDA–VMAC 2010 p.60, Development Fund 2013).

Finally, until ABT releases the experimental protocols about the growth of the AquAdvantage salmon, the only possibility for independent researchers is to extract inferential data from similarly engineered species. And, as we have seen, the available data indicate: 1) serious skeletal and muscular malformations that can compromise the swimming performance of the fish (Lee et. al. 2003) 2) un-synchronic growth of the skeleton-muscular apparatus with respect to the cardio-breathing apparatus, which can even kill the fish for suffocation (Deitch et al. 2006) 3) hormonal dysfunctions, in particular regarding the thyroid gland, which regulates the overall metabolism of the organism (Eales et al. 2004).

2.3.3. Ecological problems and the narrative of control

Currently, ABT produces GE salmon eggs in its facility in Saint Prince Island, Canada and then fly them to another facility in Boquete, Panama where the salmon are grown to

market size. The plan is then to ship the final fish product to the United States for consumption. This quite impractical geographical and logistic configuration has a specific history.

In 1995, when E/F Protein – the early name of today AquaBounty - first applied to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to regulate its product, the AquAdvantage salmon was meant to occupy a (possibly advantageous) place into the conventional open-water net-pen marine aquaculture industry (Bratsbies 2008). The life of this business plan was meant to be short.

As transgenic salmon can mate and give rise to fertile offspring, in the late nineties, raising concerns about the environmental risks of GE escapees into open waters prompted the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization (NASCO) to issue specific guidelines directing that aquaculture of transgenic salmon occurred only in self-contained, land-based facilities (NASCO 1997) and enacted an agreement to adopt a precautionary approach to the possible implementation of GE salmon aquaculture (NASCO 1998). In 2002, the National Research Council also called for caution in experimentation and commercialization of transgenic fish (NRC 2002). The open questions of gene transfer and possible genetic invasion of the transgenic species, fostered by the formulation of the Trojan-Gene Effect by Muir and Howard in 1999, fuelled vigorous objections to the possible commercialization of GE salmon by a number of NGOs and other representative of the civil society, such as the Union of Concerned Scientists, calling for more information and research given the many unknowns of this open field experimentation (UCS 2001). In 2003, this overall climate lead NASCO to issue a resolution terming transgenic salmon as “high risk” and proposing a set of guidelines to direct member states to “take all possible actions to ensure that the use of transgenic salmon, in any part of the NASCO Convention


P a g e | 45

Area, is confined to secure, self-contained, land-based facilities” (NASCO 2003).

Given the broad and raising agreement about the potential risks of GE salmon joining the vast crowds of escapees from conventional open water net-pen aquaculture (Gausen and Moen 1991, McKinnell et al. 1997 and Crozier 1998), and the consequent lowering probability of approval from the FDA, AquAbounty modified its business plan, abandoning the idea of conventional open sea facilities and moving towards the idea of self-contained, land-based aquaculture. From then on, with a quite brilliant marketing shift, the GE salmon became the only solution to make this highly expensive and less polluting fish farming technique economically feasible.

A new facility was established in 2007 in the remote Panamanian location of Boquete, on the banks of the Calderas river in the western highlands of Chiriqui province. The choice of the place was never commented by ABT, if not on the grounds of being a highly hostile environment for possible escaped salmon. Indeed the water temperature of the nearby canals is high enough to jeopardize the survival of a GE salmon, and the closest sea is the Pacific ocean, where AquAdvantage Atlantic salmon would have no chance to reproduce, given that Atlantic and Pacific salmon don’t interbreed9 (Bodnar 2010).

Established in 1996, the hatchery in Saint Prince Island is also self-contained. Although the fresh watercourses in Eastern Canada have been historically one of the natural habitats of Atlantic salmon, their current degradation due to acid rain and the installation of physical barriers make them an

9 Commentators suggest that ABT moved to Panama

for its less regulated approach to biotechnology.

Indeed, if the GE salmon they are grown outside of

the United States, AquaBounty does not have to

complete a full Environmental Impact Statement as

required by the Environmental Protection Agency

(Greenberg 2010).

unfriendly environment to salmon escapees (Bodnar 2010).

Following a narrative of control (Benessia and Barbiero 2012), in addition to these environmental barriers, ABT implemented a number of containment strategies within its facilities. The first barrier is biological, consisting on farming only sterile female salmon. Sterility occurs due to the fact that these salmon are made triploid, i.e they contain three copies of each chromosome, instead of the usual two copies (diploid). Crucially in this context, triploid fish do not produce gametes. The most common method used to create triploid fish is to expose the eggs to a pressure shock treatment. This causes the retention of the second polar body and the eggs thereby retain their chromosome complement (Benfey et al. 1988). However, triploid fish develop more slowly (Devlin et al. 2004) and exhibit a higher probability of manifesting aberrant phenotypes (VMAC 2010), but this seems to be the price that the industry is willing to pay in order to guarantee the sterility of farmed salmon.

Moreover, and quite significantly in this scenario, sterility is never complete (Devlin 2010). This procedure has a success rate equal to 98.9% in the ABT laboratories, with 1.1% of eggs remaining diploid. An open concern about this issue emerges in the report by ABT: “the acceptance criterion is such that the likelihood of releasing a batch of eyed-eggs that are not at least 95% triploid is less than 0.05. Individual upwelling chambers that fail to meet test criteria will be re-tested and destroyed upon confirmed failure” (AquaBounty Technology 2010, p. 61). Confirming the lack of reliability of the proposed sterilization procedure, in 2011, the US Department of Agriculture granted the company a controversial funding of about half a million dollars to improve ABT biological containment technologies (USDA 2011).


P a g e | 46

Finally, the physical containment consists on an elaborate series of measures, leading the ABT CEO Roy Scotish to define its facilities as “aquatic Forth Knox” (Henry 2014). Indeed, ABT isolates its structures through the use of security enclosures, the use of 24-hour surveillance guards assisted by security cameras, the implementation of a series of filters, nets and other containment systems, and the sterilization of the egg production plant drainage areas using chlorine to kill eggs that escape filters (Bodnar 2010).

The risk of harm from GE animals is defined in the regulatory framework as the product of (a) harm, given exposure to the hazard (i.e. the GE animal) and (b) the probability of exposure. By focusing on the reduction of the probability of exposure, with its redundancy of biological, environmental and physical security measures, ABT has obtained a favorable environmental assessment from the FDA in 2013, with a “finding of no significant impact” (FDA 2013).

William R. Muir, one of the authors of the well-known work on the “Trojan gene effect”, presented his own favorable scientific-based opinion in a VMAC public meeting, hosted by the FDA in September 2010 (Muir 2013). In his talk, he explained why the AquAdvantage salmon would not be a plausible carrier of a Trojan gene, thus presenting “little or no environmental risk” of genetic spread, quoting among others, the work of Moreau and colleagues. In this paper, published in 2011, the authors conclude that: “Although transgenic males displayed reduced breeding performance relative to non transgenic ones, both male reproductive phenotypes demonstrated the ability to participate in natural spawning events and thus have the potential to contribute genes to subsequent generation" (Moreau et al. 2011). The search for liminal knowledge that characterizes the epistemic culture of precautionary science is measured up against the more pragmatic need for certainty of regulatory science: what constitutes a little – essentially not

measurable – risk of genetic spread, becomes not significant in the hands of a scientific advisor called to regulate a product of technoscientific innovation10.

In the second part of its report, Muir presented “theory and data concluding that conventional farming of salmon in net pens is potentially more harmful than GE salmon due to competition and genetic load issues” (Muir 2013). His rationale for comparing the two distinct cases is justified by the fact that, in his words, “there is no such thing as zero risks and all risks are relative to an alternative” (Muir 2013). In analogy with the purported benefits of AquAdvantage salmon – namely its growth rate – the objectivity inherent in the choice of the relative risk comparator is questionable. More specifically, the idea that the two options are mutually exclusive and they are the only available possibilities is the result of a specific implicit framing of the issue at stake. As we will see, the more likely scenario in case of approval is that both products (GE salmon produced inland and non-GE salmon produced in open waters) are available and competing on the market.

Moreover, in this approach to risk assessment, the kind of farmed fish (i.e. the

10

In addition to the concerns related to the impact on

the genetic makeup of wild salmon populations of a

Trojan Gene, escaping GE populations might also

adversely affect other native fish, invading their

niches. In a recent article, scientists from Canada

have found that transgenic Atlantic salmon can cross-

breed with the brown trout, a closely related species

(Oke et al. 2013). Even sterile GE fish may pose

problems to wild populations, as escaped transgenic

fish would still engage in courtship and spawning

behaviour that could disrupt breeding in wild

populations and decrease overall reproductive

success. Also, even without exhibiting any

reproductive behaviour at all, escaped sterile fish

could still create ecological interference by simply

competing with wild fish. In this overall scenario, the

presence of radical uncertainty and unknown

unknowns cannot be ruled out (Kapucinsky in Palca

2011).


P a g e | 47

harm factor) and the facilities in which they are raised (i.e. the probability of exposure) are intertwined: when compared to the highly vulnerable conventional aquaculture net-pens, in direct contact with open waters and prone to the attack of predators and extreme weather events, the ABT actual aquatic Fort Knox-types facilities are predictably less exposed to a risk of breakdown. On the other hand, the risk of escaped non-transgenic salmon compromising the wild populations relative to the one of escaped GE salmon is essentially skewed towards the latter: this is the reason why, as we have seen, conventional aquaculture of GE salmon has been classified as “high risk” by NASCO in 200311. Clearly, then, the safest way to farm GE salmon is inland, but the optimal solution in terms of relative risks would be to raise non-GE salmon under the same conditions, requiring less security measures. When combined with the dispute about the actual growth rate of non-transgenic salmon, the debate about relative risk and benefits becomes inevitably complex and controversial.

Finally, in terms of absolute, cumulative risk, when the pre-market scenario is scaled up to the extensive commercial operations, all measures of containment and risk mitigation become questionable. Indeed, in the event of a final approval, AquaBounty plans on selling the GE sterilized eggs to ad hoc contained, in-land facilities in the US territory and Canada, supposedly equipped with the same complex, expensive system of barriers. Given the significant numbers of fish raised in such a large-scale industrial production system,

11

The FDA did examine the likelihood of GE salmon

escaping (i.e. probability of exposure), but did not

extensively analyze the environmental consequences

if salmon did escape (i.e. harm, given the exposure to

the hazard). The quality of the expertise of the US

Agency has been highly contested, together with the

failure to adequately consult with other US

government agencies with the required expertise (US

Senate Subcommittee on Ocean, Atmosphere,

Fisheries and Coast Guard Oversight 2011).

even a very low but non zero probability of accident, inherent in any system of barriers (Guarnieri et al. 2008), would end up amounting to a significant risk of GE salmon escape, drastically raising up the probability of exposure.

2.3.4 Human health implications and material equivalence

As we have mentioned, the AquAdvantage Salmon is the first genetically modified animal designed for human consumption. The issue of its health implication is thus absolutely new and, for this reason, independent, systematic studies about food safety do not yet exist. The matters of concern are two-fold: (1) allergenicity, and (2) the undesired modification of the biochemical composition of the edible tissues due to the alteration of metabolic processes.

The Atlantic salmon in itself is a known allergenic food, thus it is probable that the AquAdvantage Salmon is also as such. ABT claims to have conducted studies on its allergenicity, but they were considered as unsatisfactory by the CVM-FDA. The CVM-FDA have since conducted their own studies on the allergenic potential of triploid salmon expressing the EO-1α gene, which did not result as being different from that of controls (VMAC 2010).

ABT declares to have carried out analyses on the principal biochemical components of the edible tissues of the salmon (carbohydrates, proteins, total fats, vitamins and minerals) without finding any significant variations, with the only exception of a slight increase in the concentration of vitamin B6 in the AquAdvantage Salmon (0.77 mg/g of tissue), which anyway remains lower than that found in other edible fish, such as tuna (0.8 mg/g). However, the most important problem could be the increased hormone content of the edible tissues of the AquAdvantage Salmon. In particular, the higher concentration of insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) gives rise


P a g e | 48

to concern: 10.26 ng/g in AquAdvantage Salmon compared to 7.34 ng/g in wild Atlantic salmon. IGF-1 in salmon, though being relatively different to the human version (35/141 amino acids are different), could conserve significant biological activity. IGF is a strong stimulator of cell proliferation and its production by specific types of hepatocyte depends directly on the activity of GH (Giovannucci et al. 2003). According to Bodnar (2010), salmon IGF-1 is 2-3 times less effective at binding human IGF-1 receptors compared to mammal IGF-1. But these are very approximate data. The conditions of these evaluations are not indicated and the receptor-hormone affinities in very different species is not explored. As IGF-1 represents a critical issue, it is unsettling that the FDA hasn’t conducted a complete analysis in order to evaluate on the one hand the actual concentration of IGF-1 in edible tissues of the AquAdavantage salmon, on the other the binding affinity with the human IGF-1 receptor (McEvilly 2013).

In addition, as we have seen regarding the biochemical alterations caused by deregulated GH expression, the study of the possible health implications cannot be limited to the analysis of the direct effect of the transgene action (VMAC 2010), nor to the study of allergens (Van Eennemann and Muir 2011) but has to be extended to the direct and indirect effects on the entire cell metabolic network.

In conclusion, from what we have explored so far, the assessment of environment and health implications is fragmented and incomplete within the regulatory framing of the FDA. However, even more radically, it is also inherently limited by the choice the framing. The health risks are quantified by FDA by comparing the nutritional profile of a GE salmon to a non-GE salmon and screening for toxins and allergens, in order to evaluate if the transgenic fish is “materially equivalent” to the non-transgenic one. This quite restrictive approach, which doesn’t

consider the environmental issues per se, derives from the fact that the transgenic animals are regulated as veterinary drugs and not as food. Indeed, according to US regulatory processes12, the transfer of genetic information can be viewed as a way to deliver a drug (hormone, protein, etc.) to the tissue of the animal. In the case of the AquaBounty’s transgenic fish, the ocean pout promoter gene is considered as a drug delivering growth hormones to the tissues of the fish. Moreover, only an abstract pre-market scenario is analyzed, leaving aside the considerable possible larger-scale, irreversible implications of the actual GE salmon commercialization (Bratspies 2008, Smith 2010).

Overall, in this highly reductionist framework, the complexity of the interaction between the transgenic fish and the network of ecological, economical, social and cultural systems it depends upon, is not acknowledged.

3. GE salmon and the narrative of innovation: optimization and substitution

With this overall picture in mind, let’s now shift our attention to the driving forces that have brought into existence the AquAdvantage salmon, and the current legal, scientific and regulatory controversy around it13.

12

The United States has decided to regulate

transgenic animals under the Food and Drug Act’s

New Animal Drug Act (NADA) authority

(CEQ/OSTP 2000).

13

A full account of the controversy around the

commercialization of AquAdvantage salmon is

beyond the scope of this work. We provide here an

overview by listing the main stakeholders involved

and referring to a few articles in journals and mass

media for some details: 1) ABT, trying to financially

survive and move forward its business plan (Pollack

2012b); 2) FDA, slowly progressing in the regulation


P a g e | 49

As we have mentioned, the motives behind the research, production and possible commercialization of the transgenic fish can be regarded as belonging to a grand narrative of technoscientific innovation, defined as the engine of economic, social and environmental wealth, and a way out of our contemporary systemic crisis (European Commission 2010 and 2011).

3.1. The narrative of innovation and the commoditization of food

The dominant discourse about innovation is invoked as a solution for sustaining our accelerating increase of global resource consumption within a single planet, i.e. a complex, closed and finite system, with limited stocks and bio-geo-chemical resilience (Rockström et al. 2009). The way out of this paradoxical dynamic is to rely on the (unlimited) human creativity, in order to decouple growth from scarcity, optimizing the use of natural resources and ultimately substituting them altogether, with substantially equivalent, technological optimized artifacts. At the same time, in the narrative of innovation, the human power to enhance socio-ecological systems has to be applied to treat the possible negative outcomes as they arise, taming complexity, uncertainty and the risks of failures through

process (Pollack 2010) 3) the government of Canada

and Panama addressing regulatory and economic

issues (Goldenberg 2013, Colwell 2015); 3) US

Senate and Congress, Obama administration (United

States Senate 2013, Congress of Representatives

2013, Goldenberg 2013, Entine 2011); 4) US

aquaculture industry (Joy 2010); 5) other nations

expressing the interests of their aquaculture industry

(Development Fund 2013); 6) the animal

biotechnologists and the biotech industry (Prakash et

al. 2012, Muir 2013 and Roberts et. al.2014); 6) food

related NGOs (http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org

http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org see for example

Larsen 2014) 7) the US retailers and consumers

(Burros 2002). For a general overview of the recent

chronology see:

http://www.thestar.com/projects/genetically_modifie

d_food_should_we_fear_this_fish.html

the implementation of effective ad hoc technoscientific silver bullets.

Moreover, innovation is taken as the mainstream solution in order to keep sustaining growth in a hyper-saturated market, by opening up new pathways of competitiveness and consumption, to be filled with new, constantly upgraded and more seductive products and services.

Finally, in order for the whole narrative to be functional, a fundamental condition has to be met: citizens of developing, developed and declining economies have to value and ultimately buy - both metaphorically and literally – the processes and products of technoscientific innovation. This means that the societal expectations about the goods have to be encouraged and the concerns about the bads deflected (EC 2013).

In terms of food production, this narrative was first at work in the 60s, with the wonders of the “Green Revolution”: the prospect to intensify and optimize the process of agriculture and farming through the use of chemical and mechanical technologies, all based on fossil fuels. With the industrialization of the production system and the ability to accumulate a significant surplus, the commodification of food became possible. As a result of this process, food began to be considered for its exchange-value first, and its use-value only second (Araghi 2003). The ideal of technological power as a way to provide food security and at the same time economic growth was then established. Production efficiency had to be indefinitely increased in order for industries to continue growing and rising return of investments: the combination of selective breeding, fertilizers and pesticides became essential for the whole system to be functional. This focus on optimization necessarily externalized environmental degradation and ecosystems disruption, and fostered the idea that natural resources could be substituted with technologically enhanced products.


P a g e | 50

In early nineties, with the globalization of food markets, this transition was deepened by a number of factors, including the decoupling of animal farming from land (Naylor et al. 2005) and the onset of genetic engineering into the agri-food industry (Jasanoff 2005). With the so-called “Gene Revolution”, biotechnology monopolized the scene of technoscientific innovation for food production, with the promise of boosting yields and reducing production costs and environmental impacts, thus ensuring – again – both higher profits and food security for a growing population. This further move towards the commodification of food consisted on the possibility to transform the conventional practice of selective breeding into an invention – through direct genetic manipulation – that could be patented, just like any other technological breakthrough. In the late nineties, this further technoscientific move encountered the opposition of citizens and governments, especially within the European Union, for a combination of environmental, health and economic concerns (Jasanoff 2005). In a quite unanticipated scenario, the biotech industry had to develop a whole new set of positive narratives, in order to balance the resistance of both investors and consumers (Benessia and Barbiero 2012): once again, the urgent need to feed a fast growing global population, then the necessity to adapt to and even mitigate climate change, and finally the possibility of limiting the use of chemical and pesticides. These were developed then as main arguments in favor of a transition to a genetically engineered agriculture system.

Around the same time and within the same context, the farming of aquatic organisms in controlled environments became a global industry, supplementing the declining supply of fisheries and increasing the global fish market. In perfect analogy with industrial agriculture and farming, the ideal of the “Blue Revolution” is to use technology to maximize productivity by reducing unpredictability – in this case of harvesting fish – and boosting the

efficiency of animal growth and feed-to-biomass ratio through selective breeding.

A new “food regime” was then in place, where animal proteins produced with feed from a variety of nations were channeled into consolidated food chains to supply privileged consumers with fresh meat and fish (McMichael 2009).

As we have seen, in the same years, a US aquaculture industry named E/F Protein developed and patented a fast-growing fish called AquAdvantage salmon. The US Food and Drug Administration was then appointed to regulate its possible commercialization for human consumption.

3.2 The salmon industry: optimization and substitution

Today, approximately half of all fish consumed by humans is raised on farms and modern industrial salmon aquaculture is among the most relevant and profitable form of fish farming (FAO 2014). The recent history of the relationship between human beings and salmon follows a common pattern of over-exploitation and environmental degradation, leading to a major decline in the wild fish populations, both in the Atlantic and the Pacific rivers and oceans (Greenberg 2010). Like with other natural resources, we are facing the paradox of a required production growth within a regime of increasing scarcity. The majority of the world’s fisheries are either fully exploited, overexploited, or depleted. It is estimated “that the global ocean has lost more than 90% of large predatory fishes” since the pre-industrial level (Meyers and Worm 2003).

In the framing of innovation, the growing demand of seafood is driven by consumption needs, caused population growth and a legitimate call for healthier sources of animal proteins, leading to the necessity of producing more fish for the global market. On the other hand, scarcity of salmon resources


P a g e | 51

is due to overfishing and habitat depletion. The solution to this conundrum consists on a number of technological fixes, enacted both as conservation measures and production boosts. These innovations are founded on two fundamental principles: optimization and substitution. The first is the ideal that the efficiency of production can be increased more or less indefinitely, through a progressive reduction of the matter, energy and time involved in the process. This is only possible if a second assumption is considered, i.e. that natural resources can be substituted with technologically enhanced artifacts. In our case, the ecological and biological characteristics of salmon can and have to be altered so that they no longer require free-flowing clean rivers for spawning and reproduction, and entire seasons in the ocean for predating and maturing.

In their recent studies on fisheries and aquaculture, US environmental sociologists Clausen, Longo and Clark (2012, 2014 and 2015) provide a compelling historical and socio-economic analysis of these technoscientific fixes on wild salmon, essentially structured in three phases: hatchery enhancement, conventional fish farming and genetic engineered inland aquaculture. In our context, each phase corresponds to the substitution of a component of salmon lifecycle, in order to keep optimizing the production process and increasing its output, in spite of environmental degradation and ocean depletion.

The first hatchery-enhancement policies, introduced in the late nineteen century in Basin Columbia, aimed at supplementing wild population to increase the number of salmon that could be sold on the market, while mitigating the effect of salmon habitat degradation. At that time, the migratory rivers were progressively covered with dams to supply with hydroelectric power the raising industries and irrigation-intensive farms, and the clean, oxygenated watersheds

were polluted by agricultural run-off and industrial waste (Lichatowicz 1999). Salmon could no longer reach their natural spawning grounds and the technical solution was to substitute natural with artificial spawning: fish managers could extract the eggs and milt from salmon brook stock, mix their genetic material and raise the fertilized eggs in closed containers. Once the salmon grew enough in the hatchery, they would be released into selected streams and allowed to reach the oceans. This technological fix introduced the issue of genetic pollution: the genetic traits selected to optimize the salmon’s early life in the hatchery environment decreased their fitness in natural environment. As they were interbreeding with wild salmon, they ended up weakening the overall population and paradoxically contributing to its further decline. In other words, the substitution had a cost.

The next stage in the process of optimization was the introduction of salmon farming, which expanded in the global market in the early 1980s. In this case, the entire migration process is eliminated and salmon remain in captivity for their whole lifecycle. The young smolts14 are transferred from the hatchery were they were born to net pens or cages suspended in coastal marine waters, where they are artificially fed and allowed to grow until right before sexual maturity. At that time, they are harvested and sold.

By compensating and ideally substituting traditional fishery in the global market, this innovation is meant to eliminate the need to regulate harvest and protect or restore salmon habitat. Moreover, this optimization process allows producing fresh salmon all year around, of uniform size and features. In analogy with industrial agriculture and farming, conformity and predictability substitute variety and seasonality. Moreover, as the industrialization process is complete,

14

The young salmon are called smolts when they are

ready to live in saltwater.


P a g e | 52

the energy, matter and time required to produce one salmon can and have to be optimized: through selective breeding, photoperiod and water temperature manipulation, mechanized and high performance feeding. The costs of this substitution, namely the physiological, environmental and ecological drawbacks – such as infectious salmon anemia (ISA) outbreaks, sea lice infestations, water and genetic pollution ¬– are supposedly controlled and treated through more fixes and containment measures, or simply externalized (Lymbery 2002). Moreover, as the natural ratio between big predators - such as salmon - and the small fish they eat is broken, a new resource scarcity issue has to be solved. Small fisheries and the fish oil derived from them, fundamental for intensive aquaculture feed, are rapidly declining.

In this framework, salmon is conceived and valued as a commodity for global markets, requiring constant growth and returns on investments, rather than as a nutritional food source and a component in an ecosystem. Interestingly though, in order for the whole system to be functional, as we have mentioned, people have to value farmed salmon in order to buy them, and they are certainly more inclined to do it if they identify them as a source of healthy and environmentally friendly food, than as an industrially optimized commodity. Hence the inherent ambivalence of the whole narrative of innovation: For investors, salmon farming is the best solution for optimizing the production process and boosting productivity and profits. For consumers, salmon farming is meant to fix the issue of wild fish population decline, while feeding a growing human population with a healthy and cheap source of animal proteins. This is the ideal and controversial win-win scenario of sustainable growth (Benessia and Funtowicz 2015): one interesting open question in this regard is if the actual demand of seafood is driven by production (i.e. need for economic growth) or consumption (i.e. actual need for food). From

what we have seen, in the current “third food regime”, the former is a far more likely candidate for an answer than the latter.

In this overall context, the idea of producing a genetically modified, fast-growing salmon for human consumption becomes perfectly understandable and not novel at all, as belonging to the same path-dependent trajectory of innovation. The narrative associated with the product of AquaBounty follows the lines of the previous technologies: For the consumers, it is meant to address the issue of global hunger and provide healthy and cheap animal proteins (Smith et al. 2010), while tackling the problem of fishery depletion (the first level of environmental cost of the industrialization process). Moreover, it promises to fix the ecological consequences of the technology it is supposed to replace, namely the environmental pressure of conventional aquaculture (the second level of environmental costs). For the investors, transgenic salmon aquaculture is meant to further lower the budget of production, by improving productivity and profit shares15.

All this is proposed at the price of a new kind of substitution, within the salmon’s own physiology. The idea is to push the optimization process one step further by enhancing the fish metabolism so that it requires even less time, space and matter to grow to market size. What was originally a wild fish is substituted with a technoscientific, patented invention16. As we have explored in the first part of our work, once again, this substitution has an inherent cost, represented by the higher stakes in

15

This aspect is controversial, as it depends on the

amount of licensing fees for the patented eggs and the

cost of the environmental conditions and the

containment measures required for deployment

(Kelso 2003).

16

The AquAdvantage salmon was defined as one of

ten best inventions of 2010 by Times magazine

(Walsh 2010).


P a g e | 53

terms of public and private investments, health and environmental risks.

Finally, given the resistance of both potential consumers and investors (Kelso 2003), a new set of arguments is added to the narrative, mainly directed to regulators and based on the political economy of food, namely the global competition for market shares. First, as a major innovation in the homeland industry of fish farming, the production of transgenic salmon is aimed at bridging the gap of the US seafood trade deficit (Forristall 2014). Second, a refusal or even a delay in the approval of the new technology could create a possible competitive disadvantage with other countries eventually ahead in the business of transgenic animal food (Maxmen 2012, Van Eenennaam in Watson 2013).

The AquAdvantage salmon can then be interpreted as the tip of the iceberg of a global, fully commodified food production system whose dynamic is constrained within the path-dependent trajectory of innovation. However, as the stalling FDA regulatory status manifests, the emergent complexity and radical uncertainty of this open-field experimentation challenge its inevitability and open up a democratic space of discussion.

We devote our concluding remarks to explore how.

4. Concluding remarks: evaluating the quality of (GE) salmon

As we have mentioned, the whole narrative of innovation can only be functional if the citizens and potential consumers value and ultimately buy the products of the emergent technologies. This means that the societal expectations about the goods have to be encouraged and the concerns about the bads deflected. The set of arguments that we have reviewed so far have precisely this function. However, the ultimate fate of a new technology fundamentally depends on identifying what the goods and the bads

actually are and for whom, at any given time. This recognition has to do with how the product of technoscientific innovation is valued, therefore with its quality.

Failing to acknowledge the quality criteria of potential consumers and investors can be lethal, and it is at the heart of the so-called “Concorde syndrome” (Giampietro 2009). The Concorde syndrome occurs when the framing of the problem to be solved and therefore the technoscientific tools provided to address it, are obsolete with respect to the actual social perception of what the needs to be fulfilled are. In the case of the legendary airplane, the problem to be solved was to build a supersonic commercial aircraft that could fly much faster than all its competitors – as a matter of fact twice as fast – so as to become the preferred carrier for both investors and customers. However, the Concorde was permanently dismantled in 2003, and not because it was more risky or environmentally harmful, but because the actual flying time did not prove to be a critical factor for choosing it, and the global aviation industry ended up privileging slower, time flexible and cost effective flight systems.

In our case, the application of genetic engineering to commercial aquaculture in order to further optimize production rates and profits might end up being a failure, independently of the outcome of the regulation process, for two orders of reasons.

The first is more pragmatic: the overall limited potential economic gain of transgenic aquaculture (still to be demonstrated) might not justify switching to a new costly, risky and highly secured technology from conventional aquaculture practices. Moreover, the selectively bred salmon industry might boycotting it, fearing that the public perception of transgenic fish as environmentally risky would increase the social controversy and conflict surrounding its practice in the US and Canada, making the industry expansion more difficult.


P a g e | 54

The second order of reasons is more radical: it might well be that this ultimate technoscientific substitution process stretches excessively the definition of what a salmon is, possibly tearing apart the very texture of the space in which the trajectory of innovation moves along. The framing of food as a commodity entails the application of the principle of substantial equivalence, at the foundation of FDA’s impact assessment procedure. This means that independently from their taste, texture, smell, cultural traditions and above all, independently of the process by which they are produced, food products with essentially the same nutritional components are assigned to the same category, and have all the same quality. In this framing, wild Atlantic salmon is equivalent to farmed Atlantic salmon, and the latter is in turn equivalent to the transgenic AquAdvantage salmon. It might well be that this equivalence breaks down on the shelf of grocery stores and on the tables of US consumers17, and not necessarily only for (more or less scientifically-based) health or environmental fears, but also because they simply don’t identify the farmed (GE) salmon as valuable food18.

17

In September 2010, a US public survey

commissioned by the Center for Food Safety showed

that 91% of Americans opposed the

commercialization of genetically engineered fish and

meat into the market place, 83% of which strongly so

(Lake Research 2010). Around the same time, more

than 60% of readers of the conservative Wall Street

Journal declared that they wouldn’t eat the transgenic

salmon (Wall Street Journal 2010). In 2013, the FDA

public hearing period after the release of the GE

salmon environmental assessment ended with 1,8

million of comments against the approval.

Meanwhile, since 2002 some of the main US retailers

such as Trader Joes, Whole Foods, Alti and Marsh,

joined by a number of US chefs and grocers publicly

declared that in case of approval they would not sell

the GE salmon (Burros 2002).

18

The issue of the labeling of GE salmon is still

unresolved, although an overwhelmingly 93% of US

consumers are in favor (Thomson Reuters 2010). The

Indeed, the public’s health and environmental concerns are shaped only in part by the scientific/technical information developed within regulatory impact assessments. More fundamentally, they emerge from inherently political issues about what risks are acceptable under what circumstances, and about how to evaluate the food they eat. If we unlock the framing of innovation at its roots, we may find a collective democratic space for discussing different quality criteria, based for example on the use-value of food, the inherent socio-ecological value of a species and of the entire landscape it depends upon. More generally, the question becomes: how many categories are needed to describe our food and who decides about the definitions to be adopted for the various categories?

This reflective awareness triggers the possibility of exploring alternative trajectories for our food production system and redefining the quality assessment criteria for its evaluation. Robust and resilient innovations can only emerge from opening up the collective space of options for both the framing of the problems to be solved and the tools proposed to solve them.

In our case, even if we keep the framing of the problem proposed by ABT, namely the growing population and demand of salmon, the decline of the wild population and the environmental and health drawbacks of open-water net-pen aquaculture, then transgenic salmon are not the only available option. A plurality of strategies and tools can be considered. The Arctic char, a close relative of the Atlantic salmon, is already being grown nearly exclusively in closed containment facilities and requires no genetic modification. Its taste is comparable to the one of farmed salmon and, given its size and texture, it performs all the culinary functions

resistance from ABT and in general from the biotech

industry indicates the relevance of the consumers’

quality assessment criteria.


P a g e | 55

of its comparator19 (Greenberg 2010a). Furthermore, a closed-containment-grown Coho salmon that is not genetically modified is now in production and has been evaluated as "best choice" by the Monterey Bay Aquarium's Seafood Watch20 (Greenberg 2010b). Finally, a promising experiment of closed-containment, ecologically friendly, non transgenic, fast growing Atlantic salmon aquaculture is undertaken in the Northeast corner of Canada’s Vancouver Island, by the ‘Namgis First Nation, under the name of Kunterra project (Sitlts 2014).

If, on the other hand, we question the framing itself, then we can argue that the actual demand for salmon could be reduced and balanced by incorporating into our food habits a variety of seafood products, including smaller fish, and an even larger diversity of animal and vegetal proteins, depending on our culturally, historically and geographically based food tradition. Moreover, the very old, artificial separation between the problem of the wild salmon decline and the preservation of its socio-ecological habitat could be removed.

A project like the Pebble copper, gold an molybdenum mine proposed for Bristol Bay in Alaska, could wipe out the most abundant and productive sockeye salmon grounds in the world—an annual run of 40 million fish21. If we fully embrace the dominant narrative of innovation and the principle of substantial equivalence, then this sanctuary of wild salmon and traditional fishery practice could be substituted by a number of aquaculture (transgenic or non-transgenic) farms, conveniently dislocated in areas where they don’t conflict with the mining operations. The

19

See for example http://www.icywaters.com

20

See http://www.seafoodwatch.org/consumers/seafood-

and-your-health

21

For more details, see

http://www.savebristolbay.org/about-the-bay/about-pebble-

mine

win-win scenario would then be having the same or larger amount of salmon per year and foster the economic growth of both the mining and the aquaculture industry. On the other hand, if we question the dominant narrative of innovation and we apply different quality assessment criteria based on community and ecological needs, then the whole idea of destructing one of the few preserved habitats for wild salmon and for all the socio-ecological systems involved, becomes untenable22.

In conclusion, opening up a democratic space for evaluating the quality of innovation means being able, with time and imagination, to explore the controversies and conflicts emerging within its dominant trajectory, questioning not only the technologies involved, with their future risks and promises, but also and most importantly, the driving forces that might bring them – or not – into the world today.

Acknowledgments

We are most grateful to Dorothy Jane Dankel and Silvio Funtowicz for their constructive comments during the preparation of this manuscript. The overall framework of innovation applied to the case of the GE salmon was developed by Alice Benessia under Expert Contract no. 530023 of September 1st 2014, Joint Research Centre – European Commission.

References

AquaBounty Tehcnologies Inc. (2010). AquaBounty AquAdvantage facts sheet. September 2010.

22

A legal, political and scientific controversy, fully

analogous to the one we have explored in the first

part of our work, is currently unfolding in the US

regulatory system, through the authority of the

Environmental Protection Agency (Reynolds 2015).


P a g e | 56

Aqua Bounty Technologies, Inc. (2010) Environmental assessment for AquAdvantage salmon. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/ CommitteesMeetingMaterials/VeterinaryMedicineAdvisoryCommittee/UCM224760.pdf For public display August 25, 2010

Araghi F. (2003) ‘Food Regimes and the Production of Value: Some Methodological Issues’, The Journal of Peasant Studies 30(2): 41–70.

Benfey, T.J., Bosa, P.G., Richardson, N.L., & Donaldson, E.M.. (1988). Effectiveness of a commercial-scale pressure shocking device for producing triploid salmonids. Aquacul. Engineer. 7, 147-154.

Benessia A. and Barbiero G. (2012). Safety, Security and Quality: Lessons from GMO Risk Assessments, The Continuum of Health Risk Assessments, Dr. Michael G. Tyshenko (Ed.), ISBN: 980-953-307-582-7, InTech, DOI: 10.5772/38762.

Benessia A. and Funtowicz S. (2015). Sustainability and technoscience: what do we want to sustain and for whom? International Journal of Sustainable Development , Special Issue on: "In the Name of Sustainability," http://www.inderscience.com/info/ingeneral/forthcoming.php?jcode=ijsd

Benessia, A., Funtowicz, S., Bradshaw G., Ferri F., Ráez-Luna E.F. and Medina C.P. (2012) Hybridizing sustainability: Towards a new praxis for the present human predicament. Sustainability Science, ISSN 1862-4065, DOI 10.1007/s11625-011-0150-4.

Bessey, C., Devlin, R.H., Liley, N.R., Biagi, C.A. (2004). Reproductive performance of growth-enhanced transgenic coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 133, 1205–1220.

Björnsson B.T. (1997) The biology of salmon growth hormone: from daylight to dominance. Fish Physiology and Biochemistry 17:9-24.

Bodnar A. (2010) Risk Assessment and Mitigation of AquAdvantage Salmon. Information Systems for Biotechnology News Report 1-7.

Bratspies, R. (2008) ‘Framing the Genetically Modified Seas: The Perils and Promise of Transgenic Salmon’, American Fisheries Society Symposium 62: 1–17.

Burros M. 2002. Chefs Join Campaign Against Altered Fish. The New York Times, September 18, 2002.

Clausen R. and Longo S. B. (2012). The tragedy of the commodity and the farce of the AquAdvantage salmon®. Development and Change 43(1): 229–251

Colwell K. (2015). Canadian risk assessment finds GMO salmon susceptible to disease. Food and Water Watch, http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/pressreleases/canadian-risk-assessment-finds-gmo-salmon-susceptible-to-disease/

Congress of the United States (2013). Letter to Dr. Margaret Hamburg, M.D. Re: Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0899, April 14, 2013. http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/files/house_gesalmon_42413_28770.pdf

Crozier, W.W. (1998). Incidence of escaped farmed salmon, Salmo salar L., in commercial salmon catches and fresh water in Northern Ireland. Fish. Manage. Ecol. 5: 23–29.

Deitch, E. J. Fletcher, G. L. Petersen, L. H. Costa, I. A. S. F. Shears, M. A. Driedzic, W. R. Gamperl, A. K. (2006) Cardiorespiratory modifications, and limitations, in post-smolt growth hormone transgenic Atlantic salmon Salmo salar. Journal of Experimental Biology. 209: 1310-1325.

de la Fuente, J., I. Guillen, R. Martinez, and M. P. Estrada. (1999). Growth regulation and enhancement in tilapia: basic research findings and their applications. Genetic Analysis: Biomolecular Engineering 15(3):85–90.

Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (2013). Environmental and indirect human health risk assessment of the AquAdvantage® salmon. Draft in Revision. Office of Aquatic Biotechnology, July 2nd 2013.

Development Fund (2013). Genetically Engineered Salmon: Fast Growing Hype. Briefing Paper. http://www.utviklingsfondet.no

Devlin R. H., Yesaki T. Y., Biagi C. A., Donaldson E. M., Swanson P., W. K. Chen (1994)


P a g e | 57

Extraordinary salmon growth. Nature: 1994, 371: 209-210.

Devlin R.H., Yesaki T.Y., Donaldson E.M., Bu S.J., and Hew C.L. (1995) Production of germline transgenic Pacific salmonids with dramatically increased growth performance. Canadian J of Fisheries and Aquatic Sci 52(7):1376-1384.

Devlin, R. H. Biagi, C. A. Yesaki, T. Y. (2004) Growth, viability and genetic characteristics of GH transgenic coho salmon strains. Aquaculture 236: 607-632.

Devlin (2010) Occurrence of incomplete paternal-chromosome retention in GH-transgenic coho salmon being assessed for reproductive containment by pressure-shock-induced triploidy. Aquacolture 304: 66-78.

Dunham R. A. (2011). Aquaculture and Fisheries Biotechnology: Genetic Approaches. Auburn University, USA, September 2011. http://www.cabi.org/cabebooks/ebook/20113319351

Eales, J. G. Devlin, R. Higgs, D. A. McLeese, J. M. Oakes, J. D. Plohman, J. (2004) Thyroid function in growth-hormone-transgenic coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Canadian Journal of Zoology 82: 8, 1225-1229.

Entine J. (2011). White House Ends Its Interference in a Scientific Review. Slate, December 21, 2011. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/12/genetically_modified_salmon_aquadvantage_fda_assessment_is_delayed_possibly.html

European Commission (2010) Europe 2020 Flagship Initiative: Innovation Union, Communication from the Commission, COM(2010)2020

European Commission (2011) From Challenges to Opportunities: Towards a common Strategic Framework of EU Research and Innovation Funding, Green Paper, COM(2011)48.

European Commission (2013). Science for an informed, sustainable and inclusive knowledge society. Policy paper by President Barroso’s Science and Technology Advisory Council, Brussel 29th, 2013.

Fletcher G.L. and Davies P.L. (1991) Transgenic fish for aquaculture. Genet. Eng. (N.Y.) 13: 331-370.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2014). The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture: Opportunities and Challenges. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3720e.pdf?utm_source=publication&utm_medium=qrcode&utm_campaign=sofia14

Food and Drug Administration Center for Veterinary Medicine. Guidance for industry: Regulation of genetically engineered animals containing heritable recombinant DNA constructs. (2009). http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AnimalVeterinary/GuidanceComplianceEnforcement/GuidanceforIndustry/UCM113903.pdf

Food and Drug Administration Center for Veterinary Medicine – Veterinary Medicine Advisory Committee (2010). Aquadvantage salmon: Briefing Packet, (Archived Document) September 20, 2010. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/VeterinaryMedicineAdvisoryCommittee/UCM224762.pdf

Fox JL (2010) Transgenic salmon inches toward finish line. Nature Biotechnology 28(11): 1141-1142.

Forristall A. (2014) US needs to step up aquaculture game. Seafoodsource.com. http://www.seafoodsource.com/all-commentary/26171-us-needs-to-step-up-aquaculture-game

Funtowicz S. and Ravetz J. (1993). Science for the post-normal age. Futures 31 (7): 735-755.

Funtowicz S. and Ravetz J. (1994). Emergent Complex Systems. Futures 26 (6): 568-582.

Funtowicz S. and Strand R. (2011). Change and commitment: beyond risk and responsibility. Journal of Risk Research, 4(8): 995-1003.

Gaston, K. (2003) ‘Salmon, Hatcheries, and the Endangered Species Act: Alsea Valley Alliance v. Evans and its Implications’, Virginia Environmental Law Journal 22(123): 123–66.

Gausen, D. and Moen, V. (1991). Large-scale escapes of farmed Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) into Norwegian rivers threaten natural


P a g e | 58

populations. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 48: 426–428.

Giampietro M. (2009). The future of agriculture: GMOs and the agonizing paradigm of industrial agriculture. In: Guimarães Pereira Â. and Funtowicz S. (ed.s) Science for Policy: Ecological economics and human well-being. pp.83-104. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Gibbs W. (2011) Europe scorns "supersalmon" as GM battle widens. Reuters, Oslo, http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/22/us-food-salmon-idUSTRE73L1AA20110422

Giovannucci E, Pollak M, Liu Y, Platz EA, Majeed N, Rimm EB, Willett WC. (2003) Nutritional predictors of insulin-like growth factor I and their relationships to cancer in men. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention 12:84-89 (2003).

Goldenberg, S. (2011) Obama administration 'bailed out' GM salmon firm. The Guardian, October 18, 2011

Goldenberg S. (2013). Canada approves production of GM salmon eggs on commercial scale. The Guardian, November 25, 2013

Greenberg P. (2010a). Four fish: the future of the last wild food. New York: The Penguin Press.

Greenberg P. (2010b). Genetically modified salmon: everything you need to know. Good-A magazine for the global citizen. http://magazine.good.is/articles/everything-you-need-to-know-about-genetically-modified-salmon

Guarnieri V., Benessia A., Camino E., Barbiero G. (2008) The myth of natural barriers. Is transgene introgression by GM crops an environmental risk? Rivista di Biologia - Biology Forum 101: 195-214.

Hardin S. (2004). Rethinking standpoint epistemology: what is “Strong Objectivity?”, in S. Harding (ed.), The feminist standpoint theory reader: Intellectual and Political Controversies, London: Routledge, pp. 127-140.

Hedrick P. W. (2001) Invasion of transgenes from salmon or other genetically modified organisms into natural populations. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 58: 841-844.

Henry M. (2014). Genetic modification: should we fear this fish? The Star, June 13, 2014.

Hu W, Zhu Z.Y. (2010) Integration mechanisms of transgenes and population fitness of GH transgenic fish. Science China - Life Sciences 53:401-408.

Kastenhofer, K. (2007) Converging epistemic cultures? A discussion drawing on empirical findings. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, Vol. 20, p 359-373.

Kelso, D. D. T. 2003. The migration of salmon from nature to biotechnology. Pages 84–115 in R. A. Shurman and D. D. T. Kelso, (Eds). Engineering trouble: biotechnology and its discontent. University of California Press, Berkeley, California

Knorr Cetina, K. (1999) Epistemic cultures: how the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

Jasanoff, S. (2005) Designs on nature. Princeton CA: Princeton University Press

Jonas H. (1985). The imperative of responsibility. In Search of ethics for the technological age. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Joy N. (2010). GM Salmon Is Just Plain Wrong. The Huffington Post. September 30, 2010

Lake Research Partners (2010). “Attitudes Toward the FDA’s Plan on Genetically Engineered Fish.” September 20, 2010. http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/files/lrp_fish_survey_02364.pdf

Larsen L. (2014). Food & Water Watch Prods SEC About Aquabounty Risks. Food Poisoning Bulletin, June 5, 2014.

Lee C. G., Devlin R. H. and Farrell A. P. (2003) Swimming performance, oxygen consumption and excess post-exercise oxygen consumption in adult transgenic and ocean-ranched coho salmon. Journal of Fish Biology, 62: 753–766.

Leggat, L. A., Brauner, C. J., Iwama G. K., Devlin, R. H. (2007) The glutathione antioxidant system is enhanced in growth hormone transgenic coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). J. Comparative . Phisiology B: Biochemical, Systemic, and Environmental Physiology. 177: 413-422.


P a g e | 59

Lichatowich, J. (1999) Salmon Without Rivers: A History of the Pacific Salmon Crisis. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Limbery P. (2002) In Too Deep: The Welfare of Intensively Farmed Fish. A report for Compassion in World Farming Trust. https://www.ciwf.org.uk/includes/documents/cm_docs/2008/i/in_too_deep_2001.pdf

Longo S.B., Clausen R. (2012). The tragedy of the commodity and the farce of AquAdvantage salmon®. Development and Change, 43(1): 229–251.

Longo S.B., Clausen R. and Clark B.(2014). Capitalism and the Commodification of Salmon. Monthly Review. An independent Socialist Magazine. Volume 66, Issue 07 (December)

Longo S.B., Clausen R. and Clark B.(2015). The Tragedy of the Commodity: Oceans, Fisheries, and Aquaculture. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

Maxmen A. (2012), Transgenic salmon nears approval. Nature 490:318-319, October 18, 2012.

McEvilly M. P. (2013). Lack of Transparency in the Premarket Approval Process for Aquadvantage Salmon Duke L.& Tech. Rev. 413

McKinnell, S., Thomson, A.J., Black, E.A., Wing, B.L., Guthrie III, C.M., Koerner, J.F., Helle, J.H. (1997). Atlantic salmon in the North Pacific. Aquacult. Res. 28: 145–157.

McMichael, P. (2009) ‘A Food Regime Genealogy’, The Journal of Peasant Studies 36(1):139–69.

Moreau D.T.R, Conway C., Fleming I.A. (2011). Reproductive performance of alternative male phenotypes of growth hormone transgenic Atlantic salmon Salmo salar. Evolutionary Applications, Blackwell Publishing, Ltd

Mori T. Hiraka I. Kurata Y. Kawachi H. Mano N. Devlin RH. Nagoya H. Araki K. (2007) Changes in hepatic gene expression related to innate immunity, growth and iron metabolism in GH-transgenic amago salmon (Oncorhynchus masou) by cDNA subtraction and microarray analysis, and serum lysozyme activity. General & Comparative Endocrinology. 151(1): 42-54.

Muir W. M., and R. D. Howard (1999) Possible ecological risks of transgenic organism release when transgenes affect mating success: sexual

selection and the Trojan gene hypothesis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 96: 13853-13856.

Myers R.A. and Worm B. (2003). Rapid Worldwide Depletion of Predatory Fish Communities, Nature 423 (2003): 280–83;

North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization (1997). NASCO guidelines for action on transgenic salmon, CNL(97)48. North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization, Edinburgh, UK

North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization (1998). Agreement on adoption of a precautionary approach, CNL(98) 46. North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization, Edinburgh, UK.

North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization (2003). Resolution by the parties to the convention for the conservation of salmon in the north atlantic ocean to minimise impacts from aquaculture, introductions and transfers, and transgenics on the wild salmon stocks (The Williamsburg Resolution). North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization, Edinburgh, UK.

Naylor R., Henning S., Falcon W., Vaclav Smil G. J., Bradford E., Alder J., Mooney H. H. (2005) Losing the Links Between Livestock and Land. Science 310 (5754): 1621-1622, 9 December 2005.

National Research Council (2002). Animal biotechnology: science-based concerns. The National Academies Press, Washington D.C.

Oke K.B., Westley P.A.H., Moreau D.T.R., Fleming I.A. (2013). Hybridization between genetically modified Atlantic salmon and wild brown trout reveals novel ecological interactions. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 280: 20131047. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2013.1047

Palca J. (2011). Debating Genetically Modified Salmon. National Public Radio Science Friday. December 7, 2011.

Pollack A. (2010). Modified Salmon Is Safe, F.D.A. Says. The New York Times, September 3, 2010

Pollack A. (2012a). Move to Market Gene-Altered Pigs in Canada Is Halted. The New York Times, April 13 2012


P a g e | 60

Pollack A. (2012b). An entrepreneur bankrolls a genetically engineered salmon. New York Times. May 21, 2012.

Prakash C.L et al. (2012) Letter to President Obama. September 15, 2012 http://aquacomgroup.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Hindering-innovation-in-food-production-091412-1-3.pdf

Jennie M. Harrington, Ransom A. Myers, and Andrew A. Rosenberg, “Wasted Fishery Resources,” Fish & Fisheries 6, no. 4 (2005): 350–61.

Ravetz, J. (2004) The post-normal science of precaution. Futures, Vol. 36, n. 3, pp. 347-357.

Reynolds J. (2015). Pebble Mine 2014 Year in Review: "And Then There Were Lawyers...", The Huffington Post, January 5, 2015.

Roberts, S. B. McCauley, L. A. R. Devlin, R. H. Goetz, F. W. (2004) Transgenic salmon overexpressing growth hormone exhibit decreased myostatin transcript and protein expression. Journal of Experimental Biology. 207: 3741-3748.

Roberts R.J et al. (2014) Letter to President Obama. September 17, 2014. http://aquabounty.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/9-17-14-SCIENTIST-EXECUTIVE-LETTER-TO-PRESIDENT-OBAMA-ON-BIOTECHNOLOGY.pdf

Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, N., Persson, Å., Chapin, F.S. III, Lambin, E.F., Lenton, T.M., Scheffer, M., Folke, C., Schellnhuber, H.J., Nykvist, B., de Wit, C.A., Hughes, T., van der Leeuw, S., Rodhe, H., Sörlin, S., Snyder, P.K., Costanza, R., Svedin, U., Falkenmark, M., Karlberg, L., Corell, R.W., Fabry, V.J., Hansen, J., Walzer, B., Liverman, D., Richardson, K., Crutzen, P., & Foley, J.A. (2009) A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, Vol. 461, 472-475.

Salmobreed. “Salmobreed challenges GMO salmon”, Salmonbreed Newsletter Year 7, N.5, November 2011. http://www.salmobreed.no/newsletters/en/newsletter_5_2011.pdf

Sarewitz, D. 2004. How science makes environmental controversies worse.

Environmental science and policy, Vol. 7, pp. 385-403.

Senate of the United States (2013). Letter to Dr. Margaret Hamburg, M.D. Re: Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0899, April 14, 2013.

Smith M.D., Asche F., Guttormsen A.G., and Wiener J.B. (2010). Genetically Modified Salmon and Full Impact Assessment. Science, Vol. 330, n. 6007, pp. 1052-1053.

Sundström, L. F. Lohmus, M. Johnsson, J. I. Devlin, R. H. (2004) Growth hormone transgenic salmon pay for growth potential with increased predation mortality. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London . Series B, Biological Sciences. 271: Suppl. 5, S350-S352.

Sundström, L.F, Lohmus M, Devlin RH. (2005) Selection on increased intrinsic growth rates in coho salmon, Oncorhynchus kisutch. Evolution. 59(7):1560-9.

Sundström, L.F., Lohmus, M., Tymchuk, W.E., Devlin, R.H. (2007). Gene–environment interactions influence ecological consequences of transgenic animals. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104: 3889–3894.

Stevens E. D. and R. H. Devlin (2005) Gut size in GH- transgenic coho salmon is enhanced by both the GH trasgene and increased food intake. J. Fish. Biol. 66: 1633-1648.

Stilts J. (2014). The inside story. Fish Farming International, 2:28-31, February 2014. www.intrafish.com.

Thomson Reuters (2010). National Survey of Healthcare Consumers: Genetically Engineered Food. October 1-13, 2010. http://www.justlabelit.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/NPR_report_GeneticEngineeredFood-1.pdf

Union of Concerned Scientists (2001). Backgrounder: genetically engineered salmon. Union of Concerned Scientists, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

United States Department of Agriculture (2011) Current Research Information System, Project Number MASW-2011-02218. “Validation of a maternally mediated sterilization platform for reproductive containment of GE fish with initial application to tilapia.” September 11, 2011;


P a g e | 61

U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2013) Genetically Engineered Salmon, updated June 10, 2014, http://fda.gov.

US Senate Subcommittee on Ocean, Atmosphere, Fisheries and Coast Guard Oversight (2011). Hearing on the Environmental Risks of Genetically Engineered Fish. December 15, 2011.

Van Eenennaam A.L. and Muir W.M. (2011). Transgenic salmon: a final leap to the grocery shelf? Nature Biotechnology 29(8): 706-710. August 2011.

Veterinary Medicine Advisory Committee - Food and Drug Administration Center for Veterinary Medicine (2010) Briefing Packet AquAdvantage salmon. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/VeterinaryMedicineAdvisoryCommittee/UCM224762.pdf. For public display September 20, 2010.

Wall Street Journal (2010). Question of the Day. “Would you eat genetically –modified salmon if

approved by the FDA?” September 21, 2010 article.

Walsh, B. (2010) ‘The 50 Best Inventions of 2010: Faster Growing Salmon’, TIME 11 November.

Watson E. (2013) Trigger for review of GE animals should be the novelty of the introduced traits, not the process that creates them, says biotech expert. Foodnavigator.com August 7, 2013. http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/People/Trigger-for-review-of-GE-animals-should-be-the-novelty-of-the-introduced-traits-not-the-process-that-creates-them-says-biotech-expert

Wildavsky A. 1979. Speaking truth to power. Boston: Little Brown and Co.

Yaskowiak E.S., Shears M.A., Agarwal-Mawal A., Fletcher G.L. (2006) Characterization and multi-generational stability of the growth hormone transgene (EO-1α) responsible for enhanced growth rates in Atlantic.

Visions for Sustainability 3:62-67, 2015

P a g e | 62

COMMENTARY

Undersea

Rachel Carson

Proposed by Enzo Ferara, Istituto Nazionale di Ricerca Metrologica – INRIM, Italy

Originally Published as Rachel Louise Carson (1937). Undersea. Atlantic Monthly, 78:55–67

ISSN 2384-8677 DOI: 10.7401/visions.03.06


Published: June, 21, 2015

Citation: Ferrara, E. (2014). Rachel Carson - Undersea. Visions for Sustainability 3:62-67.

Copyright: ©2014 Ferrara. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.


Corresponding Author: Enzo Ferrara, Istituto Nazionale di Ricerca Metrologica, Strada delle Caccie 91, 10135, Torino, Italy. E.mail: [email protected]




DOI:10.7401/visions.03.06



P a g e | 63

Rachel Carson is renown thanks to the publication of Silent Spring, a path-breaking account of the myriad ways that pesticides damage the natural environment and threaten human health. However, as an author Rachel Carson wrote four books: Under the Sea-wind (Oxford University Press, New York, 1941), The Sea Around Us (Oxford University Press, New York, 1951), The Edge of the Sea (Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston 1955), and Silent Spring (Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston 1962). Her fifth book, The Sense of Wonder, appeared posthumously in 1965. She also wrote a number of pamphlets for a Fish and wildlife Service series, called Conservation in Action. The here presented text, Undersea, is among Carson's earliest published work. Originally, its title was The World of Waters, intended as an introduction to a U.S. Bureau of Fisheries brochure issued in 1935. Its publication as an essay on the pages of the Atlantic Monthly magazine marked Carson’s literary debut as a writer. Subsequently that very same pamphlet became the basis of her first book, Under the Sea-Wind, introducing two of Carson writing signatures: the enduring ecology that dominates ocean life, and the material immortality that among water encompasses even the smallest organism.

UNDERSEA

I Who has known the ocean? Neither you nor I, with our earth-bound senses, know the foam and surge of the tide that beats over the crab hiding under the seaweed of his tide pool home; or the lilt of the long, slow swells of mid-ocean, where shoals of wandering fish prey and are preyed upon, and the dolphin breaks the waves to breathe the upper atmosphere. Nor can we know the vicissitudes of life on the ocean floor, where the sunlight, filtering through a hundred feet of water, makes but a fleeting, bluish twilight, in which dwell sponge and mollusk and starfish and coral, where swarms of diminutive fish twinkle through the dusk like a silver rain of meteors, and eels lie in wait

among the rocks. Even less is it given to man to descend those six incomprehensible miles into the recesses of the abyss, where reign utter silence and unvarying cold and eternal night.

To sense this world of waters known to the creatures of the sea we must shed our human perceptions of length and breadth and time and place, and enter vicariously into a universe of all-pervading water. For to the sea’s children nothing is so important as the fluidity of their world. It is water that they breathe; water that brings them food; water through which they see, by filtered sunshine from which first the red rays, then the greens, and finally the purples have been strained; water through which they sense vibrations equivalent to sound. And indeed it is nothing more or less than sea water, in all its varying conditions of temperature, saltiness, and pressure, that forms the invisible barriers that confine each marine type within a special zone of life – one to the shore line, another to some submarine chasm on the far slopes of the continental shelf, and yet another, perhaps, to an imperceptibly defined stratum at mid-depths of ocean.

There are comparatively few living things whose shifting pattern of life embraces both land and sea. Such are creatures of the tide pools among the rocks and of the mud flats sloping away from dune and beach grass to the water’s edge. Between low water and the flotsam and jetsam of the high-tide mark, land and sea wage a never-ending conflict for possession.

As on land the coming of night brings a change over the face of field and forest, sending some wild things into the save retreat of their burrows and bringing others forth to prowl and forage, so at ebb tide the creatures of the waters largely disappear from sight, and in their place come marauders from the land to search the tide pools and to probe the sands for the silent, waiting fauna of the shore.


P a g e | 64

Twice between succeeding dawns, as the waters abandon pursuit of the beckoning moon and fall back, foot by foot, periwinkle and starfish and crab are cast upon the mercy of the sands. Every heap of brine-drenched seaweed, every pool forgotten by the retreating sea in recess of sand or rock, offers sanctuary from sun and biting sand.

In the tide pools, seas in miniature, sponges of the simpler kinds encrust the rocks, each hungrily drawing in through its myriad mouths the nutriment-laden water. Starfishes and sea anemones are common dwellers in such rock-grit pools. Shell-less cousins of the snail, the naked sea slugs are spots of brilliant rose and bronze, spreading arborescent gills to the waters, while the tube worms, architects of the tide pools, fashion their conical dwellings of sand grains, cemented on against another in glistening mosai.

On the sands the clams burrow down in search of coolness and moisture, and oysters close their all-excluding shells and wait for the return of the water. Crabs crowd into damp rock caverns, where periwinkles cling to the walls. Colonies of gnome-like shrimps find refuge under dripping strands of brown, leathery week heaped on the beach.

Hard upon the retreating sea press invaders from the land. Shore birds patter along the beach by day, and legions of the ghost crab shuffle across the damp sands by night. Chief, perhaps, among the plunderers is man, probing the soft mud flats and dipping his nets into the shallow waters.

At last comes a tentative ripple, then another, and finally the full, surging sweep of the incoming tide. The folk of the pools awake-clams stir in the mud. Barnacles open their shells and begin a rhythmic sifting of the waters. One by one, brilliant-hued flowers blossom in the shallow water as tubeworms extend cautious tentacles.

The ocean is a place of paradoxes. It is the home of the great white shark, two-thousand-pound killer of the seas, and of the hundred-foot blue whale, the largest animal that ever lived. It is also the home of living things so small that your two hands might scoop up as many of them as there are stars in the Milky Way. And it is because of the flowering of astronomical numbers of these diminutive plants, known as diatoms, that the surface of waters of the ocean are in reality boundless pastures. Every marine animal, from the smallest to the sharks and whales, is ultimately dependent for its food upon these microscopic entities of the vegetable life of the ocean. Within their fragile walls, the sea performs a vital alchemy that utilizes the sterile chemical elements dissolved in the water and welds them with the torch of sunlight into the stuff of life. Only through this little-understood synthesis of proteins, fats, and carbohydrates by myriad plant “producers” is the mineral wealth of the sea made available to the animal “consumers” that browse as they float with the currents. Drifting endlessly, midway between the sea of air above and the depths of the abyss below, these strange creatures and the marine inflorescence that sustains them are called “plankton” – the wanderers.

Many of the fishes, as well as the bottom-dwelling mollusks and worms and starfish, begin life as temporary members of this roving company, for the ocean cradles their young in its surface waters. The sea is not a solicitous foster mother. The delicate eggs and fragile larvae are buffeted by storms raging across the open ocean and preyed upon by diminutive monsters, the hungry glass worms and comb jellies of the plankton.

These ocean pastures are also the domain of vast shoals of adult fishes: herring, anchovy, menhaden, and mackerel, feeding upon the animals of the plankton and in their turn preyed upon; for here the dogfish hunt in packs, and the ravenous bluefish, like roving


P a g e | 65

buccaneers, take their booty where they find it.

Dropping downward a scant hundred feet to the white sand beneath, an undersea traveler would discover a land where the noonday sun is swathed in twilight blues and purples, and where the blackness of midnight is eerily aglow with the cold phosphorescence of living things. Dwelling among the crepuscular shadows of the ocean floor are creatures whose terrestrial counterparts are drab and commonplace, but which are themselves invested with delicate beauty by the sea. Crystal cones form the shells of pteropods or winged snails hat drift downward from the surface to these dim regions by day; and the translucent spires of lovely ianthina are tinged with Tyrian purple.

Other creatures of the sea’s bottom may be fantastic rather than beautiful. Spine-studded urchins, like rotund hedgehogs of the sea, tumble over the sands, where mollusks lie with slightly opened shells, busily straining the water for debris. Life flows on monotonously for these passive sifters of the currents, who move little or not at all from year to year. Among the rock ledges, eels and cunners forage greedily, while the lobster feels his way with nimble wariness through the perpetual twilight.

Farther out on the continental shelf, the ocean floor is scarred with deep ravines, perhaps the valleys of drowned rivers, and dotted with undersea plateaus. Hosts of fish graze on these submerged islands, which are richly carpeted with sluggish or sessile forms of life. Chief among the ground fish are haddock, cods, flounders and their mightier relative, the halibut. From these and shallower waters man, the predator, exacts a yearly tribute of nearly thirty billion pounds of fish.

If the underwater traveler might continue to explore the ocean floor, he would traverse miles of level prairie lands; he would ascend

the sloping sides of hills; and he would skirt deep and ragged crevasses yawning suddenly at his feet. Through the gathering darkness, he would come at last to the edge of the continental shelf. The ceiling of the ocean would lie a hundred fathoms above him, and his feet would rest upon the brink of a slope that drops precipitously another mile, and then descends more gently into an inky void that is the abyss.

What human mind can visualize conditions in the uttermost depths of the ocean? Increasing with every foot of depth, enormous pressures reach, three thousand fathoms down, the inconceivable magnitude of three tons to every square inch of surface. In these silent deeps a glacial cold prevails, a bleak iciness which never varies, summer or winter, years melting into centuries, and centuries into ages of geologic time. There, too, darkness reigns – the blackness of primeval night in which the ocean came into being, unbroken, through eons of succeeding time, by the gray light of dawn.

It is easy to understand why early students of the ocean believed these regions were devoid of life, but strange creatures have now been dredged from the depths to bear mute and fragmentary testimony concerning life in the abyss.

The “monsters” of the deep sea are small, voracious fishes with gaping, tooth-studded jaws, some with sensitive feelers serving the function of eyes, other bearing luminous torches or lures to search out or entice their living prey. Through the night of the abyss, the flickering lights of these foragers move to and fro. Many of the sessile bottom dwellers glow with a strange radiance suffusing the entire body, while other swimming creatures may have tiny, glittering lights picked out in rows and patterns.

The deep-sea prawn and the abyssal cuttlefish eject a luminous cloud, and under


P a g e | 66

cover of this pillar of fire escape from their enemies.

Monotones of red and brown and lusterless black are the prevailing colors in the deep sea, allowing the wearers to reflect the minimum of the phosphorescent gleams, and to blend into the safe obscurity of the surrounding gloom.

On the muddy bottom of the abyss, treacherous oozes threaten to engulf small scavengers as they busily sift the debris for food. Crabs and prawns pick their way over the yielding mud on stilt-like legs; sea spiders creep over sponges raised on delicate stalks above the slime.

Because the last vestige of plant life was left behind in the shallow zone penetrated by the rays of the sun, the inhabitants of these depths contrast strangely with the self-supporting assemblage of the surface waters. Preying one upon another, the abyssal creatures are ultimately dependent upon the slow rain of dead plants and animals from above. Every living thing of the ocean, plant and animal alike, returns to the water at the end of its own life span the materials that had been temporarily assembled to form its body. So there descends into the depths a gentle, never-ending rain of the disintegrating particles of what once were living creatures of the sunlit surface waters, or of those twilight regions beneath.

Here in the sea mingle elements which, in their long and amazing history, have lent life and strength and beauty to a bewildering variety of living creatures. Ions of calcium, now free in the water, were borrowed years ago from the from the sea to form part of the protective armor of a mollusk, returned to the main reservoir when their temporary owner had ceased to have need of them, and later incorporated into the delicate statuary of a coral reef. Here are atoms of silica, once imprisoned in a layer of flint in the subterranean darkness; later, within the

fragile shell of a diatom, tossed by waves and warmed by the sun; and again entering into the exquisite structure of a radiolarian shell, that miracle of ephemeral beauty that might be the work of a fairy glass-blower with a snowflake as his pattern.

Except for the precipitous slopes and regions swept bare by the submarine currents, the ocean floor is covered with primeval oozes which have been accumulating for eons deposits of varied origins; earth-born materials freighted seaward by rivers or worn from the shores of continents by the ceaseless grinding of waves; volcanic dust transported long distances by wind, floating lightly on the surface and eventually sinking into the depths to mingle with the products of no less mighty eruptions of submarine volcanoes; spherules of iron and nickel from interstellar space; and substances of organic origin – the siliceous skeletons of Radiolaria and the frustules of diatoms, the limey remains of algae and corals, and the shells of minute Foraminifera and delicate pelagic snails.

While the bottoms near the shore are covered with detritus from the land, the remains of the floating and swimming creatures of the sea prevail in the deep waters of the open ocean. Beneath tropical seas, in depths of 1000 to 1500 fathoms, calcareous oozes cover nearly a third of the ocean floor; while the colder waters of the temperate and polar regions release to the underlying bottom the siliceous remains of diatoms and Radiolaria. In the red clay that carpets the great deeps at 3000 fathoms or more, such delicate skeletons are extremely rare. Among the few organic remains not dissolved before they reach these cold and silent depths are the ear bones of whales and the teeth of sharks.

Thus we see the parts of the plan fall into place: the water receiving from earth and air the simple materials, storing them up until the gathering energy of the spring sun wakens the sleeping plants to a burst of


P a g e | 67

dynamic activity, hungry swarms of planktonic animals growing and multiplying upon the abundant plants, and themselves falling prey to the shoals of fish; all, in the end, to be redissolved into their component substances when the inexorable laws of the sea demand it. Individual elements are lost to view, only to reappear again and again in different incarnations in a kind of material immortality. Kindred forces to those which, in some period inconceivably remote, gave birth to that primeval bit of protoplasm tossing on the ancient seas continue their mighty and

incomprehensible work. Against this cosmic background the life span of a particular plant or animal appears, not as a drama complete in itself, but only as a brief interlude in a panorama of endless change.

References

Cleveland, C. (2007). Undersea (historical). Retrieved from

http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/156768

http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/156768

Documents

Contents: Editorial - iris-sostenibilita.net · values has proved to be adaptive over the course of human evolution, developing into genetic inclinations over time. They inlude the