Innovations in genetics and genomics have been heavily critiqued as technologies that have widely supported the privatization and commodification of natural resources. However, emerging applications of these tools to ecological restoration challenge narratives that cast genetic technoscience as inevitably enrolled in the enactment and extension of neoliberal capitalism. In this paper, we draw on Langdon Winner’s theory of technological politics to suggest that the context in which genetic technologies are developed and deployed matters for their political outcomes. We describe how genetic approaches to the restoration of functionally extinct American chestnut trees—by non-profit organizations, for the restoration of a wild, heritage forest species, and with unconventional intellectual property protections—are challenging precedents in the political economy of plant biotechnology. Through participant observation, interviews with scientists, and historical analysis, we employ the theoretical lens provided by Karl Polanyi’s double movement to describe how the anticipations and agency of the developers of blight-resistant American chestnut trees, combined with chestnut biology and the context of restoration, have thus far resisted key forms of the genetic privatization and commodification of chestnut germplasm. Still, the politics of blight-resistant American chestnut remain incomplete and undetermined; we thus call upon scholars to use the uneven and socially constructed character of both technologies and neoliberalism to help shape this and other applications of genetic technoscience for conservation.
AnagnostakisSL (2012)
Chestnut breeding in the United States for disease and insect resistance.Plant Disease96(10): 1392–1403.
2.
BarbenD (1998)
The political economy of genetic engineering: The neoliberal formation of the biotechnology industry. Organization and Environment11(4): 406–420.
3.
BarnettC (2005)
The consolations of ‘neoliberalism’. Geoforum36(1): 7–12.
4.
BeauchampC (2013)
Patenting nature: A problem of history. Stanford Technical Law Review16(2): 257–312.
5.
BiermannC (2014)
Not-quite-American chestnuts: Engaging poststructural epistemologies in nature-society research. ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies13(4): 599–608.
6.
BiermannC (2016)
Securing forests from the scourge of chestnut blight: The biopolitics of nature and nation. Geoforum75: 210–219.
7.
BiermannCAndersonRM (2017)
Conservation, biopolitics, and the governance of life and death. Geography Compass11(10): e12329.
8.
BiermannCMansfieldB (2014)
Biodiversity, purity, and death: Conservation biology as biopolitics.Environment and Planning D: Society and Space32(2): 257–273.
9.
BirchK (2006)
The neoliberal underpinnings of the bioeconomy: The ideological discourses and practices of economic competitiveness. Genomics, Society and Policy2(3): 1–15.
10.
BlockF (2001) Introduction. In: PolanyiK (ed) The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time.
Boston:
Beacon Press, pp. xviii–xxxviii.
11.
BondiLLaurieN (2005)
Introduction to working the spaces of neoliberalism: Activism, professionalisation and incorporation. Antipode37(3): 393–401.
12.
BrennerNTheodoreN (2002)
Cities and the geographies of ‘actually existing neoliberalism’. Antipode34(3): 349–379.
13.
BrooksS (2015) Philanthrocapitalism, ‘pro-poor’ agricultural biotechnology and development. In MorvaridiB (ed) New Philanthropy and Social Justice: Debating the Conceptual and Policy Discourse.
Bristol:
Policy Press, pp.101–116.
14.
BurnhamCR (1981)
Blight-resistant American chestnut: There’s hope. Plant Disease65(6): 459–460.
15.
BurnhamCR (1988)
The restoration of the American Chestnut: Mendelian genetics may solve a problem that has resisted other approaches. American Scientist76(5): 478–487.
16.
BuschL (2010)
Can fairy tales come true? The surprising story of neoliberalism and world agriculture. Sociologia Ruralis50(4): 331–351.
17.
BuschLLacyWBBurkhardtJ, et al. (1991) Plants, Power, and Profit: Social, Economic, and Ethical Consequences of the New Biotechnologies.
Cambridge:
Blackwell.
18.
CastreeN (2010a)
Neoliberalism and the biophysical environment 1: What ‘neoliberalism’ is, and what difference nature makes to it. Geography Compass4(12): 1725–1733.
19.
CastreeN (2010b)
Neoliberalism and the biophysical environment 2: Theorising the neoliberalisation of nature. Geography Compass4 (12): 1734–1746.
20.
CastreeN (2011)
Neoliberalism and the biophysical environment 3: Putting theory into practice. Geography Compass5(1): 35–49.
21.
ClarkSLSchlarbaumSESaxtonAM, et al. (2019)
Eight-year blight (Cryphonectria parasitica) resistance of backcross-generation American chestnuts (Castanea dentata) planted in the southeastern United States. Forest Ecology and Management433: 153–161.
22.
CooperME (2008) Life as Surplus: Biotechnology and Capitalism in the Neoliberal Era.
Seattle:
University of Washington Press.
23.
CurryHA (2014)
Radiation and restoration; or, how best to make a blight-resistant chestnut tree. Environmental History19(2): 217–238.
24.
DelborneJAKinchyAJ (2008) Genetically modified organisms. In: Restivo S and Denton PH (eds) Battleground Science and Technology, Volume 1. Westport: Greenwood Press, pp.182–195.
DunnC (2020, January 10) ‘Transformational’ gift from Templeton Foundation supports chestnut restoration. Available at: www.esf.edu/communications/view.asp?newsID=8589 (accessed 2 August 2020).
27.
EvansJA (2010)
Industry collaboration, scientific sharing, and the dissemination of knowledge. Social Studies of Science40(5): 757–791.
28.
FangG-CBlackmonBPStatonME, et al. (2013)
A physical map of the Chinese chestnut (Castanea mollissima) genome and its integration with the genetic map. Tree Genetics and Genomes9(2): 525–537.
29.
FittingE (2006)
Importing corn, exporting labor: The neoliberal corn regime, GMOs, and the erosion of Mexican biodiversity. Agriculture and Human Values23(1): 15–26.
30.
Forest Health Initiative (2018) Forest Health Initiative: A Retrospective Look. Rapid and Responsible Innovation.
Cary:
Institute of Forest Biosciences.
31.
FreinkelS (2007) American Chestnut: The Life, Death, and Rebirth of a Perfect Tree.
Berkeley:
University of California Press.
32.
FriedmanM (2009) Capitalism and Freedom.
Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
33.
GloverD (2010)
Exploring the resilience of Bt cotton’s ‘pro-poor success story’. Development and Change41(6): 955–981.
34.
GustonDH (2014)
Understanding ‘anticipatory governance’.Social Studies of Science44(2): 218–242.
35.
HarrisonRKinchyARabinowL (2017) Genetically engineered food for a hungry world: A changing political economy. In: Tyfield D, Lave R, Randalls S, et al. (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of the Political Economy of Science. London: Taylor and Francis, pp.213–223.
36.
HarveyD (2007) A Brief History of Neoliberalism.
New York:
Oxford University Press.
37.
HebardFV (2005)
The backcross breeding program of the American Chestnut Foundation. Journal of the American Chestnut Foundation19(2): 55–77.
38.
HoeyerK (2007a)
Person, patent and property: A critique of the commodification hypothesis. BioSocieties2(3): 327–348.
39.
HoeyerK (2007b)
The role of ethics in commercial genetic research: Notes on the notion of commodification.Medical Anthropology24(1): 45–70.
40.
HoltzCTTullARMerkleSA (2016)
Influence of species and hybrid status on induction of somatic embryogenesis in Castanea. Canadian Journal of Forest Research47(3): 382–388.
41.
HuiJSGerberEM (2015) Crowdfunding science: Sharing research with an extended audience. In: Ciolfi L and McDonald D (eds.) Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work and social computing. New York: Association for Computing Machinery, pp.31–43.
JacobsDF (2007)
Toward development of silvical strategies for forest restoration of American chestnut (Castanea dentata) using blight-resistant hybrids. Biological Conservation137(4): 497–506.
44.
JacobsDFDalgleishHJNelsonCD (2013)
A conceptual framework for restoration of threatened plants: The effective model of American chestnut (Castanea dentata) reintroduction. New Phytologist197(2): 378–393.
45.
Jasanoff S (ed) (2004) States of Knowledge: The Co-production of Science and the Social Order. New York: Routledge.
46.
KaneJMVarnerJMSaundersMR (2019)
Resurrecting the lost flames of American chestnut. Ecosystems22(5): 995–1006.
47.
KimmererR (2016)
Harmony with nature; fifth annual conference at the United Nations. KosmosXV(2): 54–65.
48.
KloppenburgJR (2005) First the Seed: The Political Economy of Plant Biotechnology.
Madison:
University of Wisconsin Press.
49.
KubisiakTLNelsonCDStatonME, et al. (2013)
A transcriptome-based genetic map of Chinese chestnut (Castanea mollissima) and identification of regions of segmental homology with peach (Prunus persica). Tree Genetics and Genomes9(2): 557–571.
50.
LarnerW (2003)
Neoliberalism?Environment and Planning D: Society and Space21(5): 509–512.
51.
LaveRMirowskiPRandallsS (2010)
Introduction: STS and neoliberal science. Social Studies of Science40(5): 659–675.
52.
MansfieldB (2004)
Rules of privatization: Contradictions in neoliberal regulation of North Pacific fisheries. Annals of the Association of American Geographers94(3): 565–584.
53.
McAfeeK (2003)
Neoliberalism on the molecular scale: Economic and genetic reductionism in biotechnology battles. Geoforum34(2): 203–219.
54.
McCarthyJPrudhamS (2004)
Neoliberal nature and the nature of neoliberalism. Geoforum35(3): 275–283.
55.
McMichaelP (2006)
Peasant prospects in the neoliberal age. New Political Economy11(3): 407–418.
56.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2019) Forest Health and Biotechnology: Possibilities and Considerations.
Washington:
The National Academies Press.
NewhouseAESpitzerJEMaynardCA, et al. (2014)
Chestnut leaf inoculation assay as a rapid predictor of blight susceptibility.Plant Disease98(1): 4–9.
59.
O’NeillPHArgentN (2005)
Neoliberalism in antipodean spaces and times: An introduction to the special theme issue. Geographical Research43(1): 2–8.
60.
OteroGPechlanerG (2008) Latin American agriculture, food, and biotechnology: Temperate dietary pattern adoption and unsustainability. In OteroG (ed) Food for the Few: Neoliberal Globalism and Biotechnology in Latin America.
Austin:
University of Texas Press, pp.31–56.
61.
PailletFL (2002)
Chestnut: History and ecology of a transformed species. Journal of Biogeography29(10–11): 1517–1530.
62.
ParryB (2006)
New spaces of biological commodification: The dynamics of trade in genetic resources and bioinformation. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews31: 19–31.
63.
PechlanerGOteroG (2008)
The third food regime: Neoliberal globalism and agricultural biotechnology in North America. Sociologia Ruralis48(4): 351–371.
64.
PeckJ (2004)
Geography and public policy: Constructions of neoliberalism. Progress in Human Geography28(3): 392–405.
65.
PolanyiK (1944) The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time.
Boston:
Beacon Press.
PowellW (2014)
The American chestnut’s genetic rebirth.Scientific American310(3): 68–73.
68.
PowellW (2020) Petition for determination of nonregulated status for blight-tolerant Darling 58 American chestnut. Available at: www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs/19-309-01p.pdf (accessed 12 November 2020).
69.
PrudhamWS (2005) Knock on Wood: Nature as Commodity in Douglas-Fir Country.
New York:
Routledge.
70.
RossiJ (2013)
The socionatural engineering of reductionist metaphors: A political ecology of synthetic biology. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space45(5): 1127–1143.
71.
RossiJ (2014)
Genes are not information: Rendering plant genetic resources untradeable through genetic restoration practices. Geoforum55: 66–75.
72.
RussellEWB (1987)
Pre-blight distribution of Castanea dentata (Marsh.) Borkh. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club114(2): 183.
73.
ScharperSBCunninghamH (2006)
The genetic commons: Resisting the neoliberal enclosure of life. Social Analysis50(3): 195–202.
74.
SchurmanRMunroWA (2010) Fighting for the Future of Food: Activists Versus Agribusiness in the Struggle Over Biotechnology.
Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
75.
SmolkerRPetermannA (2019) Biotechnology for Forest Health? The Test Case of the Genetically Engineered American Chestnut.
Buffalo:
Campaign to Stop GE Trees.
76.
SouléME (1985)
What is conservation biology?BioScience35(11): 727–734.
77.
SteinerKCWestbrookJWHebardFV, et al. (2017)
Rescue of American chestnut with extraspecific genes following its destruction by a naturalized pathogen. New Forests48: 317–336.
78.
StilgoeJOwenRMacnaghtenP (2013)
Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy42(9): 1568–1580.
79.
SUNY-ESF. (2018) Support the project: The American Chestnut Research and Restoration Project. Available at: www.esf.edu/chestnut/funding.htm (accessed 4 April 2018).
The American Chestnut Foundation (2018c) The American Chestnut Foundation germplasm agreement. Available at: www.acf.org/about-us/germplasm-agreement/(accessed 4 August 2020).
84.
The American Chestnut Foundation (2020) Frequently asked questions. Available at: www.acf.org/resources/faqs/ (accessed 4 August 2020).
WestbrookJWHollidayJANewhouseAE, et al. (2020a)
A plan to diversify a transgenic blight-tolerant American chestnut population using citizen science. Plants, People, Planet2: 84–95.
90.
WestbrookJWZhangQMandalMK, et al. (2020b)
Optimizing genomic selection for blight resistance in American chestnut backcross populations: A trade-off with American chestnut ancestry implies resistance is polygenic.Evolutionary Applications13(1): 31–47.
91.
WheelerNSederoffR (2009)
Role of genomics in the potential restoration of the American chestnut. Tree Genetics and Genomes5(1): 181–187.
92.
WinnerL (1980)
Do artifacts have politics?Daedalus109(1): 121–136.
93.
ZhangBOakesADNewhouseAE, et al. (2013)
A threshold level of oxalate oxidase transgene expression reduces Cryphonectria parasitica-induced necrosis in a transgenic American chestnut (Castanea dentata) leaf bioassay. Transgenic Research22(5): 973–982.
