1 Dept of Politics & International Studies. Wyn Grant, Justin Greaves. Warwick HRI. Dave Chandler, Gill Prince. Dept of Biological Sciences. Mark Tatchell.

1

• Dept of Politics & International Studies.Wyn Grant, Justin Greaves.

• Warwick HRI.Dave Chandler, Gill Prince.

• Dept of Biological Sciences.Mark Tatchell.

RELU project team at Warwick

2

Why are biopesticides useful?

• Often v. specific.

– ‘inherently less toxic than conventional pesticides’ (EPA).

• Compatible with other control agents.

• Little or no residue.

• Inexpensive to develop.

• Natural enemies used in ecologically-based IPM.

• Social benefits.

3

In the EU, microbes & biochemicals are registered as plant protection products

• National authorisations (PSD).

• Harmonisation of arrangements:

– Directive 91/414

– Active substances added to Annex I (existing & new substances).

– Mutual recognition.

– Tailored requirements for biopesticides.

4

Mutual recognition (EU)

• Commission admits this is not working.

• We are supposed to have an internal market.

• Would help to overcome problem of small market size.

• Need to support 91/414 revision that creates three ‘eco zones’ within EU.

• ‘Rebeca’ policy action

5

Why political science and biology can relate well

• Mackenzie’s Politics and Social Science has first main chapter on biological context

• Punctuated equilibrium models

• Nature of political science as a junction subject, ‘tolerant eclecticism’

• Biology concerned with adaptation to environment, also true of politics – EU and more interdependent world

6

More reasons for good relationship

• Heightened importance of environmental problems creates new cooperation opportunities

• Similar methodological challenges

• Collaboration with physics or chemistry might be more difficult

7

How we started work

• Concerns by biologists about partisanship, in both disciplines real differences between schools and disciplines

• Read and presented articles from each other’s disciplines

• Political science articles discursive

8

Shared methodological issues

• Categorisation issues – ‘lumpers’ and ‘splitters’ in biology

• Individualistic fallacy and ecological fallacy, although in biology individualistic fallacy overcome by data aggregation and mathematical models

• Molecular genetics led to ‘bottom up’ science, failure to address big questions, also EU studies?

9

Methodological challenges

• Replicated, controlled experiments in biology, model plant (Arabidopis thlania), no model citizen

• Protocols in science less flexible than semi-structured interviewing, also rhythms of planting, growing and harvesting

• Both disciplines use the comparative method

10

What each side gains

• Scientific research poses questions for regulators, e.g., species identity

• Need scientific knowledge to participate in highly technical regulatory debate

• Scientists had considerable knowledge of policy networks and decision-making processes, not placed in any systematic framework

11

More gains

• Biologists state that they have gained from more theoretical approach of political science, in applied biology more accustomed to identifying problem and looking for a solution

• Only social scientist in Rebeca, but industry needs more political sophistication

12

Lessons for EU studies

• Difficulties of cooperation between natural and social sciences exaggerated

• Given role of EU as regulatory state, real need for scientific and social science knowledge to be brought together

13

Visit our website

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/pais/biopesticides/