TY - JOUR
T1 - If they come, we will build it
T2 - In vitro meat and the discursive struggle over future agrofood expectations
AU - Chiles, Robert Magneson
N1 - Funding Information:
From the very beginning, the promotion of hype and positive expectations about the technology’s technical viability has been a linchpin of the in vitro meat supporters’ strategy (Mironov et al. 2009). As noted previously, expectations about the potential of a given technology are performative, and in vitro meat supporters have managed to generate significant positive momentum by articulating positive expectations in journal articles, popular media, and conferences (see Table 1). Edelman et al. (2005), as inspired by the efforts of Benjaminson et al. (2002) to develop in vitro meat for NASA missions, gave an optimistic assessment as to the feasibility of in vitro meat production in a Tissue Engineering commentary. Their efforts paid off, as the article generated a groundswell of interest among peers and the popular media (Schonwald 2009), which led to further research collaborations and eventually economic support from Senter Novem, a scientific funding body for the Dutch government. In several instances, in vitro meat researchers’ positive expectations in the media have been sufficient in and of themselves to win over other researchers. For example, after an article in The Economist (2006) reported that ‘‘Researchers believe it will soon be possible to grow cultured meat,’’ a report to the European Union Commission cited this article in arguing that ‘‘The technology is not really a wild card because the development is rather feasible’’ (Cuhls 2008), p. 18.
PY - 2013/12
Y1 - 2013/12
N2 - According to recent literature in the sociology of expectations, expectations about the future are "performative" in that they provide guidance for activities, attract attention, mobilize political and economic resources, coordinate between groups, link technical and social concerns, create visions, and enroll supporters. While this framework has blossomed over the past decade in science and technology studies, it has yet to be applied towards a more refined understanding of how the future of the modern agrofood system is being actively contested and understood. I seek to redress this gap by using the sociology of expectations to explain the discursive topography surrounding in vitro meat, a nascent agrofood technology whereby processed meat products are developed from stem cells as opposed to live animals. In discussing the obstacles and challenges which confront the proponents of this technology, I utilize three key concepts from the sociology of expectations: (1) hype, (2) retrospective prospects, and (3) the role of myth, metaphor, and ideology. I find that despite sluggish results and financial setbacks, the controversial legacy of previous agrofood technologies, and persistent cultural skepticism, the core ideological justifications for in vitro meat have proven to be resilient in buoying the technology through rough discursive waters.
AB - According to recent literature in the sociology of expectations, expectations about the future are "performative" in that they provide guidance for activities, attract attention, mobilize political and economic resources, coordinate between groups, link technical and social concerns, create visions, and enroll supporters. While this framework has blossomed over the past decade in science and technology studies, it has yet to be applied towards a more refined understanding of how the future of the modern agrofood system is being actively contested and understood. I seek to redress this gap by using the sociology of expectations to explain the discursive topography surrounding in vitro meat, a nascent agrofood technology whereby processed meat products are developed from stem cells as opposed to live animals. In discussing the obstacles and challenges which confront the proponents of this technology, I utilize three key concepts from the sociology of expectations: (1) hype, (2) retrospective prospects, and (3) the role of myth, metaphor, and ideology. I find that despite sluggish results and financial setbacks, the controversial legacy of previous agrofood technologies, and persistent cultural skepticism, the core ideological justifications for in vitro meat have proven to be resilient in buoying the technology through rough discursive waters.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84889608797&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84889608797&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s10460-013-9427-9
DO - 10.1007/s10460-013-9427-9
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:84889608797
VL - 30
SP - 511
EP - 523
JO - Agriculture and Human Values
JF - Agriculture and Human Values
SN - 0889-048X
IS - 4
ER -