Democratizing ownership and participation in the 4th Industrial Revolution: challenges and opportunities in cellular agriculture

  • Ajena, F. 2019. Agriculture 3.0 or (smart) agroecology? P2P foundation. https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/agriculture-3-0-or-smart-agroecology/2019/07/11. Accessed 21 July 2020.

  • Akom, A., S. Aekta, A. Nakai, and T. Cruz. 2016. Youth participatory action research (YPAR) 2.0: How technological innovation and digital organizing sparked a food revolution in East Oakland. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 29: 1287–1307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrett, H., and D.C. Rose. 2020. Perceptions of the fourth agricultural revolution: What’s in, what’s out, and what consequences are anticipated? Sociologia Ruralis. https://doi.org/10.1111/soru.12324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, H.S. 1998. Tricks of the trade: How to think about your research while you’re doing it. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, D., A Jayadev, and J.E. Stiglitz. 2017. Innovation, intellectual property, and development: A better set of approaches for the 21st century. AccessIBSA: Innovation & Access to Medicines in India, Brazil & South Africa.

  • Benjaminson, M.A., J.A. Gilchriest, and M. Lorenz. 2002. In vitro edible muscle protein production system (MPPS): Stage 1, fish. Acta Astronautica 51: 879–889.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowen, R., and W. Morris. 2019. The digital divide: Implications for agribusiness and entrepreneurship. Lessons from Wales. Journal of Rural Studies 72: 75–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brandl, B., and L.L. Glenna. 2017. Intellectual property and agricultural science and innovation in Germany and the United States. Science, Technology, & Human Values 42: 622–656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braveman, P., and S. Gruskin. 2003. Defining equity in health. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health 57 (4): 254–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broad, G.M. 2019. Plant-based and cell-based animal product alternatives: An assessment and agenda for food tech justice. Geoforum 107: 223–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broad, G.M. 2020a. Making meat, better: The metaphors of plant-based and cell-based meat innovation. Environmental Communication 14 (7): 919–932.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broad, G.M. 2020b. Know your indoor farmer: Square roots, techno-local food, and transparency as publicity. American Behavioral Scientist 64: 1588–1606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burawoy, M. 2000. Global ethnography: Forces, connections, and imaginations in a postmodern world. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burton, R.J. 2019. The potential impact of synthetic animal protein on livestock production: The new “war against agriculture”? Journal of Rural Studies 68: 33–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, B., and S. O’Neill. 2019. State of the industry: Cell-based meat. Washington, D.C.: The Good Food Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, C. 2018. Rethinking the agrarian question: Agriculture and underdevelopment in the Global South. Journal of Agrarian Change 18: 703–721.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carolan, M. 2015. Affective sustainable landscapes and care ecologies: Getting a real feel for alternative food communities. Sustainability Science 10: 317–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carolan, M. 2017a. Agro-digital governance and life itself: Food politics at the intersection of code and affect. Sociologia Ruralis 57: 816–835.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carolan, M. 2017b. Publicising food: Big data, precision agriculture, and co-experimental techniques of addition. Sociologia Ruralis 57: 135–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carolan, M. 2018. ‘Smart’ farming techniques as political ontology: Access, sovereignty and the performance of neoliberal and not-so-neoliberal worlds. Sociologia Ruralis 58: 745–764.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carolan, M. 2020a. Acting like an algorithm: Digital farming platforms and the trajectories they (need not) lock-in. Agriculture and Human Values 37: 1041–1053.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carolan, M. 2020b. Automated agrifood futures: Robotics, labor and the distributive politics of digital agriculture. The Journal of Peasant Studies 47: 184–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Catts, O., and I. Zurr. 2008. The ethics of experiential engagement with the manipulation of life. In Tactical biopolitics: Art, activism, and technoscience, ed. B. da Costa and K. Philip, 125–142. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Chiles, R.M. 2013. Intertwined ambiguities: Meat, in vitro meat, and the ideological construction of the marketplace. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 12: 472–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiles, R.M. 2020. Global food systems in the post-coronavirus era. SocArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/4mn8u.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiles, R.M., L. Glenna, A. Sharma, J. Catchmark, C.D. Azzara, and A. Maretzki. 2020. Agri-food firms, universities, and corporate social responsibility: What’s in the public interest? Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 35 (2): 158–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choudary, S. 2018. The architecture of digital labour platforms: policy recommendations on platform design for worker well-being, ILO Future of Work research paper series, no. 3, ILO, Geneva.

  • Church, G.M., and E. Regis. 2014. Regenesis: How synthetic biology will reinvent nature and ourselves. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clancy, M.S., and G. Moschini. 2017. Intellectual property rights and the ascent of proprietary innovation in agriculture. Annual Review of Resource Economics 9: 53–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clapp, J., and S.L. Ruder. 2020. Precision technologies for agriculture: Digital farming, gene-edited crops, and the politics of sustainability. Global Environmental Politics 20: 49–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Comi, M. 2020. The distributed farmer: Rethinking US Midwestern precision agriculture techniques. Environmental Sociology 6: 403–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Comino, S., and F.M. Manenti. 2011. Dual licensing in open source software markets. Information Economics and Policy 23: 234–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corkery, M., and N. Popper. 2018. From farm to blockchain: Walmart tracks its lettuce. The New York Times. September 24. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/24/business/walmart-blockchain-lettuce.html. Accessed 14 July 2021.

  • Cosgrove, E. 2017. What do farmers think about cultured meat? Ag Funder News. October 12. https://agfundernews.com/what-do-farmers-think-about-cultured-meat.html. Accessed 21 July 2020.

  • CMMC (Cultivated Meat Modeling Consortium). 2019. Using computational modeling to advance cultivated meat. September 19. https://thecmmc.org/. Accessed 21 July 2020.

  • CMMC (Cultivated Meat Modeling Consortium). 2021. Member subscription term sheet. January 26. Unpublished.

  • Cumbers, J., and K. Costa. 2020. China’s plan to beat the U.S. in the trillion-dollar global bioeconomy. Synbiobeta. February 8. https://synbiobeta.com/chinas-plan-to-beat-the-u-s-in-the-trillion-dollar-global-bioeconomy. Accessed 21 July 2020.

  • Cumbers, J., and K. Schmieder. 2017. What’s your bio strategy? New York: Pulp Bio Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cusumano, M., A. Gawer, and D.B. Yoffie. 2019. The business of platforms: Strategy in the age of digital competition, innovation, and power. New York: HarperCollins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Datar, I., E. Kim, and G. d’Origny. 2016. New harvest: Building the cellular agriculture economy. In The future of meat without animals, ed. B. Donaldson and C. Carter, 121–131. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. 1991. Democracy and educational administration. Planning and Changing 22: 134–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P.J., and W. Powell. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review 48 (2): 147–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Djelic, M.L., and S. Quack. 2007. Overcoming path dependency: Path generation in open systems. Theory and Society 36: 161–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dolgin, E. 2020. Cell-based meat with a side of science. Nature 588: S64–S67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Domingos, P. 2015. The master algorithm: How the quest for the ultimate learning machine will remake our world. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, L. 2018. How rural America got milked. Washington monthly. https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/january-february-march-2018/how-rural-america-got-milked/. Accessed 21 July 2020.

  • Dryzek, J. S. (2005). Deliberative democracy in divided societies: Alternatives to agonism and analgesia. Political Theory 33 (2): 218–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eddens, A. 2019. White science and indigenous maize: The racial logics of the green revolution. The Journal of Peasant Studies 46: 653–673.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emerson, R.M., R.I. Fretz, and L. Shaw. 2011. Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, A. 2020. The digital revolution, data curation, and the new dynamics of food sovereignty construction. The Journal of Peasant Studies 47: 208–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuglie, K.O., and A. Toole. 2014. The evolving institutional structure of public and private agricultural research. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 96: 862–883.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galloway, S. 2017. The four: The hidden DNA of Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garsten, C., and A. Sörbom. 2018. Discreet power: How the world economic forum shapes market agendas. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gershlak, J.R., S. Hernandez, G. Fontana, L.R. Perreault, K.J. Hansen, S.A. Larson, B.Y. Binder, D.M. Dolivo, T. Yang, T. Dominko, M.W. Rolle, P.J. Weathers, F. Medina-Bolivae, C.L. Cramer, W.L. Murphy, and G.R. Gaudette. 2017. Crossing kingdoms: Using decellularized plants as perfusable tissue engineering scaffolds. Biomaterials 125: 13–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson-Graham, J.K. 2006. A postcapitalist politics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gille, Z., and S.O. Riain. 2002. Global ethnography. Annual Review of Sociology 28: 271–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glenna, L., and G. Mitev. 2009. Global neo-liberalism, global ecological modernization, and a swine CAFO in rural Bulgaria. Journal of Rural Studies 25 (3): 289–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glenna, L., J. Tooker, R. Welsh, and D. Ervin. 2015. Intellectual property, scientific independence, and the efficacy and environmental impacts of genetically engineered crops. Rural Sociology 80: 147–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, D., B. Sorj, and J. Wilkinson. 1987. From farming to biotechnology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guthman, J., and C. Biltekoff. 2020. Magical disruption?Alternative protein and the promise of de-materialization. Environment and Planning e: Nature and Space. https://doi.org/10.1177/2514848620963125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagedoorn, J., and A. Zobel. 2015. The role of contracts and intellectual property rights in open innovation. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 27: 1050–1067.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haigh, N., J. Walker, S. Bacq, and J. Kickul. 2015. Hybrid organizations: Origins, strategies, impacts, and implications. California Management Review 57: 5–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, B.G., C.T. Bugge, and P.K. Skibrek. 2020. Automatic milking systems and farmer wellbeing–exploring the effects of automation and digitalization in dairy farming. Journal of Rural Studies 80: 469–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hebinck, P. 2018. De-/re-agrarianisation: Global perspectives. Journal of Rural Studies 61: 227–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heimans, J., and H. Timms. 2018. New power: How power works in our hyperconnected world–and how to make it work for you. London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hines, E., J.A. Campbell, T. Felix, and R.M. Chiles. 2018. Cell-culture technology and potential impacts on livestock production. Penn State Extension. https://extension.psu.edu/cell-culture-technology-and-potential-impacts-on-livestock-production. Accessed 21 July 2020.

  • Hocquette, A., C. Lambert, C. Sinquin, L. Peterolff, Z. Wagner, S.F. Bonny, A. Lebert, and J.F. Hocquette. 2015. Educated consumers don’t believe artificial meat is the solution to the problems with the meat industry. Journal of Integrative Agriculture 14 (2): 273–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howard, P.H. 2016. Concentration and power in the food system: Who controls what we eat? New York: Bloomsbury Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ilea, R.C. 2009. Intensive livestock farming: Global trends, increased environmental concerns, and ethical solutions. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 22: 153–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobides, M.G. 2019. Designing digital ecosystems. In Platforms and ecosystems: Enabling the digital economy, ed. M.G. Jacobides, A. Sundararajan, and M. Van Alstyne, 13–18. Geneva: World Economic Forum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, S.J., M. Bailey, and B.F. Welles. 2020. # HashtagActivism: Networks of race and gender justice. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe, J., and M. Gertler. 2006. Victual vicissitudes: Consumer deskilling and the (gendered) transformation of food systems. Agriculture and Human Values 23: 143–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S. 2004. States of knowledge: The co-production of science and the social order. New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S. 2016. The ethics of invention: Technology and the human future. New York: WW Norton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jönsson, E. 2016. Benevolent technotopias and hitherto unimaginable meats: Tracing the promises of in vitro meat. Social Studies of Science 46: 725–748.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Juma, C. 2016. Innovation and its enemies: Why people resist new technologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kahan, S., J. Camphuijsen, C. Cannistra, G. Potter, Z. Cosenza, and I. Shmulevich. 2020. Cultivated meat modeling consortium: Inaugural meeting whitepaper. Authorea. https://doi.org/10.22541/au.158057683.31004563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, E., and A. Light. 1996. Environmental pragmatism. 1st edn. Milton Park: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, D., and P. Le Galès. 2017. The three constituencies of the state: Why the state has lost unifying energy. The British Journal of Sociology 68: S11–S33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klerkx, L., E. Jakku, and P. Labarthe. 2019. A review of social science on digital agriculture, smart farming and agriculture 4.0: New contributions and a future research agenda. NJAS-Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 90: 100315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kloppenburg, J. 2005. First the seed: The political economy of plant biotechnology. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kloppenburg, J. 2010. Impeding dispossession, enabling repossession: Biological open source and the recovery of seed sovereignty. Journal of Agrarian Change 10: 367–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kloppenburg, J. 2014. Re-purposing the master’s tools: The open source seed initiative and the struggle for seed sovereignty. Journal of Peasant Studies 41: 1225–1246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozinets, R.V. 2015. Netnography. In The international encyclopedia of digital communication and society, ed. R. Mansell and P.H. Ang, 653–660. Malden: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laestadius, L. 2015. Public perceptions of the ethics of in-vitro meat: Determining an appropriate course of action. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 28: 991–1009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, G. 2017. Re-evaluating food systems and food security: A global perspective. Journal of Sociology 53: 774–796.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, K. 2018. AI superpowers: China, Silicon Valley, and the new world order. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lei, Z., R. Juneja, and B.D. Wright. 2009. Patents versus patenting: Implications of intellectual property protection for biological research. Nature Biotechnology 27: 36–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lele, U., and S. Goswami. 2017. The fourth industrial revolution, agricultural and rural innovation, and implications for public policy and investments: A case of India. Agricultural Economics 48: 87–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, K. 2017. How to ensure the fourth industrial revolution is ‘Made in the USA’. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/how-to-ensure-the-fourth-industrial-revolution-is-made-in-the-usa-81385. Accessed 21 July 2020.

  • Linux Foundation. 2020. About the Linux Foundation. https://www.linuxfoundation.org/about. Accessed 21 July 2020.

  • Lusk, J. 2016. Unnaturally delicious: How science and technology are serving up super foods to save the world. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynch, J., and R. Pierrehumbert. 2019. Climate impacts of cultured meat and beef cattle. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 3: 5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marcus, G.E. 1995. Ethnography in/of the world system: The emergence of multi-sited ethnography. Annual Review of Anthropology 24: 95–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsden, T., A.M. Faus, and R. Sonnino. 2019. Reproducing vulnerabilities in agri-food systems: Tracing the links between governance, financialization, and vulnerability in Europe post 2007–2008. Journal of Agrarian Change 19: 82–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, A., M. Dezuanni, J. Burgess, J. Thomas, and C.K. Wilson. 2020. Australian farmers left behind in the digital economy–insights from the Australian Digital Inclusion Index. Journal of Rural Studies 80: 195–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mascarenhas, M., and L. Busch. 2006. Seeds of change: Intellectual property rights, genetically modified soybeans and seed saving in the United States. Sociologia Ruralis 46: 122–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McAfee, A., and E. Brynjolfsson. 2017. Machine, platform, crowd: Harnessing our digital future. New York: WW Norton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, J.D., and M.N. Zald. 1977. Resource mobilization and social movements: A partial theory. American Journal of Sociology 82: 1212–1241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGrath, J.E., J.M. Martin, and R.A. Kulka. 1982. Judgment calls in research. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • McMichael, P. 2020. Does China’s ‘going out’ strategy prefigure a new food regime? The Journal of Peasant Studies 47: 116–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mehrabi, Z., D. Jimenez, and A. Jarvis. 2018. Smallholders need access to big-data agronomy too. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-02566-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merrett, C.D., and N. Walzer. 2004. Cooperatives and local development: Theory and applications for the 21st century. New York: ME Sharpe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M.B., M. Huberman, and J. Saldaña. 2014. Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mooney, P.H. 2004. Democratizing rural economy: Institutional friction, sustainable struggle and the cooperative movement. Rural Sociology 69 (1): 76–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nachal, N., J.A. Moses, P. Karthik, and C. Anandharamakrishnan. 2019. Applications of 3D printing in food processing. Food Engineering Reviews 11: 123–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Novkovic, S. 2018. Are cooperatives transformative, or just businesses? Cooperative Business Journal Fall 2018: 30–40.

  • Noyes, A. 2020. Eat Just makes history (again) with restaurant debut of cultured meat. Business wire. December 21. https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20201220005063/en/Eat-Just-Makes-History-Again-with-Restaurant-Debut-of-Cultured-Meat. Accessed 14 July 2021.

  • Okoli, C. and J. Nguyen. 2015. Business models for free and open source software: Insights from a Delphi study. In Proceedings of the 21st Americas Conference on Information Systems, Puerto Rico. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2769875. Accessed 21 July 2020.

  • Oncini, F., E. Bozzini, F. Forno, and N. Magnani. 2020. Towards food platforms? An analysis of online food provisioning services in Italy. Geoforum 114: 172–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patel, R., and J.W. Moore. 2017. A history of the world in seven cheap things: A guide to capitalism, nature, and the future of the planet. Oakland: University of California Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Perls, D. 2018. From lab to fork. Friends of the Earth. https://foe.org/resources/from-lab-to-fork/. Accessed 21 July 2020.

  • Pimbert, M., J. Thompson, W.T. Vorley, T. Fox, N. Kanji, and C. Tacoli. 2001. Global restructuring, agri-food systems and livelihoods. International Institute for Environment and Development. Gatekeeper Series: SA100.

  • Pixley, K.V., J.B. Falck-Zepeda, K.E. Giller, L. Glenna, F. Gould, C.A. Mallory-Smith, D.M. Stelly, and C.N. Stewart Jr. 2019. Genome editing, gene drives, and synthetic biology: Will they contribute to disease-resistant crops, and who will benefit? Annual Review of Phytopathology 57: 165–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ransom, E., L. Busch, and G. Middendorf. 1998. Can cooperatives survive the privatization of biotechnology in U.S. agriculture? In Privatization of information and agricultural industrialization, ed. S.A. Wolf, 75–93. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rifkin, J. 2014. The zero marginal cost society: The internet of things, the collaborative commons, and the eclipse of capitalism. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose, D.C., R. Wheeler, M. Winter, M. Lobley, and C.A. Chivers. 2021. Agriculture 4.0: Making it work for people, production, and the planet. Land Use Policy 100: 104933.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rotz, S., E. Duncan, M. Small, J. Botschner, R. Dara, I. Mosby, M. Reed, and E. Fraser. 2019a. The politics of digital agricultural technologies: A preliminary review. Sociologia Ruralis 59: 203–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rotz, S., E. Gravely, I. Mosby, E. Duncan, E. Finnis, M. Horgan, J. LeBlanc, R. Martin, H.T. Neufeld, and A. Nixon. 2019b. Automated pastures and the digital divide: How agricultural technologies are shaping labour and rural communities. Journal of Rural Studies 68: 112–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneiberg, M., M. King, and T. Smith. 2008. Social movements and organizational form: Cooperative alternatives to corporations in the American insurance, dairy, and grain industries. American Sociological Review 73: 635–667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwab, K. 2016. The fourth industrial revolution. Geneva: Crown Business.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwab, K., and N. Davis. 2018. Shaping the future of the fourth industrial revolution. Geneva: Currency.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, D. 2011. The technological fix criticisms and the agricultural biotechnology debate. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 24: 207–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, T., K. Eli, C. Dolan, and S. Ulijaszek. 2017. Digital food activism. New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Shieber, J. 2018. Tyson Foods investment arm backs another lab-grown meat manufacturer. Tech Crunch. https://techcrunch.com/2018/05/02/tyson-foods-investment-arm-backs-another-lab-grown-meat-manufacturer. Accessed 21 July 2020.

  • Slade, P. 2018. If you build it, will they eat it? Consumer preferences for plant-based and cultured meat burgers. Appetite 125: 428–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Specht, E., D. Welch, E.M.R. Clayton, and C. Lagally. 2018. Opportunities for applying biomedical production and manufacturing methods to the development of the clean meat industry. Biochemical Engineering Journal 132: 161–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephens, N., A.E. Sexton, and C. Driessen. 2019. Making sense of making meat: Key moments in the first 20 years of tissue engineering muscle to make food. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 3: 45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Staeritz, F., S. Torrance, and M. Larkin. 2020. Fightback: How to win in the digital economy with platforms, ventures and entrepreneurs. London: LID Publishing Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stilgoe, J., R. Owen, and P. Macnaghten. 2013. Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy 42: 1568–1580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Starostinetskaya, A. 2018. Meat brand invests $8.8 million in cultured-meat pioneer. VegNewshttps://vegnews.com/2018/7/meat-brand-invests-88-million-in-cultured-meat-pioneer. Accessed 21 July 2020.

  • Tapscott, D., and A. Tapscott. 2016. Blockchain revolution: How the technology behind bitcoin is changing money, business, and the world. New York: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuomisto, H.L. 2019. Vertical farming and cultured meat: Immature technologies for urgent problems. One Earth 1: 275–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • USDA NASS. (2019). 2017 Census of Agriculture, Census Data Query Tool (CDQT). https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2017/Online_Resources/Census_Data_Query_Tool/. Accessed 21 July 2020.

  • Van Alstyne, M., G.G. Parker, and S.G. Choudary. 2016. Pipelines, platforms, and the new rules of strategy. Harvard Business Review 94: 54–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Alstyne, M. 2019. The opportunity and challenge of platforms. Designing digital ecosystems. In Platforms and ecosystems: Enabling the digital economy, ed. M.G. Jacobides, A. Sundararajan, and M. Van Alstyne, 8–12. Geneva: World Economic Forum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vertesi, J., D. Ribes, L. Forlano, Y. Loukissas, and M.L. Cohn. 2016. Engaging, designing, and making digital systems. In The handbook of science and technology studies, ed. U. Felt, R. Fouché, C.A. Miller, and L. Smith-Doerr, 169–194. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Schomberg, R. 2011. Towards responsible research and innovation in the information and communication technologies and security technologies fields. Brussels: European Commission. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2436399.

  • Walter, M. and M. Lohse. 2017. Platform innovation kit: User guide. Platform & Blockchain Innovation Lab. https://platforminnovationkit.com/. Accessed 21 July 2020.

  • Webb, A. 2019. The big nine: How the tech titans and their thinking machines could warp humanity. New York: Public Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Welsh, R., L. Glenna, W. Lacy, and D. Biscotti. 2008. Close enough but not too far: Assessing the effects of university–industry research relationships and the rise of academic capitalism. Research Policy 37: 1854–1864.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, S.A., and S.D. Wood. 1997. Precision farming: Environmental legitimation, commodification of information, and industrial coordination 1. Rural Sociology 62: 180–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Source

    Leave a comment

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.