32 M. M. Bugge et al.
such as trade in various forms of human tissues (examples of such criticism
include questioning trade in cord- blood (Brown, 2013; Brown, Machin &
McLeod, 2011; Martin, Brown & Turner, 2008; Waldby & Cooper, 2010),
oocytes (Gupta, 2012; Haimes, 2013; Waldby, 2008), foetal tissue (Kent,
2008), stem cells (Fannin, 2013), femoral head (Hoeyer, 2009) and blood
(Mumtaz, Bowen & Mumtaz, 2012; Schwarz, 2009)). Examples of topics that
are discussed are the ethics of commercialisation of bioresources (Bahadur &
Morrison, 2010), safety in blood supply (Mumtaz et al., 2012), inequalities in
access to bio- resources (Davies, 2006) and the moral dilemmas of surrogacy
(Gupta, 2012).
Regarding value creation, the bio- ecology vision emphasises the promotion
of biodiversity, conservation of ecosystems, the ability to provide ecosystem
services and prevention of soil degradation (Levidow et al., 2013; McCormick
& Kautto, 2013). Moreover, it is emphasised that energy production from
bio- waste only takes place at the very end of the chain, after reuse and recycling. Also, the use of own waste as well as waste from urban areas is important
to reduce or even eliminate the need for external inputs to bioproduct production facilities (Levidow et al., 2013; McCormick & Kautto, 2013). In this
sense this vision emphasises a circular and self- sustained production mode.
With reference to the underlying drivers and mediators of innovation, the bioecological vision of the bioeconomy highlights the identification of favourable organic bio- ecological practices (Marsden, 2012; Siegmeier & Möller,
2013) and ecological interactions related to the re- use and recycling of waste
and efficiency in land use. A related key topic is bio- ecological engineering
techniques that aim to “design agricultural systems that require as few agrochemicals and energy inputs as possible, instead relying on ecological interactions between biological components to enable agricultural systems to boost
their own soil fertility, productivity and crop protection” (Levidow et al.,
2013, pp. 98–99).
Whereas the two other bioeconomy visions place emphasis on the role of
technically focused research and innovation activities, this is not the case in
the bio- ecology vision. In fact, certain technologies such as genetically modified crops are ruled out in the bio- ecology vision. This does not imply that
research and innovation activities are deemed unimportant, but rather that
they have different foci. For instance, Albrecht, Gottschick, Schorling and
Stint (2012) call for greater emphasis in research on transdisciplinary sustainability topics related to e.g. cultivation potentials of sustainable biomass,
global fair trade and wider participation in discussions and decisions on transition processes. Finally, calls are made for research that takes the global scale
as the point of departure and accounts for the negative consequences of the
competing bioeconomy visions (Hansen, 2014).
In terms of spatial focus, the bio- ecology vision emphasises the opportunities
for rural and peripheral regions in a similar way to the bio- resource vision. It is
suggested that rural growth opportunities may result from a focus on highquality products with territorial identity (Levidow et al., 2013). However,
such as trade in various forms of human tissues (examples of such criticism
include questioning trade in cord- blood (Brown, 2013; Brown, Machin &
McLeod, 2011; Martin, Brown & Turner, 2008; Waldby & Cooper, 2010),
oocytes (Gupta, 2012; Haimes, 2013; Waldby, 2008), foetal tissue (Kent,
2008), stem cells (Fannin, 2013), femoral head (Hoeyer, 2009) and blood
(Mumtaz, Bowen & Mumtaz, 2012; Schwarz, 2009)). Examples of topics that
are discussed are the ethics of commercialisation of bioresources (Bahadur &
Morrison, 2010), safety in blood supply (Mumtaz et al., 2012), inequalities in
access to bio- resources (Davies, 2006) and the moral dilemmas of surrogacy
(Gupta, 2012).
Regarding value creation, the bio- ecology vision emphasises the promotion
of biodiversity, conservation of ecosystems, the ability to provide ecosystem
services and prevention of soil degradation (Levidow et al., 2013; McCormick
& Kautto, 2013). Moreover, it is emphasised that energy production from
bio- waste only takes place at the very end of the chain, after reuse and recycling. Also, the use of own waste as well as waste from urban areas is important
to reduce or even eliminate the need for external inputs to bioproduct production facilities (Levidow et al., 2013; McCormick & Kautto, 2013). In this
sense this vision emphasises a circular and self- sustained production mode.
With reference to the underlying drivers and mediators of innovation, the bioecological vision of the bioeconomy highlights the identification of favourable organic bio- ecological practices (Marsden, 2012; Siegmeier & Möller,
2013) and ecological interactions related to the re- use and recycling of waste
and efficiency in land use. A related key topic is bio- ecological engineering
techniques that aim to “design agricultural systems that require as few agrochemicals and energy inputs as possible, instead relying on ecological interactions between biological components to enable agricultural systems to boost
their own soil fertility, productivity and crop protection” (Levidow et al.,
2013, pp. 98–99).
Whereas the two other bioeconomy visions place emphasis on the role of
technically focused research and innovation activities, this is not the case in
the bio- ecology vision. In fact, certain technologies such as genetically modified crops are ruled out in the bio- ecology vision. This does not imply that
research and innovation activities are deemed unimportant, but rather that
they have different foci. For instance, Albrecht, Gottschick, Schorling and
Stint (2012) call for greater emphasis in research on transdisciplinary sustainability topics related to e.g. cultivation potentials of sustainable biomass,
global fair trade and wider participation in discussions and decisions on transition processes. Finally, calls are made for research that takes the global scale
as the point of departure and accounts for the negative consequences of the
competing bioeconomy visions (Hansen, 2014).
In terms of spatial focus, the bio- ecology vision emphasises the opportunities
for rural and peripheral regions in a similar way to the bio- resource vision. It is
suggested that rural growth opportunities may result from a focus on highquality products with territorial identity (Levidow et al., 2013). However,