34 M. M. Bugge et al.
objectives may thus constitute contrasting rationalities. Such opposing rationales reflect the diversity among policy areas involved and highlight the difficulty of speaking of horizontal policies across sectors or domains. However,
at the same time, given the emphasis on engineering and the natural sciences,
the bio- technology vision and the bio- resources vision overlap to some
extent and may represent complementary strategies in terms of the possibility
of applying biotechnology to bio- resources. In this sense it may be a viable
strategy for countries and regions to possess both localised bio- resources and
the technology to refine and upgrade these. Instead of exporting bioresources for upgrading elsewhere, domestic upgrading would ensure a higher
value creation locally, in addition to expected synergies in terms of research
and innovation.
Given the main emphasis on natural and engineering sciences in much
bioeconomy research, an important topic for future studies is the connection
between the bioeconomy and its wider societal and economic implications.
The notion of the bioeconomy is often seen to cover a wide range of industries that are very different in terms of technological advancement and value
chains. Moreover, the emergence of a bioeconomy is expected to imply the
implementation and application of generic biotechnologies into several other
sectors and domains. Such application of biotechnology in different existing
industry sectors may serve to redefine how these sectors operate and what
they produce. Thus, further research into the position of the bioeconomy in
societal and economic development strategies following the principles of
regional and context- sensitive smart specialisation (Morgan, 2015) or constructed regional advantage (Cooke, 2007b) is welcome.
Thus, whether and how the transition to a bioeconomy will indeed contribute to addressing key grand challenges remains to be seen. Quite paradoxically, while the master narrative surrounding the bioeconomy stresses
these particular aspects, consequences in terms of e.g. environmental protection and climate change effects are rarely assessed (Duchesne & Wetzel, 2003;
Ollikainen, 2014). This may be attributed to the dominance of natural and
engineering science research, which often focuses on narrow aspects of the
bioeconomy rather than the wider, systemic consequences. Thus, additional
bioeconomy research in non- technical fields is arguably important in order to
provide a more profound understanding of the socioeconomic aspects of the
bioeconomy and thereby its potential for addressing the grand challenges of
our time.
As an attempt to answer the question “What is the bioeconomy?” posed in
the title, this chapter has shown that the notion of the bioeconomy is multifaceted: in breadth, e.g. in terms of origins and sectors represented; and in
depth, i.e. in terms of rationales or visions of the underlying values, direction
and drivers of the bioeconomy. The chapter has shown how these different
visions seem to co- exist in the research literature, and how they bear implications for objectives, value creation, drivers of innovation and spatial focus.
Still, although we must remember that bioeconomy is a broad (and deep)
objectives may thus constitute contrasting rationalities. Such opposing rationales reflect the diversity among policy areas involved and highlight the difficulty of speaking of horizontal policies across sectors or domains. However,
at the same time, given the emphasis on engineering and the natural sciences,
the bio- technology vision and the bio- resources vision overlap to some
extent and may represent complementary strategies in terms of the possibility
of applying biotechnology to bio- resources. In this sense it may be a viable
strategy for countries and regions to possess both localised bio- resources and
the technology to refine and upgrade these. Instead of exporting bioresources for upgrading elsewhere, domestic upgrading would ensure a higher
value creation locally, in addition to expected synergies in terms of research
and innovation.
Given the main emphasis on natural and engineering sciences in much
bioeconomy research, an important topic for future studies is the connection
between the bioeconomy and its wider societal and economic implications.
The notion of the bioeconomy is often seen to cover a wide range of industries that are very different in terms of technological advancement and value
chains. Moreover, the emergence of a bioeconomy is expected to imply the
implementation and application of generic biotechnologies into several other
sectors and domains. Such application of biotechnology in different existing
industry sectors may serve to redefine how these sectors operate and what
they produce. Thus, further research into the position of the bioeconomy in
societal and economic development strategies following the principles of
regional and context- sensitive smart specialisation (Morgan, 2015) or constructed regional advantage (Cooke, 2007b) is welcome.
Thus, whether and how the transition to a bioeconomy will indeed contribute to addressing key grand challenges remains to be seen. Quite paradoxically, while the master narrative surrounding the bioeconomy stresses
these particular aspects, consequences in terms of e.g. environmental protection and climate change effects are rarely assessed (Duchesne & Wetzel, 2003;
Ollikainen, 2014). This may be attributed to the dominance of natural and
engineering science research, which often focuses on narrow aspects of the
bioeconomy rather than the wider, systemic consequences. Thus, additional
bioeconomy research in non- technical fields is arguably important in order to
provide a more profound understanding of the socioeconomic aspects of the
bioeconomy and thereby its potential for addressing the grand challenges of
our time.
As an attempt to answer the question “What is the bioeconomy?” posed in
the title, this chapter has shown that the notion of the bioeconomy is multifaceted: in breadth, e.g. in terms of origins and sectors represented; and in
depth, i.e. in terms of rationales or visions of the underlying values, direction
and drivers of the bioeconomy. The chapter has shown how these different
visions seem to co- exist in the research literature, and how they bear implications for objectives, value creation, drivers of innovation and spatial focus.
Still, although we must remember that bioeconomy is a broad (and deep)