Publications by category
Books
Nerlich B, Hartley S, Raman S, Smith A (eds)(2018).
Science and the Politics of Openness: Here be Monsters.Abstract:
Science and the Politics of Openness: Here be Monsters
Abstract.
Brunk CG, Hartley S (eds)(2012).
Designer Animals Mapping the Issues in Animal Biotechnology., University of Toronto Press.
Abstract:
Designer Animals Mapping the Issues in Animal Biotechnology
Abstract.
Journal articles
Kjeldaas S, Antonsen T, Hartley S, Myhr AI (In Press). Public Consultation on Proposed Revisions to Norway's Gene Technology Act: an Analysis of the Consultation Framing, Stakeholder Concerns, and the Integration of Non-Safety Considerations. Sustainability
Hartley S, Ledingham K, Owen R, Leonelli S, Diarra S, Diop S (2021). Experimenting with co-development: a qualitative study of gene drive research for malaria control in Mali.
Social Science and Medicine,
276 Full text.
DOI.
Smith RDJ, Hartley S, Middleton P, Jewitt T (2021). Knowing when to talk? Plant genome editing as a site for pre-engagement institutional reflexivity.
Public Understanding of Science DOI.
Hartley S, Smith RDJ, Kokotovich A, Opesen C, Habtewold T, Ledingham K, Raymond B, Rwabukwali CB (2021). Ugandan stakeholder hopes and concerns about gene drive mosquitoes for malaria control: new directions for gene drive risk governance.
Malaria Journal,
20 Full text.
DOI.
Long KC, Alphey L, Annas GJ, Bloss CS, Campbell KJ, Champer J, Chen C-H, Choudhary A, Church GM, Collins JP, et al (2020). Core commitments for field trials of gene drive organisms.
Science,
370(6523), 1417-1419.
DOI.
Hadley Kershaw E, Hartley S, McLeod C, Polson P (2020). The Sustainable Path to a Circular Bioeconomy.
Trends in Biotechnology,
39(6), 542-545.
Full text.
DOI.
Ledingham K, Hartley S (2020). Transformation and slippage in co-production ambitions for global technology development: the case of gene drive.
Environmental Science and Policy Full text.
DOI.
Welsh C, Pike L, Elliott J, Bailey J, Quintin-Baxendale R, Billington J, Matousek A, Matthews C, Dumitrescu D, Murphy JF, et al (2020). Why is it so hard to enact responsible change?: Scientists need to work more closely with other social groups to implement sustainable innovation.
EMBO Rep,
21(4).
Abstract:
Why is it so hard to enact responsible change?: Scientists need to work more closely with other social groups to implement sustainable innovation.
Science is key to developing sustainable products and solutions. But scientists also need to work more with governments, industry and society to help implement those solutions.
Abstract.
Author URL.
Full text.
DOI.
Hartley S, McLeod C, Clifford M, Jewitt S, Ray C (2019). A retrospective analysis of responsible innovation for low-technology innovation in the Global South.
Journal of Responsible Innovation,
6(2), 143-162.
Abstract:
A retrospective analysis of responsible innovation for low-technology innovation in the Global South
The role of low-technology innovation in addressing global challenges is undervalued. Responsible innovation (RI) has the potential to direct low-technology innovation toward global challenges in the Global South, yet this possibility remains largely unexplored. Through a retrospective analysis, this article explores how researchers grapple with dimensions of an RI framework in a research project and highlights key areas for researchers to consider when involved with low-technology innovation in a development context. The analysis demonstrates that RI can structure discussion and create space for anticipation, reflection and engagement with stakeholders. However, even when researchers are committed to the idea of RI, it is difficult to enact in practice. Although RI places significant emphasis on inclusive and meaningful engagement as imagined by co-development and inclusive models of innovation, the deficit model of public engagement presents a formidable barrier. Surprisingly, low-technology innovators are likely to face the same struggles as high technology innovators with regards to engagement that allows end-users to shape the technology which may ultimately benefit them.
Abstract.
Full text.
DOI.
Thizy D, Emerson C, Gibbs J, Hartley S, Kapiriri L, Lavery J, Lunshof J, Ramsey J, Shapiro J, Singh J, et al (2019). Guidance on stakeholder engagement practices to inform the development of area-wide vector control methods.
PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases Full text.
DOI.
Rosemann A, Balen A, Nerlich B, Hauskeller C, Sleeboom‐Faulkner M, Hartley S, Zhang X, Lee N (2019). Heritable Genome Editing in a Global Context: National and International Policy Challenges.
Hastings Center Report,
49(3) Full text.
DOI.
Hartley S, Thizy D, Ledingham K, Coulibaly M, Diabaté A, Dicko D, Diop S, Kayondo J, Namukwaya A, Nourou B, et al (2019). Knowledge engagement in gene drive research for malaria control.
PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases Full text.
DOI.
Helliwell R, Hartley S, Pearce W (2019). NGO perspectives on the social and ethical dimensions of plant genome-editing.
Agriculture and Human Values,
36(4), 779-791.
Abstract:
NGO perspectives on the social and ethical dimensions of plant genome-editing
Plant genome editing has the potential to become another chapter in the intractable debate that has dogged agricultural biotechnology. In 2016, 107 Nobel Laureates accused Greenpeace of emotional and dogmatic campaigning against agricultural biotechnology and called for governments to defy such campaigning. The Laureates invoke the authority of science to argue that Greenpeace is putting lives at risk by opposing agricultural biotechnology and Golden Rice and is notable in framing Greenpeace as unethical and its views as marginal. This paper examines environmental, food and farming NGOs’ social and ethical concerns about genome editing, situating these concerns in comparison to alternative ethical assessments provided by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, a key actor in this policy debate. In doing so, we show that participant NGOs and the Nuffield Council on Bioethics share considerable concerns about the social and ethical implications of genome editing. These concerns include choices over problem/solution framing and broader terminology, implications of regulatory and research choices on consumer choice and relations of power. However, GM-engaged NGOs and the Nuffield Council on Bioethics diverge on one important area: the NGOs seek to challenge the existing order and broaden the scope of debate to include deeply political questions regarding agricultural and technological choices. This distinction between the ethical positions means that NGOs provide valuable ethical insight and a useful lens to open up debate and discussion on the role of emerging technologies, such as genome editing, and the future of agriculture and food sovereignty.
Abstract.
Full text.
DOI.
De Graeff N, Jongsma KR, Johnston J, Hartley S, Bredenoord AL (2019). The ethics of genome editing in non-human animals: a systematic review of reasons reported in the academic literature.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences,
374(1772).
Abstract:
The ethics of genome editing in non-human animals: a systematic review of reasons reported in the academic literature
In recent years, new genome editing technologies have emerged that can edit the genome of non-human animals with progressively increasing efficiency. Despite ongoing academic debate about the ethical implications of these technologies, no comprehensive overview of this debate exists. To address this gap in the literature, we conducted a systematic review of the reasons reported in the academic literature for and against the development and use of genome editing technologies in animals. Most included articles were written by academics from the biomedical or animal sciences. The reported reasons related to seven themes: human health, efficiency, risks and uncertainty, animal welfare, animal dignity, environmental considerations and public acceptability. Our findings illuminate several key considerations about the academic debate, including a low disciplinary diversity in the contributing academics, a scarcity of systematic comparisons of potential consequences of using these technologies, an underrepresentation of animal interests, and a disjunction between the public and academic debate on this topic. As such, this article can be considered a call for a broad range of academics to get increasingly involved in the discussion about genome editing, to incorporate animal interests and systematic comparisons, and to further discuss the aims and methods of public involvement. This article is part of a discussion meeting issue 'The ecology and evolution of prokaryotic CRISPR-Cas adaptive immune systems'.
Abstract.
Full text.
DOI.
Ribeiro B, Hartley S, Nerlich B, Jaspal R (2018). Media coverage of the Zika crisis in Brazil: the construction of a ‘war’ frame that masked social and gender inequalities.
Social Science & Medicine,
200, 137-144.
Full text.
DOI.
Pearce W, Hartley S, Helliwell R, O'Neill L (2018). Reply to Tagliabue.
EMBO reports,
19(4).
Full text.
DOI.
Wickson F, Preston C, Binimelis R, Herrero A, Hartley S, Wynberg R, Wynne B (2017). Addressing Socio-Economic and Ethical Considerations in Biotechnology Governance: the Potential of a New Politics of Care.
Food Ethics,
1(2), 193-199.
Full text.
DOI.
Hartley S, Pearce W, Taylor A (2017). Against the tide of depoliticisation: the politics of research governance.
Policy & Politics,
45(3), 361-377.
Full text.
DOI.
Hyde R, Hartley S, Millar K (2017). European novel foods policy at a critical juncture: Drawing lessons for future Novel Food Regulation through a retrospective examination of Regulation EC 258/97.
Food and Drug Law Journal,
72 (3), 472-505.
Full text.
McLeod C, Hartley S (2017). Responsibility and Laboratory Animal Research Governance.
Science, Technology, and Human Values Full text.
de Campos A, Hartley S, de Koning C, Lezaun J, Velho L (2017). Responsible innovation and political accountability: genetically modified mosquitoes in Brazil.
Journal of Responsible Innovation,
4 (1), 5-23.
Full text.
DOI.
Helliwell R, Hartley S, Pearce W, O'Neill L (2017). Why are. NGO. s sceptical of genome editing?.
EMBO reports,
18(12), 2090-2093.
Full text.
DOI.
Hartley S, Gillund F, van Hove L, Wickson F (2016). Essential Features of Responsible Governance of Agricultural Biotechnology.
PLOS Biology,
14(5), e1002453-e1002453.
Full text.
DOI.
Pearce W, Hartley S, Nerlich B (2016). Transparency: issues are not that simple.
Nature,
531(7592), 35-35.
Full text.
DOI.
Macnaghten P, Owen R, Stilgoe J, Wynne B, Azevedo A, Campo ALSD, Chilvers J, Dagnino R, Giulio GD, Frow E, et al (2015). Inovação responsável através de fronteiras: tensões, paradoxos e possibilidades.
Teoria e Pesquisa,
24(2), 18-24.
DOI.
Hartley S (2015). Policy masquerading as science: an examination of non-state actor involvement in European risk assessment policy for genetically modified animals.
Journal of European Public Policy,
23(2), 276-295.
Full text.
DOI.
Macnaghten PM, Owen RJ, Stilgoe J, Wynne B (2014). Responsible innovation across borders: tensions, paradoxes and possibilities.
Journal of Responsible Innovation,
1(2), 191-199.
DOI.
Hartley S, Millar KM (2014). The Challenges of Consulting the Public on Science Policy: Examining the Development of European Risk Assessment Policy for Genetically Modified Animals.
Review of Policy Research,
31(6), 481-502.
Full text.
DOI.
Hartley S, Scott DN (2006). Out-of-bounds? Resisting discursive limits in the debate over food biotechnology. Canadian Review of Social Policy
Hartley S, skogstad G (2005). Regulating genetically modified crops and foods in Canada and the United Kingdom: Democratizing risk regulation.
Canadian Public Administration/Administration publique du Canada,
48(3), 305-327.
DOI.
Chapters
Hartley S, Kokotovich A (2018). Disentangling risk assessment: New roles for experts and publics. In (Ed) Science and the politics of openness, 176-194.
Nerlich B, Raman S, Hartley S, Smith ATT (2018). Introduction. In (Ed) Science and the politics of openness, 1-20.
Hartley S (2016). The treatment of social and ethical concerns in policy responses to agricultural biotechnology: an historical analysis. In (Ed) The intellectual property–regulatory complex: Overcoming barriers to innovation in agricultural genomics.
Brunk CG, Hartley S, Rodgers LC (2012). Focusing on the values in debates about animal biotechnology. In (Ed) Designer animals: Mapping the issues in animal biotechnology.
Brunk C, Hartley S (2012). Issues of governance in animal biotechnology. In (Ed) Designer animals: Mapping the issues in animal biotechnology.
Skogstad G, Hartley S (2007). Science and policy-making: the legitimation conundrum. In (Ed) Public science in liberal democracy: the challenge to science and democracy.
Publications by year
In Press
Kjeldaas S, Antonsen T, Hartley S, Myhr AI (In Press). Public Consultation on Proposed Revisions to Norway's Gene Technology Act: an Analysis of the Consultation Framing, Stakeholder Concerns, and the Integration of Non-Safety Considerations. Sustainability
2021
Hartley S, Ledingham K, Owen R, Leonelli S, Diarra S, Diop S (2021). Experimenting with co-development: a qualitative study of gene drive research for malaria control in Mali.
Social Science and Medicine,
276 Full text.
DOI.
Smith RDJ, Hartley S, Middleton P, Jewitt T (2021). Knowing when to talk? Plant genome editing as a site for pre-engagement institutional reflexivity.
Public Understanding of Science DOI.
Hartley S, Smith RDJ, Kokotovich A, Opesen C, Habtewold T, Ledingham K, Raymond B, Rwabukwali CB (2021). Ugandan stakeholder hopes and concerns about gene drive mosquitoes for malaria control: new directions for gene drive risk governance.
Malaria Journal,
20 Full text.
DOI.
2020
Long KC, Alphey L, Annas GJ, Bloss CS, Campbell KJ, Champer J, Chen C-H, Choudhary A, Church GM, Collins JP, et al (2020). Core commitments for field trials of gene drive organisms.
Science,
370(6523), 1417-1419.
DOI.
Hadley Kershaw E, Hartley S, McLeod C, Polson P (2020). The Sustainable Path to a Circular Bioeconomy.
Trends in Biotechnology,
39(6), 542-545.
Full text.
DOI.
Ledingham K, Hartley S (2020). Transformation and slippage in co-production ambitions for global technology development: the case of gene drive.
Environmental Science and Policy Full text.
DOI.
Welsh C, Pike L, Elliott J, Bailey J, Quintin-Baxendale R, Billington J, Matousek A, Matthews C, Dumitrescu D, Murphy JF, et al (2020). Why is it so hard to enact responsible change?: Scientists need to work more closely with other social groups to implement sustainable innovation.
EMBO Rep,
21(4).
Abstract:
Why is it so hard to enact responsible change?: Scientists need to work more closely with other social groups to implement sustainable innovation.
Science is key to developing sustainable products and solutions. But scientists also need to work more with governments, industry and society to help implement those solutions.
Abstract.
Author URL.
Full text.
DOI.
2019
Hartley S, McLeod C, Clifford M, Jewitt S, Ray C (2019). A retrospective analysis of responsible innovation for low-technology innovation in the Global South.
Journal of Responsible Innovation,
6(2), 143-162.
Abstract:
A retrospective analysis of responsible innovation for low-technology innovation in the Global South
The role of low-technology innovation in addressing global challenges is undervalued. Responsible innovation (RI) has the potential to direct low-technology innovation toward global challenges in the Global South, yet this possibility remains largely unexplored. Through a retrospective analysis, this article explores how researchers grapple with dimensions of an RI framework in a research project and highlights key areas for researchers to consider when involved with low-technology innovation in a development context. The analysis demonstrates that RI can structure discussion and create space for anticipation, reflection and engagement with stakeholders. However, even when researchers are committed to the idea of RI, it is difficult to enact in practice. Although RI places significant emphasis on inclusive and meaningful engagement as imagined by co-development and inclusive models of innovation, the deficit model of public engagement presents a formidable barrier. Surprisingly, low-technology innovators are likely to face the same struggles as high technology innovators with regards to engagement that allows end-users to shape the technology which may ultimately benefit them.
Abstract.
Full text.
DOI.
Thizy D, Emerson C, Gibbs J, Hartley S, Kapiriri L, Lavery J, Lunshof J, Ramsey J, Shapiro J, Singh J, et al (2019). Guidance on stakeholder engagement practices to inform the development of area-wide vector control methods.
PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases Full text.
DOI.
Rosemann A, Balen A, Nerlich B, Hauskeller C, Sleeboom‐Faulkner M, Hartley S, Zhang X, Lee N (2019). Heritable Genome Editing in a Global Context: National and International Policy Challenges.
Hastings Center Report,
49(3) Full text.
DOI.
Hartley S, Thizy D, Ledingham K, Coulibaly M, Diabaté A, Dicko D, Diop S, Kayondo J, Namukwaya A, Nourou B, et al (2019). Knowledge engagement in gene drive research for malaria control.
PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases Full text.
DOI.
Helliwell R, Hartley S, Pearce W (2019). NGO perspectives on the social and ethical dimensions of plant genome-editing.
Agriculture and Human Values,
36(4), 779-791.
Abstract:
NGO perspectives on the social and ethical dimensions of plant genome-editing
Plant genome editing has the potential to become another chapter in the intractable debate that has dogged agricultural biotechnology. In 2016, 107 Nobel Laureates accused Greenpeace of emotional and dogmatic campaigning against agricultural biotechnology and called for governments to defy such campaigning. The Laureates invoke the authority of science to argue that Greenpeace is putting lives at risk by opposing agricultural biotechnology and Golden Rice and is notable in framing Greenpeace as unethical and its views as marginal. This paper examines environmental, food and farming NGOs’ social and ethical concerns about genome editing, situating these concerns in comparison to alternative ethical assessments provided by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, a key actor in this policy debate. In doing so, we show that participant NGOs and the Nuffield Council on Bioethics share considerable concerns about the social and ethical implications of genome editing. These concerns include choices over problem/solution framing and broader terminology, implications of regulatory and research choices on consumer choice and relations of power. However, GM-engaged NGOs and the Nuffield Council on Bioethics diverge on one important area: the NGOs seek to challenge the existing order and broaden the scope of debate to include deeply political questions regarding agricultural and technological choices. This distinction between the ethical positions means that NGOs provide valuable ethical insight and a useful lens to open up debate and discussion on the role of emerging technologies, such as genome editing, and the future of agriculture and food sovereignty.
Abstract.
Full text.
DOI.
De Graeff N, Jongsma KR, Johnston J, Hartley S, Bredenoord AL (2019). The ethics of genome editing in non-human animals: a systematic review of reasons reported in the academic literature.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences,
374(1772).
Abstract:
The ethics of genome editing in non-human animals: a systematic review of reasons reported in the academic literature
In recent years, new genome editing technologies have emerged that can edit the genome of non-human animals with progressively increasing efficiency. Despite ongoing academic debate about the ethical implications of these technologies, no comprehensive overview of this debate exists. To address this gap in the literature, we conducted a systematic review of the reasons reported in the academic literature for and against the development and use of genome editing technologies in animals. Most included articles were written by academics from the biomedical or animal sciences. The reported reasons related to seven themes: human health, efficiency, risks and uncertainty, animal welfare, animal dignity, environmental considerations and public acceptability. Our findings illuminate several key considerations about the academic debate, including a low disciplinary diversity in the contributing academics, a scarcity of systematic comparisons of potential consequences of using these technologies, an underrepresentation of animal interests, and a disjunction between the public and academic debate on this topic. As such, this article can be considered a call for a broad range of academics to get increasingly involved in the discussion about genome editing, to incorporate animal interests and systematic comparisons, and to further discuss the aims and methods of public involvement. This article is part of a discussion meeting issue 'The ecology and evolution of prokaryotic CRISPR-Cas adaptive immune systems'.
Abstract.
Full text.
DOI.
2018
Hartley S, Kokotovich A (2018). Disentangling risk assessment: New roles for experts and publics. In (Ed) Science and the politics of openness, 176-194.
Nerlich B, Raman S, Hartley S, Smith ATT (2018). Introduction. In (Ed) Science and the politics of openness, 1-20.
Ribeiro B, Hartley S, Nerlich B, Jaspal R (2018). Media coverage of the Zika crisis in Brazil: the construction of a ‘war’ frame that masked social and gender inequalities.
Social Science & Medicine,
200, 137-144.
Full text.
DOI.
Pearce W, Hartley S, Helliwell R, O'Neill L (2018). Reply to Tagliabue.
EMBO reports,
19(4).
Full text.
DOI.
Nerlich B, Hartley S, Raman S, Smith A (eds)(2018).
Science and the Politics of Openness: Here be Monsters.Abstract:
Science and the Politics of Openness: Here be Monsters
Abstract.
2017
Wickson F, Preston C, Binimelis R, Herrero A, Hartley S, Wynberg R, Wynne B (2017). Addressing Socio-Economic and Ethical Considerations in Biotechnology Governance: the Potential of a New Politics of Care.
Food Ethics,
1(2), 193-199.
Full text.
DOI.
Hartley S, Pearce W, Taylor A (2017). Against the tide of depoliticisation: the politics of research governance.
Policy & Politics,
45(3), 361-377.
Full text.
DOI.
Hyde R, Hartley S, Millar K (2017). European novel foods policy at a critical juncture: Drawing lessons for future Novel Food Regulation through a retrospective examination of Regulation EC 258/97.
Food and Drug Law Journal,
72 (3), 472-505.
Full text.
McLeod C, Hartley S (2017). Responsibility and Laboratory Animal Research Governance.
Science, Technology, and Human Values Full text.
de Campos A, Hartley S, de Koning C, Lezaun J, Velho L (2017). Responsible innovation and political accountability: genetically modified mosquitoes in Brazil.
Journal of Responsible Innovation,
4 (1), 5-23.
Full text.
DOI.
Helliwell R, Hartley S, Pearce W, O'Neill L (2017). Why are. NGO. s sceptical of genome editing?.
EMBO reports,
18(12), 2090-2093.
Full text.
DOI.
2016
Hartley S, Gillund F, van Hove L, Wickson F (2016). Essential Features of Responsible Governance of Agricultural Biotechnology.
PLOS Biology,
14(5), e1002453-e1002453.
Full text.
DOI.
Hartley S (2016). The treatment of social and ethical concerns in policy responses to agricultural biotechnology: an historical analysis. In (Ed) The intellectual property–regulatory complex: Overcoming barriers to innovation in agricultural genomics.
Pearce W, Hartley S, Nerlich B (2016). Transparency: issues are not that simple.
Nature,
531(7592), 35-35.
Full text.
DOI.
2015
Macnaghten P, Owen R, Stilgoe J, Wynne B, Azevedo A, Campo ALSD, Chilvers J, Dagnino R, Giulio GD, Frow E, et al (2015). Inovação responsável através de fronteiras: tensões, paradoxos e possibilidades.
Teoria e Pesquisa,
24(2), 18-24.
DOI.
Hartley S (2015). Policy masquerading as science: an examination of non-state actor involvement in European risk assessment policy for genetically modified animals.
Journal of European Public Policy,
23(2), 276-295.
Full text.
DOI.
2014
Macnaghten PM, Owen RJ, Stilgoe J, Wynne B (2014). Responsible innovation across borders: tensions, paradoxes and possibilities.
Journal of Responsible Innovation,
1(2), 191-199.
DOI.
Hartley S, Millar KM (2014). The Challenges of Consulting the Public on Science Policy: Examining the Development of European Risk Assessment Policy for Genetically Modified Animals.
Review of Policy Research,
31(6), 481-502.
Full text.
DOI.
2012
Brunk CG, Hartley S (eds)(2012).
Designer Animals Mapping the Issues in Animal Biotechnology., University of Toronto Press.
Abstract:
Designer Animals Mapping the Issues in Animal Biotechnology
Abstract.
Brunk CG, Hartley S, Rodgers LC (2012). Focusing on the values in debates about animal biotechnology. In (Ed) Designer animals: Mapping the issues in animal biotechnology.
Brunk C, Hartley S (2012). Issues of governance in animal biotechnology. In (Ed) Designer animals: Mapping the issues in animal biotechnology.
2007
Skogstad G, Hartley S (2007). Science and policy-making: the legitimation conundrum. In (Ed) Public science in liberal democracy: the challenge to science and democracy.
2006
Hartley S, Scott DN (2006). Out-of-bounds? Resisting discursive limits in the debate over food biotechnology. Canadian Review of Social Policy
2005
Hartley S, skogstad G (2005). Regulating genetically modified crops and foods in Canada and the United Kingdom: Democratizing risk regulation.
Canadian Public Administration/Administration publique du Canada,
48(3), 305-327.
DOI.
