Martina Baumann - Cultivated Meat: a Hyped Technology Neglected by (Global) TA? [ETAC6 presentation]

CULTIVATED MEAT: A HYPED TECHNOLOGY NEGLECTED BY (GLOBAL) TA? Martina Baumann Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis (ITAS), KIT Karlsruhe, GER Institute for Science in Society (ISiS), RU Nijmegen, NL 1st global TA conference (ETAC6) Session 5.1 Hype Assessment I Cultivated meat (CM)/Agenda ➢Lab-grown, in vitro, cultured, clean, … ➢animal cells grown in bioreactors, resembling minced meat ➢proof of concept, but scaling-up and affordable prices challenging ➢potentially more sustainable in several dimensions •Investigation of consequences of hype •Media analysis of news articles and online comments (GER/NL, 2020-2023/2025) •(Global) TA and cultivated meat (hype) 2 Complex tissue manufacturing using engineered living materials –PRISM-LT 1. Is there a hype? What is hype? (how can we define, measure, and compare; already value-laden) 2. What consequences does hype have? (economic, political, societal implications, decision-making and trust in science; empirical vs. speculation) 3. (When) is hype and promising good/bad (what kind of hype in which context is ethically acceptable based on the negative and positive consequences, or fundamental values of science communication) 3 Effects (resource spending, regulations, perception of science, …) Qualitative hype descriptions/ definition Quantitative hype descriptions/definitions Mass media/social media TA reports/policy advise, political actions and statements Start-up PR/websites, business media, conferences Complexity and scarcity of knowledge 4 Obvious hype signs and effects 1 •Economy/private investments https://gfi.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/2024_State-of-the-Industry_CultivatedGFI24005.pdf Annually 55B needed between 2024 and 2050 to realise full potential (5B EU) https://gfieurope.org/de/blog/m arktpotenzial-kultiviertesfleisch/ 5 Obvious hype signs and effects 2 Attempts to ban cultivated meat in Italy (successful)/several US states (Florida/Alabama successful), Romania, Hungary Spread of misinformation by right-populist politicians and meat industry •Economic rationale: fear of the conventional meat lobby to lose market share •Political rationale/”culture wars”: hype as an opportunity and trigger for politicians, parts of the general public, and industry (explicit or implicit critique of conventional meat industry and eating habits not acceptable)→misuse of the topic to polarize and win voters •Arguments reported/cited in mass media: “defense of Italian tradition”, health risks, “Italy is the world’s first country safe from the social and economic risks of synthetic food” https://eating-better.org/news-and-reports/news/truth-lies-and-culture-wars-themisinformation-we-face-in-pushing-for-a-sustainable-food-system/ https://qz.com/why-italys-parliament-banned-lab-grown-meat-1851032438 6 Hype/alarmism (business/mass media) Media reception: online comments/social media TA reports „Real world“ effects Impact on consumer behaviour Policies/funding ? Psychological/ experimental studies needed Interviews with politicians/ governmental bodies needed Less obvious hype effects: Aims and limitations 7 Understanding the Problem of “Hype”: Exaggeration, Values, and Trust in Science. Kristen Intemann. Canadian Journal of Philosophy (2022), 52: 3, 279–294. doi:10.1017/can.2020.45 Empirical insights from a media analysis: Overpromising and hype in news articles (GER/NL, 2020-2023, n=200) [CM has the] potential to reduce agricultural greenhouse gas emissions by 78 to 96 per cent, use 99 per cent less land and 82 to 96 per cent less water (Business Insider, 2021) Gaillard et al. (2023) https://doi.org/10.14512/tatup.32.3.10 N. Brown,M.Michael, A sociology of expectations: retrospecting prospects and prospecting retrospects, Technol. Anal. Strateg. 15 (1) (2003) 3–18. Decisive exaggerations ➢High market shares and shortterm product launches (“disruption”, “revolution”, see Brown/Michael 2003) ➢“You can already print a beef steak” Vagueness about the product characteristics ➢regarding type of meat (beef, pork, chicken, steak/minced, hybrid with plant material) ➢Nutrient needs? ➢Dependency on type of energy source CLARITY (when and what) (overpromising dimensions, see Gaillard et al. 2023) (neglecting) CONTEXT (see also Intemann 2022) (neglecting) COMPLEXITY (biological and infrastructure needs) DECISIVENESS (how certain/likely) 8 Lack of alternative visions/framings https://geneticliteracyproject.org/wpcontent/uploads/elementor/thumbs/3d-printing-of-meatpe4w39jhnnuwqrwoord4f3wm7ks2j57w72667f8vhq.jpg https://bistro-invitro.com/en/menu/ ➢food security and sustainability framing: “people will always eat meat” ➢CM is the sustainable option, as other protein alternatives are not an option 9 ➢lack of comparison with other protein alternatives ➢lack of visions of a transformation of the food system with CM as one of several innovations, circular economy approaches, … technology-centred vision broader, CM-centred visions Böhm, I., Ferrari, A. & Woll, S. Visions of In Vitro Meat among Experts and Stakeholders. Nanoethics 12, 211–224 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-018-0330-0 CM in Technology Assessment reports Framings/main opportunities: food security, economic growth, sustainability Expected relevance of CM: 2030 niche product (AUS); early developmental stage (GER); early commercial stage, mid-range TRL (EU), one of several promising innovations in the food sector Requirements/hurdles/uncertainties: ➢funding for research (“technological breakthroughs”) and industrial infrastructure (no concrete estimations) ➢consumer acceptance (missing: how is it affected by the media?) ➢implications for the job market, stakeholder views/interests Global perspective? ➢global effects have to be taken into account regarding food security (TAB) ➢policy coordination (within EU) ➢global cooperation vs. patenting? cultural aspects of consumer acceptance? Potenziale und Herausforderungen einer zellkulturbasierten Fleischproduktion Themenkurzprofil Nr. 62. Tobias Jetzke, Katharina Dassel (2023) Innovation and technology in agriculture and alternative foods –POST (2024) DOI: https://doi.org/10.58248/HS82 Australia's Protein Roadmap –CSIRO (2022) Alternative protein sources for food and feed. Elta Smith, Julien Etienne and Francesco Montanari (2024) doi: 10.2861/999488 On cooperation and patenting see: Holmes, D., Humbird, D., Dutkiewicz, J., Tejeda-Saldana, Y., Duffy, B., & Datar, I. (2022). Cultured meat needs a race to mission not a race to market. Nature Food, 3, 785–787. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016022-00586-9 16 UK, AUS, GER, EU (POST, Australia’s national science agency, TAB, STOA), 2022-2024 Conclusions MAIN OBSERVATIONS •Reconfiguration of promises in the CM case (after the hype) •Hype may not necessarily lead to public disappointment and distrust in science – but may contribute to (felt) societal polarisation nevertheless TA and CM – inorporate more critical and NORMATIVE VIEWs? •TA organisations that engage with cultivated meat recommend more research and funding; national (economic) perspectives instead of global TA •What we (TA) can/should do: point out alternatives, necessary investments/costs of hyped technologies (often overlooked), and misleading framings („food security“); examine industry promises (more) critically, incorporate media reception as an assessment dimension and area for policy recommendations? HYPE STUDIES •Compare cases to find patterns of technological and environmental characteristics and the effects of hype (Lente et al. 2023) •Beyond speculation: more experimental/investigative hype studies needed: Key questions: how does CM hype affect attention for other alternatives and meat eating behaviour, but also trust in science? 17 Harro van Lente, Charlotte Spitters, Alexander Peine, Comparing technological hype cycles: Towards a theory, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Volume 80, Issue 8, 2013, Pages 1615-1628 Thank you! Thanks also to Laurens Landeweerd, PRISM-LT, Denise van Baalen! 18