GMOs: Non-Health Issues

The controversy over genetically modified [GM] organisms is often framed in terms of possible hazards for human health. Articles in a previous volume of this *Encyclopedia* give a general overview of GM crops [@Mulvaney2014] and specifically examine human health [@Nordgard2014] and labeling [@Bruton2014] issues surrounding GM organisms. This article explores several other aspects of the controversy: environmental concerns, political and legal disputes, and the aim of "feeding the world" and promoting food security. Rather than discussing abstract, hypothetical GM organisms, this article explores the consequences of the GM organisms that have actually been deployed in the particular contexts that they have been deployed, on the belief that there is little point in discussing GM organisms in an idealized or context-independent way

Performing trustworthiness: The ‘credibility work’ of prominent sociologists

To the limited extent that sociologists have considered non-academics’ trust in sociologists, legitimacy has become entwined with the idea of a value-free, ‘objective’ sociology. However, broader philosophical/sociological work suggests that credibility signals are more complex, with e.g. non-partisanship being separate to ‘epistemic responsibility’ (Anderson 2012). In this paper, I explore the nature of ‘credibility work’ in practice via interviews with 15 prominent English sociologists, making three contributions. Firstly, I find that some sociologists deliberately pursue credibility, a phenomenon largely ignored in previous research. They do this primarily by ‘performing’ non-partisanship or epistemic responsibility within interactions. Secondly, this credibility work does not require the pursuit of ‘objectivity’; sociologists can signal epistemic responsibility despite partisanship, or pursue ‘dispassionate advocacy’. Third, the extent and nature of credibility work varies by context; some sociologists benefit from partisanship, while others feel no need for credibility work. I conclude by stressing the need for further research

Latin America’s new regional architecture : a cooperative or segmented regional governance complex?

In Latin America the repercussions of the proliferation and overlapping of regional organizations are discussed widely. This article examines the opposing views on this process. Some authors postulate that an exhaustion of integration in Latin America will end up in segmented regionalism and hemispheric disintegration. Others endorse a variable geometry of integration that facilitates intraregional cooperation and minimizes the risk of veto players and zero-sum politics. The article takes Latin America as a vantage point to analyse the topic of interacting and overlapping regional organizations from a more general perspective. It asks about the conditions under which the proliferation and overlapping of regional organizations might have positive or negative effects (on regional integration and cooperation). Additionally, it advocates broadening the analytical focus and replacing the analytical concepts of regional integration and cooperation with the analytical concept of regional governance. Regional governance more adequately captures and integrates different patterns of regional cooperation and different regional projects that result in overlapping regional organizations. Instead of looking at the proliferation of regional organizations from a perspective of fragmentation, this article contends that the focus should be redirected to analysing how different regional organizations interact. Regional interaction patterns can vary between synergistic, cooperative, conflictive, or segmented regional governance (complexes). In an initial application of this analytical scheme, the article summarizes the changing regional cooperation patterns in South America since 1990. In the conclusions it outlines some preliminary ideas for a future research agenda on regional governance (complexes)