This page has only limited features, please log in for full access.
The global food system exhibits dizzying complexity, with interaction among social, economic, biological, and technological factors. Opposition to the first generation of plants and animals transformed through rDNA-enabled gene transfer (so-called GMOs) has been a signature episode in resistance to the forces of industrialization and globalization in the food system. Yet agricultural scientists continue to tout gene technology as an essential component in meeting future global food needs. An ethical analysis of the debate over gene technologies reveals the details that matter. On the one hand, alternative regimes for institutionalizing gene technology (through regulation, trade policy, and intellectual property law) could mitigate injustices suffered by politically marginalized and economically disadvantaged actors in the food system, especially smallholding farmers in less industrialized economies. On the other hand, GMO opposition has been singularly effective in mobilizing citizens of affluent countries against policies and practices that lie at the heart of these same injustices. As part of the roundtable, “Ethics and the Future of the Global Food System,” this essay argues that charting a middle course that realizes the benefits of gene technology while blocking its use in the perpetration of unjust harms may require a more detailed grasp of intricacies in the food system than even motivated bystanders are willing to develop.
Paul B. Thompson. Food System Transformation and the Role of Gene Technology: An Ethical Analysis. Ethics & International Affairs 2021, 35, 35 -49.
AMA StylePaul B. Thompson. Food System Transformation and the Role of Gene Technology: An Ethical Analysis. Ethics & International Affairs. 2021; 35 (1):35-49.
Chicago/Turabian StylePaul B. Thompson. 2021. "Food System Transformation and the Role of Gene Technology: An Ethical Analysis." Ethics & International Affairs 35, no. 1: 35-49.
The ethics of food production should include philosophical discussion of the condition or welfare of livestock, including for animals being raised in high volume, concentrated production systems (e.g. factory farms). Philosophers should aid producers and scientists in specifying conditions for improved welfare in these systems. An adequately non-ideal approach to this problem should recognize both the economic rationale for these systems as well as the way that they constrain opportunities for improving animal welfare. Recent philosophical work on animal ethics has been dominated by authors who not only neglect this imperative, but also defeat it by drawing on oversimplified and rhetorically overstated descriptions of the conditions in which factory farmed animals actually live. This feature of philosophical animal ethics reflects a form of structural narcissism in which adopting a morally correct attitude defeats actions that could actually improve the welfare of livestock in factory farms to a considerable degree.
Paul B. Thompson. The Vanishing Ethics of Husbandry. The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics 2021, 203 -221.
AMA StylePaul B. Thompson. The Vanishing Ethics of Husbandry. The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics. 2021; ():203-221.
Chicago/Turabian StylePaul B. Thompson. 2021. "The Vanishing Ethics of Husbandry." The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics , no. : 203-221.
This chapter examines the ethical significance of gene technology on the health and well-being of livestock, poultry and any other animal species kept for agricultural purposes. Agricultural biotechnologies include drugs and feeds developed for use on livestock, as well as genetic transformations and cloning. Key applications are reviewed and examples are given. Bernard Rollin’s early work on this topic is summarized and used as a basis for further analysis. Philosophical alternatives to Rollin’s approach to understanding the basis of human obligations to other animals are discussed, including the welfarist approach of Peter Singer and the rights approach of Tom Regan. Though not a welfarist in general, Rollin argues that impact on the welfare of the transformed animal is the sole criterion for evaluating the ethics of genetically engineered animals. Additional literature on the ethics of using genetic engineering tools on animals is reviewed, with emphasis on views laying stress on the inherent wrongness of transforming an animal’s nature, irrespective of the impact on pain, suffering or disease. Although many arguments against any and all applications of animal biotechnology are philosophically flawed, they cannot simply be dismissed. Only a more extensive philosophical debate can clarify when a genetic change in an agricultural animal’s nature is inappropriate.
Paul B. Thompson. Animal Health and Welfare. The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics 2020, 109 -135.
AMA StylePaul B. Thompson. Animal Health and Welfare. The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics. 2020; ():109-135.
Chicago/Turabian StylePaul B. Thompson. 2020. "Animal Health and Welfare." The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics , no. : 109-135.
The chapter provides synoptic overviews on key developments in gene technology since publication of the 2nd edition in 2007. Synthetic biology is discussed briefly, and more attention is given to CRISPrCas9, and gene editing. Both techniques can increase the speed at which a new product would move through the R&D process, and both have the potential to increase systemic linkages between gene technologies for food and agriculture, and gene technology for biomedical purposes. Beyond this, lessons learned from the experience with GMOs continue to be relevant. The framework of novel and normal risk will be a useful amendment to the technological ethics framework developed in earlier editions of this book. Three case studies are discussed: alternative proteins, horizontal environmental genetic alteration agents and gene drives for agricultural pest control. Only the last of these involves truly novel risks.
Paul B. Thompson. Gene Editing, Synthetic Biology and the Next Generation of Agrifood Biotechnology: Some Ethical Issues. The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics 2020, 343 -374.
AMA StylePaul B. Thompson. Gene Editing, Synthetic Biology and the Next Generation of Agrifood Biotechnology: Some Ethical Issues. The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics. 2020; ():343-374.
Chicago/Turabian StylePaul B. Thompson. 2020. "Gene Editing, Synthetic Biology and the Next Generation of Agrifood Biotechnology: Some Ethical Issues." The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics , no. : 343-374.
This concluding chapter situates the previous 13 chapters in the book within themes in the philosophy of technology. I begin by asking how philosophy could contribute to the controversy over biotechnology, through critique and or defense of this new suite of tools and techniques. The chapter continues by discussing how two key themes in the book—the focus on agriculture and the risk-based approach—could enrich the work of other philosophers working on Technoscience. Themes on the ontology of risk are given particular emphasis, and the arguments in the previous chapters are developed as an extension of Don Ihde’s postphenomenology. The chapter concludes by summarizing themes from The Spirit of the Soil (Thompson in The spirit of the soil: agriculture and environmental ethics. Routledge, New York, 2017) and indicating how the previous chapters in this book relate to a more general philosophical analysis of agricultural research.
Paul B. Thompson. Biotechnology, Controversy and the Philosophy of Technology. The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics 2020, 375 -400.
AMA StylePaul B. Thompson. Biotechnology, Controversy and the Philosophy of Technology. The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics. 2020; ():375-400.
Chicago/Turabian StylePaul B. Thompson. 2020. "Biotechnology, Controversy and the Philosophy of Technology." The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics , no. : 375-400.
This chapter completes the review of socioeconomic risks from food and agricultural gene technologies begun in Chap. 8. Here, the focus is on challenges to the claim that gene technologies make or will make substantial contributions to the welfare of poor and marginalized people, especially in the less industrialized regions of Africa, Asia and Latin America. The institutional organization of science is central to the debate. Public laboratories and experiment stations contributed important critics allege that past innovations but patents, changes in funding patterns and other features of gene technology limit the future prospects of non-for-profit innovations in the food system. As such, an ethical analysis of biotechnology’s ability to help the poor must engage issues in the organization and incentives driving the research. These include the capacity and willingness of commercial enterprises to serve needs of the poor.
Paul B. Thompson. Can Agrifood Biotechnology Help the Poor? The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics 2020, 223 -250.
AMA StylePaul B. Thompson. Can Agrifood Biotechnology Help the Poor? The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics. 2020; ():223-250.
Chicago/Turabian StylePaul B. Thompson. 2020. "Can Agrifood Biotechnology Help the Poor?" The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics , no. : 223-250.
In its most common form, environmental risk assessment is an adaptation of consequentialist ethical theory. Hazards are identified as significant through careful articulation of the values (axiology) that determine why outcomes are considered to be bad, harmful or adverse, and exposure quantification is used to characterize risk as an expected value. Several leading examples of how this framework is operationalized in the characterization of environmental risks from agrifood biotechnology are discussed, including risks to biodiversity, weediness and acquired resistance to the effectiveness of pesticides. Epistemological uncertainties plague the quantification of expected values, however, and feed both public doubts and deeper controversy. As risk communication strives to assuage those doubts, an ironic cycle of mistrust emerges, even among those who apply rigorous standards of risk analysis: Assuming that others are less careful, they regard their contrary findings as evidence of error, rather than prompting a further check on the initial assessment. For anyone inclined to see the technology as risky, the alleged carelessness of analysts amplifies the evidence for risk.
Paul B. Thompson. Ethics and Environmental Risk Assessment. The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics 2020, 137 -165.
AMA StylePaul B. Thompson. Ethics and Environmental Risk Assessment. The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics. 2020; ():137-165.
Chicago/Turabian StylePaul B. Thompson. 2020. "Ethics and Environmental Risk Assessment." The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics , no. : 137-165.
The chapter introduces the analysis of socioeconomic impact from agrifood biotechnology through a review of the technology treadmill. In this model, farmers experience ethically significant harmful impacts, while secondary beneficial effects accrue to consumers (as well as technology developers). The chapter then reviews how these social impacts would be evaluated from a number of philosophical perspectives and theories of social justice. Rights theories, utilitarianism and virtue theories are sketched, and the chapter discusses how each approach might provide an analysis of the treadmill phenomenon. Analyses that link structural injustice to feminist or Marxist social theory anticipate the further discussion of social consequences in Chap. 9.
Paul B. Thompson. Social Impact and the Technology Treadmill. The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics 2020, 193 -221.
AMA StylePaul B. Thompson. Social Impact and the Technology Treadmill. The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics. 2020; ():193-221.
Chicago/Turabian StylePaul B. Thompson. 2020. "Social Impact and the Technology Treadmill." The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics , no. : 193-221.
Hans Jonas’ principle of responsibility establishes a basic framework for evaluating novel technology in ethical terms. Risk assessment provides a further development of Jonas’s framework as it is applied to agrifood biotechnology. A risk-based approach consists in distinguishing four tasks for implementing technological ethics: hazard identification, exposure quantification, management and communication. The risk-based approach is effective when it operates against the background assumption that technologies passing risk-based tests are at least prima facie acceptable on ethical grounds. However, a complex of social institutions must be in place for this assumption to be valid. These institutions, combined with a risk-based assessment of the potential for unwanted consequences, constitute the presumptive case for agricultural and food biotechnology. This implies that innovators are not ethically required to demonstrate the case for their technology, and that the primary task of ethics is to focus on arguments against the technology. The chapter also discusses some logically and ethically problematic adaptations of the presumptive case.
Paul B. Thompson. The Presumptive Case for Food Biotechnology. The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics 2020, 25 -51.
AMA StylePaul B. Thompson. The Presumptive Case for Food Biotechnology. The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics. 2020; ():25-51.
Chicago/Turabian StylePaul B. Thompson. 2020. "The Presumptive Case for Food Biotechnology." The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics , no. : 25-51.
This chapter completes coverage of environmental risks begun in Chap. 6, which emphasized both the philosophical rationale for expected-value risk analysis, along with weaknesses in the way that approach has been applied to agrifood gene technology. This chapter discusses ethical objections to expected value analysis and takes up classical questions in environmental ethics. These include the basis for associating moral value with non-sentient entities such as plants, collectivities such as species or ecosystems and also for nature or the environment itself. The chapter proposes a novel approach to these problems based on the standpoint or attitude of the valuing subject. Classic approaches that stress intrinsic or instrumental valuation presume that valuation proceeds from the perspective of a spectator standing aloof from nature. Although classic approaches have not presumed that this spectator is a human being, the good of any entity derives from the spectator’s gaze. This is consistent with the notion of value as a consumption activity. In contrast, a more engaged, involved or truly environed approach can be elicited by taking the perspective of a producer. This is an especially fortuitous approach for developing an environmental ethics for agriculture and food.
Paul B. Thompson. Environmental Impact and Environmental Values. The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics 2020, 167 -192.
AMA StylePaul B. Thompson. Environmental Impact and Environmental Values. The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics. 2020; ():167-192.
Chicago/Turabian StylePaul B. Thompson. 2020. "Environmental Impact and Environmental Values." The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics , no. : 167-192.
This chapter addresses a series of philosophical questions that arise in a general consideration of food safety risks, with specific attention to products of gene transfer. The first topic is to demonstrate the sense in which modern technology has converted what were once norms of prudence and self-interest into ethical responsibilities. The next topic is a summary review of the way that food safety experts view food safety risk, followed by a discussion of how this way of thinking is applied to products of gene transfer. From this point, the chapter summarizes a different conceptual framework that shows how the history of food science has created alternative rationalities for thinking about the risks we bear in consuming food. This alternative helps to explain why communication of risks from gene transfer have been so difficult to communicate, and explains why labeling is a component of food safety policy. The chapter concludes with a discussion of how labeling could address some of the ethical tensions created by the tension between expert and lay perspectives on the risks of consuming food.
Paul B. Thompson. Food Safety and the Ethics of Consent. The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics 2020, 79 -107.
AMA StylePaul B. Thompson. Food Safety and the Ethics of Consent. The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics. 2020; ():79-107.
Chicago/Turabian StylePaul B. Thompson. 2020. "Food Safety and the Ethics of Consent." The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics , no. : 79-107.
The public has working notions of heredity that permit functionally adequate judgment in most matters, but that differ from the perspective of molecular genetics in significant ways. Non-specialists also have limited knowledge of plant and animal breeding prior to the advent of recombinant DNA methods for gene transfer. Concerns about the “deficit model” of science communication notwithstanding (see Chap. 12), a discussion of key terms (genes, GMOs, mutations, and biotechnology itself), reveals the ethical significance of this gap between expert and lay understanding of genetics. The chapter also functions as an overview and introduction to agrifood biotechnology for non-specialists. Past errors, globalization and growing environmental consciousness create a need for greater vigilance and ethical awareness in the discovery, design and implementation of technological innovations. The interpretive disconnect between experts and the public becomes significant because it frustrates effective public oversight, ethical reflection and democratic participation in the development of biotechnology.
Paul B. Thompson. Biotechnology in the Context of Agriculture and Food: An Overview. The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics 2020, 1 -24.
AMA StylePaul B. Thompson. Biotechnology in the Context of Agriculture and Food: An Overview. The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics. 2020; ():1-24.
Chicago/Turabian StylePaul B. Thompson. 2020. "Biotechnology in the Context of Agriculture and Food: An Overview." The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics , no. : 1-24.
The chapter provides an analytic framework for applying classic philosophical theories of property and the distribution of property rights in the context of emerging technology. Instrumental theories of property view property as a convention that should be evaluated according to the purposes it serves. Ontological theories of property claim that holding and exchanging items of property is a natural or intrinsic feature of the human condition. The early debate over so-called Terminator seeds is used to link key philosophical questions to real disputes in policy and practice. The Terminator case illustrates distinctions between property in tangible goods (such as seeds) and intellectual property, as well as the relationship between these forms of property and the risk-based approach that is the focus of earlier chapters. The chapter reviews a sample of the literature on contested property claims in products of gene technology, and discusses how authors draw selectively on concepts from different philosophical traditions. The chapter also identifies logical flaws in many arguments, both for and against the application of intellectual property rights to GMOs and other products of gene technology. In the end, I argue that philosophical theories of property can be enlisted both to support and to criticize current practices. The chapter does not provide a conclusive standard for deciding the legitimacy of property claims in genes, sequences and gene products.
Paul B. Thompson. Conceptions of Property and the Biotechnology Debate. The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics 2020, 251 -286.
AMA StylePaul B. Thompson. Conceptions of Property and the Biotechnology Debate. The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics. 2020; ():251-286.
Chicago/Turabian StylePaul B. Thompson. 2020. "Conceptions of Property and the Biotechnology Debate." The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics , no. : 251-286.
Metaphysical claims assert categories and categorical systems for the broadest and most general characterizations of reality and experience. The chapter discusses the nature of metaphysical claims and the role of religious or theological doctrines in lending support to them. Early debates over gene technology emphasized metaphysical and religious topics and questioned whether established doctrines in mainstream religious traditions were compatible with applications of genetic engineering. The chapter surveys those debates, with emphasis to their significance for agrifood biotechnologies, and situates them within the context of other technologies that have been alleged to pose religious or metaphysical challenges. Those who write in favor of gene technology from a religious perspective have not based their arguments on metaphysical claims. Hence, religiously metaphysical arguments tend to take a critical stance toward gene technology. However, metaphysical arguments appear to have decreased in frequency and significance since earlier editions of this book.
Paul B. Thompson. Religiously Metaphysical Arguments Against Agrifood Biotechnology. The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics 2020, 287 -312.
AMA StylePaul B. Thompson. Religiously Metaphysical Arguments Against Agrifood Biotechnology. The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics. 2020; ():287-312.
Chicago/Turabian StylePaul B. Thompson. 2020. "Religiously Metaphysical Arguments Against Agrifood Biotechnology." The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics , no. : 287-312.
This concluding chapter from previous editions makes recommendations that follow from the previous eleven chapters analyzing food safety, animal health, environmental and socioeconomic risks associated with agricultural and food biotechnology, as well as discussions of intellectual property rights and religious objections. Scientists and the biotechnology industry have failed to meet reasonable and justifiable expectations for an explanation and defense of their objectives in developing gene technologies for crops, livestock and food processing. Although a rationale for these applications of biotechnology exists, it has not been put forward in a manner that promotes a democratic and respectful dialog. Articulated in 1997, the chapter was a set of ethical recommendations for agricultural insiders. In retrospect, it serves as an indictment that may explain why the technology was resisted and early hopes for agrifood biotechnology remain unrealized. Looking forward, it is a contribution to the literature on public engagement with science.
Paul B. Thompson. Communication, Education and the Problem of Trust. The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics 2020, 313 -342.
AMA StylePaul B. Thompson. Communication, Education and the Problem of Trust. The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics. 2020; ():313-342.
Chicago/Turabian StylePaul B. Thompson. 2020. "Communication, Education and the Problem of Trust." The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics , no. : 313-342.
This chapter applies the ethics framework for evaluating emerging technology developed in Chaps. 1 and 2. It illustrates the application of a risk-based approach to the ethical analysis of agrifood technology by reviewing the policy debate in the United States over the first important product of agrifood biotechnology, recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST). The US debate anticipated European reactions to biotechnology by a decade. It formed the basis for a regulatory approach that continues to influence the governance of agrifood biotechnology in the United States to this day. At the same time that this approach established relatively strong standards for safety evaluation, it precludes governance on other ethically relevant criteria. This forces critics to mount all resistance within the narrow window of legally actionable safety standards. The rBST case thus explains why activists who were opposed to trends in mainstream industrial agriculture on environmental and socioeconomic grounds adapted their protests to include more speculative concerns about food safety.
Paul B. Thompson. Biotechnology, Policy and the Problem of Unintended Consequences: The Case of rBST. The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics 2020, 53 -77.
AMA StylePaul B. Thompson. Biotechnology, Policy and the Problem of Unintended Consequences: The Case of rBST. The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics. 2020; ():53-77.
Chicago/Turabian StylePaul B. Thompson. 2020. "Biotechnology, Policy and the Problem of Unintended Consequences: The Case of rBST." The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics , no. : 53-77.
Thompson, Paul B. 2015. From synthetic bioethics to One Bioethics: A reply to critics. Ethics, Policy & Environment 18 (2): 215–224. Thompson, Paul B. 2017. And don't forget food ethics. The American Journal of Bioethics 17 (9): 22–24. Thompson, Paul B., and Monica List. 2015. Ebola needs One Bioethics”, Ethics, Policy and the. Environment 18: 96–102. Download references Correspondence to Paul B. Thompson. Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This article is part of the Topical Collection: Agriculture, Food & Covid-19. Reprints and Permissions Thompson, P.B. One Bioethics for Covid 19?. Agric Hum Values (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-020-10061-5 Download citation Accepted: 02 April 2020 Published: 13 May 2020 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-020-10061-5
Paul B. Thompson. One Bioethics for Covid 19? Agriculture and Human Values 2020, 37, 619 -620.
AMA StylePaul B. Thompson. One Bioethics for Covid 19? Agriculture and Human Values. 2020; 37 (3):619-620.
Chicago/Turabian StylePaul B. Thompson. 2020. "One Bioethics for Covid 19?" Agriculture and Human Values 37, no. 3: 619-620.
Anyone who has maintained a sustained philosophical relationship with Don Ihde that includes face-to-face interaction has probably heard him acknowledge a pragmatist bent in his thought. In Experiential Phenomenology: Multistabilities, Ihde characterizes postphenomenology as “pragmatism + phenomenology”; he also provides a brief critical discussion of John Dewey and Richard Rorty in his book Husserl’s Missing Technologies, and titles one chapter “Adding Pragmatism to Phenomenology.” These two late books publicize Ihde’s sympathy to pragmatism, and they respond to ways in which others working in the philosophy of technology have sought to link Ihde’s work to pragmatist philosophy. But there is still work to be done in exposing his pragmatist proclivities. This chapter (a) clarifies how pragmatism should be understood as a philosophical school of thought; (b) introduces and explicates how early pragmatists drew upon evolution to reformulate their approach to epistemology; (c) explains how the naturalism of this approach differs from the lingering idealism of Continental thinkers; and then (d) identifies the threads in Ihde’s work that are most indicative of these two characteristically pragmatist tendencies. The concluding section briefly recounts how this reading of Ihde takes postphenomenology beyond accounts that have been made by others working in the philosophy of technology, and establishes Ihde’s stature as a thinker who avoided some of the most costly philosophical blunders of the twentieth century.
Paul B. Thompson. Ihde’s Pragmatism. Philosophy of Engineering and Technology 2020, 43 -61.
AMA StylePaul B. Thompson. Ihde’s Pragmatism. Philosophy of Engineering and Technology. 2020; ():43-61.
Chicago/Turabian StylePaul B. Thompson. 2020. "Ihde’s Pragmatism." Philosophy of Engineering and Technology , no. : 43-61.
Paul Thompson. 12. Nature Politics and the Philosophy of Agriculture. The Philosophy of Food 2019, 214 -232.
AMA StylePaul Thompson. 12. Nature Politics and the Philosophy of Agriculture. The Philosophy of Food. 2019; ():214-232.
Chicago/Turabian StylePaul Thompson. 2019. "12. Nature Politics and the Philosophy of Agriculture." The Philosophy of Food , no. : 214-232.
The Spirit of the Soil was updated for its 2nd edition in 2017. Three comments on the update are addressed here. First, productionism was not intended as a explanation of farm management decision making, but as a paradigm for agricultural science and a philosophy of food systems, as a whole. Second, linking cultural values in food systems could usefully be approached using an ecosystem services framework, but that does not exhaust the significance of food practices as formative for virtues. The larger goal of the book was to illuminate philosophies of technology that shape food system practice.
Paul B. Thompson. Smells like Team Spirit: A Response to Comments on The Spirit of the Soil. Ethics, Policy & Environment 2019, 22, 259 -266.
AMA StylePaul B. Thompson. Smells like Team Spirit: A Response to Comments on The Spirit of the Soil. Ethics, Policy & Environment. 2019; 22 (3):259-266.
Chicago/Turabian StylePaul B. Thompson. 2019. "Smells like Team Spirit: A Response to Comments on The Spirit of the Soil." Ethics, Policy & Environment 22, no. 3: 259-266.