Trends in cultured meat
a bibliometric and sociometric analysis of publication
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.36311/1981-1640.2019.v13n3.06.p56Palavras-chave:
artificial meat, in vitro meat, synthetic meatResumo
The cellular agriculture is been considered as a mechanism to minimize future negative impacts from the estimated world population growth for the coming decades. Among the alternatives of this technology, the development of meat grown in the laboratory stands out. Numerous researchers have been making efforts to develop this scientific field today. However, few studies have tried to map the intellectual panorama and emerging themes in the scientific literature of this scientific field. Thus, this research aims to analyze from the perspective of the bibliometric and sociometric analysis the scientific publications on meat cultivated within the perspective of cellular agriculture, indexed in the Web of Science database. We analyzed 91 publications on cultured meat, combining mapping data, patterns of co-citation and collaboration from scientific journals and authorship. We also analyze emerging issues in the research on meat cultivated. We noted that, given the participation of authors and co-authors from different areas of knowledge, there is not a pattern in the composition of collaboration networks. Also stands out the multidisciplinary nature of the studies on cultured meat, transposing different disciplines and analytical approaches. Those aspects concerning the environmental, cultural impact, technical viability of its productive process and impacts on traditional livestock production appear as latent constructs in this new food biotechnology.
Downloads
Referências
Acevedo, C.A.; Orellana, N.; Avarias, K.; Ortiz, R.; Benavente, D.; Prieto, P. (2018). Micropatterning technology to design an edible film for in vitro meat production. // Food and Bioprocess Technology, 11 (2018) 1267-1273.
Adamic, L.A.; Huberman, B.A. (2002). Zipf's law and the Internet. // Glottometrics, 3:1 (2002) 143-150.
Barabasi, A. L. et al (2002). Evolution of the social network of scientific collaborations. // Physica A-Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 311:3-4 (2002) 590-614.
Bhat, Z.F.; Bhat, H. (2011). Animal-free meat biofabrication. // American Journal of Food Technology 6:6, 441-459.
Bonny, S. P. F.; Gardner, G. E.; Pethick, D. W.; Hocquette, J. F. (2017). Artificial meat and the future of the meat industry. // Animal Production Science, 57 (2017) 2216-2223.
Bordons, M.; Aparicio, J.; González-Albo, B.; Díaz-Faes, A. (2015). The relationship between the research performance os scientists and their position in co-autorship networks in three fields. // Journal of Informetrics, 9:1 (2015) 135-144.
Bradford, S. C. (1934). Sources of information on specific subjects. // Engineering 137 (1934) 85–86.
Bryant, C. and Barnett, J. (2018). Consumer acceptance of cultured meat: a systematic review. // Meat Science, 143 (2018) 8-17.
Carruth, A. (2013). Culturing food: bioart and in vitro meat. // Parallax, 19:1 (2013) 88-100.
Challakere, K. (2009). Stem cell enhanced protein products and uses thereof. US Patent 0301249. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Washington.
Chung, K.H.; Cox, R.A.K. (1990). Patterns of Productivity in the Finance Literature: a study of the bibliometric distributions. // The Journal of Finance, 45:1 (1990) 301-309.
Croney, C.; Muir, W.; Ni, J.Q.; Widmar, N.O.; Varner, G. (2018). An overview of engineering approaches to improving agricultural animal welfare. // Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 31:2 (2018) 143-159.
Datar, I. ; Betti, M. (2010). Possibilities for an in vitro meat production system. // Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies, 11:1 (2010) 13-22.
Dilworth, T. ; Mcgregor, A. (2015). Moral steaks? Ethical discourses of in vitro meat in academia and Australia. // Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 28 (2015) 85-107.
Enrione, J. et al (2017). Edible scaffolds based on non-mammalian biopolymers for myoblast growth. // Materials,10:1404 (2017) 1-15.
Fao. (2017). The future of food and agriculture: trends and challenges. Rome.
Forgacs, G.; Marga, F.; Jakab, K. R. (2013). Engineered comestible meat. US Patent 0029008. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Washington.
Galusky, W. (2014). Technology as responsibility: feilure, food animals, and lab-grown meat. // Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 27, 931-948.
Garfield, E. (2006). Citation indexes for science: a new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. // International Journal of Epidemiology, 35:5 (2006) 1123-1127.
Geng, S. et al (2017). Building life cycle assessment research: A review by bibliometric analysis. // Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 76 (2017) 176-184.
Griffiths, T.L.; Steyvers, M. (2004). Finding scientific topics. // Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101: Suppl. 1 (2004) 5228–5235.
Gutiérrez, J.H.; Astudillo, C.A.; Ballesteros-Pérez, P.; Mora-Melià, D.; Candia-Véjar, A. (2016). The multiple team formation problem using sociometry. // Computers & Operations Research, 75 (2016) 150-162.
Hamdan, M.N.; Post, M. L.; Ramli, M.A.; Mustafa, A. R. (2017). Cultured meat in islamic perspective. // Journal of Religion and Health, 1 (2017) 1-14.
Hocquette, A. et al. (2015). Educated consumers don’t believe artificial meat is the solution to the problems with the meat industry. // Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 14:2 (2015) 273-284.
Hocquete, J. F. (2016). Is in vitro meat the solution for the future? // Meat Science, 120 (2016) 167-176.
Hood, W.; Wilson, C. (2001). The literature of bibliometrics, scientometrics, and informetrics. // Scientometrics, 52:2 (2001) 291-314.
Huai, C.; Chai, L. (2016). A bibliometric analysis on the performance and underlying dynamic patterns of water security research. // Scientometrics, 108:3 (2016) 1531-1551.
Jönsson, E. (2016). Benevolent technotopias and hitherto unimaginable meats: tracing the promises of in vitro meat. // Social Studies of Science, 46:5 (2016) 725-748.
Khasseh, A.A., Soheili, F. and Chelak, A.M. (2018). An author co-citation analysis of 37 years of iMetrics. // The Electronic Library, 36:2 (2018) 270-285.
Korom, P. (2019). A bibliometric visualization of the economics and sociology of wealth inequality: a world part. // Scientometrics, 1 (2019) 1-20.
Kretschmer, H.; Beaver, D.B.; Ozel, B.; Kretschmer, T. (2015). Who is collaborating with whom? Part I. Mathematical model and methods for empirical testing. // Journal of Informetrics, 9:2 (2015) 359-372.
Laestadius, L. I.; Caldwell, M. A. (2015). Is the future of meat palatable? Perceptions of in vitro meat as evidenced by online News comments. // Public Health Nutrition, 18:3 (2015) 2457-2467.
Lee, A. (2018). Meat-ing demand: is in vitro meat a pragmatic, problematic, or paradoxical solution? // Canadian Journal of Women and the Law, 30:1 (2018) 1-41.
Leydesdorff, L. (2011). Bibliometrics/citation networks. In: Barnett, G.A. (Ed.). Encyclopedia of social networks. Sage Publications, Los Angeles, 72-74.
Majima, S. (2014). A brief thought on the future of global ethics: military robots and new food tecnologies. // Journal of Global Ethics, 10:1 (2014) 53-55.
Marcu, A., et al (2015). Analogies, metaphors, and wondering about the future: lay sense-making around synthetic. // Public Understanding of Science, 24:5 (2015) 547-562.
Mattick, C.S.; Landis, A.E.; Allemby, B. R. (2015). A case for systemic environmental analysis of cultured meat. // Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 14:2 (2015) 240-254.
Mattick, C.S.; Landis, A.E.; Allemby, B. R.; Genovese, N. J. (2015). Anticipatory life cycle analysis of in vitro biomass cultivation for cultured meat production in the United States. // Environmental Science & Technology, 49 (2015) 11941-11949.
Milburn, J. (2016). Chewing over in vitro meat: animal ethics, cannibalism and social progress. // Res Publica, 22 (2016) 249-265.
Moreno, J. L. (1941). Foundations of sociometry: an introduction. // Sociometry, 4:1 (1941) 15-35.
Mouat, M.J. ; Prince, R. (2018). Cultured meat and cowless milk: on making Markets for animal-free food. // Journal of Cultural Economy (2018) 1-15.
O’riordan. K.; Fotopoulou, A.; Stephens, N. (2017). The birst bite: imaginaries, promotional publics and the laboratory grown burguer. // Public Understanding of Science, 26:2 (2017) 148-163.
Pehar, F. (2010). From statistical bibliography to bibliometrics: development of a quantitative approach to the research of the written word. // Libellarium: Journal for Research of Writing, Books, ans Cultural Heritage Institutions, 3:1 (2010) 1-28.
Podsakoff, P. M.; Mackenzie, S. B.; Bacharach, D. G.; Podsakoff, N. P. (2005). The influence of management journals in the 1980s and 1990s. // Strategic Management Journal, 26 (2005) 473-488.
Post, M.J. (2017). Proteins in cultured beef. // Yeda, R.Y. (Ed.) Proteins in food processing. Woodhead Publishing, London.
Post, M. (2012). Cultured meat from stem cells: challenges and prospects.// Meat Science, 92 (2012) 297-301.
Rousseau, B.; Rousseau, R. (2000). Percolation as a model for informetric distributions: fragment size distribution characterized by Bradford curves. // Scientometrics, 47 (2000) 195-206.
Schaefer, G.O. and Savulescu, J. (2014). The ethics of producing in vitro meat. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 31:2 (2014) 188-202
Servick, K. (2018). U.S lawmakers float plan to regulate cultured meat: should agency that regulates meat from farms also oversee tissues growns from cells in biorectors? // Science 360:6390 (2018) 695.
Shriver, A.; Mcconnachie, E. (2018). Genetically modifying livestock for improved welfare: a path forward. // Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 31 (2018) 161-180.
Siegrist, M.; Sütterlin, B.; Hartmann, C. (2018). Perceived naturalness and evoked disgust influence acceptance of cultured meat. //Meat Science, 139 (2018) 213-219.
Sodhi, N. (2017). Artificial meat: a new taste sensation? // Australian Veterinary Journal, 95:10 (2017) 19-21.
Specht, E.A.; Welch, D. R.; Clayton, E. M. R.; Lagally, C. D. (2018). Opportunities for applying biomedical production and manufacturing methods to the development of the clean meat industry. // Biochemical Engineering Journal, 132 (2018) 161-168.
Stephens, N. (2013). Growing meat in laboratories: the promise, ontology, and ethical boundary-work of using muscle cells to make food. // Configurations 21:2 (2013) 159-181.
Stephens, N.; King, E.; Lyall, C. (2018). Blood, meat, and upscaling tissue engineering: promises, anticipated markets, and performativity in the biomedical and agri-food sectors. // BioSocieties, 13:2 (2018) 368-388.
Stephens, N. et al (2018). Bringing cultured meat to market: technical, socio-political, and regulatory challenges in cellular agriculture. // Trends in Food Science & Technology, 78 (2018) 155-166.
Thompson, D.F. ; Walker, C.K. (2015). A descriptive and historical review of bibliometrics with applications to medical sciences. // Pharmacotherapy, 35:6 (2015) 551-559.
Tuomisto, H.L. ; Mattos, M.J.T. (2011). Environmental impacts of cultured meat production. // Environmental Science & Technology, 45 (2011) 6117-6123.
Van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L. (2019). VOSviewer Manual. CWTS Meaningful Metrics, Universiteit Leiden.
Van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. // Scientometrics, 84:2 (2010) 523-538.
Van Eelen, W.F. (2007). Industrial production of meat using cell culture methods. US Patent 7270829. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Washington.
Vein, J. (2004). Method for producing tissue engineered meat for consumption. US Patent 6,835,390. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Washington.
Verbeke, W. et al. (2015). ‘Would you eat cultured meat?’: Consumers’ reactions and atitude formation in Belgium, Portugal and the United Kingdom. // Meat Science, 102 (2015) 49-58.
Waltman, L.; Van Eck, N. J.; Noyons, E. C. M. (2010). A unified approach to mapping and clustering of bibliometric networks. // Journal of Informetrics, 4:4 (2010) 629-635.
Wasserman, S. ; Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
White, H. D. ; Mccain, K. W. (1998). Visualizing a discipline: An author co-citation analysis of information science, 1972–1995. // Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49:4 (1998) 327-355.
Wilks, M.; Phillips, C. J. C. (2017). Attitudes to in vitro meat: a survey of potential consumers in the United States. Plos One, 16, 1-14.
Zupic, I.; Cater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. // Organizational Research Methods, 18:3 (2015) 429-472.
Downloads
Publicado
Edição
Seção
Licença
Copyright (c) 2019 Alice Munz Fernandes, Antonio Luiz Fantinel, Ângela Rozane Leal de Souza, Jean Philippe Palma Révillion
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Ao submeter um artigo os autores mantêm os direitos autorais do mesmo, cedendo ao Brazilian Journal of Information Science plenos direitos para publicação do referido texto.
O (s) autor (es) concorda(m) que o artigo, se aceito editorialmente para publicação, deve ser licenciado sob a licença Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa /4.0) Os leitores / usuários são livres para: - Compartilhar - copiar e redistribuir o material em qualquer meio ou formato - Adaptar - remixar, transformar e desenvolver o material para qualquer finalidade, mesmo comercialmente. O licenciante não pode revogar essas liberdades desde que você siga os termos da licença. Sob os seguintes termos: - Atribuição - Você deve dar o crédito apropriado, fornecer um link para a licença e indicar se foram feitas alterações. Você pode fazê-lo de qualquer maneira razoável, mas não de maneira que sugira que o licenciante endossa você ou seu uso. - ShareAlike - Se você remixar, transformar ou desenvolver o material, deverá distribuir suas contribuições sob a mesma licença que o original. Sem restrições adicionais - Você não pode aplicar termos legais ou medidas tecnológicas que restrinjam legalmente outras pessoas a fazer o que a licença permitir. Avisos: - Você não precisa cumprir a licença para elementos do material em domínio público ou nos casos em que seu uso é permitido por uma exceção ou limitação aplicável. - Não há garantias. A licença pode não fornecer todas as permissões necessárias para o uso pretendido. Por exemplo, outros direitos, como publicidade, privacidade ou direitos morais, podem limitar a maneira como você usa o material.
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License
