In a lab in Edinburgh, carefully selected enzymes are breaking down a sheepskin in the name of science.

In a world-first research project that pro-indigenous textile advocates believe could spark a revival in Scotland’s woolen industry, researchers are exploring ways to treat the coarser fleece, typically produced by herds in the hills, to make it more suitable for clothing close.

The project is a collaboration between Scotland’s youngest and oldest millers, zero-waste designers Prickly Thistle and centuries-old luxury weavers Johnstons of Elgin.

“Wool is such an incredible fiber, but we haven’t applied 21st century science to it in this country. We just ask: Is it thick or thin, is it soft or itchy?” says Clare Campbell, the Highlands-based founder of Prickly Thistle, at a pop-up store in Chelsea, where she’s seen others during London Fashion Week Designer asked to “make every fleece count”.

The research, conducted by the University of Edinburgh in partnership with the Industrial Biotechnology Innovation Centre, has identified three enzymes that have the potential to naturally alter the structure of wool when applied in a controlled manner to create thinner, softer ones to obtain fibers.

“Now let’s look at the manufacturing reality beyond a lab. How will it work on a larger scale, will it still have the tensile strength to use in weaving?” Campbell says.

With merino largely sourced from Australia and cashmere from China, the majority of the soft wools used in clothing production are imported, although, as Campbell points out, Scotland has plenty of wool available as a by-product of sheep farming for their meat.

But fleece from flocks reared in more mountainous terrain and harsher weather tends to be rougher, and wool prices – particularly for the coarser grades – have fallen sharply in recent years. It has been reported that rural farmers did not bother selling sheared fleece, instead leaving it in sheds or in the fields for composting.

The current experiment is a way to fully utilize a domestic resource as consumers become more aware of the environmental damage caused by the textile industry’s reliance on petrochemical-based products and single-use fast fashion. There is also potential for a broader impact on the wool industry, which has had to decline much of its infrastructure over the past century as sustainability has come to the fore.

“Scotland has a rich textile manufacturing heritage and at one point in the 1830s around seven in ten workers were employed in the sector,” says Campbell. “Today there are only a few wool spinning mills left. This project could be the catalyst for a significant shift in our approach to making indigenous clothing and fabrics, taking our indigenous fleece to a point where we can use more of it across a much wider range of products than ever before.”

Managers at British Wool, a consortium owned by 35,000 British sheep farmers that collects, sorts and sells their wool, hope the Edinburgh research will have a “significant impact on driving new demand”.

His Business Development Manager, Haldi Kranich-Wood, notes that while the industry has declined across the UK, there are still some outstanding Scotland-based manufacturers using specifically British wool, such as Harris Tweed or Lochcarron Tartan. The historic Cheviot breed, found in the Scottish Borders, produces “one of the softest wool fibers in all of Britain’s wool clip,” she says.

“People tend to think British wool is only for rugs and socks, but we have the most diverse balls of wool in the world within the Coast and that’s because of our unique racial mix. We make over 100 high quality wools from British wool and a large proportion of these are fine and medium weight wools which lend themselves very well to knitwear.”

As environmental and commercial needs realign, says Kranich-Wood, “there is an opportunity here for people to start manufacturing on a larger scale in the UK and source local wool fibre. As consumers and commerce change, the money is coming back and confidence is returning.”

David Morar is a Partner at the R Street Institute, Founding Fellow at the Digital Interests Lab, Project Manager at the Private Ordering Observatory, and Visiting Professor at the FGV’s Center for Technology and Society.

When it comes to platform governance, the status quo is unsustainable. Almost any solution – be it corporate policy or legislation – is extremely difficult to get right and nearly impossible to scale without major compromises and consequences. But while thoughtful legislation is debated and passed in Europe, other jurisdictions — including the United States — are stuck either flexing authoritarian muscles or impotently proposing to break key safeguards to free speech.

Given the current impasse on laws and regulations, it is important to also look at what tools are available for better self-government. In this regard, the industry does not have a commendable track record. For years, tech companies have resisted regulation while ignoring or underinvesting in efforts to combat the harms of their products and services. And the techlash has spawned a multitude of flimsy attempts at better enterprise-level governance.

But the industry may have finally started self-regulating in earnest with the emergence of the Digital Trust and Safety Partnership (DTSP), a membership organization made up of a growing number of technology companies. Its first major product — the DSTP Safe Assessments Report, a summary of self-assessments from Discord, Google, LinkedIn, Meta Platforms, Inc., Microsoft, Pinterest, Reddit, Shopify, Twitter, and Vimeo, released this summer — gives an indication , which is possible through the partnership and provides an opportunity to assess their role and function in a complex ecosystem.

DTSP aims to address the platform governance challenge by providing a forum for technology platforms to have conversations, establish best practices and, where possible, collaborate and take joint action on trust and security principles. There are both normative and descriptive reasons for the excitement about what some more cynical observers would describe as yet another industry association.

Of course, there are dangers in working together in the industry – which is why there are laws against collusion, price fixing and market manipulation. When it comes to trust and security, there is a risk of “cartelization”, the potential flattening of policy approaches, which could have numerous other unintended consequences.

But industry collaboration is often fruitful and necessary at best (and with guard rails), particularly when an industry is dealing with complex challenges that impact the broader ecosystem. It has been at the forefront of other areas, such as privacy, where organizations like the International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP) or the Future of Privacy Forum (FPF) – industry-focused but formally independent – rely on these bodies to help them to build and maintain strong relationships within and between stakeholders and to form an ecosystem of science, education and advocacy.

The creation of the DTSP recognized the myriad of areas in which its potential members may differ, as evidenced by the wide range of companies that now belong to it. It is based on five commitments to product development, governance, enforcement, improvement and transparency. The principles of the DTSP define its role within an emerging ecosystem that also includes the Trust and Safety Professional Association and the Integrity Institute, organizations dedicated — much like IAPP and FPF in the privacy space — to professionalizing the space and delivering of thoughts focus guidance and analysis.

The tech industry has historically been reluctant to share much about its practices beyond boring blog posts and problematic transparency reports, meaning much of what is known comes from leaks, whistleblower accounts, or journalistic revelations. The recently published DTSP Safe Assessments Report, on the other hand, is promising as it provides a wider vantage point from which to evaluate these companies. The report paints a picture of an industry that, unsurprisingly, believes it is generally successful and on the right track.

The top-level findings focus on the maturity of core content moderation processes across all member companies, while acknowledging that work remains to be done in terms of policy implementation and incorporation of third-party and user feedback. Certainly it is also great to hear that the majority of companies are reporting the start of formalizing Trust & Safety and product team relationships – this will no doubt lead to a more holistic T&S perspective.

But while the synthesis of first-party assessments in the report is valuable, it also has obvious limitations. It offers little insight into the status or comparable experience of each company that conducted the reviews, and no way to question the accuracy of the results.

DTSP appears to be aware of these limitations and promises that this first report is a starting point. The next step, mentioned elsewhere by DTSP and detailed in the conclusion of the Safe Assessments Report, is the design, creation and implementation of third-party assessments. These, even if published at a level of abstraction associated with the industry, will be important for a more objective view of the industry. These ratings are the bare minimum for the DTSP to gain further legitimacy for its members beyond its usefulness. While the organization is of course committed to its members, third-party assessments should be produced with input from audit experts and other stakeholders. If these assessments are the stepping stone to more robust programs like certification, they should be preceded or based on research that can clearly delineate what really matters, not just what the industry wants to publicize.

Of course, it is crucial that civil society is meaningfully involved in the evaluation process. DTSP consulted with members of civil society and subsequently hired a staff member for precisely this purpose. Nevertheless, the involvement of independent and diverse experts and organizations should be a more integral part of the fabric of the institution. An industry-based group can stay true to its goals while meaningfully incorporating voices from civil society into its processes and outcomes, ultimately strengthening its role and status by demonstrating some allegiance to interests other than its own.

The existence and goals of DTSP signal a welcome reorientation of the industry toward action. Necessary as this association may be, it is far from sufficient. Industry and the rest of the ecosystem need to do more. Researchers band together and form their own versions of cross-interest groups. Cooperation between industry and civil society is needed, more often and in more places, also in an ad hoc way. The push to create codes for researchers to access data is a successful example of multi-stakeholder dialogue and action, but should not remain the only one.

In fact, more collaboration may just mean maintaining open lines of communication between and within stakeholders, as this can help mitigate more minor issues. Furthermore, established structures – existing and future – are vital to this ecosystem, with multi-stakeholder institutions helping to combat damage that is ongoing but not necessarily pervasive. The linchpin of the discussion of the platform governance space is thoughtful regulation, based on the work of industry and civil society stakeholders to strengthen the frameworks and principles already in place and to address specific challenges at the societal level. The technology industry has signaled that they are interested in a conversation by forming DTSP. It is up to the rest of us to ensure that it is a dialogue and not just a monologue delivered on industry terms.

David Morar is a Partner at the R Street Institute, Founding Fellow at the Digital Interests Lab, Project Manager at the Private Ordering Observatory, and Visiting Professor at the FGV’s Center for Technology and Society.

Related