Exploring the Links Between Science, Risk, Uncertainty, and Ethics in Regulatory Controversies About Genetically Modified Crops
Cite this article as: Carr, S. & Levidow, L. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics (2000) 12: 29. doi:10.1023/A:1009595924500 Abstract
Just as a stream of genetically modifiedcrops looked set to be approved for commercialproduction in the European Union, the approvalprocedure appears to have become bogged down onceagain by disagreements among and within member states.Old controversies have resurfaced in new forms. Theintractability of the issues suggests that theregulatory procedure has had too narrow a focus,leaving outside its boundary many of the morefundamental aspects that cause people in the EuropeanUnion most concern. Regulators have come underconsiderable pressure to ensure their risk assessmentdecisions are soundly science-based. Ethical issueshave been deemed to lie beyond the scope of theregulatory procedure, as a matter to be consideredseparately by professional ethicists. Yet it has beensuggested that all environmental controversies at rootinvolve disputes about fundamental ethical principles.This paper examines how the ethical issues arecurrently suppressed or sidelined. It discusses how anappreciation of systems thinking and a check on thevalues that underpin decisions, using boundary testingquestions, might contribute to a more constructiveregulatory dialogue, with ethical issues considered asintegral in a way that takes better account ofpeople's concerns.
Biotechnology critical systems heuristics environmental ethics regulation risk REFERENCES
Carr, S., “Testing the Environmental Decision-Making Framework,” in
T861 Environmental Decision Making: A Systems Approach, Block 6 (Milton Keynes: The Open University, 1998).
Carr, S. and L. Levidow, “How Biotechnology Regulation Separates Ethics from Risk,”
Outlook on Agriculture
26 (1997), 145-150.
de Vriend, H., “Biotechnology and Sustainable Production,” in
How Can Biotechnology Benefit the Environment. The Report of A European Federation of Biotechnology Task Group on Public Perceptions of Biotechnology/The Green Alliance Workshop
(London: The Green Alliance, 1997).
Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment Annual Report No. 4: 1996/97
(London: DETR, 1998).
Group of Advisers on the Ethical Implications of Biotechnology to the European Commission (Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 1996).
EC, Press Dossier: First Meeting of the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies 19 February (1998), Brussels, European Commission Secretariat General Directorate C.
English Nature, Scottish Natural Heritage, Countryside Council forWales and Joint Nature Conservation Committee, “Submission to the House of Lords European Communities Committee, Enquiry into the Regulation of Genetic Modification in Agriculture”, June 1998, para 3.3.4.
Fischler, F., Quoted in “EU Attitude to Biotech Threatens Jobs, says Fischler,”
AgraFood Europe November (1997), p. 32.
Genetic Engineering: Too Good to go Wrong
? (London: Greenpeace, 1997).
Grove-White, R. and B. Szerszynski, “Getting behind Environmental Ethics,”
1 (1992), 285-296.
Report of the Committee on the Ethics of Genetic Modification and Food Use
(London: HMSO, 1993).
Levidow, L., S. Carr, von R. Schomberg, and D. Wield, “Regulating Agricultural Biotechnology in Europe: Harmonisation Difficulties, Opportunities, Dilemmas,”
Science and Public Policy
23 (1996), 135-157.
Levidow, L., S. Carr, D. Wield, and von R. Schomberg, “European Biotechnology Regulation: Framing the Risk Assessment of a Herbicide-tolerant Crop,”
Science, Technology and Human Values
22 (1997), 472-505.
National Biotechnology Conference Report of the Rapporteur
(London: DETR, 1997).
Meacher, M., Opening statement to the House of Lord Select Committee: 21 October, issued as a News Release, DETR, London, 1998.
Midgley, G., I. Munlo, and M. Brown, “The Theory and Practice of Boundary Critique: Developing Housing Services for Older People,”
Journal of the Operational Research Society
49 (1998), 467-478.
Report of the Biotechnology Working Group
(London: NFU, 1998), unpublished.
NFU, BSPB, BAA, UKASTA, and BSBSPA,
Genetically Modified Herbicide Tolerant Crops, Joint Response to MAFF Consultation (unpublished), 1997.
Nuffield Council on Bioethics,
Genetically Modified Crops; the Social and Ethical IissuesConsultation Document, http://www.gn.apc.org/pmhp/rangers/ta/nuffield.htm, 24/04/98, 1998.
Weed Control on the Farm: Management of Genetically Modified Herbicide Tolerant Crops
(Sandy, Bedfordshire, UK: RSPB, 1997), unpublished.
Proposed Framework for the International Study of the Effectiveness of Environmental Assessment
(Canada: Federal Environmental Review Office, 1994).
SAFE, http://www.gn.apc.org/safe/gmo.htm, 25/03/98, 1998.
Ulrich, W., “Some Difficulties of Ecological Thinking, Considered from a Critical Systems Perspective: a Plea for Critical Holism,”
6 (1993), 583-611.
A Primer to Critical Systems Heuristics for Action Researchers
(Hull: Centre for Systems Studies, University of Hull, 1996).
Vines, G., “How Far Should We Go?,”
141(1912) (1994), 12-13.
Wynne, B., “Uncertainty and Environmental Learning: Reconceiving Science and Policy in the Preventive Paradigm,”
Global Environmental Change, June (1992), 111-127. Copyright information
© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000