Abstract
This chapter examines the challenges facing regulatory institutions in Europe concerning risk analysis of strategic technological innovations and the legitimacy issues these challenges raise. The author argues that dynamics of trust and distrust between publics and regulatory institutions respond to legitimate challenges that affect the principles and capabilities of institutional risk analysis. These challenges are analyzed in three models for the understanding of trust: the competence model, the cultural model and the relational model. Each of these models refers to a specific challenge that institutional risk analysis in our societies has to overcome if it is to be accepted as legitimate: an epistemological challenge, an axiological challenge and a reflexive challenge. These challenges are illustrated mostly in the light of the controversial regulation of transgenic plants in Europe.
The author goes on to argue that risk governance measures such as the adoption of precautionary policies and the promotion of public participation exercises, designed to resolve and avoid both the challenges and the partial deficit of legitimacy affecting regulatory institutions and technological developments, are severely conditioned by the strategic socio-economic imperatives that guide scientific-technological innovations and regulatory policies. The European promotion and regulation of nanotechnology is used to illustrate the constraints that severely limit institutional capacity and willingness to develop alternative and potentially more legitimate techno-industrial safety scenarios.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
The assumption that societal reactions against scientific-technological progress are the result of irrational appraisals of risk continues to pervade more contemporary institutional responses to these attitudes. For instance, public reticence in Europe about accepting transgenic food was considered by the then European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection David Byrne as something “inconsistent if not completely irrational,” Byrne (2003), 2.
- 2.
Critical public perceptions and attitudes to technological developments have been traditionally considered cognitively wrong, or failed, representations, and also as intentionally impartial, or “symbolic,” risk appraisals. For instance, antinuclear groups have often been said to use the debate on the risks of nuclear power “as a surrogate for larger policy questions about desired life-styles, political structure (…), and institutional power,” where “evidence about actual impacts is almost meaningless for the actors, but is still a desired resource to mobilize support” (Renn 1992, 191). But the political significance and meaning of the risks of progress is not merely symbolic-conventional; as I have already said, risk is a constitutive characteristic of modern techno-industrial societies and, therefore, its relation with the socio-political dimension is not conventional, but meaningful (e.g. Beck 1986 [1992]).
- 3.
This does not mean that trust in expert institutions can be reduced completely to a state of faith. Trust must also be based on the appropriation of the processes through which risk is socialized and becomes acceptable: regulatory measures, experiences of previous adequate operation, educational processes that socialize the respect toward science and technology, etc. (Giddens 1990, 35, 88–92).
- 4.
A Bt crop is one that expresses proteins with insecticide properties produced by the bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). See, for instance: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “EPA’s Regulation of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) Crops,” 735-F-02-013 (May 2002), www.epa.gov/oppbppd1/biopesticides/pips/regofbtcrops.htm (Accessed on February 27, 2012).
- 5.
D. Butler 2010, “A new dawn for transgenic crops in Europe?”, Nature News (March 9, 2010, doi:10.1038/news.2010.112), www.nature.com/news/2010/100309/full/news.2010.112.html (Accessed on February 27, 2012).
- 6.
The countries are Austria, Hungary, Greece, France, Luxembourg, Italy, Germany, Bulgaria and Poland. See: Greenpeace Poland, “Genetically modified crops illegal – Government launches bans,” in: F. Kreiss (Occupy Monsanto), Poland is the Most Recent Country to Ban GMO Cultivation (January 19, 2013), www.occupymonsanto360.org/2013/01/19/poland-is-the-most-recent-country-to-ban-gmo-cultivation (Accessed on March 29, 2013).
- 7.
The French experts claimed evidence of the following environmental risks of MON 810: (i) the environmental dissemination, contamination and persistence of Bt toxin, (ii) the appearance of resistance strains in target pests, and (iii) the development of toxic traces in non-target fauna (Comité de préfiguration d’une haute autorité sur les organismes génétiquement modifiés 2008, 1–2).
- 8.
The French ban on the cultivation of the MON 810 was overturned by the country’s top court in November 2011 on the basis that it was not sufficiently justified, but the Government reinstated the ban in March 2012. See: S. de La Hamaide (Reuters), “France restores ban on GMO maize crops” (March 16, 2012), www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/16/us-france-gmo-idUSBRE82F16I20120316 (Accessed on March 19, 2013).
- 9.
They are “salient” because the set of values linked to a given individual is not fixed but can vary according to the shift of meanings of the circumstances that are being valued. Douglas and Wildavsky’s proposal, where individuals are subsumed under a characteristic set of values that monopolize their opinions, is thus diluted here (Siegrist et al. 2000, 355).
- 10.
Siegrist et al. (2007) distinguish between trust based on facts (confidence) and trust based on values (trust). In their opinion, institutional strategies that try to obtain public legitimacy only through confidence are doomed to fail.
- 11.
The new, stricter regulations were Directive 2001/18/EC from 2001 (The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union 2001), which repealed the previous Directive 90/220/EEC, and the Regulations 1829/2003 (The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union 2003a) and 1830/2003 (The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union 2003b), both from 2003.
- 12.
However, many supermarkets continue to refrain from adding genetically modified ingredients to their brand products. For example, most distribution chains in Spain follow this policy. Moreover, a large number of producers have renounced the use of transgenic organisms in their products (Greenpeace 2012).
- 13.
The subordination of publics to expert institutions can conceal public unrest and mistrust toward them: due to this dependence on institutions, publics act “as if” they trust institutions, although in fact they do not. This circumstance highlights, according to this model, the socio-relational and ambivalent character of the relations between science and the publics (Wynne 1996a, 40–42, b, 50–52, 65, 68). In this sense, the adequacy of calling “trust” a forced expectation could be denied. It has been argued that in this case we should talk about “compliance” rather than “trust” (Möllering 2006, 119). However, we will assume, as Wynne does, that it is correct to talk of “trust” under circumstances of social coercion in regard to what the relational model of trust reveals: the latent mistrust hidden under an apparent public legitimacy.
- 14.
Introgression is the movement of genes from one species to another or among sub-species that have been geographically isolated. See: C. Maynard 1996, “Forest Genetics Glossary” (State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry), www.esf.edu/for/maynard/GENE_GLOSSERY.html (Accessed on March 19, 2013).
- 15.
Market analysts foresee a world market for nanotechnology worth between €750.000 million and €2 billion and the creation of 10 million nanotechnology-related jobs — 10 % of all manufacturing jobs worldwide — by 2015. See: European Commission-Nanotechnology: “Why are nanotechnologies important for the economy, industry and job creation?” (FAQs about Nanotechology): http://ec.europa.eu/nanotechnology/faq/faqs.cfm?lg=en&pg=faq&sub=details&idfaq=28821 (Accessed on March 24, 2013).
- 16.
The behavior of a chemical in a nanoparticle form cannot be extrapolated from the behavior of the same material at a larger scale. The toxicity of nanomaterials is related to physical properties occurring only at molecular and atomic sizes. For example, being so small, nanoparticles are picked up by the human body and other organisms more easily than larger particles, and are able to penetrate through biological barriers inside the organisms more readily. Also, nanoparticles have a bigger surface-area-to-volume ratio than larger particles, which increases their surface energy and catalytic capacity and, in consequence, their toxicity. For thorough studies of the principles of nanotoxicology, see: Oberdörster (2010); Oberdörster et al. (2005).
- 17.
As the political body in the European Union that directly represents the interests of European citizens, the European Parliament is the institution within the EU showing the greatest sensitivity to consumer and environmental safety concerning nanotechnology R&D (e.g. The European Parliament 2009)
- 18.
In similar terms, and more recently, the European Commission, in the context of the Seventh Framework Programme for R&D, called for research on new forms of communication and social dialogue, in order to facilitate the “responsible social acceptance of nanotechnology” (European Commission 2009, 9).
- 19.
Participatory exercises like the analytic-deliberative model are not binding—i.e., policymakers are not obliged to implement, or follow, public opinions on technological options and risks. This non-binding character of citizen deliberation has been typically justified in terms of the emotional and prejudiced character of the public opinions about science and technology (e.g. Rowe and Frewer 2000, 15). As currently argued, though, this non-binding character is better understood in terms of the socio-economic pervasiveness of certain techno-industrial developments and trajectories.
References
Bauer, M.W., and G. Gaskell (eds.). 2002. Biotechnology – The making of a global controversy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Beck, U. 1986. Risikogesellschaft: Auf dem Weg einem andere Moderne. Frankfurt: Suhrkampf. Translated into English by Mark Ritter: Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage. 1992.
Beck, U. 1988. Gegengifte: Die organisierte Unverantwortlichkeit. Frankfurt: Suhrkampf. Translated into English by Amosz Weisz: Ecological Politics in an Age of Risk. Cambridge: Polity Press. 1995.
Biegelbauer, P., and S. Borrás (eds.). 2003. Innovation policies in Europe and the US: The new agenda. Aldershot/Burlington: Ashgate.
Bowman, D.M., G. van Calster, and S. Friedrichs. 2010. Nanomaterials and regulation of cosmetics. Nature Nanotechnology 5: 92.
Butler, D. 2010, March 9. A new dawn for transgenic crops in Europe? Nature News. doi:10.1038/news.2010.112), www.nature.com/news/2010/100309/full/news.2010.112.html. Accessed on 27 Feb 2012.
Byrne, D. 2003. “Irrational fears or legitimate concerns” – Risk perception in perspective, SPEECH/03/593, Risk perception: Science, public debate and policy making conference, Brussels, 4 Dec 2003.
Chandra Ray, P., H. Yu, and P.P. Fu. 2009. Toxicity and environmental risks of nanomaterials: Challenges and future needs. Journal of Environmental Science and Health. Part C, Environmental Carcinogenesis & Ecotoxicology Reviews 27(1): 1–35.
Charnley, G., J.D. Graham, R.F. Kennedy Jr., and J. Shogren. 2000. 1998 annual meeting plenary session: Assessing and managing risks in a democratic society. Risk Analysis 20(3): 301–315.
Cobb, M.D., and J. Macoubrie. 2004. Public perceptions about nanotechnology: Risks, benefits and trust. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 6(4): 395–405.
Comité de préfiguration d’une haute autorité sur les organismes génétiquement modifiés. 2008. Opinion on the dissemination of MON 810 on the French territory (January 9). Paris: French Republic.
Commission of the European Communities. 2001. European governance: A white paper. Brussels, 25.7.2001, COM(2001) 428 final.
Commission of the European Communities. 2004. Towards a European strategy for nanotechnology. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
Commission of the European Communities. 2007. Nanosciences and nanotechnologies: An action plan for Europe 2005–2009. First implementation report 2005–2007. Brussels, 6.9.2007, COM(2007) 505 final.
Commission of the European Communities. 2008. Regulatory aspects of nanomaterials. Brussels, 17.6.2008, COM(2008) 366 final.
Commission of the European Communities. 2009. Nanosciences and nanotechnologies: An action plan for Europe 2005–2009. Second implementation report 2007–2009. Brussels, 29.10.2009, COM(2009)607 final.
Cranor, C. 2011. Legally poisoned: How the law puts us at risk from toxicants. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cvetkovich, G. 1999. The attribution of social trust. In Social trust and the management of risk, ed. G. Cvetkovich and R.E. Löfstedt, 53–61. London: Earthscan.
Cvetkovich, G., and P.L. Winter. 2007. The what, how and when of social reliance and cooperative risk management. In Trust in cooperative risk management: Uncertainty and scepticism in the public mind, ed. M. Siegrist, T.C. Earle, and H. Gutscher, 187–209. London/Sterling: Earthscan.
Das, T.K., and B.S. Teng. 2001. Trust, control and risk in strategic alliances: An integrated framework. Organization Studies 22(2): 251–283.
Dickson, D. 1984. The new politics of science. New York: Pantheon Books.
Douglas, M. 1985. Risk acceptability according to the social sciences. New York: Russell Sage.
Douglas, H. 2000. Inductive risk and values in science. Philosophy of Science 67(4): 559–579.
Douglas, M., and A. Wildavsky. 1982. Risk and culture. An essay on the selection of technological and environmental dangers. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Dryzek, J.S. 2000. Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, critics, contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dryzek, J.S., R.E. Goodin, A. Tucker, and B. Reber. 2009. Promethean elites encounter precautionary publics: The case of GM foods. Science, Technology & Human Values 34(3): 263–288.
Earle, T.C., and G. Cvetkovich. 1999. Social trust and culture in risk management. In Social trust and the management of risk, ed. G. Cvetkovich and R.E. Löfstedt, 9–21. London: Earthscan.
Earle, T.C., M. Siegrist, and H. Gutscher. 2007. Trust, risk perception and the TCC model of cooperation. In Trust in cooperative risk management: Uncertainty and scepticism in the public mind, ed. M. Siegrist, T.C. Earle, and H. Gutscher, 1–49. London/Sterling: Earthscan.
Ebert, J.D. 2012. The age of catastrophe: Disaster and humanity in modern times. London: McFarland and Company.
ETC Group. 2002. No small matter! Nanotech particles penetrate living cells and accumulate in animal organs. ETC Communiqué 76 (May/June 2002):1–8.
European Commission. 2002. Science and society action plan. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
European Commission. 2007. Work programme 2007, capacities, part 5: Science in society (C(2007)563 of 26.02.2007). Brussels: The Seventh Framework Programme.
European Commission. 2009. Work programme 2010, cooperation, theme 4, nanosciences, nanotechnologies, materials and new production technologies – NMP (C(2009) 5893 of 29 July 2009). Brussels: The Seventh Framework Programme.
European Commission. 2012. Second regulatory review on nanomaterials. Brussels, 3.10.2012, COM(2012) 572 final.
Gaskell, G. 2008. Lessons from the bio-decade: A social scientific perspective. In What can nanotechnology learn from biotechnology? Social and ethical lessons for nanoscience from the debate over agrifood biotechnology and GMOs, ed. K. David and P.B. Thompson, 237–259. Amsterdam [et al]: Academic Press.
Giddens, A. 1990. The consequences of modernity. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Giddens, A. 1994a. Living in a post-traditional society. In Lash, reflexive modernization. Politics, tradition and aesthetics in the modern social order, ed. U. Beck, A. Giddens, and S. Lash, 56–109. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Giddens, A. 1994b. Risk, trust, reflexivity. In Reflexive modernization. Politics, tradition and aesthetics in the modern social order, ed. U. Beck, A. Giddens, and S. Lash, 184–197. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Giddens, A. 2003. Runaway world. How globalization is reshaping our lives. New York: Routledge.
Giddens, A. 2009. The politics of climate change. Cambridge: Cambridge Polity Press.
Greenpeace. 2012. Guía roja y verde de alimentos transgénicos (5th ed. – Updated 8/3/2012). Madrid/ Barcelona: Greenpeace.
Greenpeace Poland. 2013, January 19. Genetically modified crops illegal – Government launches bans. In Poland is the most recent country to ban GMO cultivation, ed. F. Kreiss (Occupy Monsanto). www.occupymonsanto360.org/2013/01/19/poland-is-the-most-recent-country-to-ban-gmo-cultivation. Accessed on 29 March 2013.
Hansson, S.O. 2005. The epistemology of technological risk. Techné 9(2): 68–80.
Healy, S. 2004. A ‘post-foundational’ interpretation of risk as ‘performance’. Journal of Risk Research 7(3): 277–296.
Jacob, M., and T. Hellström. 2000. Policy understanding of science, public trust and the BSE-CJD crisis. Journal of Hazardous Materials 78(1–3): 303–317.
Johnson, B.B. 2007. Getting out the swamp: Towards understanding sources of local officials’ trust in wetlands management. In Trust in cooperative risk management: Uncertainty and scepticism in the public mind, ed. M. Siegrist, T.C. Earle, and H. Gutscher, 211–240. London/Sterling: Earthscan.
Levidow, L., and J. Murphy. 2003. Reframing regulatory science: Trans-atlantic conflicts over GM crops. Cahiers d’économie et sociologie rurales 68(69): 47–74.
Luján, J.L., and J.A. López Cerezo. 2004. De la promoción a la regulación. El conocimiento científico en las políticas públicas de ciencia y tecnología. In Gobernar los riesgos. Ciencia y valores en la sociedad del riesgo, ed. J.L. Luján and J. Echeverría, 75–98. Madrid: Biblioteca Nueva/OEI.
Marklund, G., N.S. Vonortas, and C.W. Wessner (eds.). 2009. The innovation imperative: National innovation strategies in the global economy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Maynard, C. 1996. Forest genetics glossary (State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry). www.esf.edu/for/maynard/GENE_GLOSSERY.html. Accessed on 19 Mar 2013.
Möllering, G. 2006. Trust: Reason, routine, reflexivity. Amsterdam [et al]: Elsevier.
Murphy, N., and S. Krimsky. 2003. Implicit precaution, scientific inference, and indirect evidence: The basis for the US environmental protection agency’s regulation of genetically modified crops. New Genetics and Society 22(2): 127–143.
Nordmann, A. 2005. Noumenal technology: Reflections on the incredible tininess of nano. Techné 8(3): 3–23.
Oberdörster, G. 2010. Safety assessment for nanotechnology and nanomedicine: Concepts of nanotoxicology. Journal of Internal Medicine 267(1): 89–105.
Oberdörster, G., A. Maynard, K. Donaldson, V. Castranova, J. Fitzpatrick, K. Ausman, J. Carter, B. Karn, W. Kreyling, D. Lai, S. Olin, N. Monteiro-Riviere, D. Warheit, and H. Yang. 2005. Principles for characterizing the potential human health effects from exposure to nanomaterials: Elements of a screening strategy. Particle and Fiber Toxicology 2(8): 1–35.
Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms. 2008. Scientific opinion. Request from the European Commission related to the safeguard clause invoked by France on Maize MON810 according to Article 23 of Directive 2001/18/EC and the emergency measure according to Article 34 of Regulation (CE) No 1829/2003. The EFSA Journal 850: 1–45.
Pellizzoni, L. 2001. Democracy and the governance of uncertainty: The case of agricultural gene technologies. Journal of Hazardous Materials 86(1–3): 205–222.
Plaza, M., and O. Todt. 2005. La gobernanza de la seguridad alimentaria.” Gobernanza de la ciencia y la tecnología (M. I. González and O. Todt, eds.). Arbor CLXXXI(715): 403–416.
Poland, C.A., R. Duffin, I. Kinloch, A. Maynard, W.A.H. Wallace, A. Seaton, V. Stone, S. Brown, W. MacNee, and K. Donaldson. 2008. Carbon nanotubes introduced into the abdominal cavity of mice show asbestos-like pathogenicity in a pilot study. Nature Nanotechnology 3: 423–428.
Ravetz, J. 2003. A paradoxical future for safety in the global knowledge economy. Futures 35(8): 811–826.
Renn, O. 1992. The social arena concept of risk debates. In Social theories of risk, ed. S. Krimsky and D. Golding, 179–196. Westport: Praeger.
Renn, O. 1999. A model for an analytic-deliberative process in risk management. Environmental Science & Technology 33(18): 3049–3055.
Renn, O. 2004. The challenge of integrating deliberation and expertise: Participation and discourse in risk management. In Risk analysis and society: An interdisciplinary characterization of the field, ed. T. McDaniels and M.J. Small, 289–366. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Renn, O., T. Webler, H. Rakel, P. Dienel, and B. Johnson. 1993. Public participation in decision making: A three-step procedure. Policy Sciences 26(3): 189–214.
République Française. 2009. Memo from the French Authorities to the Member States (Re: Draft Commission decision on the emergency measures taken by France concerning the placing on the market of genetically modified maize line MON810, pursuant to Article 34 of Regulation 1829/2003/EC, to be submitted to the vote of the Member States at the SCFCAH meeting on 16 February 2009). Paris: French Republic.
Rodríguez, H. 2008. Arriskuaren eraketa dinamikak: arriskuak gobernatzeko proposamen konposizionala (Dynamics of risk constitution: A compositional risk governance proposal). Leioa: University of the Basque Country Press. (Doctoral Thesis; in Basque.)
Rodríguez, H. 2009. La confianza pública en las instituciones reguladoras del riesgo: Tres modelos de confianza para tres desafíos del análisis del riesgo. Argumentos de Razón Técnica 12: 125–153.
Rowe, G., and L.J. Frewer. 2000. Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Science, Technology & Human Values 25(1): 3–29.
Sarewitz, D. 2010. Normal science and limits of knowledge: What we seek to know, what we choose not to know, what we don’t bother knowing. Social Research 77(3): 997–1010.
SCENIHR (Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks). 2007. Opinion on the appropriateness of the risk assessment methodology in accordance with the technical guidance documents for new and existing substances for assessing the risks of nanomaterials. Brussels: European Commission, Health and Consumer Protection, Directorate-General.
Shrader-Frechette, K.S. 1991. Risk and rationality. Philosophical foundations for populist reforms. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Shrader-Frechette, K.S. 2011. Taking action, saving lives: Our duties to protect environmental and public health. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Siegrist, M., G. Cvetkovich, and C. Roth. 2000. Salient value similarity, social trust, and risk/benefit perception. Risk Analysis 20(3): 353–362.
Siegrist, M., H. Gutscher, and C. Keller. 2007. Trust and confidence in crisis communication: Three case studies. In Trust in cooperative risk management: Uncertainty and scepticism in the public mind, ed. M. Siegrist, T.C. Earle, and H. Gutscher, 267–286. London/Sterling: Earthscan.
Slovic, P. 1999. Perceived risk, trust, and democracy. In Social trust and the management of risk, ed. G. Cvetkovich and R.E. Löfstedt, 42–52. London: Earthscan.
The Council of the European Communities. 1990. Council Directive 90/220/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms. Official Journal of the European Communities (L 117, 8 May 1990): 15–27.
The European Parliament. 2009. European Parliament resolution of 24 April 2009 on regulatory aspects of nanomaterials (2008/2208(INI)). Nanomaterials, P6_TA(2009)0328, Official Journal of the European Union, C 184 E/82, 8.7.2010.
The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. 2001. Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC. Official Journal of the European Communities (L 106/1, 17 April 2001):1–38.
The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. 2003a. Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed. Official Journal of the European Union (L 268/1, 18 October 2003):1–23.
The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. 2003b. Regulation (EC) No 1830/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 concerning the traceability and labelling of genetically modified organisms and the traceability of food and feed products produced from genetically modified organisms and amending Directive 2001/18/EC. Official Journal of the European Communities (L 268/24, 18 October 2003):24–28.
The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. 2009. Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on cosmetic products. Official Journal of the European Union, L 342/59, 22.12.2009.
Todt, O. 2002. Innovación y regulación: La influencia de los actores sociales en el cambio tecnológico. El caso de la ingeniería genética agrícola. Valencia: Universitat de València. (Doctoral Thesis.)
Todt, O. 2004. Regulating agricultural biotechnology under uncertainty. Safety Science 42(2): 143–158.
Walker, N.J., and J.R. Bucher. 2009. A 21st century paradigm for evaluating the health hazards of nanoscale materials? Toxicological Sciences 110(2): 251–254.
Winickoff, D., S. Jasanoff, L. Busch, R. Grove-White, and B. Wynne. 2005. Adjudicating the GM food wars: Science, risk, and democracy in world trade law. The Yale Journal of International Law 30(1): 81–123.
Wynne, B. 1992. Uncertainty and environmental learning. Reconceiving science and policy in the preventive paradigm. Global Environmental Change 2(2): 111–127.
Wynne, B. 1996a. Misunderstood misunderstandings: Social identities and public uptake of science. In Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology, ed. A. Irwin and B. Wynne, 19–46. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wynne, B. 1996b. May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert-lay knowledge divide. In Risk, environment & modernity, ed. S. Lash, B. Szerszynski, and B. Wynne, 44–83. London [et al]: Sage.
Wynne, B. 2002. Risk and environment as legitimatory discourses of technology: Reflexivity inside out? Current Sociology 50(3): 459–477.
Wynne, B. 2006. Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science – Hitting the notes, but missing the music? Community Genetics 9(3): 211–220.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (grants FFI2011-24414 and FFI2012-33550), and the Basque Government’s Department of Education, Language Policy and Culture (grant IT644-13).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Rodríguez, H. (2015). Risk and Trust in Institutions That Regulate Strategic Technological Innovations: Challenges for a Socially Legitimate Risk Analysis. In: Gonzalez, W. (eds) New Perspectives on Technology, Values, and Ethics. Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science, vol 315. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21870-0_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21870-0_8
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-21869-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-21870-0
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)