Exploring the Links Between Science, Risk, Uncertainty, and Ethics in Regulatory Controversies About Genetically Modified Crops

  • Susan Carr
  • Les Levidow
Article

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 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Carr, S., “Testing the Environmental Decision-Making Framework,” in T861 Environmental Decision Making: A Systems Approach, Block 6 (Milton Keynes: The Open University, 1998).Google Scholar
  2. Carr, S. and L. Levidow, “How Biotechnology Regulation Separates Ethics from Risk,” Outlook on Agriculture 26 (1997), 145-150.Google Scholar
  3. 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).Google Scholar
  4. DETR, Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment Annual Report No. 4: 1996/97(London: DETR, 1998).Google Scholar
  5. EC, Group of Advisers on the Ethical Implications of Biotechnology to the European Commission (Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 1996).Google Scholar
  6. 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.Google Scholar
  7. 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.Google Scholar
  8. Fischler, F., Quoted in “EU Attitude to Biotech Threatens Jobs, says Fischler,” AgraFood Europe November (1997), p. 32.Google Scholar
  9. Greenpeace, Genetic Engineering: Too Good to go Wrong? (London: Greenpeace, 1997).Google Scholar
  10. Grove-White, R. and B. Szerszynski, “Getting behind Environmental Ethics,” Environmental Values 1 (1992), 285-296.Google Scholar
  11. HMSO, Report of the Committee on the Ethics of Genetic Modification and Food Use(London: HMSO, 1993).Google Scholar
  12. 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.Google Scholar
  13. 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.Google Scholar
  14. Macrory, R., National Biotechnology Conference Report of the Rapporteur (London: DETR, 1997).Google Scholar
  15. Meacher, M., Opening statement to the House of Lord Select Committee: 21 October, issued as a News Release, DETR, London, 1998.Google Scholar
  16. 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.Google Scholar
  17. NFU, Report of the Biotechnology Working Group (London: NFU, 1998), unpublished.Google Scholar
  18. NFU, BSPB, BAA, UKASTA, and BSBSPA, Genetically Modified Herbicide Tolerant Crops, Joint Response to MAFF Consultation (unpublished), 1997.Google Scholar
  19. 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.Google Scholar
  20. RSPB, Weed Control on the Farm: Management of Genetically Modified Herbicide Tolerant Crops (Sandy, Bedfordshire, UK: RSPB, 1997), unpublished.Google Scholar
  21. Sadler, B., Proposed Framework for the International Study of the Effectiveness of Environmental Assessment (Canada: Federal Environmental Review Office, 1994).Google Scholar
  22. SAFE, http://www.gn.apc.org/safe/gmo.htm, 25/03/98, 1998.Google Scholar
  23. Ulrich, W., “Some Difficulties of Ecological Thinking, Considered from a Critical Systems Perspective: a Plea for Critical Holism,” Systems Practice 6 (1993), 583-611.Google Scholar
  24. Ulrich, W., A Primer to Critical Systems Heuristics for Action Researchers (Hull: Centre for Systems Studies, University of Hull, 1996).Google Scholar
  25. Vines, G., “How Far Should We Go?,” New Scientist 141(1912) (1994), 12-13.Google Scholar
  26. Wynne, B., “Uncertainty and Environmental Learning: Reconceiving Science and Policy in the Preventive Paradigm,” Global Environmental Change, June (1992), 111-127.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Susan Carr
    • 1
  • Les Levidow
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Technology StrategyThe Open UniversityMilton KeynesUK

Personalised recommendations