A Social Contract for Biotechnology: Shared Visions for Risky Technologies?
- 162 Downloads
Future technological developmentsconcerning food, agriculture, and theenvironment face a gulf of social legitimationfrom a skeptical public and media, in the wakeof the crises of BSE, GM food, and foot andmouth disease in the UK (House of Lords, 2000). Keyethical issues were ignored by the bioindustry,regulators, and the Government, leaving alegacy of distrust. The paper examinesagricultural biotechnology in terms of a socialcontract, whose conditions would have to be fulfilled togain acceptance of novel applications. Variouscurrent and future GM applications areevaluated against these conditions. Successwould depend critically on how far a sharedvision can be found with the public. Tore-establish trust, significant changes areidentified in the planning and pursuit ofbiotechnology.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- House of Lords, Science and Society. Report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology (HMSO, London, 2000).Google Scholar
- Bruce, D. M. and J. T. Eldridge, “The Role of Values in the GM Debate,” in M. P. Cottam, D. W. Harvey, R. P. Pape, and J. E. Tait (eds.), Foresight and Precaution (Balkema, Rotterdam, 2000), pp. 855–862.Google Scholar
- Bruce, D. and A. Bruce (eds.), Engineering Genesis (Earthscan, London, 1999).Google Scholar
- Church of Scotland, Reports to the General Assembly and Deliverances of the General Assembly 1999, The Society, Religion and Technology Project report on Genetically Modified Food, pp. 20/93–20/103, and Board of National Mission Deliverances 42-45, p. 20/4 (1999).Google Scholar
- Adams, J., Risk (UCL Press, London, 1995).Google Scholar
- Council for Biotechnology Information, Biotechnology Researchers Call It Golden Rice - for the Colour, for the Opportunity, advertising and information pack (Council for Biotechnology Information, Washington DC, 2001).Google Scholar