Biotechnology Regulation: De/Politicizing Uncertainty

  • Les Levidow
  • Susan Carr


‘Risk’ science has a double-edged character, posing both an opportunity and a problem for environmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs), as implied above by the programme director of Greenpeace UK. Early on, activists cite scientific evidence to push an environmental problem onto the government agenda. Yet they subsequently lose the initiative, as the problem becomes transformed to one of official ‘risk management’, whereby value judgements become concealed within technical expertise.


Precautionary Principle Scientific Uncertainty Environmental Future Acceptability Judgement Technical Uncertainty 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Beck, J., Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity (London: Sage, 1992).Google Scholar
  2. Bodansky, D., ‘Scientific Uncertainty and the Precautionary Principle’, Environment vol. 33(7) (1991), pp. 4–5, 43–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boehmer-Christiansen, S., ‘The Precautionary Principle in Germany — Enabling Government’, in O’Riordan and Cameron (eds), 1994.Google Scholar
  4. Campbell, B. L., ‘Uncertainty as Symbolic Action in Disputes among Ex-perts’, Social Studies of Science, vol. 15 (1985), pp. 429–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Collingridge, D., and Reeve, C., Science Speaks to Power: The Role of Experts in Policy Making (London: Pinter, 1986).Google Scholar
  6. Department of the Environment, An Evaluation of Genhaz as a Risk-Assessment System for Proposals to Release Genetically Modified Organisms into the Environment (London: Department of the Environment, 1994).Google Scholar
  7. Eden, C., Jones, S., and Sims, D., Messing about in Problems (London: Pergamon, 1983).Google Scholar
  8. Grove-White, R., ‘The Emerging Shape of Environmental Conflict in the 1990s’, RSA Journal, vol. 139 (1991), pp. 437–47.Google Scholar
  9. Hunt, J., ‘The Social Construction of Precaution’, in O’Riordan and Cameron (eds), 1994.Google Scholar
  10. Jasanoff, S., Risk Management and Political Culture (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1986).Google Scholar
  11. Jasanoff, S., ‘Bridging the Two Cultures of Risk Analysis’, Risk Analysis, vol. 13 (1993), pp. 123–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Johnston, P., and Simmonds, M., ‘Green Light for Precautionary Science’, New Scientist, 3 August 1991, p. 4.Google Scholar
  13. Levidow, L., ‘What Values in the GEMMOs? Reflections on Regem 2’, in M. Sussman and D. E. Stewart-Tull (eds), The Release of Genetically Engineered Micro-organisms: Regem 2 (New York: Plenum Press, 1992).Google Scholar
  14. Levidow, L., ‘Biotechnology Regulation as Symbolic Normalization’, Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, vol. 6 (1994a), pp. 273–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Levidow, L., ‘Contested Rationality: Early Regulation of GMO Releases in Britain’, PhD thesis (Milton Keynes: Open University, 1994b).Google Scholar
  16. Levidow, L., ‘Codes, Commodities and Combat: Agricultural Biotechnology as Clean Surgical Strike’, in S. Elworthy, K. Anderson, I. Coates, P. Stephens and M. Stroh (eds), Perspectives on the Environment, vol. II (London: Avebury, 1995a).Google Scholar
  17. Levidow, L., ‘Safely Testing Safety? The Oxford Baculovirus Controversy’, BioScience, vol. 45 (1995b), pp. 545–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Levidow, L., and Tait, J., ‘The Greening of Biotechnology: GMOs as Environment-friendly Products’, Science and Public Policy, vol. 18 (1991), pp. 271–80.Google Scholar
  19. Levidow, L., and Tait, J., ‘The Release of Genetically Modified Organisms: Precautionary Legislation’, Project Appraisal, vol. 7 (1992), pp. 93–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Levidow, L., and Tait, J., ‘Advice on Biotechnology Regulation: The Re-mit and Composition of ACRE’, Science and Public Policy, vol. 20 (1993), pp. 193–209.Google Scholar
  21. Levidow, L., Carr, S., von Schomberg, R., and Wield, D., ‘Regulating Agricultural Biotechnology in Europe: Harmonization Difficulties, Opportunities, Dilemmas’, Science and Public Policy, vol. 23 (1996), pp. 135–57.Google Scholar
  22. Levidow, L., Carr, S., von Schomberg, R., and Wield, D., ‘European Biotechnology Regulation: Framing the Risk Assessment of a Herbicide-tolerant Crop’, Science, Technology and Human Values, 22 (4) (1997), pp. 472–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Majone, G., Evidence, Argument and Persuasion in the Policy Process (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1989).Google Scholar
  24. Mayer, S., ‘Public Information and Participation in the Regulation of Genetic Engineering’, in Public Information and Participation in the Context of European Directives 90/219IEECC and 90/220/EEC. pp. 71–6 (The Hague: VROM, 1994).Google Scholar
  25. Nelkin, D. (ed.), Controversy: Politics of Technical Decisions (London: Sage, 1979).Google Scholar
  26. Nelkin, D. (ed.), The Language of Risk: Conflicting Perspectives on Occupational Health (London: Sage, 1985).Google Scholar
  27. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Recombinant DNA Safety Considerations (Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 1986).Google Scholar
  28. O’Riordan, T., and Cameron, J. (eds), Interpreting the Precautionary Principle (London: Earthscan, 1994).Google Scholar
  29. Rose, C., ‘Beyond the Struggle for Proof: Factors Changing the Environ-mental Movement’, Environmental Values, vol. 2 (1993), pp. 285–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (RCEP), 14th Report: Genhaz - A System for the Critical Appraisal of Proposals to Release Genetically Modified Organisms into the Environment (London: HMSO, 1991).Google Scholar
  31. Salter, L., Mandated Science: Science and Scientists in the Making of Standards (London: Kluwer, 1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schwarz, M., and Thompson, M., Divided We Stand: Redefining Politics, Technology and Social Choice (London: Harvester, 1990).Google Scholar
  33. Shrader-Frechette, K. S., Risk and Rationality: Philosophical Foundations for Populist Reforms (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991).Google Scholar
  34. Tait, J., and Levidow, L., ‘Proactive and Reactive Approaches to Regula-tion: The Case of Biotechnology’, Futures, vol. 24 (1992), pp. 219–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Whyte, A., and Burton, I., Environmental Risk Assessment, SCOPE 15 (Chichester: Wiley, 1980).Google Scholar
  36. Wynne, B., ‘Uncertainty and Environmental Learning: Reconceiving Science and Policy in the Preventive Paradigm’, Global Environmental Change (June 1992), pp. 111–27.Google Scholar
  37. Wynne, B., and Mayer, S., ‘How Science Fails the Environment’, New Scientist (5 June 1993), pp. 33–5.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Press Ltd 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Les Levidow
  • Susan Carr

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations