Abstract
‘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.
A key factor in ‘risk’ politics is science, because many risks are only detected or represented by science.... But science has also been captured, and is being abused, by vested government and commercial interests. In particular it is used to disguise or altogether displace moral and ethical judgements.
(Rose, 1993, pp. 285–98)
This chapter arises from two related studies funded by the Economic and Social Research Council: ‘Regulating the Risks of Biotechnology’ (1989–91, project number R000 23 1611); and ‘From Precautionary to Risk-based Regulation: the Case of GMO Releases’ (1995–6, project number L211 25 2032).
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
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Beck, J., Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity (London: Sage, 1992).
Bodansky, D., ‘Scientific Uncertainty and the Precautionary Principle’, Environment vol. 33(7) (1991), pp. 4–5, 43–5.
Boehmer-Christiansen, S., ‘The Precautionary Principle in Germany — Enabling Government’, in O’Riordan and Cameron (eds), 1994.
Campbell, B. L., ‘Uncertainty as Symbolic Action in Disputes among Ex-perts’, Social Studies of Science, vol. 15 (1985), pp. 429–53.
Collingridge, D., and Reeve, C., Science Speaks to Power: The Role of Experts in Policy Making (London: Pinter, 1986).
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).
Eden, C., Jones, S., and Sims, D., Messing about in Problems (London: Pergamon, 1983).
Grove-White, R., ‘The Emerging Shape of Environmental Conflict in the 1990s’, RSA Journal, vol. 139 (1991), pp. 437–47.
Hunt, J., ‘The Social Construction of Precaution’, in O’Riordan and Cameron (eds), 1994.
Jasanoff, S., Risk Management and Political Culture (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1986).
Jasanoff, S., ‘Bridging the Two Cultures of Risk Analysis’, Risk Analysis, vol. 13 (1993), pp. 123–9.
Johnston, P., and Simmonds, M., ‘Green Light for Precautionary Science’, New Scientist, 3 August 1991, p. 4.
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).
Levidow, L., ‘Biotechnology Regulation as Symbolic Normalization’, Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, vol. 6 (1994a), pp. 273–88.
Levidow, L., ‘Contested Rationality: Early Regulation of GMO Releases in Britain’, PhD thesis (Milton Keynes: Open University, 1994b).
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).
Levidow, L., ‘Safely Testing Safety? The Oxford Baculovirus Controversy’, BioScience, vol. 45 (1995b), pp. 545–51.
Levidow, L., and Tait, J., ‘The Greening of Biotechnology: GMOs as Environment-friendly Products’, Science and Public Policy, vol. 18 (1991), pp. 271–80.
Levidow, L., and Tait, J., ‘The Release of Genetically Modified Organisms: Precautionary Legislation’, Project Appraisal, vol. 7 (1992), pp. 93–105.
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.
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.
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.
Majone, G., Evidence, Argument and Persuasion in the Policy Process (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1989).
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).
Nelkin, D. (ed.), Controversy: Politics of Technical Decisions (London: Sage, 1979).
Nelkin, D. (ed.), The Language of Risk: Conflicting Perspectives on Occupational Health (London: Sage, 1985).
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Recombinant DNA Safety Considerations (Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 1986).
O’Riordan, T., and Cameron, J. (eds), Interpreting the Precautionary Principle (London: Earthscan, 1994).
Rose, C., ‘Beyond the Struggle for Proof: Factors Changing the Environ-mental Movement’, Environmental Values, vol. 2 (1993), pp. 285–98.
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).
Salter, L., Mandated Science: Science and Scientists in the Making of Standards (London: Kluwer, 1988).
Schwarz, M., and Thompson, M., Divided We Stand: Redefining Politics, Technology and Social Choice (London: Harvester, 1990).
Shrader-Frechette, K. S., Risk and Rationality: Philosophical Foundations for Populist Reforms (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991).
Tait, J., and Levidow, L., ‘Proactive and Reactive Approaches to Regula-tion: The Case of Biotechnology’, Futures, vol. 24 (1992), pp. 219–31.
Whyte, A., and Burton, I., Environmental Risk Assessment, SCOPE 15 (Chichester: Wiley, 1980).
Wynne, B., ‘Uncertainty and Environmental Learning: Reconceiving Science and Policy in the Preventive Paradigm’, Global Environmental Change (June 1992), pp. 111–27.
Wynne, B., and Mayer, S., ‘How Science Fails the Environment’, New Scientist (5 June 1993), pp. 33–5.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 1999 Macmillan Press Ltd
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Levidow, L., Carr, S. (1999). Biotechnology Regulation: De/Politicizing Uncertainty. In: Fairweather, N.B., Elworthy, S., Stroh, M., Stephens, P.H.G. (eds) Environmental Futures. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-27265-5_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-27265-5_10
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-27267-9
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-27265-5
eBook Packages: Palgrave Social & Cultural Studies CollectionSocial Sciences (R0)