The significance of political-economic context for scientific citizenship is argued through an analysis of New Zealand’s Royal Commission on Genetic Modification. My intention is not to provide an account of why the commission came to the decisions it did but to illustrate how the political-economic context and the culture of regulatory science both exacerbate public concerns about unacknowledged uncertainty and commercial influence and make it difficult for those concerns to influence the outcomes of public dialogues. The discursive flexibility of science as alternately predictive and provisional silences concerns about uncertainty, while a further interpretive choice of science as the autonomous activities of individuals unconstrained by political-economic context occludes the nature of concerns about commercial influence. Rather than the increasingly prevalent focus on processes of engagement, I argue that it is essential that researchers in this area attend to how public dialogue is placed in relation to the cultures and structures of regulatory science and neoliberalism.
Nature. 2001. A sound approach to GM debate. 412(6857): 569-569.
2.
Atkinson-Grosjean, J.2002. Science policy and university research: Canada and the USA, 1979-1999. International Journal of Technology, Policy and Management2 (2): 102-124.
3.
Barton, I. L., G. Fisher, E. G. C. Smith, and R. Turner (with 725 signatories). 2004. Open letter to the minister of research, science, and technology, October 24.
4.
Bekelman, J. E., Y. Li, and C. P. Gross. 2003. Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: A systematic review. Journal of the American Medical Association289: 454-465.
5.
Blumenthal, D.2003. Academic-industrial relationships in the life sciences. The New England Journal of Medicine349: 2452-2459.
6.
Bourdieu, P.1977. Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
7.
Campbell, E. G., B. R. Clarridge, M. Gokhale, L. Birenbaum, S. Hilgartner, N. A. Holtzman, and D. Blumenthal. 2002. Data withholding in academic genetics: Evidence from a national survey. Journal of the American Medical Association287(4): 473-480.
8.
Chopra, R.2003. Neoliberalism as doxa: Bourdieu’s theory of the state and the contemporary Indian discourse on globalization and liberalization. Cultural Studies17(3-4): 419-444.
9.
Clark, H.2001. Prime minister’s statement on government response to Royal Commission on Genetic Modification, 30 October. http://www.executive.govt.nz/minister/hobbs/gm/summary/pm-statement.htm (accessed August 14, 2004).
10.
Coukell, A.2001. A step forward for genetic engineering in New Zealand. The New York TimesAugust 21.
11.
Dahl, R. A.1956. A preface to democratic theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
12.
Einseidel, E., E. Jelsøe, and T. Breck. 2001. Publics at the technology table: The consensus conference in Denmark, Canada, and Australia. Public Understanding of Science10 (1): 83-98.
13.
Elam, M., and M. Bertilsson. 2003. Consuming, engaging and confronting science: The emerging dimensions of scientific citizenship. European Journal of Social Theory6(2): 233-251.
14.
Fleming, J. 2001. Interview on Eureka! Radio NZ, September 9.
15.
Fleming, J.. 2003. Playing God or being human?Proceedings of the conference “Being human: Science, culture and fear,”22 November 2002, 35-41. Wellington, NZ: Royal Society of New Zealand.
16.
Food and Agriculture Organization. 2005. Electronic forum on biotechnology in food and agriculture: Public participation in decision-making regarding GMOs in developing countries: How to effectively involve rural people. http://www.fao.org/biotech/conf12.htm (accessed February 26, 2005).
17.
Fuller, S.2000. The governance of science: Ideology and the future of the open society. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
18.
Glowka, L.2003. Law and modern biotechnology: Selected issues of relevance to food and agriculture. FAO legislative study 78. Rome: FAO.
19.
Goven, J.2003. Deploying the consensus conference in New Zealand: Democracy and deproblematization. Public Understanding of Science12(4): 423-440.
20.
Goven, J., and J. Wuthnow. 2004. Challenging scientific legitimacy: Citizen participation in technoscience. In Challenging science: Issues for New Zealand Society in the 21st Century, edited by Kevin Dew and Ruth Fitzgerald, 51-67. Palmerston North: Dunmore Press.
21.
Grove-White, R., P. Macnaghten, S. Mayer, and B. Wynne. 1997. Uncertain world: Genetically modified organisms, food and public attitudes in Britain (in association with Unilever). Lancaster: IEPPP, Lancaster University.
22.
Grove-White, R., P. Macnaghten, and B. Wynne. 2000. Wising up: The public and new technologies. Lancaster: IEPPP, Lancaster University.
23.
Hagendijk, R. 2003. Democracy, rights, and the biotech society. Paper presented at Biotech Society Conference, Dipoli Espoo, Finland, September 29-30.
24.
Hagendijk, R. 2004a. Framing GM food: Public participation, citizenship and liberal democracy. Paper presented at Technologies, Publics and Power Conference, Akaroa, NZ, February 1-5.
25.
Hagendijk, R.2004b. The public understanding of science and pubic participation in regulated worlds. Minerva42(1): 41-59.
26.
Hagendijk, R., and M. Egmond. 2004. The GM food debate in the Netherlands, 1999-2002. STAGE (Science, Technology and Governance in Europe) Discussion Paper 14. http://www.stage-research.net/STAGE/DOWNLOADS/StageDiscussPaper14.pdf (accessed March 1, 2005).
27.
Hagendijk, R., and E. Kallerud. 2003. Changing conceptions and practices of governance in science and technology in Europe: A framework for analysis. STAGE (Science, Technology and Governance in Europe) Discussion Paper 2. http://www.stage-research.net/STAGE/DOWNLOADS/StageDiscussPaper2.pdf (accessed April 1, 2004).
28.
Hammond, L. S., and S. D. Devine. 1993. The New Zealand experience of a comprehensive fully costed science funding system. In Research grants management and funding, edited by Fiona Q. Wood and V. Lynn Meek, 105-111. Canberra: Anutech Publishers.
29.
Harvard Journal of Law and Technology. 2004. Recent developments: Axel Patent Litigation, e.g., Genentech, Inc. v. Tr. of Columbia Univ., N.D. Cal. 2003, No. 3:03-cv-01603. Harvard Journal of Law and Technology17 (2): 2-2.
30.
Häyrinen-Alestalo, M., and K. Snell. 2004. Market orientations and mediation of public opinions in Finnish biotechnology. STAGE (Science, Technology and Governance in Europe) Discussion Paper 6. http://www.stage-research.net/STAGE/DOWNLOADS/StageDiscussPaper6.pdf (accessed March 1, 2005).
31.
Healy, D.2004. Shaping the intimate: Influences on the experience of everyday nerves. Social Studies of Science34(2): 219-245.
32.
Herrera, S.2005. New Zealand: Green haven for biotech?Technology ReviewFebruary: 28-30.
33.
Hobbs, M.2001. Initial brief on report of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification Summary. http://www.executive.govt.nz/minister/hobbs/commission/cabinet.htm (accessed August 14, 2004).
34.
Hobbs, M. 2005. NZ supports case-by-case assessment. Press release, February 10. http://www.beehive.govt.nz/ViewDocument.aspx?DocumentID=22174 (accessed February 12, 2005)
35.
Hope, J.2003. Preserving opportunities or taking unjustified risks? Reflections of the report of the New Zealand Royal Commission on Genetic Modification. The Australasian Journal of Natural Resources Law and Policy8 (1): 29-56.
36.
IDS (Institute of Development Studies). 2003. Public Participation and the Cartagena Protocol: A report for DfID and UNEP-GEF. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies.
37.
Irwin, A.2001. Constructing the scientific citizen: Science and democracy in the biosciences. Public Understanding of Science10 (1): 1-18.
38.
Jackson, M.2001. An exquisite politeness: The Royal Commission on Genetic Modification and the redefining of the Treaty of Waitangi. www.converge.org.nz/pma/redefi.htm (accessed March 25, 2004).
39.
Jaffe, G.2004. Regulating transgenic crops: A comparative analysis of different regulatory processes. Transgenic Research13 (1): 5-19.
40.
Jasanoff, S.2002. Citizens at risk: Cultures of modernity in the US and EU. Science as Culture11(3): 363-380.
41.
Jasanoff, S.2003. Technologies of humility: Citizen participation in governing science. Minerva41(3): 223-244.
42.
Klein, H. K., and D. L. Kleinman. 2002. The social construction of technology: Structural considerations. Science, Technology, & Human Values27 (1): 28-52.
43.
Kleinman, D. L.2004. Impure cultures: University biology and the world of commerce. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
44.
Le Heron, R.2003. Creating food futures: Reflections on food governance issues in New Zealand’s agri-food sector. Journal of Rural Studies19 (1): 111-125.
45.
Levidow, L., and S. Carr. 1997. How biotechnology regulation sets a risk/ethics boundary. Agriculture and Human Values14 (1): 29-43.
46.
Levidow, L., and C. Marris. 2001. Science and governance in Europe: Lessons from the case of agricultural biotechnology. Science and Public Policy28 (5): 345-360.
47.
Lexchin, J. R.2005. Implications of pharmaceutical industry funding on clinical research. Annals of Pharmacotherapy39(1): 194-197.
48.
MacLeod, S.2001. Delight and anger at GE report. New Zealand Herald, July 31.
49.
Marris, C., B. Wynne, P. Simmons, and S. Weldon. 2001. Public perceptions of agricultural biotechnologies in Europe: Final report of the PABE research project.
50.
Monsanto Ltd. N.d. Biotechnology: Fallacies and Facts. Mumbai and Lahore: Monsanto Ltd.
51.
MoRST (Ministry of Research, Science and Technology).2003. New Zealand biotechnology strategy: A foundation for development with care. Wellington, NZ: Ministry of Research, Science and Technology.
52.
Mouffe, C.2000. The democratic paradox. London: Verso.
53.
National Committees for Research Ethics (Norway). 1997. Fast salmon and technoburgers. http://www.etikkom.no/Etikkom/Etikkom/Engelsk/Publications/fast (accessed March 30, 2005).
54.
Nature Genetics. 2004. “Good citizenship” or good business?Nature Genetics36(10): 1025-1025.
55.
Newman, J.2001. Modernising governance: New labour, policy and society. London: Sage.
56.
NZDIA (New Zealand Department of Internal Affairs).2001. Setting up and running commissions of inquiry. Wellington: The Department of Internal Affairs.
57.
Office of the Prime Minister (New Zealand). 2002. Growing an innovative New Zealand. Wellington: Office of the Prime Minister.
58.
PDSB (Public Debate Steering Board). 2003. GM Nation? The findings of the public debate. www.gmnation.org.uk.
59.
Petersen, A., and R. Bunton. 2002. The new genetics and the public’s health. London: Routledge.
60.
Polanyi, M.1962. The republic of science: Its political and economic theory. Minerva1: 54-74.
61.
Pollak, D.2003. Clean, green and genetically modified? GMOs and the future of New Zealand. www.fulbright.org.nz/voices/axford/pollakd.html (accessed August 12, 2004).
62.
Porter, T. M.1995. Trust in numbers: The pursuit of objectivity in science and public life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
63.
Rai, A. K, and R. S. Eisenberg. 2001. The public and the private in biopharmaceutical research. In Proceedings of the conference on the public domain. Durham, NC: Duke Law School. http://www.law.duke.edu/pd/papers/raieisen.pdf.
64.
Rayner, S.2003. Democracy in the age of assessment: Reflections on the roles of expertise and democracy in public-sector decision making. Science and Public Policy30: 163-170.
65.
RCGM (Royal Commission on Genetic Modification).2001a. Report of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification: Report and recommendations. Wellington, NZ: Royal Commission on Genetic Modification.
66.
RCGM (Royal Commission on Genetic Modification).2001b. Report of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification: Appendix 1. Wellington, NZ: Royal Commission on Genetic Modification.
67.
Renn, O., T. Webler, and P. Wiedemann, eds. 1994. Fairness and competence in citizen participation: Evaluating models for environmental discourse. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
68.
Robins, R.2001. Overburdening risk: Policy frameworks and the public uptake of gene technology. Public Understanding of Science10 (1): 19-36.
69.
Rogers-Hayden, T., and J. R. Campbell. 2003. Re-negotiating science in environmentalists’ submissions to New Zealand’s Royal Commission on Genetic Modification. Environmental Values12: 515-534.
70.
Rogers-Hayden, T., and R. Hindmarsh. 2002. Modernity contextualizes New Zealand’s Royal Commission on Genetic Modification: A discourse analysis. Journal of New Zealand Studies1 (1): 41-61.
71.
Rowe, G., and L. J. Frewer. 2000. Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Science, Technology, & Human Values25 (1): 3-29.
72.
Rowe, G., R. Marsh, and L. J. Frewer. 2004. Evaluation of a deliberative conference. Science, Technology, & Human Values29 (1): 88-121.
73.
Shorett, P., P. Rabinow, and P. R. Billings. 2003. The changing norms of the life sciences. Nature biotechnology21 (2): 123-125.
74.
Stelfox, H. T., G. Chua, K. O’Rourke, and A. S. Detsky. 1998. Conflict of interest in the debate over calcium-channel antagonists. The New England Journal of Medicine338: 101-106.
75.
Stirling, A.1999. On science and precaution in the management of technological risk: An ESTO Project Report. Brussels: European Commission Joint Research Centre.
76.
Stirling, A.2001. Inclusive deliberation and scientific expertise: Precaution, diversity and transparency in the governance of risk. PLA Notes40: 66-71.
77.
Tickell, A., and J. Peck. 2003. Making global rules: Globalisation or neoliberalisation? In Remaking the global economy: Economic-geographical perspectives, edited by J. Peck and H. W-C. Yeung. London: Sage.
78.
Truman, D. B.1951. The governmental process. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
79.
Tweedie, J.2004. Who you gonna call?NZ BioScience13 (1): 21-21.
80.
Wills, P. R.2003. New GE legislation: Corrupted at it foundations. Press release: Physicians and scientists for responsible genetics. http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/archive/scoop/stories/4e/a3/200310152244.715cbd83.htm (accessed May 25, 2004).
81.
Wright, S.1994. Molecular politics: Developing American and British regulatory policy for genetic engineering, 1972-1982. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
82.
Wynne, B.1993. Public uptake of science: A case for institutional reflexivity. Public Understanding of Science2(4): 321-337.
83.
Wynne, B.2001a. Creating public alienation: Expert cultures of risk and ethics on GMOs. Science as Culture10(4): 445-481.
84.
Wynne, B. 2001b. Managing and communicating scientific uncertainty in public policy. Background paper for Harvard University Conference, Biotechnology and Global Governance, May 2001. University of Lancaster.
85.
Wynne, B.2002. Risk and environment as legitimatory discourses of technology: Reflexivity inside out?Current Sociology50(3): 459-477.
86.
Young, A., and F. Mold. 2001. Greens’ fury at GE nod. New Zealand Herald, July 31.
