Beyond Public Perceptions of Gene Technology: Community Participation in Public Policy in Australia

Abstract

Public policy assumptions, which view “the public” as passive consumers, are deeply flawed. “The public” are, in fact, active citizens, who constitute the innovation end of the seamless web of relationships, running from research and development laboratory to shop, hospital or farm, or local neighborhood. “The public” do not receive the impact of technology; they are the impact, in that they determine with gene technology (GT) developers and sellers what happens to the technology in our society. In doing so, they, or more rightly we, exercise particular, contextual knowledges and actions. We suggest that it is the ignorance of this aspect of innovation in policy processes that produces the distrust and resentment that we found in our interviews with “publics” interested in gene technology. This is consistent with Beck’s description of the deep structural states of risk and fear in modern advanced societies with respect to new technologies, such as gene technology. Only policy processes that recognize the particular, local, and contextual knowledges of “the public,” which co-construct innovation, can achieve deep, social structural consideration of gene technology. And only such a deep consideration can avoid the polarized attitudes and deep suspicions that we have seen arise in places such as Britain. Such consideration needs the type of processes that involve active consultation and inclusion of “the public” in government and commercial innovation, the so-called deliberative and inclusionary processes (DIPs), such as consensus conferences and citizen juries. We suggest some measures that could be tried in Australia, which would take us further down the path of participation toward technological citizenship.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

1 Jonathan Kelley, Public Perceptions of Genetic Engineering: Australia, 1994. Biotechnology Section, Australian Department of Industry, Science and Technology, report number, number of pages (1995).

2 Ibid.

3 Janet Norton et al., “The Australian public’s perception of genetically modified foods,” Australasian Biotechnology 8, no. 3 (1998): 172–181 ; Janet Norton et al., The Australian public’s perception of genetically-modified foods: methodology. Australasian Biotechnology 8, no. 4 (1998): 241–242.

4 Yann Campbell Hoare Wheeler, Report to Biotechnology Australia: Research into Public Awareness of Biotechnology. 10-10 pp. (1999).

5 Renato Schibeci and Heather Dietrich, Consumer Behaviour in Relation to Biotechnology Products, a report for Biotechnology Australia ( Murdoch University , 2000).

6 Millward Brown (2001) Biotechnology public awareness survey final report (http://www.biotechnology.gov.au) 42 pp.

7 Biotechnology Australia (2001) (http://www.biotechnology.gov.au).

8 Aidan Davison et al., “Problematic publics: a critical review of surveys of public attitudes to biotechnology,” Science, Technology and Human Values 22, no. 3 (1997): 317–348 .

9 Renato Schibeci et al., “Public attitudes to gene technology: the case of the MacGregors® tomato,” Public Understanding of Science 6 (1997): 167–183 ; Renato Schibeci and Ian Barns, “Gene technology communication: facilitating public deliberation of pST gene technology,” Science Communication 20, no. 2 (1998): 204–226; Renato Schibeci et al., “Perceptions of genetic medicine: an experiment in expert–community interaction,” Journal of Medical Ethics 25, no. 4 (1999): 335–339.

10.

10 Ian Barns et al., ‘”What do you think about genetic medicine?’ Facilitating sociable public discourse,” Science, Technology and Human Values 25, no. 3 (2000): 284–308 .

11.

11 Renato Schibeci and Heather Dietrich, Consumer Behaviour in Relation to Biotechnology Products: a Report for Biotechnology Australia ( Perth: Murdoch University , 2000).

12.

12 Ulrich Beck, Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity ( London: Sage Publications , 1992), p. 17-17. For Beck, the consequences of scientific and industrial development are a set of risks and hazards the likes of which we have never previously faced. These dangers can no longer be limited in time, as future generations are affected. Their spatial consequences are equally not amenable to limitation, as they cross national boundaries. Unlike in an earlier modernity, no one can be held accountable for the hazards of the “risk society.” Further, it is becoming impossible to compensate those whose lives have been touched by those hazards, as their very calculability becomes problematized.

13.

13 Beck, Risk Society, p. 22.

14.

14 Brian Wynne, “Creating public alienation: expert cultures of risk and ethics on GMOs,” Science as Culture 10, no. 4 (2001): 473-473 .

15.

15 Ibid., p. 446.

16.

16 Brian Wynne, “May the sheep safely graze,” in Risk, Environment and Modernity, ed. Scott Lash et al. ( London: Sage Publications , 1996), 66-66.

17.

17 Rob Hajendijk, Mass Media Science and Political Participation , Australian Association for the History, Philosophy and Social Studies Science conference, Melbourne June 2001: 25–28 .

18.

18 Tim Riordan, “Dealing with Scientific Uncertainties,” paper presented at the Ditchley Foundation Conference on Understanding Managing and Presenting Risk in Public Policy. Quoted by Brian Wynne in The Politics of GM Food: Risk, Science and Public Trust. Economic and Social Research Council, Global Environment Change Program, Special briefing paper no. 5 (Sussex University, UK, October 1999), 8.

19.

19 Peter Glasner, “Reporting risks: problematising public participation and the Human Genome project,” in Environmental Risks and the Media, ed. S. Allan et al. ( London: Routledge , 2000).

20.

20 Simon Joss and John Durant (eds) Public Participation in Science: the Role of Consensus Conferences in Europe. ( London: Science Museum , 1995).

21.

21 Aidan Davison and Renato Schibeci, “The Consensus Conference as a mechanism for community responsive technology policy,” Melbourne Studies in Education 41, no. 2 (2000): 47–59 .

22.

22 Jessica Glicken, “Effective public involvement in public decisions,” Science Communication 20, no. 3 (1999): 298–327 .

23.

23 House of Lords, Science & Technology Committee Third Report on Science and Society (London: The Stationery Office, 2000) (http://www.publications.parliament.uk).

24.

24 House of Lords, Science & Technology Committee Third Report, chap. 5.

25.

25 Science and Public Policy 26, no. 8 (October 1999), special issue on public participation in science and technology.

26.

26 Participation Works, 21 Techniques of Community Participation for the 21st Century. New Economics Foundation (1998), 1.

27.

27 Memorandum submitted by Dr Andrew Stirling, Fellow, SPRU (Science and Technology Policy Research), University of Sussex and Mr Robin Grove-White, Director, Centre for Study of Environmental Change, Lancaster University. In: Scientific Advisory System: Genetically Modified Foods. First report of the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, Session 1998–9. Vol. 11. Appendices to the Minutes of Evidence; London. The Stationery Office, 1999, pp. 243–8.

28.

28 Australian biotechnology policy: a new regulatory framework. In December 2000, the Australian Federal Parliament passed the Gene Technology Act, a new framework for the regulation of biotechnology developments in Australia.

29.

29 Andrew Stirling, On Science and Precautioning the Management of Technological Risk. Vol. 1—a synthesis report of case studies, European Commission Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, Seville, EUR 19056 EN, May 1999. Andrew Stirling and Sue Mayer Rethinking Risk: a pilot multi-criteria mapping of a genetically modified crop in agricultural systems in the UK, report for the UK Roundtable on Genetic Modification, SPRU, University of Sussex, August 1999 ISBN 0/903622/86/6.

30.

30 Stirling and Mayer, Rethinking Risk.