Societal deliberation on genetically modified maize in southern Africa: the debateness and publicness of the Zambian national consultation on genetically modified maize food aid in 2002

Abstract

In the 2001/2002 farming season, southern Africa faced acute hunger. According to UN WFP/FAO statistics, about 14 million people were on the verge of death by starvation in the region. In Zambia alone, the UN WFP/FAO estimated that about 3 million people were threatened with serious food shortages, and they would need about 630 000 metric tons of food. The UN WFP offered genetically modified (GM) maize grain, procured from the US, to various countries in the region, including Zambia. A significant debate emerged around the question of US-produced GM maize grain in the region. This regional debate around the question of GM maize was most probably aroused by the issues raised by the Zambian case. The form of this debate and the issues driving its dynamics, are interesting both in themselves and also because they reveal something about the form by which public biotechnological debate, or public controversy on biotechnology, takes in public domains. This paper is an experimental intellectual exercise, an attempt at a conceptual analysis of “public debate” as a derivative, but quintessential, concept within what is broadly conceived of as public understanding of science. Thus, this conceptual analysis is an attempt at a prolegomena for, i.e. a preparatory conceptual approach to, our understanding better what public debate on science is and how it works in practice.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Boyatzis, R.E. (1998) Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic Analysis and Code Development. London: SAGE .

Chinsembu, K. and Kambikambi, T. (2001) “Farmers’ Perceptions and Expectations of Genetic Engineering in Zambia,” Biotechnology and Development Monitor 47: 13-15 .

Conceptual Dictionary (1994) London: Macmillan .

Darton, R. (2000) “An Early Information Society: News and the Media in Eighteenth Century Paris,” American Historical Review 105(February): 1-35 .

Eley, G. (1993) “Nations, Publics, and Political Cultures: Placing Habermas in the Nineteenth Century,” in C. Calhoun (ed.) Habermas and the Public Sphere, pp. 287-339. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .

Ettema, J. and Glasser, T. (1998) Custodians of Conscience: Investigative Journalism and Public Virtue. New York: Columbia University Press .

Fraser, N. (1993) “Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy,” in C. Calhoun (ed.) Habermas and the Public Sphere, pp. 109-142. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .

Furedi, F. (2004) Where Have all the Intellectuals Gone? Confronting 21st Century Philistinism. London and New York: Continuum .

Habermas, J. (1974) “The Public Sphere,” New German Critique 3: 49 (cited in Eley, 1993).

10.

Habermas, J. (1989) The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: an Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .

11.

Kymlicka, W. (2002) Contemporary Political Philosophy: an Introduction, 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press .

12.

Lewanika, M.M. (2004) “Food Aid and Genetically Modified Organisms,”

Proceedings of Conference 2 on “Science and Democracy,”

University of Perugia, Naples, Italy. Available: http://www.dipmat.unipg.it/%7Emamone/sci-dem/nuocontri/mmlewanika.htm.

13.

Ozouf, M. (1988) “Public Opinion at the End of the Old Regime,” Journal of Modern History 60(Supplement): S1-S20 .

14.

Peperzak, A. (1994) “Ethics in our Time,” in T.J. Stapleton (ed.) The Question of Hermeneutics, pp. 451-468. Dordrecht: Kluwer .

15.

Rawls, J. (1993) Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press .

16.

Schrag, C.O. (1994) “Transversal Rationality,” in T.J. Stapleton (ed.) The Question of Hermeneutics, pp. 61-78. Dordrecht: Kluwer .

17.

Shoemaker, P.J. and Reese, S.D. (1996) Mediating the Message: Theories of Influences on Mass Media Content. London: Longman .

18.

Sturgis, P. and Allum, N. (2004) “Science in Society: Re-evaluating the Deficit Model of Public Attitudes,” Public Understanding of Science 13: 55-74 .

19.

Warner, M. (2002) Publics and Counterpublics. New York: Zed Books .