The authors analyze the framework for public participation in Australian biotechnology policy and argue that participation is undermined by the institutional structures that were ostensibly designed to facilitate consultation. They conclude that for the moment, community consultation in the formulation of Australian biotechnology policy appears limited. Indeed, the Australian Gene Technology Act 2000 and the Gene Technology Community Consultative Committee Operating Procedures effectively exclude the community from participating in deliberations on biotechnology policy. The community continues to be treated as consumers of advice, rather than technological citizens who can make a genuine contribution to biotechnology policy.
Australian Museum. 1999. Lay panel report of the first Australian consensus conference on gene technology in the food chain. http://www.austmus.gov.au/pdf/layreport.pdf.
2.
Biotechnology Australia. 1999. Public attitudes towards biotechnology. http://www.biotechnology.gov.au/library/content_library/BA_pYCHW.pdf.
3.
Biotechnology Australia. 2001. Biotechnology public awareness survey: Final report. http://www.biotechnology.gov.au/library/content_library/BA_Final_Report_Summary_31_July_2001.pdf.
4.
Biotechnology Australia. 2003. Biotechnology public awareness survey: Final report. http://www.biotechnology.gov.au/library/content_library/BA_MB2003_Final_Report.pdf.
5.
Carson, L., S. White, C. Hendriks, and J. Palmer. 2002. Community consultation in environmental policy making. The Drawing Board: An Australian Review of Public Affairs3 (1):1-13.
6.
Commonwealth of Australia. 2000. Gene Technology Act 2000. http://scaletext.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/3/3428/top.htm.
7.
Commonwealth of Australia. 2001. Gene technology agreement. http://www.comlaw.gov.au/comlaw/Legislation/ActCompilation1.nsf/0/BAB75AB3A74EC18ACA256F710054D3A3/$file/GeneTechnology2000.pdf.
8.
Danish Board of Technology. 2001. Final document of the consensus conference on genetically-modified foods. http://www.tekno.dk/subpage.php3?article=512&language=uk&category=11&toppic=kategori11.
9.
Dietrich, H., and R. Schibeci. 2003. Beyond public perceptions of gene technology: Community participation in public policy in Australia. Public Understanding of Science12:381-401.
10.
Hendriks, C.2002. Institutions of deliberative democratic processes and interest groups: Roles, tensions and incentives. Australian Journal of Public Administration61 (1): 64-75.
11.
Jasanoff, S.2004. Science and citizenship: A new synergy. Science and Public Policy31:90-94.
12.
Korean National Commission for UNESCO. 1998. Korean consensus on the safety and ethics of genetically modified foods. Seoul: Korean National Commission for UNESCO. http://www.unesco.or.kr/cc/98_CC_Report.doc.
13.
Korean National Commission for UNESCO. 1999. Korean consensus on cloning. Seoul: Korean National Commission for UNESCO.http://www.unesco.or.kr/cc/eng.html.
14.
Kymlicka, W., and W. Norman. 1994. Return of the citizen: A survey of recent works on citizenship theory. Ethics104:352-381.
15.
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator. 2001. New gene technology regulator takes up position. OGTR media release GTR05/01. http://www.ogtr.gov.au/pdf/media/regcom.pdf.
16.
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator. 2002a. Gene technology regulator issues the first license under new laws. OGTR media release GTR05/02. http://www.ogtr.gov.au/pdf/media/dir005.pdf.
17.
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator. 2002b. GTCCC meeting communiqué. http://www.ogtr.gov.au/pdf/committee/12commgtccc.pdf
18.
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator. 2002c. GTCCC meeting communiqué. http://www.ogtr.gov.au/pdf/3rdcommgtccc.pdf.
19.
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator. 2002d. GTCCC operating procedures. Canberra, Australia: Office of the Gene Technology Regulator.
20.
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator. 2002e. Quarterly report of the gene technology regulator for the period 1 April to 30 June 2002. http://www.ogtr.gov.au/pdf/public/jun2002qrpt.pdf.
21.
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator. 2002f. Quarterly report of the gene technology regulator for the period 1 January to 31 March 2002. http://www.ogtr.gov.au/pdf/public/mar2002qrpt.pdf.
22.
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator. 2002g. Quarterly report of the gene technology regulator for the period 1 July to 30 September 2002. http://www.ogtr.gov.au/pdf/public/sept2002qrpt.pdf.
23.
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator. 2003a. Gene technology regulator releases Bayer GM canola risk management plan for public comment. OGTR media release GTR01/03. http://www.ogtr.gov.au/pdf/media/bayercanola.pdf.
24.
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator. 2003b. Quarterly report of the gene technology regulator for the period 1 April to 30 June 2003. http://www.ogtr.gov.au/pdf/public/jun2003qrpt.pdf.
25.
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator. 2003c. Quarterly report of the gene technology regulator for the period 1 January to 31 March 2003. http://www.ogtr.gov.au/pdf/public/mar2003qrpt.pdf.
26.
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator. 2003d. Quarterly report of the gene technology regulator for the period 1 July to 30 September 2003. http://www.ogtr.gov.au/pdf/public/sept2003qrpt.pdf.
27.
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator. 2003e. Quarterly report of the gene technology regulator for the period 1 October to 31 December 2002. http://www.ogtr.gov.au/pdf/public/dec2002qrpt.pdf. (accessed July 25, 2004)
28.
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator. 2003f. Rigorous assessment confirms GM Invigor® canola safe as non-GM canola. OGTR media release GTR02/03. http://www.ogtr.gov.au/pdf/media/canola.pdf.
29.
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator. 2004a. GTCCC meeting communiqué. http://www.ogtr.gov.au/pdf/7thcommgtccc.pdf.
30.
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator. 2004b. Quarterly report of the gene technology regulator for the period 1 October to 31 December 2003. http://www.ogtr.gov.au/pdf/public/dec2003qrpt.pdf.
31.
O’Riordan, T., J. Burgess, and B. Szerszynski, eds. 1999. Deliberative and inclusionary processes: A report from two seminars. CSERGE working paper PA 99-06. http://www.uea.ac.uk/env/cserge/pub/wp/pa/pa_1999_06.pdf.
32.
Pimbert, M., and T. Wakeford. 2001. Overview: Deliberative democracy and citizen empowerment. PLA Notes40. http://www.iied.org/sarl/planotes/pla_backissues/40.html.
33.
Schibeci, R., and H. Dietrich. 2000. Consumer behaviour in relation to biotechnology products: A report for Biotechnology Australia. Perth, Australia: Murdoch University.
34.
Shafir, G., ed. 1998. The citizenship debates: A reader. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
35.
Shaw, J.1995. Public perceptions of genetic engineering: Australia. Canberra: Biotechnology Section, Australian Department of Industry, Science and Technology.
36.
Stein, J. A.2003. Making public consultation more “user-friendly” by turning “technology foresight” into just “foresight”: But who are the users? In Optimising public understanding of science and technology: Final report, edited by U. Felt, 100-108. http://www.univie.ac.at/virusss/OPUSReport/OPUS%2520Report%2520Final.pdf.
37.
Winner, L.1986. The whale and the reactor: A search for limits in an age of high technology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
38.
Winner, L.1992. Citizen virtues in a technological order. Inquiry35:341-361.
