‘Trust’ and New Participatory Forms of Governance for

(Bio)Technological Change

Richard Hindmarsh Tee Rogers-Hayden Griffith University, Australia Univ. of East Anglia, UK

TOPICS

1. Crisis in public trust re S&T 2. Australia’s GM regulatory

legitimisers

3. NZ & the RCGM as a regulatory legitimiser

4. Ideas for new forms of governance

TOPIC 1: Crisis in public trust re S&T • A deep crisis in public trust of science now

apparent• 1980s – positioned as lack of public

understanding of science• more recently, its the catalyst for institutional

redesign towards participatory governance • to strengthen reflexivity and legitimacy of

governing• The drivers:

– The Public: increasing questioning of govt’s ability to handle risk, now GM building on food safety scares of the 1980s, & the BSE crisis

– Science & Biotech industries: concerned about opposition to GM– The State: concerned about the challenge to innovation & govt.– The Critics: opportunity to reduce authority of science & open up

new possibilities for public engagement, improved governance, and trust

1 Catalyst for distrust: actions

• 1997 Monsanto's unsegregated soya• contamination of non-GM: Spain, Mexico &

Canada, etc• patenting and ownership of ‘nature’• non-labelling of GM foods • GM regulation’s reliance on pro-GM expert

committee’s• overall: intermeshed state, business &

scientific interests

2 Catalyst for distrust: re institutional response

• Institutional response to distrust seen as biased, inadequate & out of touch:– portrayal of regulation as thorough despite narrowness– continued reliance on the rhetoric of ‘sound science’

and ‘increase science literacy’– increasing public acceptance routines, eg, exhibitions,

forums, websites, surveys, inquiries

• overall, existing institutions are seen as unable to address effectively the new policy challenges raised: – bioethics, value conflicts, responsibility to future

generations and non-human nature, monopoly power, need for precaution as GM can only be partially controlled, high consequence risks, democratic governance, etc.

3. Catalyst for distrust: manoeuvres exposed

• continued exposure of manipulative manoeuvres• increasing resort to PR, propaganda, rhetoric in

pro-GM discourses to booster claims– which themselves are increasingly criticised, eg ‘RR’

crops

• tactics of marginalisation and delegitimisation of critics and public – critics = anti-science, neo-luddites, extremists – public = ignorant and alarmist– even as uncertainty and risk of science increasingly

apparent

• science articles rely on increasing favourable public understanding:– ‘In Science we Trust’– ‘How to Restore Public Trust in Science’– seen as inadequate in not addressing the depth of the

debate and out of touch with the public

What’s a regulatory legitimiser?

• a significant device, mechanism, strategy or intervention of governance

• to control regulation & absorb dissent, & thus control ‘problem populations’

• to legitimise & enable GM experimentation; then commercialisation

• What’s governance? = a regime of governability: state ministeries, agencies and interests; R&D networks; agencies of civil societyBiotech: 1. Scientists (1970s), 2. State agencies (late

70s), 3. Industrial interests (1980s)

Topic 2: Australia’s 4 key GMregulatory legitimisers

1. 1975 peer-review in-house regulation

2. 1979 Australian Academy of Science report

3. 1990 GM Inquiry

4. Gene Technology Act 2000

1. peer-review in-house regulation

• Controversy arises post 1973 • Asilomar (1975) – [National Institutes of Health]

– broader hazards marginalised – benefits > risks– ‘responsible scientific review’– compulsory regulation & moratorium unnecessary– voluntarily self‑regulation the way

• NIH developed minimalist or low risk international guidelines

• ASCORD: supervision by supportive scientists– no role for public– No opportunities for scientific and public dissent

within regulation

m in im a lis t re gu la tion

A s ilo m arC o nfe ren ce

F o rm u la tiono f rD N A

g u id e lin es

In -ho u sese lf-re gu la to ry

co m m itte es

N IH

publicdissenting

scientists

social, ethical, broader

ecological risks &

biohazards

Shaping regulation: Asilomar to ASCORD

2. Australian Academy of Science Report

• public concerns persist but ‘contained’ overseas

– scientists: ‘epidemic pathogen hypothesis’ – bureaucrats in Australia

• University of Melbourne Assembly inquiry (1977)

– halt research! [background: GM issue redefined from safety to economic opportunity & int’ competitiveness]

• Australian Academy of Science report– rDNA low risk– Commercial opportunity

3. GM Inquiry

• regulatory committee moved into pro-GM Science department (1980)

• intense battle inside bureaucracy • 1988 ‘mutant meat’ scandal forced Inquiry • terms of reference biased• conducted by parliamentary Standing

Committee for Industry, Science & Technology

• 1992 inquiry report favourable to bio-business; public input token

• real outcome: establish mandatory uniform legislation to facilitate bio-business

4. Gene Technology Act 2000• Gene Technology Bill introduced to Oz parliament• Senate inquiry re. the Bill makes 3 key

recommendations 1. community & ethics input in proposed OGTR (deemed

detrimental to science-based decision-making)2. GTR should be statutory authority of 3 people,

independent of bioindustry (economically unviable) (1 pro-industry)

3. provision for review of regulator (no provision)

• Lawson’s risk assessment of the 1st release• broader environment ignored (only gene flow &

weediness) • no mention of PP (section 4aa of the Act) or ESD

Bayer Cropscience and Monsanto GM canola approved 2003/4

critics call for major review, trust a major issue

“The canola applications have focussed attention on the Act. If the nationally consistent scheme enabling the use of gene technology is to regain some credibility a review of the Act should be commenced before the statutory date of June 2005.”

TOPIC 3:NZ & the RCGM as a

regulatory legitimiser

NZ: Background• Latecomer to the GM debate, ERMA 1988• no releases yet, GM in processed foods• set to change with moratorium lifted 29 Oct. 2003 • much resistance before and since• like anti-nuke campaign, GE-free zones (districts,

people’s homes, properties), & resistance groups• ‘hot’ issue in 1999 national elections • Green Party pressured for Royal Commission• Signified loss of trust by environmentalists• New Labour/Alliance government instigated one on

8 May 2000

Diverging viewpoints…

GM proponents• GE the solution• needed to ‘develop’ a

sustainable response• more progress• all innovation positive

• decision-making is a science domain

• GE over-regulated

Environmentalists• more industrialisation

for industrial problems• unsustainable

approach

• sustainable GE-free organic nation

• PP needed

The Royal Commission on Genetic Modification

• 11,000 submissions: c10,000 against or tending to be against GM

• RCGM reported on the 29 July 2001

• ‘proceed with GM but with caution’

• the report read as one more of sustaining progress than of progressing sustainability

NZ’s RCGM as a ‘regulatory legitimiser’…

Marginalised dissent:• quasi-legal process advantaged well

resourced GM interests (e.g. Life Sciences Network: Avcare key industry group)

• submission template– stand alone questions advantaged a modernist

parts approach– answers collated into a summary report– environmental & Maori voices disadvantaged

• subjective public survey by Commissioners advantaged GM supporters

• Outcome: protest & distrust heightened

Conclusions...

• case studies illustrate highly political discourses legitimating modernist governance rather than building trust

• deep distrust has resulted regarding the new challenges of GM

• institutional re-design needed to regain trust

• what might they be?

TOPIC 4:1. Ideas for new forms of governanceMillstone & van Zwanenberg (2000)

• acknowledge uncertainties & limitations of science • acknowledge risks & benefits for different publics• inclusive decision-making• establish scientific & democratic legitimacy

Conditions: – open information (limit commercial

confidentiality)– separate regulatory and development agencies– separate scientific and political risk

management – pluralistic scientific views & conditional advice

in regulation

2. Ideas for new forms of governance

PLUS• pluralistic knowledge approaches• civic participatory governance approaches

that engender communication and trust• new political mechanisms/spaces

integrating citizen and expert participation & dialogue

• broad social, cultural, ethical & economic technological assessment pre-technology adoption, & for regulation once adopted

• post technological monitoring & adjustment to knowledge possessed at any one time