|
|
|
|
| |
 |
|
|
1st
EMBL/EMBO Joint Conference 2000 |
 |
|
Session I |
|
|
| Why framing processes in risk science are important – but still neglected |
|
| |
Brian Wynne, CSEC
, Lancaster University, UK
It is typically widely assumed that the proper relationship of science
to social considerations in policy making about issues like GMOs is
represented by the so-called linear model. In this model, the facts
[for example of risk] are first objectively assessed, then - and only
then - are human values and commitments allowed to shape the policy
outcomes. Whilst controlled scientific knowledge of risks and other
consequences is clearly important where possible, this "facts first-values
second" model overlooks two crucial problems: the first is uncertainty
- scientific knowledge is not usually so free of uncertainties that
it can determine clear policy conclusions; the second point is that
the scientific knowledge is framed by subtle assumptions which are
not usually visible or explicit, even to their authors. These are
also typically not deliberate political commitments, yet when expressed
as knowledge of a policy issue they have political implications.
An example from biotechnology is the way in which risk assessment
of plant GMOs in the EU originally omitted questions about biodiversity
altogether, and under the amended EU Directive now defines biodiversity
in ways which for example exclude questions about possible changes
in soil microbiota biodiversity brought about by GM crops. This issue
also relates quite closely to the uncertainty issue for the GMOs case.
Whatever specific intellectual form it takes, this kind of framing
is inevitable; but unlike accepted models of scientific practice,
it cannot be described as the formulation of explicit and falsifiable
hypothesis which are skeptically tested. The scientific research and
policy uses of it thus innocently reproduce those framing commitments
without deliberate consideration of their validity and implications.
The same is true of assumptions which environmental risk assessment
has to make about farm crop-management practices. This presentation
will review these problems with the role of scientific knowledge as
policy authority for plant GMOs, and will explain a key distinction
between science as a crucial instrument of policy, and science as
the entrenched culture of policy. It will then discuss some possible
ways of addressing these issues as they impinge on public confidence
in science and innovation.
Biography
Brian Wynne is Professor of Science Studies and Research Director
of the Centre for the Study of Environmental Change at Lancaster University.
He has a first-class degree and PhD in materials science from Cambridge
University, and a M.Phil in sociology of science from Edinburgh University.
He has published several books on risk issues and has specialised
in research and reflection on the interactions between scientific
knowledge, public policy and public responses in policy domains involving
risk, like nuclear power, GMOs and climate change. In such work he
has collaborated with relevant scientists and published several joint
papers. As part of this interest in science and society, Brian has
also conducted considerable research on 'public understanding of science'
and was responsible for the earliest critiques of the dominant so-called
'deficit model' of the public's relationships with science. From 1994
to 2000 Brian was a member of the management board and scientific
committee of the European Environment Agency, and was special adviser
to the UK House of Lords Science and Technology select committee's
March 2000 report, Science and Society. He is a member of the UK Biotechnology
and Biological Sciences Research Council's expert committee on Responses
to Public Concerns, and is involved in the European Commission's current
development work on Science and Governance. |
|
|
|
|
