Abstracts
Abstract
Many instances of new and emerging science and technology are controversial. Although a number of people, including scientific experts, welcome these developments, a considerable skepticism exists among members of the public. The use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is a case in point. In science policy and in science communication, it is widely assumed that such controversial science and technology require public participation in the policy-making process. We examine this view, which we call the Public Participation Paradigm, using the case of GMOs as an example. We suggest that a prominent reason behind the call for public participation is the belief that such participation is required for democratic legitimacy. We then show that the most prominent accounts of democratic legitimacy do not, in fact, entail that public participation is required in cases of controversial science in general, or in the case of GMOs in particular.
Résumé
Beaucoup d’avancées scientifiques et de technologies émergentes sont controversées. Bien qu’un certain nombre de personnes, incluant des experts scientifiques, sont favorables à ces développements, la population demeure largement sceptique. Le recours aux organismes génétiquement modifiés (OGM) illustre une telle situation. Dans les politiques et communications scientifiques, il est largement tenu pour acquis que de telles controverses scientifiques et technologiques requièrent la participation publique dans le processus de prise de décision politique. Nous examinons ce point de vue, que nous appelons le paradigme de la participation publique [Public Participation Paradigm], en nous servant du cas des OGM. Nous suggérons qu’une raison centrale en faveur de l’appel à la participation publique se situe dans la croyance qu’une telle participation est requise par la légitimité démocratique. Nous montrons ensuite que la plupart des principales conceptions de la légitimité démocratique n’impliquent pas, en fait, que la participation publique puisse être requise pour les controverses scientifiques en général, et pour les OGM en particulier.
Appendices
Bibliography
- Ahteensuu, Marko, “Assumptions of the Deficit Model Type of Thinking: Ignorance, Attitudes, and Science Communication in the Debate on Genetic Engineering in Agriculture”, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, volume 25, 2012, pp. 295-313.
- Allum, Nick, Sturgis, Patrick, Tabourazi, Dimitra & Brunton-Smith, Ian, “Science knowledge and attitudes across cultures: A meta-analysis”, Public Understanding of Science, volume 18, issue 1, 2008, pp. 35-54.
- American Association for the Advancement of Science, Statement by the AAAS Board of Directors on Labelling of Genetically Modified Foods, 2012, available at https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/AAAS_GM_statement.pdf
- Andersen, Ida-Elisabeth & Jaeger, Birgit, “Scenario workshops and consensus conferences: Towards more democratic decision-making”, Science and Public Policy, volume 26, issue 5, 1999, pp. 331-340.
- Audi, Robert & Wolterstorff, Nicholas, Religion in the Public Square, Lanham, MD, Rowman & Littlefield, 1997.
- Boerse, Jacqueline E.W. & de Cock Buning, Tjard, “Public Engagement in Science and Technology”, in Ruth Chadwick (ed.), Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics, 2nd ed., London, Academic Press, 2012.
- Bauer, Martin W., “The evolution of public understanding of science—discourse and comparative evidence”, Science, Technology and Society, volume 14, issue 2, 2009, pp. 221-240
- Comstock, Gary, Vexing Nature? On the Ethical Case against Agricultural Biotechnology, Boston, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000.
- Dryzek, John S., “Policy Sciences of Democracy”, Polity, volume 22, issue 1, 1989, pp. 97-118.
- Durant, John, “Participatory technology assessment and the democratic model of the public understanding of science”, Science and Public Policy, volume 26, issue 5, 1999, pp. 313-319.
- Durning, Dan, “Participatory Policy Analysis in a Social Service Agency: A Case Study”, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, volume 12, issue 2, 1993, pp. 297-322.
- Estlund, David M., Democratic authority: A philosophical framework, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 2008.
- Eurobarometer, Eurobarometer 73.1: Biotechnology, Brussels, 2010.
- Feinberg, Joel, Harm to Others: The Moral Limits of the Crimical Law, vol. 1, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1987.
- Fiorino, Daniel J., “Citizen Participation and Environmental Risk: A Survey of Institutional Mechanisms”, Science, Technology and Human Values, volume 15, issue 2, 1990, pp. 226-243.
- Fischer, Frank, “Citizen participation and the democratization of policy expertise: From theoretical inquiry to practical cases”, Policy Sciences, volume 26, issue 3, 1993, pp. 165-187.
- Fischer, Frank, “Technological deliberation in a democratic society: the case for participatory inquiry”, Science and Public Policy, volume 26, issue 5, 1999, pp. 294-302.
- Gaskell, George et al., Europeans and biotechnology in 2010: Winds of change? Report to the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Research, 2010.
- Gaus, Gerald F., The Order of Public Reason: A Theory of Freedom and Morality in a Diverse and Bounded World, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2011.
- Gaus, Gerald F. & Vallier, Kevin, “The roles of religious conviction in a publicly justified polity: The implications of convergence, asymmetry and political institutions”, Philosophy and Social Criticism, volume 35, issues 1-2, 2009, pp. 51-76.
- Greenawalt, Kent, Private Consciences and Public Reasons, New York, Oxford University Press, 1995.
- Gregory, Jane & Lock, Simon Jay, “The Evolution of ‘Public Understanding of Science’: Public Engagement as a Tool of Science Policy in the UK”, Sociology Compass, volume 2, issue 4, 2008, pp. 1252–1265.
- Habermas, Jürgen, “Religion in the Public Sphere”, European Journal of Philosophy, volume 14, issue 1, 2006, pp. 1-25.
- Hilbeck, Angela et al., “No scientific consensus on GMO safety”, Environmental Sciences Europe, volume 27, issue 4, 2015.
- Holtug, Nils, “Creating and Patenting New Life Forms”, in Helga Kuhse & Peter Singer (eds.), A Companion to Bioethics, 2nd ed., Malden, Wiley-Blackwell, 2009.
- Joss, Simon & Durant, John, Public Participation in Science: The Role of Consensus Conferences in Europe, London, Science Museum, 1995.
- Jønch-Clausen, Karin & Kappel, Klemens, “Scientific Facts and Methods in Public Reason”, Res Publica, volume 22, 2016, pp. 117-133.
- Kappel, Klemens, “Fact-Dependent Policy Disagreements and Political Legitimacy”, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, volume 20, no. 2, 2017, pp. 313–331.
- Lafont, Cristina, “Deliberation, Participation, and Democratic Legitimacy: Should Deliberative Mini-publics Shape Public Policy?”, Journal of Political Philosophy, volume 23, issue 1, 2015, pp. 40-63.
- Lister, Andrew, Public Reason and Political Community, London, Bloomsbury Publishing, 2013.
- Möller, Niklas, Hansson, Sven Ove & Peterson, Martin, “Safety is more than the antonym of risk”, Journal of Applied Philosophy, volume 23, issue 4, 2006, pp. 419-432.
- Nagel, Thomas, “Moral Conflict and Political Legitimacy”, Philosophy & Public Affairs, volume 16, issue 3, 1987, pp. 215–240.
- National Academy of Sciences, Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects, Washington, DC, The National Academies Press, 2016.
- Nielsen, Annika P., Lassen, Jesper & Sandøe, Peter, “Democracy at its Best? The Consensus Conference in a Cross-national Perspective”, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, volume 20, issue 1, 2007, pp. 13–35.
- Nowotny, Helga, “Democratising expertise and socially robust knowledge”, Science and Public Policy, volume 30, issue 3, 2003, pp. 151-156.
- Perry, Michael, Morality, Politics and Law, New York, Oxford University Press, 1988.
- Peter, Fabienne, Democratic legitimacy, New York, Routledge, 2009.
- Peter, Fabienne, “Political Legitimacy”, in Edward N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2016 ed.), Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/legitimacy/
- Rawls, John, Political Liberalism, New York, Columbia University Press, 1993.
- Rawls, John, “The Idea of Public Reason Revisited”, The University of Chicago Law Review, volume 64, issue 3, 1997, pp. 765-807.
- Rollin, Bernard E., The Frankenstein Syndrome: Ethical and Social Issues in the Genetic Engineering of Animals, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1995.
- Rowe, Gene & Frewer, Lynn J., “Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation”, Science, Technology and Human Values, volume 25, issue 1, 2000, pp. 3-29.
- Stirling, Andy, “‘Opening Up’ and ‘Closing Down’: Power, Participation, and Pluralism in the Social Appraisal of Technology”, Science, Technology and Human Values, volume 33, issue 2, 2008, pp. 262-294.
- Streiffer, Robert & Hedemann, Thomas, “The political import of intrinsic objections to genetically engineered food”, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, volume 18, issue 2, 2005, pp. 191-210.
- Sturgis, Patrick & Allum, Nick, “Science in society: Re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes, Public Understanding of Science, volume 13, issue 1, 2004, pp. 55-74.
- Sunstein, Cass R., The Laws of Fear: Beyond the Precautionary Principle, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2005.
- Thompson, Paul B., Food Biotechnology in Ethical Perspective, 2nd ed., Dordrecht, Springer, 2007.
- Thompson, Paul B., From Field to Fork: Food Ethics for Everyone, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2015.
- Thompson, Paul B., Agro-Technology: A Philosophical Introduction, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2011.
- Vallier, Kevin, “Convergence and Consensus in Public Reason”, Public Affairs Quarterly, volume 25, issue 4, 2011, pp. 261-279.
- Waldron, Jeremy, “Theoretical Foundations of Liberalism”, The Philosophical Quarterly, volume 37, issue 147, 1987, pp. 127-150.
- Wall, Steven, “Is public justification self-defeating?”, American Philosophical Quarterly, volume 39, issue 4, 2002, pp. 385–394.
- Weithman, Paul, Religion and the Obligations of Citizenship, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2002.
- Wynne, Brian, “Knowledges in Context”, Science, Technology & Human Values, volume 16, issue 1, 1991, pp. 111-121.
- Ziman, John, “Public Understanding of Science”, Science, Technology & Human Values, volume 16, issue 1, 1991, pp. 99-105.
- Zurita, Laura, “Consensus conference method in environmental issues: relevance and strength”, Land Use Policy, volume 23, 2006, pp. 18-25.