1 / 16

GM Foods: Potential Public Consultation and Participation Mechanisms

GM Foods: Potential Public Consultation and Participation Mechanisms. Gary Marchant, Andrew Askland & Chad Baker Center for the Study of Law Science & Technology ASU College of Law December 6, 2002. Three Rationales for Public Participation. Normative:

desirae-cardenas
Download Presentation

GM Foods: Potential Public Consultation and Participation Mechanisms

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. GM Foods: Potential Public Consultation and Participation Mechanisms Gary Marchant, Andrew Askland & Chad Baker Center for the Study of Law Science & Technology ASU College of Law December 6, 2002

  2. Three Rationales for Public Participation • Normative: • Consent of the governed is a core democratic value • Citizens have right to meaningful participation in decisions concerning their health and safety • Substantive: • Non-experts may provide relevant knowledge and perspective • Instrumental: • Decrease conflict and increase trust in government decision-making Source: Understanding Risk (NAS 1996)

  3. Public understanding of scientificterms and concepts (NSF 2001)

  4. Importance of Public Education “Ordinary Tomatoes Do Not Contain Genes, While Genetically Modified Ones Do” Source: Tom Hoban

  5. Existing Mechanisms for Public Participation • Elections/Representative government • Polling • Focus groups • Market decisions • Notice and comment rulemaking • “Public interest” groups • Public hearings • Citizen membership on advisory committees and decision-making bodies • Direct democracy (e.g., referenda)

  6. Problems with Existing Mechanisms • Little or no participation by general public in some mechanisms (i.e. process dominated by direct stakeholders • e.g., notice and comment rulemaking • e.g., advisory committees • Many participants have minimal knowledge in other mechanisms • e.g., referendums • e.g., polling

  7. Trade-off Between Participation and Education Number of Participants Average Knowledge Many Participants Few Participants

  8. Other Challenges to Deliberative Democracy • “Rational ignorance” • Skewed participation • self-selection • economic and racial gaps? • International externalities of public views • Does public participation necessarily lead to better decisions? • How to measure?

  9. Public Participation Mechanisms: Design Factors • Geographical scope • Some issues are better addressed at national level (e.g., GM food safety); others may benefit from more localized consideration (e.g., ecological and economic effects of GM crops) • Level of Expertise • Some issues require relatively minor education (e.g., cloning), while others require more sophisticated understanding (e.g., regulatory level of arsenic in drinking water • Participants • General public vs. stakeholders? • Open vs selected?

  10. Objectives of Public Participation • To make decisions? • To provide recommendations for input into decisions? • To identify factors for decision? • To facilitate productive dialogue? • To educate participants?

  11. Citizen Juries • Also known as citizen panels, consensus conferences, etc. • Panel of 12-20 citizens representing cross-section of community convened to deliberate on a policy question and to produce report or recommendations • A set of experts selected to present evidence to panel covering different perspectives • Usually conducted over a 3-4 day period

  12. Critique of Citizen Juries • Most participants report favorable experience, but: • Potential for bias • selection of citizen jurors • selection of expert presenters • phrasing of question; setting agenda • Minimal impact • No formal role or follow-up of recommendations • Does anybody care? • Limited participation • only a handful of citizens participate and benefit

  13. GM Public Debate - UK • The UK government has recently initiated a “National Debate” on GM foods • Based on 2001 government report which recommended: “It will be crucial for the public to be involved in the important decisions which need to be taken. We have to find a way to foster informed public discussion of the development and application of new technologies.” • Initial stage consisted of 9 workshops attended by invited cross-section of people • Format for main debate in 2003 to be determined • Public debate will proceed in parallel with a Science Review and an Economic Review

  14. Critique of UKGM Public Debate • Activist groups and media coverage have been negative • charges that process is a “sham” or “charade” • although public debate being conducted by arms-length consultant, the enterprise is associated with PM Blair and his government who have expressed support for GM foods • Mechanism for public debate still undefined • Selection of initial workshop participants roused controversy

  15. Some Proposals for Future Exploration • Combine citizen jury with real-time newspaper or public television coverage of deliberations • addresses limited participation of citizen juries • Public dialogues sponsored by county or municipal governments • this level of government may be in unique position to balance ecological and economic aspects of GM foods • closer to general public than national or state governments • On-line dialogues • provides possibility for broad participation and education • problem: how to avoid domination by direct stakeholders?

More Related