GMO regulation and civic participation at the “edge of the world”: the case of Australia and New Zealand

Hindmarsh, Richard Alan; Plessis, Rosemary Du

doi:10.1080/14636770802326869

Cited by 19 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…New work seeks to overcome the expert/lay split (for example, Cronin and Jackson 2004;Cronin 2007) and to ensure a broader consideration generally of 'expertise' such as ethical expertise (Reber 2010). Moreover, there is a range of work that looks critically at participatory processes in order to recommend improvements (for example, Hindmarsh and Du Plessis 2008;also Dryzek and Niemeyer 2008;Cuppen et al 2010, which note roles for Q methodology).…”

Section: Engaging Publics With Q Methodologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Many Minds, Common Sense and Genetically Modified Food: A Role for Q Methodology

Wolf¹

2010

East Asian Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over 15 years, genetically modified (GM) food has gradually reached around the globe. Yet, each new development occasions controversy, and hence, leads to interest in strategies to engage people in searching for durable public bargains. Even-handed treatment of diverse views is crucial to good engagement processes, as is the avoidance of processes that merely reinforce fixed views. Ideally, views develop as people engage with others' reasoning about the merits of different policy responses. Q methodology provides a useful strategy for eliciting views at the start of such engagement processes. It allows individuals to present their views as whole pictures, complete with inherent ambiguities and complexities. Embodied, holistic views stem from mutual understanding of everyday events shared among members of a society. Everyday understanding relies on common sense, a spontaneous application of a distinct form of intelligence to some practical matter. Q methodology can contribute to engaging the publics-science interface by showing how technologies, like GM food, intersect with people's lives and behaviours and by finding commonalities that may be masked in polarised debates.

show abstract

Section: Engaging Publics With Q Methodologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Many Minds, Common Sense and Genetically Modified Food: A Role for Q Methodology

Wolf¹

2010

East Asian Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For individuals, the maximum penalty is NZ$500,000, while companies face penalties up to NZ$10 million, or three times the value of any commercial gain that results from the breach, or 10% of the turnover of the company involved (including any subsidiaries). Outside of the civil liability system (which is triggered by a breach in the law) there are also cases of compensation that may result not from a breach in the law but simply by nuisance or negligence (Hindmarsh and Du Plessis, 2008).…”

Section: New Zealandmentioning

confidence: 99%

Explaining local variation in agri-food biotechnology policies: 'green' genomics regulation in comparative perspective

Howlett

Migone

2010

Sci. and Pub. Pol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper develops a comparative framework for biotechnology policy analysis based on work by Paarlberg, Haga and Willard, and Isaac and applies this framework to help understand the evolution and differences in the regulatory regimes related to agri-food genomic innovations found in six countries: Italy, Spain, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the US. Applying this framework to the six cases shows that these governments have fostered different types of regulatory regimes over the last quarter century that are closely connected with the manner in which governments have pursued either promotional or precautionary orientations towards new technologies; and second whether regulatory policy-making has been driven by state or public actors and interests. The implications of these findings for the study of biotechnology, and especially genomics-related matters, regulation and policy-making are then discussed.This analysis suggests a more complex set of alternative policy and regulatory regimes exists in this Michael Howlett holds the Burnaby Mountain chair in the

show abstract

“…In the allocation of funding these challenges are recognised as 'at least as much an economic and social challenge as a biological one' (Russell, Innes et al 2015). The actual mechanisms for social engagement are evolving (Hindmarsh and Du Plessis 2008), and as the key challenge for the future, need much work to tease out who and how to engage, and how to communicate and inform.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Novel biotechnologies for eradicating wasps: seeking Māori studies students’ perspectives with Q method

Mercier

Hunt

Lester

2019

Kōtuitui: New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aligned with the New Zealand government's 'Predator-Free 2050' target for Aotearoa New Zealand, National Science Challenge: Our Biological Heritage supports research into five distinct 'novel biotechnological controls' of exotic wasps. A framing question within this project is which controls are considered 'socially acceptable' and thus suitable for further development to control and potentially eradicate introduced wasps? How can the public answer this question without first engaging with complex technologies? Can they develop and express an informed view that still reflects their 'gut' reactions and unique positions? To model and explore the views of an 'informed public', university students in Māori studies engaged in reflection, writing and mapping activities; choice and ranking exercises; Q Method; and focus group interviews. Amongst the interviewees, Q Method analysis distinguished three 'factors', describing unique viewpoints: those who see the potential of biotechnologies, those who are in doubt about them and those in a position of trust in scientists. Overall, the group see potential in new biotechnologies for wasps but are wary of political, economic and social decisionmaking mechanisms. ARTICLE HISTORY

show abstract

GMO regulation and civic participation at the “edge of the world”: the case of Australia and New Zealand

Cited by 19 publications

References 25 publications

Many Minds, Common Sense and Genetically Modified Food: A Role for Q Methodology

Many Minds, Common Sense and Genetically Modified Food: A Role for Q Methodology

Explaining local variation in agri-food biotechnology policies: 'green' genomics regulation in comparative perspective

Novel biotechnologies for eradicating wasps: seeking Māori studies students’ perspectives with Q method

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About