How the French GM controversy led to the reciprocal emancipation of scientific expertise and policy making

Marris, Claire; Joly, Pierre‐Benoît; Ronda, Stéphanie; Bonneuil, Christophe

doi:10.3152/147154305781779425

Cited by 17 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Regulatory authorities and their expert advisers have developed practices that correspond to more diverse, flexible accounts of precaution. Analogous policy framings of precaution have arisen at the national level (for instance, Boschert and Gill, 2005;Marris et al, 2005;Toft, 2005). NGOs have played a role in reinforcing, publicising and sometimes stimulating more rigorous approaches by regulatory authorities.…”

Section: Contending Policy Agendasmentioning

confidence: 98%

European Union regulation of agri-biotechnology: precautionary links between science, expertise and policy

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite various institutional reforms in the European Union (EU), regulatory procedures for genetically modified (GM) products are still held up by disagreements among experts; claims about a product's safety often correspond to a narrower account of precaution than broader counterclaims from objectors. In the EU, we argue, these conflicts have given practical meaning to the concept of precaution, rather than any explicit interpretation of an a priori principle. Through dynamic tensions between the various claims and accounts of precaution, EU regulatory-expert procedures have identified and addressed more scientific uncertainties than before. Yet decisions about GM products still face legitimacy problems, because they arise fundamentally from the great burden placed on science as the basis for societal choices about agri-biotechnology.

show abstract

Section: Contending Policy Agendasmentioning

confidence: 98%

European Union regulation of agri-biotechnology: precautionary links between science, expertise and policy

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Most people therefore consider this 'consensus' to have been created at the expense of complexity and transparency. Moreover, the public can easily sense that this construction involves a certain contempt for citizens, who are deemed unable to sufficiently understand the great science and are condemned to live with uncertainty (Frewer et al, 2003;Gisler and Kurath, 2011;House et al, 2003;Joly et al, 2000;Kolstø, 2001;Levidow, 2003;Levidow and Carr, 2007;Marris et al, 2005;Marris et al, 2001).…”

Section: Scientists and Lay Peoplementioning

confidence: 99%

GM and Non‐GM Supply Chain Co‐Existence and Traceability: Context and Perspectives

Bertheau

2012

Genetically Modified and Non‐Genetically Modified Food Supply Chains: Co‐Existence and Traceability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Part 8 / Conclusion used in the 1970s, this broader expertise is set to provide answers on the general relevance of GMOs for society, a recurring issue in the controversy (Boy et al., 2000). 32.2.1.2 Independence and conflicts of interest In addition to the European health crises mentioned previously (Bertheau and Davison, Introduction to this book), European citizens are calling into question the quality and independence of scientific expertise. They are concerned as much about certain biases in the expertise and conflicts of interest as lobbies in action and the 'revolving door' system of officials working in bodies of expertise. This questioning of expertise is also due to the fact that scientific expertise is a social construct, despite this being refuted by 'hard science' scientists (Motion and Doolin, 2007). This social construct is a result of the frame of the expertise, value judgements on the bodies and the values upheld by each scientist on cross-disciplinary subjects. Various authors have stressed how experts very often make decisions on subjects that are at the boundaries of their knowledge, and therefore in an uncertain environment (

show abstract

“…19 Or, pour qui observe attentivement les espaces dédiés aux jeunes, force est de constater que le modèle dominant n'est pas celui de l'engagement. (Marris et al ., 2005 ;Bonneuil et al, 2008). Certes, la multiplication et, parfois, la radicalisation des controverses n'ont pas déclenché le passage au PES, mais elles l'ont fait apparaître comme une nécessité aux yeux des institutions (Felt, 2003a OGM dans les espaces de « rencontre science-société » ne doit pas surprendre si nous considérons les différentes contraintes qui pèsent sur les espaces de médiation : ils se veulent réactifs par rapport à l'actualité, cherchent à développer le marketing culturel (Poli, 2007).…”

Section: Construire Une Légitimité D'acteur Crédible Et Fiable Dans Lunclassified

Engagement et citoyenneté scientifique : quels enjeux avec quels dispositifs ?

Chavot¹,

Masseran²

2010

questionsdecommunication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

How the French GM controversy led to the reciprocal emancipation of scientific expertise and policy making

Cited by 17 publications

References 6 publications

European Union regulation of agri-biotechnology: precautionary links between science, expertise and policy

European Union regulation of agri-biotechnology: precautionary links between science, expertise and policy

GM and Non‐GM Supply Chain Co‐Existence and Traceability: Context and Perspectives

Engagement et citoyenneté scientifique : quels enjeux avec quels dispositifs ?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About