How to keep out what we don't want: an assessment of `Sozialverträglichkeit' under the Austrian Genetic Engineering Act

Abstract

National regulations for new science and engineering projects are often drawn up on foundations that refer to the current `state of the art'. However, this approach suffers from the fundamental problem, among others, that science progresses quickly, and models for the development of science have only limited predictive ability. Assessing the risk associated with a project therefore becomes a complex problem; and so non-scientific criteria can not be excluded from the decision-making process. An example of such non-technical criteria can be found in Austrian regulations on genetic engineering where: `products containing or consisting of genetically engineered organisms must not create any “ Soziale Unverträglichkeit” [social unsustainability], no `unbalanced burden on society or social groups' that is unacceptable for economic, social or moral reasons.' The aim of this paper is to investigate the implications of this provision. The paper begins with a discussion of the fundamental issues of regulating genetic engineering at a national level, then examines the evolution of the Austrian Genetic Engineering Act, and critically assesses the term ` Sozialverträglichkeit'. Having examined various mechanisms whereby non-scientific criteria can be included in the decision-making process, the paper argues that Sozialverträglichkeit can be interpreted as a constructive answer to the problems of a risk society.

The Theory and Practice of Genetically Engineered Crops and Agricultural Sustainability

“…Seifert and Torgersen explain that a 1992 Austrian commission established to consider GE products stated that social sustainability (Sozialverträ glichkeit) should be considered in regulatory processes, that disclosure of risks and benefits should be mandatory, and public participation should be encouraged [73]. Paragraph 63 of the Austrian Genetic Engineering Act specifically stated that genetically engineered products must not lead to social unsustainability and would not be approved for use -if it may be assumed on a technical basis that such products would lead to an unbalanced burden on society or on social groups, and if this burden no longer appears acceptable to the population for economic, social or moral reasons‖ ( [73], p. 303). That the Austrian model has not been adopted elsewhere adds further support to the proposition that people's perspectives on the link between technology and sustainability vary across nations.…”

Precautionary Blockage of Agricultural Biotechnology

“…As an underlying reference point, on the other hand, that criterion may have corroborated the legitimacy of criteria beyond conventional risk assessment (Seifert and Torgersen, 1997). Furthermore, the law contained incompatible statements, e.g.…”