AGRICULTURE AND ENVIRONMENT BIOTECHNOLOGY COMMISSION
BACKGROUND PAPERS
AEBC/01/24
‘NEW WINE OLD BOTTLES?’: A DISCUSSION NOTE
Note by Phil Dale
As an important function of the Commission is to try to understand the perspectives of other Commissioners better, and to advance our thinking in a concerted way, I thought it would be helpful to discuss Robin Grove-White’s paper entitled "New wine, old bottles? Personal reflections on the new biotechnology commissions." I believe this paper hits at the heart of some of the disagreements we had in Subgroup A, when we rarely had time to explore them fully.
Robin divided his reflections into three groups. In this briefing, I have attempted to summarise what I see are the main elements of his argument. If I have misunderstood some of his argument, then the period of discussion would be an opportunity to correct that.
Following the summary of Robin’s main points, I have raised two questions for discussion.
1. "THE DOMINANCE OF NARROW FRAMINGS"
There is the assumption that if no potential for direct physical mishap can be identified or anticipated, a new technology should be applied.
There are concerns about who is driving the developments in biotechnology and why, and about dubious claims for social benefit.
There are concerns about ownership of technology and the responsibilities if things go wrong.
Decision making is dominated by the reductionist way of evaluating technology.
The new processes of public engagement risk becoming trapped within the current conceptual and regulatory framework.
2. "DISTORTING THE MEANING OF PUBLIC UNEASE"
There is lack of clarity in what the controversies are about.
The fact that the NGOs seek to engage in the science confirms that the real issues are scientific in the terms implied by the EU framework.
To win attention for diffuse or unfocused public concerns, the NGOs convert concerns into terms that have judicial or political impact.
These terms are therefore often interpreted by scientific specialists as amateur or speculative, and give the impression that public concerns lack intellectual substance.
There is pressure to characterise public concerns in terms of "measurable attitudes" (e.g. opinion polls), rather than "through sensitive attention to wider contemporary social relations".
3. "ACKNOWLEDGING THE UNKNOWN UNKNOWNS"
Science is incapable of anticipating all the potential problems of innovation.
Scientists tend to identify the significance of uncertainties within the context of current knowledge and experience, rather than from the point of view of ignorance or lack of capacity to imagine future consequences.
The existing risk assessment purportedly addresses unknowns, but does this inadequately - how can risks be assessed if their causes are unknown?
There is little enthusiasm among scientific specialists to open up serious discussion on terms other than their own. So who is taking issues of uncertainty and ignorance seriously on Society’s behalf?
PROPOSED TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION
1. Scientists argue that a holistic view is improved by understanding more about the elements lying behind that view. Research and risk assessment seeks to gather and apply that knowledge to aid decision making. We can never know everything about everything so there are always unknowns, but an examination of context, and a comparison with the closest parallel experience, provides valuable information to guide decisions.
Q. If we are to proceed with innovation beyond the potential paralysis of fear of unknown unknowns what in precise terms would be better than the methods we currently use?
2. The public displays general unease that may be difficult to define in simple cause and effect terms. NGOs convert concerns into terms that have judicial or political impact. Scientists analyse issues by breaking down their elements and analysing them in the context of current scientific knowledge and experience.
Q. How can we each understand the other better and what in precise terms can the AEBC do to facilitate this?
