This
is
the
third
blog
in
a
short
series
discussing
the
new
book
–
Navigating
Uncertainty:
Radical
Rethinking
for
a
Turbulent
World.
The
third
chapter
looks
at
a
range
of
technologies
–
AI,
driverless
cars,
energy
systems
and
so
on,
but
focuses
especially
on
the
debate
about
GM
crops
in
the
late
90s/early
2000s,
something
I
worked
on
at
the
time.
In
particular,
the
chapter
explores
how
attempts
to
close
down
risk
through
a
so-called
‘science-based’
approach
acted
to
exclude
a
whole
array
of
public
concerns,
more
centred
on
uncertainties
(about
impacts
on
health,
biodiversity,
as
well
as
wider
questions
of
ownership
and
control
in
the
food
system).
Biotechnology
battles
In
the
late
1990s
a
huge
debate
erupted
around
GM
crops.
As
the
book
explains,
“In
the
UK
it
was
especially
tense.
The
new
Labour
government
seemed
divided
on
which
way
to
go:
follow
the
Americans
and
encourage
the
commercialisation
of
the
new
crops
or
take
the
more
precautionary
stance
of
the
rest
of
the
European
Union.
Prime
Minister
Tony
Blair
with
his
science
minister
Lord
Sainsbury
were
gung-ho.
Science
showed
that
these
new
technologies
were
the
way
forward,
they
argued.
Others
were
more
sceptical,
reflecting
a
wider
public
disquiet
about
the
potential
risks
of
such
crops.
There
was
a
big
divide,
reflecting
deep
uncertainties
around
how
such
technologies
would
affect
people’s
health,
the
environment,
trade
relations
and
wider
food
security….
In
October
1999
we
released
a
report
– The
Politics
of
GM
Food:
Risk,
Science
and
Public
Trust –
which
was
based
on
extensive
research
by
the
Global
Environmental
Change
programme
of
the
UK’s
Economic
and
Research
Council,
which
I
was
co-director
of
at
the
time.
The
then
environment
minister,
Michael
Meacher,
was
dragged
into
the
media
studios
to
debate
the
findings
on
the
BBC
Today
Programme
among
others.
Unlike
some
of
his
colleagues
in
government,
he
was
remarkably
balanced.
Along
with
the
minister
in
the
Cabinet
Office,
Mo
Mowlam,
he
understood
the
importance
of
thinking
about
the
uncertain
consequences
of
a
new
technology
and
bringing
the
public
along
with
any
government
decision.
Aligning
with
a
Europe-wide
commitment
to
the
‘precautionary
principle’
and,
unlike
the
Americans,
accepting
that
there
was
no
‘substantial
equivalence’
between
GM
crops
and
others
produced
by
different
breeding
processes,
the
UK
government
eventually
upheld
a
moratorium,
pending
further
field
trials.
Aiming
to
gain
a
wider
buy-in
to
any
new
policy,
in
2000
it
established
the
Agriculture
and
Environment
Biotechnology
Commission
(AEBC),
in
parallel
to
the
Advisory
Committee
on
Releases
into
the
Environment
(ACRE)
that
was
tasked
with
approving
releases.
In
addition
to
studies
on
the
science
and
economics
of
GM
crops,
a
process
of
wider
public
discussion
about
GM
crop
policy
– GM
Nation? –
was
initiated
in
2002.
This
was
an
important
innovation.
Rather
than
assuming
that
science
could
resolve
all
uncertainties,
there
was
a
need
to
deliberate
on
them
in
a
more
rounded
fashion,
with
new
uncertainties
inevitably
emerging
in
the
process.
Robin
Grove-White,
one
of
the
commissioners,
observed
that
public
concerns
“reflected
unease
about
likely
contingencies
outside
the
purview,
or
even
the
imagination,
of present scientific
understanding.
This
extended
not
only
to
potential
environmental
or
epidemiological
issues
as
yet
unidentified
by
science,
but
also
to
potential
ripple
effects,
whether
political,
social,
economic
or
ethical
in
character.”
As
Grove-White
pointed
out,
no
provisions
existed
within
the
existing
regulatory
framework
for
addressing
such
uncertainties,
meaning
that
they
were
effectively
evaded
by
government
and
industry
until
later
when
the
public
became
involved
in
the
debate.”
As
the
book
discusses,
the
biotechnology
battles
of
that
time
were
a
prime
example
of
how
debates
about
new
technologies
throw
up
numerous
uncertainties,
which
are
seen
by
different
actors
in
highly
divergent
ways.
As
the
chapter
observes
“Expecting
these
to
be
resolved
by
some
process
of
‘sound
science’
led
by
elite
experts
away
from
public
scrutiny
and
sanctioned
by
politicians
as
‘evidence-based’
policymaking
was
and
remains
naïve
in
the
extreme.
There
are
multiple
uncertainties,
different
views
and
inevitably
an
intense
politics
around
the
‘evidence’.
This
is
why
open
public
deliberation
is
essential
and
technocratic
models
of
risk
governance,
even
with
performative
concessions
to
consultation
and
participation,
are
inadequate.
The
standard
approach
to
science-policy
interactions,
where
scientists
offer
closed-down
‘results’
without
any
expressions
of
doubt,
will
not
do.
Indeed,
as
any
scientist
will
confirm,
such
an
approach
runs
counter
to
the
scientific
method,
where
doubt
and
‘organised
scepticism’
are
central
features.”
Policy
cultures
The
book
asks,
how
does
this
all
play
out
in
policymaking?
It
notes,
“The
GM
debate,
even
if
exceptionally
heated
and
highly
divisive,
is
not
unusual.
As
new
technologies
throw
up
divergent
views,
rather
than
closing
down
around
a
narrow
assessment
of
‘risk’
led
by
elite
science
as
the
basis
for
a
controlled,
instrumental
form
of
‘risk
governance,’
a
wider
debate
is
needed.
This
requires
a
different
approach
to
policymaking…
and
offering
publics
a
chance
to
deliberate
on
how
the
future
should
look.
This
is
not
a
rejection
of
science
and
evidence,
far
from
it;
instead,
such
a
stance
offers
a
more
effective
approach
allowing
uncertainties
to
be
aired,
and
for
diverse
forms
of
knowledge-making
to
engage
with
them.
Such
knowledge
may
emerge
from
established,
accredited
science,
but
also
from
other
forms
of
insight,
which
may
be
incredibly
valuable
when
dealing
with
uncertain
settings.”
By
the
time
the
GM
crop
discussion
emerged
in
full
force,
the
disaster
of
BSE
thus
made
many
in
the
UK
(although
by
no
means
all)
increasingly
cautious
and
more
open
to
debates
about
uncertainty,
while
the
public
expressed
a
lack
of
faith
in
the
regulatory
institutions
and
associated
expertise
that
were
notionally
tasked
with
ensuring
their
safety.
This
provided
the
context
for
a
much
more
open,
vigorous
debate
about
GM
crops
in
the
UK
than
had
happened
around
other
technological
risks
in
the
past,
and
indeed
since.”
Different
regulatory
responses
emerged
across
the
world,
reflecting
both
different
national
contexts
and
influences
of
processes
of
globalisation.
In
the
early
2000s,
I
explored
how
the
regulation
of
GM
crops
was
negotiated
in
Brazil,
India
(mostly
Karnataka
state)
and
South
Africa/Zimbabwe
(see here, here and here).
As
the
book
discusses,
debates
were
framed
more
widely
than
immediate
health
and
environmental
impacts,
and
histories
of
colonisation,
the
fear
of
capture
by
external
industries
and
class-based
and
political
interests
within
agriculture
came
to
the
fore.
“Rather
than
adopt
a
generic
approach
to
regulation,
policies
that
were
appropriate
to
country
contexts
emerged
through
complex
front-
and
back-stage
political
negotiations
and
evolving
practice,
always
reflecting
different
uncertainties
and
public
concerns,”
the
book
explains.
Beyond
standardised
risk
assessments:
the
need
for
wider
deliberation
In
all
these
cases,
as
the
book
discusses,
“regulatory
decisions
around
a
contested
technology
represented
different
contextual
responses
to
uncertainties….
Uncertainties
are
therefore
not
neutral,
somehow
‘out
there’
in
the
world.
They
are
always
conditioned
by
context
and
circumstance,
and
require
an
engaged,
open
political
debate
about
impacts
and
consequences,
galvanising
diverse
knowledges
and
views.
A
standardised,
instrumental
form
of
risk
assessment
and
governance
is
always
insufficient.”
What
we
see
again
and
again,
is
a
risk
based
‘science’
approach
is
clearly
inadequate
(along
with
a
narrow
legalistic
approach).
Instead,
policy
must
public
involvement
and
deliberation
central,
from
upstream
science
to
downstream
implementation
and
policy
decisions.
This
was
the
lesson
from
the
GM
debates,
but
it
also
applies
to
any
technology
where
uncertainties
prevail,
whether
AI
or
nuclear
reactors.
As
the
chapter
highlights,
“opening
up
spaces
for
wider
democratic
deliberation
is
vitally
important
–
as
part
of
technology
assessment
processes,
within
regulatory
decision-making,
in
the
courts
and
as
part
of
broader
public
debate.
This
must
go
beyond
performative
consultation
or
the
nominal
addition
of
a
‘lay’
person
onto
a
committee.
Equally,
such
spaces
must
always
be
geared
to
particular
social,
political
and
cultural
contexts,
steering
away
from
one-size-fits-all
governance
arrangements,
respecting
local
political
economies.
More
open
processes,
in
a
variety
of
forms,
will
help
us
navigate
uncertainties
thrown
up
by
new
developments
in
science
and
technology,
meaning
the
many
potential
benefits
are
assured,
whilst
errors
are
avoided.”
This
series
of
blogs
gives
a
taste
of
the
different
chapters,
but
you
will
have
to
read
the
book
to
get
the
full
picture,
as
well
as
all
the
case
study
details,
the
references
and
footnotes!
You
can
buy
the
book
(or
download
it
for
free)
through
this
link: Navigating
Uncertainty:
Radical
Rethinking
for
a
Turbulent
World
(politybooks.com).
Use
20%
off
discount
code
to
buy.
And
if
you
are
in
the
UK,
the
Netherlands,
Germany,
Switzerland
or
France,
do
come
along
to
the
first
launches
in
October BOOK:
Navigating
Uncertainty
–
Pastoralism,
Uncertainty
and
Resilience
–
PASTRES (or
join
online
at
the
IDS
event
on
October
3,
sign
up
here: Navigating
uncertainty:
Radical
rethinking
for
a
turbulent
World
–
Institute
of
Development
Studies
(ids.ac.uk)).
Post
published
in:
Agriculture
Joe
Kathryn
Chris
