Realistically speaking, even technical questions do not sound strictly technical. How do we determine safety? Does safety include livelihood security of farmers or even the question of eco-system damage? Given the current nature of complexity, a responsibility as a simple cause and effect diagram may be difficult to fix. We need concepts which combine food security and food sustainability. There is also the question of problem solving. Ecological science seems to suggest that genetic modification can no longer be touted as a single solution to agricultural problems. All these questions demand or suggest the necessity of a different framework of debate: 1) Firstly we need a nested series of hearings, debates, academic seminars where data is analyzed independently. 2) Secondly, the voice of dissenting scientists needs to be listened to and responded. 3) Thirdly, decisions cannot be expert decisions — technicalities need to be supplemented by answering citizen anxieties. 4) Finally, the government, instead of rushing into decisions, must set up a framework of debate. Delays while debates and tests are analyzed need not be embarrassing. The need for speed is not obvious. In fact what is necessary is a new social contract where nature and technology are reworked constitutionally. As a democracy, we have to adjudicate between different ideas of farming, evaluate different kinds of responsibility, ethics and accountability.
Posted on: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 16:33:53 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015