The genetically modified crop controversies in Britain between 1997 and 2004 involved tensions surrounding the role of science in policy. The author of the paper was a member of the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission, a novel government advisory body created in 2000, which played a central role in negotiating new policy frameworks. The commission was also a key influence in the creation and execution of the three-pronged official ‘GM dialogue’ in 2002 and 2003. New understandings of ‘uncertainty’, both scientific and social, emerged as a result. The outcomes have relevance for the future political handling of other technological fields, including human genetics.

1.
Burke D: GM food and crops: what went wrong in the UK? EMBO Rep 2004;5:347–363.
2.
Pringle P: Food Inc Mendel to Monsanto – the Promises and Perils of the Biotech Harvest. New York, Simon & Schuster, 2003.
3.
Cabinet Office, Office of Science and Technology: The Advisory and Regulatory Framework for Biotechnology: Report from the Government’s Review. London, UK Government, 1999.
4.
European Environment Agency: Late Lessons from Early Warnings: The Precautionary Principle 1896–2000. Environmental Issue Report No 22. Luxembourg, Office for Official Publications of the European Commission, 2001.
5.
Grove-White R, Macnaghten P, Mayer S, Wynne B: Uncertain World: Genetically Modified Organisms, Food and Public Attitudes in Britain. Lancaster, Centre for the Study of Environmental Change (CSEC), 1997.
6.
Bauer M, Gaskell G, Allum N, Durant J, et al: Biotechnology and the European public. Nat Biotechnol 2000;18:935–938.
7.
Marris C, Wynne B, Simmons P, Weldon S: Final Report of the Public Attitudes to Biotechnology in Europe Research Project. Lancaster, CSEC, 2001.
8.
Report by Greenberg Research (USA) to Monsanto, re The British Test, The Fall 1998 Research, 5 October 1998, as reported in Genewatch Briefing No 5 (1999), Genetic engineering: a review of developments in 1998. Available at www.genewatch.org.
9.
Crops on Trial (September 2001); Horizon-Scanning (April 2002); Animals and Biotechnology (September 2002); GM Crops? Coexistence and Liability (November 2003). All available at www.aebc.gov.uk.
10.
Jasanoff S: Designs on Nature. Princeton, Princeton University Press, 2005.
11.
Winickoff D, Jasanoff S, Busch L, Grove-White R, Wynne B: Adjudicating the GM food wars: science, risk and democracy in world trade law. Yale International Law Rev 2005;30:81–124.
12.
Stirling A, Mayer S: A novel approach to the appraisal of technological risk: a multi-criteria mapping study of a genetically modified crop. Environ Planning C Gov Policy 2001;19:529–555.
13.
Grove-White R, Macnaghten P, Wynne B: Wising Up: The Public and New Technologies Report. Lancaster, CSEC, 2001.
14.
Grove-White R: New wine, old bottles? Personal reflections on the new biotechnology commissions. Polit Q 2001;72:466–472.
15.
Wynne B: Uncertainty and environmental learning: reconceiving science and public policy in the preventive paradigm. Global Environ Change 1992;2:111–127.
16.
Stirling A: Risk at a turning point. J Environ Med 2000;1:119–126.
17.
GM Science Review Panel: GM Science Review: First Report. London, Office of Science and Technology, Department of Trade and Industry, 2003.
18.
Public Debate Steering Board: GM Nation? The Findings of the Public Debate. London, Department of Trade and Industry, 2003.
19.
Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit: Field Work: Weighing Up the Costs and Benefits of GM Crops. London, Cabinet Office, 2003.
20.
Genewatch: Text of the leaked minutes from the Cabinet Office Ministerial Sub-Committee on Biotechnology held on 10 February 2004. Available at www.genewatch.org.
21.
Williams N: Organisational and performance review of the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission, 2004. Available at www.aebc.gov.uk.
22.
HM Treasury/DTI/DfES: Science and Innovation Investment Framework 2004–2014. London, HM Treasury, 2004, p 105.
23.
The Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering: Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and Uncertainties. London, The Royal Society, 2004, p 64.
24.
Wilsdon J, Willis R: See-Through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream. London, Demos, 2004.
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.