Asilomar's legacy in aotearoa New Zealand

Science as Culture

Volumn 14, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 393-410

  Rogers Hayden, Tee ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

RECOMBINANT DNA;

ABORIGINE; ADVISORY COMMITTEE; AGRICULTURE; ARTICLE; ASILOMAR CONFERENCE; BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; BIOTECHNOLOGY; CONFLICT; ENVIRONMENT; GENETIC ENGINEERING; GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD; GENETICS AND REPRODUCTION; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; HISTORY; HUMAN; LEGAL ASPECT; NEW ZEALAND; PERSONNEL; POLICY; PUBLIC OPINION; RISK ASSESSMENT; SCIENCE; SOCIAL CONTROL; TRANSGENIC ORGANISM;

ASILOMAR CONFERENCE; BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; GENETICS AND REPRODUCTION;

ADVISORY COMMITTEES; AGRICULTURE; BIOTECHNOLOGY; DISSENT AND DISPUTES; DNA, RECOMBINANT; ENVIRONMENT; FOOD, GENETICALLY MODIFIED; GENETIC ENGINEERING; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; HISTORY, 20TH CENTURY; HUMANS; NEW ZEALAND; OCEANIC ANCESTRY GROUP; ORGANISMS, GENETICALLY MODIFIED; PUBLIC OPINION; PUBLIC POLICY; RESEARCH PERSONNEL; RISK ASSESSMENT; SCIENCE; SOCIAL CONTROL, FORMAL; SOCIAL CONTROL, INFORMAL;

EID: 33744527372     PISSN: 09505431     EISSN: 14701189     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09505430500369152     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Aventis CropScience. 2000. Submission to the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification Available at http://www.gmcommission.govt.nz/publications/PDF_submission.html#IP
2. Barrett, K., and Flora, G., 2000. Genetic Engineering and the Precautionary Principle:Information for Extension, Science and Environmental Health Network Available at http://www.sehn.org/rtf.doc
3. Beck, U., 1992a. Risk Society:Towards a New Modernity, London:Sage.
4. Beck, U., 1992b. From industrial society to the risk society:questions of survival, social structure and ecological enlightenment. Theory, Culture and Society, 9:97–123.
5. Campbell, H., Fitzgerald, R., Saunders, C., and Sivak, L., 2000. “ Strategic issues for GMOs in primary production:key economic drivers and emerging issues ”. Dunedin:School of Social Sciences, University of Otago. unpublished CSAFE Discussion Paper No.1
6. Clements, K., 1988. Back from the Brink:The Creation of a Nuclear-Free New Zealand, Wellington:Allen &Unwin.
7. Coyle, F., Maslin, C., Fairweather, J., and Hunt, L., 2003. Public Understandings of Biotechnology in New Zealand:Nature, Clean Green Image and Spirituality, Agribusiness and Economics Research Unit. Research Report 265. Available at http://www.lincoln.ac.na/AERU/
8. Cozzens, S., and Woodhouse, E., 1995. “ Science, government, and the politics of knowledge ”. In Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, Edited by:Jasanoff, S., Markle, G., Petersen, J., and Pinch, T., London:Sage.
9. Davatekus, G., 2000. Opinion:the Asilomar process:is it valid?. The Scientist, 14 (7):51 Available at http://www.the-scientsit.com/yr2000/apr/opin_000403.htm
10. Drew, K., 1999. National identity and controversy:New Zealand's clean green image and pentachlorophenol. Health and Place, 5:45–57.
11. Egoz, S., 2000. Clean and green but messy:the contested landscape of New Zealand's organic farms. Oral History, 28 (1–2):63–73.
12. Environmental Risk Management Authority. 1999. Genetically Modified Food and the HSNO Act, ERMA New Zealand Information Sheet Number 7 Available at http://www.ermanz.govt.nz/pubsdown/InfoSheet7.htm
13. Fitzsimons, J., 2003a. New Organisms and Other Matters Bill Available at http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/speech6825.html
14. Fitzsimons, J., 5 July 2003b. Govt. Shafts Greens over GE Committee, 5 July, Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand GE e-mail list. media release
15. GE-Free Register. 2003. GE-Free Register Available at http://www.gefreeregister.co.nz/
16. Genus, A., and Rogers-Hayden, T., 2005. “ Genetic engineering in Aotearoa New Zealand:opening up or closing down debate? ”. In Science, Citizenship and Globalisation, Edited by:Leach, M., and Scoones, I., London:Zed Books.
17. Gieryn, T., 1995. “ Boundaries of science ”. In Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, Edited by:Jasanoff, S., Markle, G., Petersen, J., and Pinch, T., London:Sage.
18. Gieryn, T., 1999. Cultural Boundaries of Science:Credibility on the Line, Chicago:University of Chicago.
19. Goodell, R., 1986. “ How to kill a controversy:the case of recombinant DNA ”. In In Scientists and Journalists:Reporting Science as News, Edited by:Friedman, S., Dunwood, S., and Rogers, C., New York:The Free Press/MacMillian.
20. Gottweis, H., 1998. Governing Molecules:The Discursive Politics of Genetic Engineering in Europe in the United States, Cambridge:MIT Press.
21. Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand. 2001. Submission to the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification Available at http://www.gmcommission.govt.nz/publications/PDF_submission.html#IP
22. Greenpeace New Zealand. 2002. GE-Free Food Guide Available at http://greenpeace.org.nz/truefood/default.html
23. Hobbs, M., 2003. New Organisms and Other Matters Bill 2003, First Reading Available at http://www.beehive.govt.nz/PrintDocument.cfm?DocumentID=16661 06 May 2003
24. Irwin, A., 2001. Sociology and the Environment, Malden:Blackwell.
25. Irwin, A., and Wynne, B., 1996. “ Introduction ”. In Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology, Edited by:Irwin, A., and Wynne, B., Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
26. Jones, M., 1999. “ Politically corrected science:the early negotiation of US agricultural biotechnology policy ”. Faculty of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. unpublished doctoral dissertation
27. Kelsey, J., 1997. The New Zealand Experiment:A World Model for Structural Adjustment, second edition, Auckland:Auckland University Press.
28. Krieger, L., 17 February 2000. “ Genetic researchers cite spectre of profits ”. In Ecoglobe News 2000 17 February, Available at http://www.ecoglobe.org/nz/ge-news/trus1720.htm (accessed 2 June 2004)
29. Krimsky S., The regulatory quandary over biotechnology Conference Proceedings of the 1986 Washington International Conference on Biotechnology Washington International Conference on Biotechnology Centre for Energy and Environmental Management Washington 1986
30. Krimsky, S., and Plough, A., 1988. Environmental Hazards:Communicating Risks as a Social Process, Dover:Auburn House.
31. Le Heron, R., and Pawson, E., 1996. Changing Places:New Zealand in the Nineties, Edited by:LeHeron, R., and Pawson, E., Auckland:Longman Paul.
32. McGregor, D., 2002. A Review of the Handling of the GM Maize Incident at Gisbourne and Pukekohe a report prepared for ERMA New Zealand and MAF. Available at http://www.ermanz.govt.nz/resources/publications/pdfs/McGregorReportDec2002.pdf
33. Ministry of Economic Development. 2004. Growth and Innovation Available at http://gif.med.govt.nz/
34. Ministry of Health. 2000. Available at http://www.moh.govt.nz
35. New Zealand Government Cabinet. 2003. New Zealand Biotechnology Strategy Available at http://www.morst.govt/uploadedfiles/documents/publications/govt%20 policy%20statements/biotechfinal2.pdf
36. New Zealand Herald. 31 May 1999. “ Genetically altered foods frighten most shoppers ”. In New Zealand Herald 31 May, A3
37. New Zealand Life Sciences Network. 2000. Submission to the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification Available at http://www.gmcommission.govt.nz/publications/PDF_submission.html#IP (accessed 20 February 2001)
38. Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Genetics—New Zealand. 2003. Available at http://www.psrg.org.nz
39. Rogers-Hayden, T., 2004. “ Commissioning genetic modification:the marginalisation of dissent in the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification ”. Department of Geography, University of Waikato. unpublished doctoral thesis
40. Rogers-Hayden, T., and Campbell, J., 2003. Moving beyond science? Environmentalists' submissions to New Zealand's Royal Commission on Genetic Modification. Environmental Values, 12 (4):515–534.
41. Rogers-Hayden, T., and Hindmarsh, R., 2002. Modernity contextualises New Zealand's Royal Commission on Genetic Modification:a discourse analysis. Journal of New Zealand Studies, NS1 (1):41–62.
42. Rogers-Hayden, T., and Hindmarsh, R., Sustaining progress or progressing sustainability?. The Ecopolitics Association of Australasia XIV:Greening Sustainability Conferenc. November, Melbourne, Australia. pp. 27–30. RMIT. Reading the report of Aotearoa New Zealand's Royal Commission on Genetic Modification. Paper presented at
43. Rogers-Hayden, T., Hindmarsh, R., and Risely, M., 2002. ‘Precaution’ downunder?:marginalising the strong precautionary principle in GE debates in New Zealand and Australia. Ecopolitics Thought+Action, 1 (4):86–97.
44. Rogers-Hayden, T., and Jones, M., forthcoming. “ Public biotechnology inquiries:from rationality to reflexivity? ”. In New Genetics, New Social Formations, Edited by:Glasner, P., and Atkinson, P., London:Routledge.
45. Royal Commission on Genetic Modification. 2001a. Report of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification, Wellington:New Zealand.
46. Royal Commission on Genetic Modification. 2001b. Members of RCGM Available at http://www.gmcommission.govt.nz/contact/bios.html
47. Royal Commission on Genetic Modification. 2001c. “ Royal Commission on Genetic Modification ‘Introduction’ ”. In Warrant, English Version Available at http://www.gmCommission.govt.nz/intro/warrant_eng.html
48. Royal Commission on Genetic Modification. 2002. “ Section 4A (1) RCGM, ‘Introduction’ ”. Available at http://www.gmcommission.govt.nz/intro/index.html
49. Royal Commission to Inquire into the Crash on Mount Erebus, Antarctica of a DC10 Aircraft Operated by Air New Zealand Limited. 1981. Report of the Royal Commission to Inquire into the Crash on Mount Erebus, Antarctica of a DC10 Aircraft Operated by Air New Zealand Limited, Wellington:Government Printer.
50. Schiappa, E., 1989. “ ‘Spheres of argument’ as Topoi for the critical study of power/knowledge ”. In Spheres of Argument, Edited by:Grinbeck, B., Annandale:Speech Communication Association.
51. Scott, A., and Tipene-Matua, B., 2004. “ Cultural conflict and new biotechnologies:what is at risk? ”. In Challenging Science:Science and Society Issues in New Zealand, Edited by:Dew, K., and Fitzgerald, R., Palmerston North:Dunmore Press.
52. Singer, M., 2001. “ Commentary ”. In American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Science and Technology Policy Yearbook 2001 Edited by:Teich, A., Nelson, S., and Lita, S., Available at http://www.aaas.org/spp/yearbook.pdf
53. Strydom, P., 2002. Risk, Environment and Society, Buckingham:Open University Press.
54. Stuff.Co.NZ. 2004. Turning Point fort the Greens Available at http://stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,2932238a6160,00.html
55. Toi te Taiao:the Bioethic Council. 2004. Our Terms of Reference Available at http://www.bioethics.org.nz/about-us/terms-of-reference-english.html
56. Tourism New Zealand. 2004. Available at http://www.purenz.com/index.cfm/purenz_page/524D0F30-16F5-4B7E-B06B-B9D0B5DE977E.html
57. Weaver, K., and Motion, J., 2002. Sabotage and subterfuge:public relations, democracy and genetic engineering in New Zealand. Media, Culture & Society,:325–343.
58. Weaver, S., 3 February 2001. “ Public talk, what's happening with the Royal Commission? Eating into the future:should food be genetically engineered? ”. 3 February, Wintec, Wellington:Safe Food Campaign Seminar Day.
59. Wright, S., 1986. Molecular biotechnology or molecular politics? The production of scientific consensus on the hazards of recombinant DNA technology. Social Studies of Science, 16:593–620.
60. Wynne, B., 1989. “ Frameworks of rationality in risk management:towards the testing of naive sociology ”. In Environmental Threats, Edited by:Brown, J., London:Belhaven.
61. Wynne, B., 1995. “ Public understanding of science ”. In Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, Edited by:Jasanoff, S., Markle, G., Petersen, J., and Pinch, T., London:Sage.
62. Wynne, B., 2001. Creating public alienation:expert cultures of risk and ethics on GMOs. Science as Culture, 19 (4):445–481.