Science, governance, and public participation: An analysis of decision making on genetic modification in Aotearoa/New Zealand

Public Understanding of Science

Volumn 21, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 447-464

  Kurian, Priya ^a   Wright, Jeanette ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WAIKATO   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

decision making on genetic modification; governance of science and technology; policy practice; public participation

Indexed keywords

ABORIGINE; AGRICULTURE; ANIMAL WELFARE; ARTICLE; CONSUMER; DECISION MAKING; GENETIC ENGINEERING; HUMAN; LEGAL ASPECT; MANAGEMENT; NEW ZEALAND; POLITICS; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; RISK MANAGEMENT;

AGRICULTURE; ANIMAL WELFARE; CONSUMER PARTICIPATION; DECISION MAKING; GENETIC ENGINEERING; HUMANS; NEW ZEALAND; OCEANIC ANCESTRY GROUP; POLICY MAKING; POLITICS; RISK MANAGEMENT;

EID: 84861800402     PISSN: 09636625     EISSN: 13616609     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0963662510382362     Document Type: Article

References (63)

1. GMD 02028 Application to ERMA for approval to develop in containment any genetically modified organism. Hamilton: AgResearch Ruakura; 2002:.
2. Alabaster JWellington: ERMA; 2002:.
3. Baber W,Bartlett RVDeliberative Environmental Politics: Democracy and Ecological Rationality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2005:.
4. Bartlett RV.Ecological rationality: Reason and environmental policy.Environmental Ethics. 1986;8:221-239.
5. Beck URisk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage; 1992:.
6. Wellington: ERMA; 2002:.
7. Bleakley CWellington: ERMA; 2002:.
8. Braun K,Schultz S.". a certain amount of engineering involved": Constructing the public in participatory governance arrangements.Public Understanding of Science. 2010;19 (4): 403-419.
9. Dryzek J,Goodin R,Tucker A,Reber B.Promethean elites face precautionary publics: The case of GM foods.Science, Technology, & Human Values. 2009;34 (3): 263-288.
10. Eckersley REnvironmentalism and Political Theory: Towards an Ecocentric Approach. Albany, NY: SUNY Press; 1992:.
11. ERMA (Environmental Risk Management Authority) (1998) Annotated Methodology. Wellington: ERMA. Available at: http://www.ermanz.govt.nz/resources/publications/pdfs/me089801.pdf.
12. Wellington: ERMA; 2002a:.
13. ERMA (2002b) Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision GMD02028. Wellington: ERMA. Available at: http://www.ermanz.govt.nz/news-events/focus/GMD02028%20s67A.pdf.
14. ERMA (2003) A Review of Capability Relating to the Risk Management of New Organisms. Wellington: Ministry for the Environment. http://www.mfe.govt.nz/issues/organisms/other-work/erma-review/erma-review-of-capability-mar03.pdf.
15. Fairclough NCritical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. London: Longman; 1995:.
16. Ferretti MP.Why public participation in risk regulation? The case of authorizing GMO products in the European Union.Science as Culture. 2007;16 (4): 377-395.
17. Fischer FEvaluating Public Policy. Chicago: Nelson-Hall Publishers; 1995:.
18. Wellington: ERMA; 2002:.
19. Gaventa JScience and Citizens: Globalization and the Challenge of Engagement. Leach MScoones IWynne B, ed. London: Zed Books; 2005:vii-viii.
20. GE Free NZWellington: ERMA; 2002:.
21. GibsonE (2010) Scientists plan human genes for cows, goats. New Zealand Herald27February. Available at: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10628826.
22. Goven J.Processes of inclusion, cultures of calculation, structures of power: Scientific citizenship and the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification.Science, Technology, & Human Values. 2006;31 (5): 565-598.
23. Green Party NZWellington: ERMA; 2002:.
24. Wellington: ERMA; 2002:.
25. Wellington: ERMA; 2002:.
26. Hajer MAThe Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernisation and the Policy Process. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1995:.
27. Hajer MDeliberative Policy Analysis: Understanding Governance in the Network Society. Hajer MWagenaar H, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2003:88-110.
28. Hajer M,Wagenaar HDeliberative Policy Analysis: Understanding Governance in the Network Society. Hajer MWagenaar H, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2003:1-30.
29. Harrison PWellington: ERMA; 2002:.
30. Henare D.The law of difference: Will it make a difference?.He Pukenga Korero. 1998;4 (1): 26-32.
31. Wellington:; 1996:.
32. Irwin A.Constructing the scientific citizen: Science and democracy in the biosciences.Public Understanding of Science. 2001;10:1-18.
33. Irwin A,Michael MScience, Social Theory and Public Knowledge. Milton Keynes: Open University Press; 2003:.
34. Jasanoff SThe Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1990:.
35. Jasanoff S.Technologies of humility: Citizen participation in governing science.Minerva. 2003;41 (3): 223-244.
36. Jasanoff SScience and Citizens: Globalization and the Challenge of Engagement. Leach MScoones IWynne B, ed. London: Zed Books; 2005:183-198.
37. Kleinman D,Delborne J,Anderson A.Engaging citizens: The high cost of citizen participation in high technology.Public Understanding of Science. 2009;:.
38. Kurian P,Munshi D.Tense borders: Culture, identity, and anxiety in New Zealand's interweaving discourses of immigration and genetic modification.Cultural Politics. 2006;2 (3): 359-379.
39. Leach M,Scoones I,Wynne BScience and Citizens: Globalization and the Challenge of Engagement. Leach MScoones IWynne B, ed. London: Zed Books; 2005:3-14.
40. Levidow L,Carr S,Wield D.European Union regulation of agri-biotechnology: Precautionary links between science, expertise, and policy.Science and Public Policy. 2005;32 (4): 261-276.
41. Wellington: ERMA; 2002:.
42. McGregor NWellington: ERMA; 2002:.
43. Wellington: ERMA; 2002:.
44. March J,Olsen JRediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics. New York: Macmillan; 1989:.
45. Mayer S,Hill J,Grove-White R,Wynne BBrighton: University of Sussex; 1996:.
46. Mitchell RWellington: ERMA; 2002:.
47. Murphy P,Munshi D,Lakhtakia A,Kurian P,Bartlett RVComprehensive Nanoscience and Technology. Andrews DScholes GWiederrecht G, ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2010:.
48. Nga Kaihautu Tikanga Taiao (NKTT) (2002) Report on Application GMD02028. Available at: http://www.ermanz.govt.nz/BertDocs/GMD02028_GMD02028%20NKTT%20report.pdf.
49. Wellington: ERMA; 2002:.
50. Pestre D.Challenges for the democratic management of technoscience: Governance, participation and the political today.Science as Culture. 2008;17 (2): 101-119.
51. Radio New Zealand (2009) The Bioethics Council is the next target for Cabinet ministers wanting to save money in the public sector. 8March. Available at: http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/stories/2009/03/06/1245a38e6011.
52. Roberts M,Haami B,Benton R,Satterfield T,Finucane M,Henare M,Henare M.Whakapapa as a Maori mental construct: Some implications for the debate over genetic modification of organisms.The Contemporary Pacific. 2004;16 (1): 1-28.
53. Rogers-HaydenT (2004) Commissioning genetic modification: The marginalisation of dissent in the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. University of Waikato, Hamilton.
54. Report of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification. Wellington:; 2001:.
55. Wellington: ERMA; 2002:.
56. Steyn BSWellington: ERMA; 2002:.
57. Van Dommelen AHazard Identification of Agricultural Biotechnology. Utrecht: International Books; 1999:.
58. Wagenaar H,Cook SDDeliberative Policy Analysis: Understanding Governance in the Network Society. Hajer MWagenaar H, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2003:139-171.
59. Warren M.Democratic theory and self-transformation.American Political Science Review. 1992;86 (1): 8-23.
60. Webster DCWellington: ERMA; 2002:.
61. Wills PWellington: ERMA; 2002:.
62. Wright J,Kurian P.Ecological modernization vs sustainable development: The case of genetic modification regulation in New Zealand.Sustainable Development. 2009;:.
63. Wynne B.Creating public alienation: Expert cultures of risk and ethics on GMOs.Science as Culture. 2001;10 (4): 445-481.