Refining the debate on GM crops using technological foresight—the Danish experience

Abstract Rapid developments in and the controversial nature of biotechnology call for communication, networks, partnerships, and collaboration in research, not just among researchers, but also between researchers and research “users” in industry, government, and elsewhere. Technological foresight appears to offer a coordinating method for developing and strengthening those linkages. To test this, a technological foresight study was performed on genetically modified (GM) crop technology in the Danish context. The background of the study was the conflict and intense debate in Denmark over applications of gene technology, especially over the deliberate release of genetically modified (GM) crops. However, the current debate characteristically involves sharply opposed fronts, lacking willingness and courage to engage in a free-flowing and open-minded debate on both rational and normative components of biosafety. In it, stakeholders and experts on both side of the conflict advocate widely differing opinions. Without a proper generally intelligible dialogue, the broader public audience finds it hard to comprehend this type of debate. The study pursues the notion that public dialogue can act as a driver of future applications in the technological domain, specifically GM crops. The study concluded with a stakeholder workshop that revealed three key issues that might provide helpful starting points for a more free-flowing and open-minded debate about the future of GM crops. The issues were those arising from the following statements: a broad perspective on risk is crucial; international regulation must make allowance for developing countries; a better configuration of the risk debate is needed. These issues are discussed in more details in the article.

[1]  Uwe Geier,et al.  Life cycle assessment framework in agriculture on the farm level , 2000 .

[2]  Klaus Rasborg.  Boganmeldelse: Thomas Breck: Dialog om det usikre– nye veje i risikokommunikation. København: Akademisk Forlag, 2001 , 2002 .

[3]  Jesper Norus.  Biotechnology Organizations in Action: Turning Knowledge Into Business , 2002 .

[4]  Brian Wynne,et al.  May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert-lay knowledge divide. , 2004 .

[5]  M. Gibbons,et al.  Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty , 2003 .

[6]  S. Funtowicz,et al.  Three types of risk assessment and the emergence of post-normal science , 1992 .

[7]  Karen A. Holbrook,et al.  Public Sector Collaboration for Agricultural IP Management , 2003, Science.

[8]  Brian Wynne,et al.  Environmental Sociology: Theory and Practice@@@Environmental Sociology: A Social Constructionist Perspective@@@Risk, Environment and Modernity: Towards a New Ecology , 1997 .

[9]  Denis Loveridge,et al.  The use of co‐nomination to identify expert participants for Technology Foresight , 1996 .

[10]  K. Borch,et al.  Risk and science: are we moving into the fourth age of risk concerns? , 2003 .

[11]  Per Pinstrup-Andersen,et al.  Seeds of contention : world hunger and the global controversy over GM crops , 2001 .

[12]  S. Krimsky,et al.  Social Theories of Risk , 1992 .

[13]  P. Senge.  THE FIFTH DISCIPLINE , 1997 .

[14]  J. Lassen,et al.  Ethics and genetic engineering – lessons to be learned from GM foods , 2002 .

[15]  Gabriel Jacobs,et al.  Quantifying Weighted Expert Opinion , 2000 .

[16]  Michael Gibbons,et al.  Science's new social contract with society , 1999, Nature.

[17]  Birgitte Rasmussen,et al.  Commercial use of GM crop technology , 2002 .