Recomendados
Mais conteúdo relacionado
Semelhante a Gm os tonanoskin
Semelhante a Gm os tonanoskin (20)
Último
Último (20)
Gm os tonanoskin
- 1. Is it really asking too much from our collective intellectual life to devise, at least once a century, some new critical tools? … The critic assembles … offers the participants arenas in which to gather. --Bruno Latour, Why Has Critique Run out of Steam? 2004
- 3. Concerned publics INVISIBLE in governance. Biotech Advisory Committee (Prudham & Morris 2006)
- 4. Well Ordered Science Science serving a wider public good by choosing democratically-informed programs of research and techno-scientific development reflecting the values of scientists and citizens.
- 5. DEMOCRACY AND SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
- 6. Science and The Public What is meant by “the public” and by “science” in moments of techno-scientific controversy and engagement?
- 7. i) Explain unproductive patterns of pubic-science engagement ii) Point to democratic possibilities for scientific knowledge development and dissemination within science-based institutions This approach has helped me:
- 8. 2002 I was practicing genetics and noticed dissent against biotech and a pitched public debate.
- 10. Health Canada has said for years that [GE] can be safely used, and this is determined by the most modern scientific information … [GE technologies] are some of the most stringently regulated products in Canada and only those products that meet Health Canada’s strict health and safety standards are registered for sale and use … The reality is that it simply isn’t logical to ban these products. --Lorne Hepworth, CEO CropLife 2012
- 11. Dissent stems from the inability of the public to understand and agree with experts DEFICIT MODEL Heavily criticized in intellectual and policy circles (Brossard & Lewenstein 2010)
- 12. DEFICIT MODEL Informs interactions between policy-makers and concerned publics in the creation of an expert-only policy culture (see Shields & Sanders 2006; Montpetit & Rouillard 2008).
- 13. Taking [the public] seriously would mean pandering to a kind of rabid democracy … the public is incapable of weighing in on the complex science [of biotechnology]. Canadian Food Inspection Agency worker (quoted, Shields & Sanders 2006)
- 14. ETHNOGRAPHY (2002-4) Farmers involved in and around lawsuits Elmer Laird, 72 years, SK’s first organic farmer Schmeiser v. Monsanto Hoffman et al. v Monsanto
- 15. This public was not against crop biotechnologies per se but the politics of knowledge surrounding them. A critique of democratic institutions that appear: i) closed to alternative risk assessments ii) blind to the productive frameworks for regulatory science (ex. corporate data)
- 17. Biotechnology is a different value system. The whole value around clean fields, monocultures, maximizing production, not a weed in sight … it’s part of a general cultural bias which permeates the whole agricultural system from research to implementation towards privatizing, standardizing and industrializing everything. Doug Bone, organic farmer, June 2003
- 18. But why, the farmers ask, • not study crop biotechnologies in their broader environmental contexts? • take a short-term timescale for risk assessment rather than a longitudinal view? • is there no process of public deliberation about these decisions, thus invisibilizing the fact that these are decisions taken by people in particular social and political contexts?
- 19. USING THE LAW TO MAKE THEIR KNOWLEDGE and CONCERNS APPEAR as POLITICALLY VALID.
- 20. This [declaration] would compel the Defendants to submit their engineered gene to a public environmental scrutiny rather than the behind closed doors approach they have been allowed to use with the federal government’s regulatory bodies. (2004) Memorandum to Federal Court of Appeal, para. 17
- 21. HOW DO THE COURTS FAIR AS A PROVING GROUND FOR DIFFERENT THEORIES OF RISK?
- 23. CDA is a discourse analytical approach that primarily studies the way social power abuse and inequality are enacted and reproduced by text and talk in the social and political context. (Teun van Dijk 1998, 1)
- 24. INTERETIVE APPROACH Science is open to negotiation with other social institutions and forms of knowledge (like legal, farmer/activist) Similar to STS scholar Sheila Jasanoff (see 1995) and unlike the majority of academic attention (c.f. de Beer 2007; Garforth & Ainslie 2006; Muller 2006) Allowed me to chart the processes by which a certain conception of science was secured through the language of the law in ways that link to power and social interests
- 25. 1998 Seed out-of-place = Contamination or IP Infringement? Schmeiser v. Monsanto
- 26. 2004 Schmeiser Loses 5/9 Supreme Court ruling Schmeiser v. Monsanto
- 27. After growing canola over many years, Mr. Schmeiser has developed his own farming practices particular to the land that he farms, which practices have withstood experimentation and the test of time (2001) Factum to the Trial Court, para. 14
- 28. Numerous samples were taken … A series of independent tests by different experts confirmed that the canola Mr. Schmesier planted and grew in 1998 was 95-98 percent Roundup resistant. Only a grow- out test by Mr. Schmeiser in his yard in 1999 and by Mr. Freisen did not support this result more significant [than Schmeiser’s or Mr. Friesen’s tests] are the results of genetic testing by staff of Monsanto U.S. at St. Louis (2004) Supreme Court of Canada, para. 64 (2002) Federal Trial Court, para. 48
- 29. It may be that some RoudupReady seed was carried to Mr. Schmeiser’s field without his knowledge. Some such seed might have survived the winter to germinate in the spring of 1998. However, I am persuaded by evidence of Dr. Keith Downey…that none of the suggested sources could reasonably explain the concentration or extent of RoundupReady canola of a commercial quality evident form the results of tests on Schmeiser’s crop (2001) Factum to the Trial Court, para. 65
- 30. LEGAL DISCOURSE FURTHERS A VISION OF EXPERTISE AS LIMITED TO THE LAB AND OF THE PUBLIC AS NON-KNOWLEDGEABLE.
- 31. LEGAL DISCOURSE FURTHERS A LACK OF PRODUCTIVE DIALOGUE ON BIOTECHNOLOGIES.
- 32. EXPERTISE IS IMPORTANT and was part of the creation of landmark 20th century regulations and regulatory institutions. BUT EXPERTISE LOSES LEGITIMACY when its decision-making frameworks are not made transparent.
- 33. CITIZEN-SCIENCE How do you make decisions about investment? How do you decide which research questions to pursue? What timeline for risk considerations is appropriate? www.scorpiomasonry.com
- 34. CITIZEN SCIENCE POTENTIAL SUSTAINABLE OUTCOMES Florida (1995) Varlander (2009) Lorentzen (2008) Stark & Vedres (2006) Web-based toolsCurricula and teaching materials empowering civic involvement St. Thomas Citizen Science Lab
- 35. Smart Skin Story
- 36. BRAND NEW INITIATIVES. LINKED WITH CURRENT SOCIO-POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC REALITITES. DIRECT PARTICIPATION IN DEMOCRACY.
Notas do Editor
- which puts science communications in connection with wider questions of democracy. (discourses relevant to the decision making: define expectations, shape and parameters of power etc. SO incl. regulatory, official agro-economic advice to farmers, and legal).
- Myapproach to science communication is that I begin from the premise that there is something particular about science communication.I bring a reflexive politics of knowledge approach to practical and empirical science communication work. This means that I approach communication informed by current theories that take seriously the power of texts in shaping social and cultural life. And, inspired science studies, I look at science as a special set of methods to investigate nature that to some degree reflect culture---say technological ideologies (technologies as engine of national economic competitiveness).
- I will flesh this out during my talk while arguing that a reflexive science communication leads us to new possibilities for science-based institutions to move towards a more constructive pattern of scientific knowledge development and dissemination.
- On one level these lawsuits are over the problem presented when an object protected by an intellectual property regime has a tendency to move around and reseed itself without intervention (we could call this “contamination” or more neutrally “adventitious spread” and more on this later).
- Faced with the challenge of communicating their knowledge as scientific (i.e. politically valid) in the current regulatory regime, the farmers were enacting their democratic demands through the judicial institution in an attempt to open up biotechnological governance to broader public participation. READ QUOTATION
- Farmers’ potentially useful and historically-based assessments of risk, their knowledge and their concerns faces a challenge of being communicated as scientific i.e. politically valid knowledge in the current regulatory regime which seems to not have adapted to changes taking place within the theoretical and even public realm regarding science communication.
- What about the law as a tool for integrating farmer knowledge into the regulatory discourse?
- This is a use of the law implicitly endorsed by the legislative environment for biotechnologies. There is widespread agreement that a failure to devise a novel regulatory structure addressing the unique concerns surrounding biotechnologies in Canada has these technologies vulnerable to litigation ((de Beer? see Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy, 1999)).
- PAUSE HERE and then move to next slide
- Situated within a politics of knowledge framework, CDA is I was particularly interested to chart what was being inculcated through discourse as legitimate knowledge with an eye on how the text might have been functioning in service of certain interests at the exclusion of others, reproducing particular power dynamics.
- Schmeiser described to me his methodologies for seed development that could, following most understandings of science (both commonsense and philosophical), reasonably be called scientific: it is disciplined inquiry and practice aimed at successfully controlling natural processes. An accepted definition of expertise is the mastery of tacit knowledge belonging to the subject matter of particular domains through “common practice” or “enculturation” (Collins 2007, 24). And Schmeiser spends a large percentage of his statements and testimony establishing himself as an expert canola plant breeder and he suggests that Monsanto’s products threaten the products of his experimentation But in their rulings in Schmeiser, the Canadian courts invoke a particularly narrow notion of science and expertise equating science with laboratory-based practices.
- Schmeiser described to me his methodologies for seed development that could, following most understandings of science (both commonsense and philosophical), reasonably be called scientific: it is disciplined inquiry and practice aimed at successfully controlling natural processes. An accepted definition of expertise is the mastery of tacit knowledge belonging to the subject matter of particular domains through “common practice” or “enculturation” (Collins 2007, 24). And Schmeiser spends a large percentage of his statements and testimony establishing himself as an expert canola plant breeder and he suggests that Monsanto’s products threaten the products of his experimentation But in their rulings in Schmeiser, the Canadian courts invoke a particularly narrow notion of science and expertise equating science with laboratory-based practices.