Susan Carr's research while affiliated with The Open University (UK) and other places

Drawing on the UK research project, ‘Farmers’ understandings of GM crops within local communities’, this paper considers the application of the concepts of communities of practice and networks of practice in the agricultural context. A brief review of theories about communities of practice and networks of practice is given and some of our findings are discussed in the context of those theories.Farmers were found to be a particular type of network of practice, characterised by a weak organisational framework but with a relatively stable network of other communities of practice (or networks of practice) they interact with, which we have called a ‘web of influencers on practice’. Together, farmers’ network of practice and their web of influencers on practice represent the whole environment in which learning may occur, and so provide insights into their social learning system. Most farmers have to work at the boundary of their network of practice and their web of influencers, which creates a significant load on their knowledge management. This is in contrast to other networks of practice where only some members take on this boundary brokering role. The paper concludes that these theories (on networks and communities of practice) provide a useful lens through which to view farmers and their practice, highlighting important points for policy. However, in such contexts these theories need to be extended to include the role of a broader ‘web of influencers on practice’.

Europe was told that it had no choice but to accept agbiotech, yet this imperative was turned into a test of democratic accountability for societal choices. Since the late 1990s, European public controversy has kept the agri-biotech industry and its promoters on the defensive. As some opponents and regulators alike have declared, 'GM food/crops are on trial'. Suspicion of their guilt has been evoked by moral symbols, as disputes over whether genetically-modified products are modest benign improvements on traditional plant breeding, or dangerous Frankenfoods; and in disputes over whether they are global saviours, or control agents of multinational companies. This book examines European institutions being 'put on trial' for how their regulatory procedures evaluate and regulate GM products, in ways which opened up alternative futures. Levidow and Carr highlight how public controversy created a legitimacy crisis, leading to national policy changes and demands, in turn stimulating changes in EU agbiotech regulations as a strategy to regain legitimacy.

This paper reflects on the use of a scenario workshop as a way of improving the link between policy-related research and policy practice, in the light of current interest in evidence-based policy. It describes a scenario workshop that was used to engage senior policy actors in our research project on the precautionary principle in relation to genetically modified crops. The workshop highlighted some of the difficulties faced by qualitative researchers in attempts to provide evidence for senior policy makers. Nevertheless, we conclude that engaging policymakers within the research process in this way allows researchers scope to explain more about the nature of the evidence being produced and how it may be useful. The dialogue encouraged by more active engagement of potential end-users increases the likelihood of producing grounded ‘evidence’ that they will find relevant.

Since various crises concerning food safety in the European Union (EU), institutional reforms have been designed to regain public confidence in regulatory decisions and their expert basis. By Europeanising advisory expertise, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) was also intended to help harmonise ‘science-based regulation’ and thus facilitate EU decisions. In evaluating agri-biotech products during 2003 – 05, however, the EFSA procedure extended previous expert disagreements rather than overcome them. The EFSA was designed to demonstrate that expert advice would be ‘independent, objective, and transparent’; yet tensions arose between expert experience versus independence, between transparency versus objectivity, and between harmonisation versus precaution. These conflicts have been shaped by the dominant problem diagnosis, which favours a narrow expert consensus within a specific policy view. Alternative problem diagnoses suggest that expertise should instead be pluralised, so that norms and uncertainties become more explicit. Pressure for EU reform manifests tensions between the dominant and alternative problem diagnoses.

Through the European controversy over agricultural biotechnology, genetically modified (GM) crops have been evaluated for an increasingly wide range of potential effects. As the experimental phase has been extended into commercial practices, the terms for product approval have become more negotiable and contentious. To analyse the regulatory conflicts, this paper links three theoretical perspectives: issue-framing, agri-environmental discourses, and technological development as a real-world experiment.Agri-biotechnological risks have been framed by contending discourses, which attribute moral meanings to the agricultural environment. Agri-biotech proponents have emphasised eco-efficiency benefits, which can remedy past environmental damage, while critics have framed ‘uncontrollable risks’ in successively broader ways through ominous metaphors of environmental catastrophe. Regulatory authorities have translated those metaphors into measurable biophysical effects. They anticipate and design commercial use as a ‘real-world experiment’, by assigning greater moral-legal responsibility to agro-industrial operators who handle GM products.Expert-regulatory debate reflexively considers the social discipline necessary to prevent harm, now more broadly defined than before. Official procedures undergo tensions between predicting, testing and prescribing operator behaviour. In effect, GM crops have been kept continuously ‘on trial’.

When an intense public controversy erupted around agricultural biotechnology in the late 1990s, critics found more opportunities to challenge risk-assessment criteria and test methods for GM products. In relation to GM food, they criticised the concept of “substantial equivalence”, which EU and US regulators had adopted as the basis for a harmonised “science-based” approach to risk assessment. Scientific uncertainty was framed in different ways by competing policy agendas. “Substantial equivalence” was contested and was eventually recast to accommodate some criticisms. To explain how the concept changed, this paper links two analytical perspectives. “Regulatory science” perspectives illuminate how the “scientification of politics” and “politicisation of science” led to shifts in the boundary between science and policy. “Governance” perspectives illuminate how the “collective problem” for policy was redefined to provide a new common ground for some stakeholders. Overall “substantial equivalence” was recast to govern the social conflict and address legitimacy problems of regulatory procedures.

US (United States) and EU (European Union) approaches to the regulation of GMOs (genetically modified organisms) are often explained using the ideas of ‘sound science’ and the ‘precautionary principle’. These stereotypes, however, can be misleading. They can conceal conflicts within jurisdictions and important interactions between them. This paper avoids these ideas and instead analyzes conflicts and interactions associated with the regulation of GMOs in the US and the EU, using the example of Bt maize -- a genetically modified crop. It focuses on risk assessment as a standard-setting process, and explains changes in regulatory standards. In this case, public protest and trade conflict created an opportunity for a transatlantic network of critical scientists to challenge regulatory standards and for NGOs (non-government organizations) to press for higher ones. The paper links two analytical perspectives to account for how this happened. ‘Regulatory science’ helps explain what happens when the ‘private’ government-industry-academia network associated with risk regulation is opened up to greater public scrutiny. It also helps to explain how the context and content of regulatory science mutually shape each other. ‘Trading up’ helps to explain opportunities and pressures to raise regulatory standards associated with US-EU trade liberalisation and trade conflict.

Despite various institutional reforms in the European Union (EU), regulatory procedures for genetically modified (GM) products are still held up by disagreements among experts; claims about a product's safety often correspond to a narrower account of precaution than broader counter-claims from objectors. In the EU, we argue, these conflicts have given practical meaning to the concept of precaution, rather than any explicit interpretation of an a priori principle. Through dynamic tensions between the various claims and accounts of precaution, EU regulatory-expert procedures have identified and addressed more scientific uncertainties than before. Yet decisions about GM products still face legitimacy problems, because they arise fundamentally from the great burden placed on science as the basis for societal choices about agri-biotechnology. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.