Dr. Andrew Stirling. Are GM controversies about ‘anti-science’ or ‘innovation democracy’?

Dr. Andrew Stirling,

Professor of Science & Technology Policy, Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex, UK

Global debates are hotting up around new genetic techniques in agriculture and more widely. As in other such controversies, governments, industry and scientists often diagnose these discussions in negative ways. It is as if an emotive ‘anti-technology’ bias is irrationally opposing ‘sound scientific’ evidence, in order anxiously to seek “zero risk”. Solutions are held to lie in ‘public acceptance’ and ‘trust in experts’.



Given the ‘evidence based’ rhetorics surrounding this kind of view, it is ironic that it is itself so misleading. This is because:

(1) these debates are typically about unquantifiable uncertainty more than supposedly quantified risk;

(2) questions are not just about how fast to go with one technology, but what are the neglected alternatives;

(3) emotive anxieties are more on the part of particular overbearing industrial and disciplinary interests;

(4) solutions lie in greater trustworthiness by science and government, respecting that public questioning is a form of rigour in democratic steering of innovation.



IBt-UNAM en Cuernavaca Morelos.