Gm os tonanoskin
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Gm os tonanoskin

on

  • 209 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
209
Views on SlideShare
209
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • 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.
  •  

Gm os tonanoskin Gm os tonanoskin Presentation Transcript

  • Is it really asking too much from our collective intellectuallife to devise, at least once a century, some new criticaltools? … The critic assembles … offers the participantsarenas in which to gather.--Bruno Latour, Why Has Critique Run out of Steam? 2004
  • www.monsanto.ca/products/Pages/default.aspx
  • Concerned publics INVISIBLE in governance.Biotech Advisory Committee (Prudham & Morris 2006)
  • Well Ordered ScienceScience serving a wider public good by choosingdemocratically-informed programs of research and techno-scientificdevelopment reflecting the values of scientists and citizens.
  • DEMOCRACY ANDSCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
  • Science and The PublicWhat is meant by “the public” and by“science” in moments of techno-scientificcontroversy and engagement?
  • i) Explain unproductive patterns of pubic-scienceengagementii) Point to democratic possibilities for scientificknowledge development and dissemination withinscience-based institutionsThis approach has helped me:
  • 2002I was practicing genetics andnoticed dissent against biotech anda pitched public debate.
  • www.greenacres.com/media/frankenfood_large.jpg
  • Health Canada has said for years that [GE] can besafely used, and this is determined by the mostmodern scientific information … [GE technologies]are some of the most stringently regulatedproducts in Canada and only those products thatmeet Health Canada’s strict health and safetystandards are registered for sale and use … Thereality is that it simply isn’t logical to ban theseproducts.--Lorne Hepworth, CEO CropLife 2012
  • Dissent stems from theinability of the public tounderstand and agreewith expertsDEFICIT MODELHeavily criticized inintellectual and policycircles(Brossard & Lewenstein 2010)
  • DEFICIT MODELInforms interactions between policy-makers andconcerned publics in the creation of an expert-onlypolicy culture(see Shields & Sanders 2006; Montpetit & Rouillard 2008).
  • Taking [the public] seriously would meanpandering to a kind of rabid democracy … thepublic is incapable of weighing in on the complexscience [of biotechnology].Canadian Food Inspection Agency worker (quoted, Shields & Sanders 2006)
  • ETHNOGRAPHY (2002-4)Farmers involved in and around lawsuitsElmer Laird, 72 years, SK’s first organic farmerSchmeiser v. MonsantoHoffman et al. v Monsanto
  • This public was not against crop biotechnologies perse but the politics of knowledge surrounding them.A critique of democratic institutions that appear:i) closed to alternative risk assessmentsii) blind to the productive frameworks for regulatory science (ex.corporate data)
  • Biotechnology is a different value system. Thewhole value around clean fields, monocultures,maximizing production, not a weed in sight… it’s part of a general cultural bias whichpermeates the whole agricultural system fromresearch to implementation towards privatizing,standardizing and industrializing everything.Doug Bone, organic farmer, June 2003
  • But why, the farmers ask,• not study crop biotechnologies in theirbroader environmental contexts?• take a short-term timescale for riskassessment rather than a longitudinal view?• is there no process of public deliberationabout these decisions, thus invisibilizing thefact that these are decisions taken by peoplein particular social and political contexts?
  • USING THE LAW TOMAKE THEIRKNOWLEDGE andCONCERNS APPEAR asPOLITICALLY VALID.
  • This [declaration] would compel the Defendants tosubmit their engineered gene to a publicenvironmental scrutiny rather than the behind closeddoors approach they have been allowed to use withthe federal government’s regulatory bodies.(2004) Memorandum to Federal Court of Appeal, para. 17
  • HOW DO THE COURTS FAIR AS APROVING GROUND FORDIFFERENT THEORIES OF RISK?
  • ACTIVISTDISCOURSESSCIENCELEGALDISCOURSESSCIENCECRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
  • CDA is a discourse analytical approach that primarilystudies the way social power abuse and inequality areenacted and reproduced by text and talk in the socialand political context.(Teun van Dijk 1998, 1)
  • INTERETIVE APPROACHScience is open to negotiation with other socialinstitutions and forms of knowledge (like legal,farmer/activist)Similar to STS scholar Sheila Jasanoff (see 1995) andunlike the majority of academic attention (c.f. de Beer2007; Garforth & Ainslie 2006; Muller 2006)Allowed me to chart the processes by which a certainconception of science was secured through thelanguage of the law in ways that link to power andsocial interests
  • 1998Seed out-of-place =Contamination orIP Infringement?Schmeiser v. Monsanto
  • 2004Schmeiser Loses5/9 Supreme Court rulingSchmeiser v. Monsanto
  • After growing canola over many years, Mr. Schmeiser hasdeveloped his own farming practices particular to the landthat he farms, which practices have withstoodexperimentation and the test of time(2001) Factum to the Trial Court, para. 14
  • Numerous samples were taken … A series ofindependent tests by different experts confirmed thatthe canola Mr. Schmesier planted and grew in 1998was 95-98 percent Roundup resistant. Only a grow-out test by Mr. Schmeiser in his yard in 1999 and byMr. Freisen did not support this resultmore significant [than Schmeiser’s or Mr. Friesen’stests] are the results of genetic testing by staff ofMonsanto U.S. at St. Louis(2004) Supreme Court of Canada, para. 64(2002) Federal Trial Court, para. 48
  • It may be that some RoudupReady seed wascarried to Mr. Schmeiser’s field without hisknowledge. Some such seed might have survivedthe winter to germinate in the spring of 1998.However, I am persuaded by evidence of Dr. KeithDowney…that none of the suggested sourcescould reasonably explain the concentration orextent of RoundupReady canola of a commercialquality evident form the results of tests onSchmeiser’s crop(2001) Factum to the Trial Court, para. 65
  • LEGAL DISCOURSE FURTHERSA VISION OF EXPERTISE ASLIMITED TO THE LAB AND OFTHE PUBLIC ASNON-KNOWLEDGEABLE.
  • LEGAL DISCOURSE FURTHERS ALACK OF PRODUCTIVEDIALOGUE ONBIOTECHNOLOGIES.
  • EXPERTISE IS IMPORTANT and was part of thecreation of landmark 20th century regulationsand regulatory institutions.BUT EXPERTISE LOSES LEGITIMACY when itsdecision-making frameworks are not madetransparent.
  • 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
  • CITIZENSCIENCEPOTENTIALSUSTAINABLE OUTCOMES Florida (1995)Varlander (2009)Lorentzen (2008)Stark & Vedres (2006)Web-based toolsCurricula andteaching materialsempowering civicinvolvementSt. Thomas Citizen Science Lab
  • Smart Skin Story
  • BRAND NEW INITIATIVES. LINKEDWITH CURRENT SOCIO-POLITICALAND ECONOMIC REALITITES. DIRECTPARTICIPATION IN DEMOCRACY.