NGOs, Controversies, and “Opening Up” of Regulatory Governance of Science in India

Abstract

Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and scientific controversies are often the common denominators in most of the cases that have significantly shaped science and society relationships in the Global South during the past two decades. National and international NGOs and their network have often facilitated the “opening up” of regulatory governance in multiple sectors. This article draws from three cases—the bottled water controversy, the agribiotechnology debates, and the nanotechnology initiatives—and charts out the role of the NGOs and controversies in (re)defining the science-society relationship in India. The three cases illustrate how NGOs and controversies by their presence or absence at various stages of technology development shape the regulation-making exercise and the overall regulatory governance of science and technology.

Opening the ‘Black Box’ of Regulation-making for Bottled Water Quality Standards in India

“…We found that the technical committee is dominated by bureaucrats and technocrats from ministries, public research institutes and big industries, unlike high-end regulations in developed countries, which are predominantly dominated by scientists and engineers from diverse fields (Jasanoff, 1990; Majone, 1984; Nowotny et al, 2001). The scientific controversy over pesticide residue in 2003 paved the way for the broader participation of different regulatory actors in the regulation-making process (JPC, 2004; Pandey & Sharma, 2017). After that, consumer organisations and NGOs were included as stakeholders.…”

“…Many of these products, such as drinking water, salt, sugar, cooking oil, flavour additives and the plastic used for packaging food items, are widely used and significantly shape everyday life. The safety and efficacy of such products are often debated in the public realm if controversies erupt (Bhaduri & Sharma, 2014; Lustig, et al, 2012; Pandey & Sharma, 2017; van Zwanenberg & Millstone, 2015); otherwise, they stay outside the public gaze.…”

“…The voluntary standards for packaged drinking water were published by the Bureau of Indian Standards (the National Standards Body) for the first time in 1998 and were made mandatory in 2001 (Bhaduri & Sharma, 2014). A couple of years later, a major public controversy erupted in 2003 over the issue of pesticide residue in the major bottled water brands in the country (Bhaduri & Sharma, 2014; CSE, 2003, 2004; Pandey & Sharma, 2017; Quark, 2018). This pesticide controversy in bottled water has shaken the regulatory decision-making process for setting bottled water quality standards (Bhaduri & Sharma, 2014; Pandey & Sharma, 2017; Quark, 2018).…”

“…A couple of years later, a major public controversy erupted in 2003 over the issue of pesticide residue in the major bottled water brands in the country (Bhaduri & Sharma, 2014; CSE, 2003, 2004; Pandey & Sharma, 2017; Quark, 2018). This pesticide controversy in bottled water has shaken the regulatory decision-making process for setting bottled water quality standards (Bhaduri & Sharma, 2014; Pandey & Sharma, 2017; Quark, 2018). It led to the establishment of the fourth Joint Parliamentary Committee (CSE, 2003) in the history of India and the first on water; it eventually contributed to changes in the regulation-making process for bottled water (BIS, 2003; JPC, 2004).…”

“All We Want, Is to Get Rid of the Straw”: How Biofuel Policies Need to Be Multiple

“…able to enroll and incorporate knowledges that are not regularly considered formal expertise, but stem from other origins such as crafts, traditions and practices. NGOs might be important providers of such knowledge, though trust in them as producers of reliable data is low (Han et al 2015;Pandey and Sharma 2017). 14 Thus, mobilizing discourse coalitions for inclusive policy-making requires that policy creates conditions for nurturing multiplicity of discourses, rather than works toward singular outcomes.…”