Promethean Elites Encounter Precautionary Publics

Abstract

Issues concerning technological risk have increasingly become the subject of deliberative exercises involving participation of ordinary citizens. The most popular topic for deliberation has been genetically modified (GM) foods. Despite the varied circumstances of their establishment, deliberative “minipublics” almost always produce recommendations that reflect a worldview more “precautionary” than the “Promethean” outlook more common among governing elites. There are good structural reasons for this difference. Its existence raises the question of why elites sponsor mini-publics and if policy is little affected by the results of deliberations, questions the possibility of deliberative legitimation of public policy. We make this argument by looking at mini-publics (where possible, a common consensus conference design) on GM foods in France, the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Australia, and Switzerland. Deliberative legitimation becomes plausible if elites can attenuate their Promethean outlook. This is possible if ecological modernization discourse pervades their politics; Denmark provides an illustration.

Innovating innovation policy: the emergence of ‘Responsible Research and Innovation’

“…As Tyfield (2012, 157) argues, seeking to engage the public in consultative exercises where others retain control of the terms of the debate tends to exacerbate distrust and rejection. Citizens tend to be both more precautionary than policymakers (Dryzek et al 2009) and simultaneously more weighted towards questions of personal, social and environmental impact (Sturgis and Allum 2004), issues which can remain problematic if even a technology could be proven to be completely without risk --for example the ethics of marketing sterile GM plants in the developing world, where subsistence farmers must find cash to buy fresh seed each season instead of being able to conserve it from last year's crop. The Key of inclusive engagement, therefore, must apply not only to whom, but also to the topics, forms of evidence and expertise, and ways of warranting knowledge-claims which are accepted in such discussions, in order to avoid consultation becoming a matter of 'preparing the product for the market and the market for the product' (Thorpe and Gregory 2010, 273).…”

Paradise Lost? ‘‘Science’’ and ‘‘the Public’’ after Asilomar

“…In addition, these actors observe increasing industrial and commercial involvement in science, which makes it all the more difficult for science to define its boundaries. The NGOs equally mirror this prudence, if not cautiousness, towards scientific institutions because of their growing collaboration with industry (Dryzek, 2009), a field they know little about. Somehow these actors seem to be searching for an integrity and autonomy of science which perhaps never existed, but which they aim at helping re-establish.…”

Environmental Science

“…For example, there is some evidence of a disjuncture between elites and citizens when it comes to certain risky technological policies in relation to promoting economic growth. Results from deliberative citizens' experiments seem to indicate that the general public is more risk adverse and more inclined to support precautionary approaches to risky technological innovations than political and economic elites (Dryzek et al, 2009). As they note, 'If precautionary worldviews are as pervasive in reflective publics as we suggest, then the generally Promethean positions of governing elites cannot be legitimated by deliberative means -at least when it comes to issues of technological risk'.…”