Assessing the impact of new techno-sciences on our life supporting systems and on our present and future common wealth is a complex and controversial issue that involves the relation between science and governance, and more generally, between science and democracy (Gallopin at al., 2001). As we will articulate, the modern ideal of grounding our decision-making processes on the certain, objective and exhaustive knowledge, produced by a independent community of scientists - in other words the principle of ‘science speaking truth to power’- is inadequate when applied to our contemporary open-field, irreversible experimentation, characterized by intrinsic complexity and controversy. Indeed, complexity entails the paradoxical epistemic situation according to which the more we know about the interaction between social and environmental systems and the more there is to know. Lack of certainty, namely uncertainty and ignorance, is therefore not temporary or accidental, but intrinsic and unavoidable. On the other hand, controversy implies the inherent and inextricable coupling between facts and values, and therefore the existence of mutually incompatible and indispensable epistemic and normative perspectives. Under these conditions, typically ‘post-normal’ (Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1993) a certain, objective and exhaustive knowledge for a rational decision can never be achieved nor even conceived of. In our chapter, we would like to propose some critical reflections on the underlying assumptions and consequences of the conception and use of the risk assessment techniques, by contextualizing them to this broader scenario. As exemplary cases, we will focus our attention on the role and impact of biotechnologies on the global food production and distribution systems. More specifically, we will proceed by reviewing and analyzing, in this broader epistemic and normative context, different ways of assessing the impact of genetically modified organisms (GMO) in agriculture (Guarnieri et al., 2008) and in aquaculture (Barbiero et al., 2011). We will first focus on clarifying the main critical aspects inherent in defining and assessing the risks of these techno-scientific processes and products. Complexity and controversy will be explored in terms of the unavoidable presence of ignorance, the coexistence of multiple disciplinary perspectives, the aims and stakes dependency of any epistemic and normative framing of risk. We will then deepen and extend our reflection on the risk assessment of GMO by correlating it with the notions of food safety, security and quality. Food safety is traditionally associated with the absence of toxicity and possible health hazards, and therefore correlated and defined by risk assessments. We will explore this circular loop and its relations with the global issue food security, commonly defined as the availability of and the stable access to healthy food supplies. Indeed, as we will see, on the one hand GMO are evaluated and regulated in terms of their safety, on the other hand they are promoted in terms of their necessity for achieving food security. As we will specify, the latter argument is improperly utilized to reinforce the former: in other words, in this view, GMO can be considered safe enough, given their role in tackling present and future global hunger. Indeed, both the possible correlation between safety and security and the actual need for GMO in dealing with food security are highly controversial (Francescon, 2006). Finally, we will step into the necessity of moving from safety and security to the issue of food quality in its crucial connection with the development and use of new technologies of humility (Jasanoff, 2003), grounded on a thoughtful diagnosis of the present distribution of technoscientific, cultural, economic and political power and of local and global vulnerability to change (Funtowicz and Strand, 2011). This analysis will lead us to outline a number of paradoxes embodied in the conception and use of the risk assessment techniques. The traditional western reaction to paradoxes is to try to solve them, but we believe that another fruitful approach, typical of other cultural traditions and revitalized in the post-normal scenario (Ravetz, 2001), can be useful in this case: to accept the paradoxes and to constructively and creatively learn form them about the limitations of our own existing intellectual structures.
Safety, Security and quality: Lessons from GMO Risk Assessments
BARBIERO G
2012-01-01
Abstract
Assessing the impact of new techno-sciences on our life supporting systems and on our present and future common wealth is a complex and controversial issue that involves the relation between science and governance, and more generally, between science and democracy (Gallopin at al., 2001). As we will articulate, the modern ideal of grounding our decision-making processes on the certain, objective and exhaustive knowledge, produced by a independent community of scientists - in other words the principle of ‘science speaking truth to power’- is inadequate when applied to our contemporary open-field, irreversible experimentation, characterized by intrinsic complexity and controversy. Indeed, complexity entails the paradoxical epistemic situation according to which the more we know about the interaction between social and environmental systems and the more there is to know. Lack of certainty, namely uncertainty and ignorance, is therefore not temporary or accidental, but intrinsic and unavoidable. On the other hand, controversy implies the inherent and inextricable coupling between facts and values, and therefore the existence of mutually incompatible and indispensable epistemic and normative perspectives. Under these conditions, typically ‘post-normal’ (Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1993) a certain, objective and exhaustive knowledge for a rational decision can never be achieved nor even conceived of. In our chapter, we would like to propose some critical reflections on the underlying assumptions and consequences of the conception and use of the risk assessment techniques, by contextualizing them to this broader scenario. As exemplary cases, we will focus our attention on the role and impact of biotechnologies on the global food production and distribution systems. More specifically, we will proceed by reviewing and analyzing, in this broader epistemic and normative context, different ways of assessing the impact of genetically modified organisms (GMO) in agriculture (Guarnieri et al., 2008) and in aquaculture (Barbiero et al., 2011). We will first focus on clarifying the main critical aspects inherent in defining and assessing the risks of these techno-scientific processes and products. Complexity and controversy will be explored in terms of the unavoidable presence of ignorance, the coexistence of multiple disciplinary perspectives, the aims and stakes dependency of any epistemic and normative framing of risk. We will then deepen and extend our reflection on the risk assessment of GMO by correlating it with the notions of food safety, security and quality. Food safety is traditionally associated with the absence of toxicity and possible health hazards, and therefore correlated and defined by risk assessments. We will explore this circular loop and its relations with the global issue food security, commonly defined as the availability of and the stable access to healthy food supplies. Indeed, as we will see, on the one hand GMO are evaluated and regulated in terms of their safety, on the other hand they are promoted in terms of their necessity for achieving food security. As we will specify, the latter argument is improperly utilized to reinforce the former: in other words, in this view, GMO can be considered safe enough, given their role in tackling present and future global hunger. Indeed, both the possible correlation between safety and security and the actual need for GMO in dealing with food security are highly controversial (Francescon, 2006). Finally, we will step into the necessity of moving from safety and security to the issue of food quality in its crucial connection with the development and use of new technologies of humility (Jasanoff, 2003), grounded on a thoughtful diagnosis of the present distribution of technoscientific, cultural, economic and political power and of local and global vulnerability to change (Funtowicz and Strand, 2011). This analysis will lead us to outline a number of paradoxes embodied in the conception and use of the risk assessment techniques. The traditional western reaction to paradoxes is to try to solve them, but we believe that another fruitful approach, typical of other cultural traditions and revitalized in the post-normal scenario (Ravetz, 2001), can be useful in this case: to accept the paradoxes and to constructively and creatively learn form them about the limitations of our own existing intellectual structures.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
