The recent controversy over genetically modified (GM) foods amply demonstrates the general difficulties encountered in the social appraisal of technological risk. Existing procedures for regulatory appraisal neglect many possible forms of impact and routinely exclude important cultural and social dimensions of risk. A narrow, expert, ‘science-based’ approach is now widely acknowledged to be insufficient. There is a need for new approaches that are more broadly based, transparent, pluralistic and ready to acknowledge uncertainty as well as being practically feasible and robust. The authors investigate the potential for a novel ‘multicriteria mapping’ (MCM) method as one such possible tool. Drawing on a variety of perspectives in the current UK debate, a range of agricultural strategies for the production of oilseed rape, including both GM and non-GM options were explored in this MCM pilot exercise. The results demonstrate the general feasibility and positive potential of this type of approach, with specific findings providing modest insights for policymaking in this difficult area.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdamBBerkhoutFDysonTGrove-WhiteRMarsdenTO'RiordanTScoonesIScottAStirlingAWilliamsCWynneB, 1999, “The politics of GM food: risk, science and public trust”, ESRC Global Environmental Change Programme, Special Briefing 5, University of Sussex, Brighton, Sussex
2.
AdamsJ, 1996Risk (University College Press, London)
3.
ArthurW B, 1989, “Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical events”Economic Journal99116–131
4.
BarlingDde VriendHCornlesesJ AEkstrandBHeckerE F FHowlettJJensenJ HLangTMayerSStaerK BToppR, 1999, “The social aspects of food biotechnology: A European view”Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology785–93
5.
BeckU, 1992Risk Society (Sage, London)
6.
BezembinderT, 1989, “Social choice theory and practice”, in Social Decision Methodology for Technical Projects Eds VlekCCvetkovitchG (Kluwer, Dordrecht) pp 15–38
7.
BogetoftPPruzanP, 1991Planning with Multiple Criteria: Investigation, Communication, Choice (North-Holland, Amsterdam)
ClarkJBurgessJHarrisonC, 1998, “Prioritising the issues in local Environment Agency plans through consensus building with stakeholder groups”, R&D W114, Environment Agency, Rio House, Waterside Drive, Aztec West, Almondsbury, Bristol BS32 4UD
10.
ClemenR, 1991Making Hard Decisions: An Introduction to Decision Analysis (PWS Kent Publishing, Boston, MA)
11.
CowanR, 1991, “Tortoises and hares: Choice among technologies of unknown merit”Economic Journal101801–814
12.
DETR, 1998Review of Technical Guidance on Environmental Appraisal, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Eland House, Bressenden Place, London SW1E 5DU
13.
DodgsonJSpackmanMPearmanAPhillpsL, 2000, “Multicriteria analysis: a manual”, report to the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions, Eland House, Bressenden Place, London SW1E 5DU
14.
DurantJJossS (Eds), 1995Public Participation in Science: The Role of Consensus Conferences in Europe (Science Museum, London)
15.
EPCAG, 1997, “Biotechnology and the European Public Concerted Action Group, Europe ambivalent on biotechnology”Nature387845–847
16.
FiorinoD, 1989a, “Technical and democratic values in risk assessment”Risk Analysis9293–299
17.
FiorinoD, 1989b, “Environmental risk and democratic process: A Critical review”Columbia Journal of Environmental Law15501–547
18.
FischoffB, 1995, “Risk perception and communication unplugged: Twenty years of progress”Risk Analysis15137–145
19.
FischoffBLichtensteinSSlovicPDerbySKeeneyR, 1981Acceptable Risk (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
20.
FisherEHardingR (Eds), 1999Perspectives on the Precautionary Principle (Federation Press, Sydney)
FuntowiczSRavetzJ, 1990Uncertainty and Quality in Science for Policy (Kluwer, Dordrecht)
23.
GEC, 1999The Politics of GM Food: Risk, Science and Public TrustESRC Global Environmental Change Programme, University of Sussex, Brighton, Sussex
24.
GiddensA, 1990The Consequences of Modernity (Polity Press, Cambridge)
25.
GilbertSOmenAKesslerNAndersonT, 1997Framework for Environmental Health Risk Management, US Presidential/Congressional Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management, final report, volume 1 (Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC)
26.
Grove-WhiteRMacnaghtonPMayerSWynneB, 1997, “Uncertain world: genetically modified organisms, food and public attitudes in Britain”, Centre for the Study of Environmental Change, Lancaster University, Lancaster
27.
HamstraA, 1995, “Consumer acceptance model for food biotechnology”, final report, SWOKA, Institute for Consumer Research, Leiden
28.
HanleyNSpashC, 1993Cost Benefit Analysis and the Environment (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, Glos)
29.
HoL, 2000, “Science and society”, 3rd report, House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology, HL 38 (The Stationery Office, London)
30.
HoldrenJ, 1982, “Energy hazards: What to measure, what to compare”Technology Review233–75
31.
HughesT, 1983Networks of Power: Electrification in Western Society 1880 – 1930 (Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD)
32.
ILGRA, 1997, “Report on DOE methodology for setting safety standards”, Inter-Departmental Liaison Group on Risk Assessment, HM Treasury, Parliament Street, London SW1P 3AG
33.
JanssenR, 1994Multiobjective Decision Support for Environmental Management (Kluwer, Dordrecht)
34.
JasanoffS, 1996, “The dilemma of environmental democracy”Issues in Science and Technology Fall, pp 63–70
35.
LashSSzerszynskiBWynneB, 1996Risk, Environment and Modernity: Towards a New Ecology (Sage, London)
36.
LevidowL, 1999, “Democratising technology or technologising democracy”Technology in Society20211–226
37.
LevidowLCarrS (Eds), 2000, “Special issue on GM crops in the EU”Journal of Risk Research3(3)
38.
LevidowLCarrSWeildDvon SchombergR, 1997, “European biotechnology regulation: Framing the risk assessment of a herbicide tolerant crop”Science, Technology and Human Values22472–505
39.
LloydI, 2000, “The tyranny of the L-shape curve”Science and Public Affairs February, pp 7–11
40.
LoasbyB, 1976Choice, Complexity and Ignorance: An Inquiry into Economic Theory and the Practice of Decision Making (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
41.
LuhmannN, 1991Risk: A Sociological Theory (de Gruyter, Berlin)
42.
MacNaghtenPWynneBGrove-WhiteR, 1995Public Perceptions and Sustainability in LancashireCentre for the Study of Environmental Change, University of Lancaster, Lancaster
43.
MayerSHillJGrove-WhiteRWynneB, 1996, “Uncertainty, precaution and decision making: the release of genetically modified organisms into the environment”, Global Environmental Change Programme Briefings 8, Global Environmental Change Programme, University of Sussex, Brighton, Sussex
44.
NRC, 1996Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society National Research Council (National Academy Press, Washington, DC)
45.
NijkampPRietveldPVoogdH, 1990Multicriteria Evaluation in Physical Planning (North-Holland, Amsterdam)
46.
NIREX, 1995, “Proof of evidence of Mr M Folger on ‘Policy Considerations’”, document PE/NRX/12 submitted to the Public Planning Enquiry into the Application by UK NIREX to build a Rock Characterisation Facility at Longlands Farm, Cumbria; copy available from UK NIREX, Didcot, Oxon
47.
O'BrienM, 2000Making Better Environmental Decisions: An Alternative to Risk Assessment (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA)
48.
O'RiordanTCameronJ (Eds), 1994Interpreting the Precautionary Principle (Earthscan, London)
49.
O'RiordanTJordanA, 2000Interpreting the Precautionary Principle2nd edition (Cameron May, London)
50.
OtwayHWynneB, 1989, “Risk communication: Paradigm and paradox”Risk Analysis9141–145
51.
PearceDTurnerR K, 1990Economics of Natural Resources and the Environment (Harvester, Hemel Hempstead, Herts)
52.
RaffensbergerCTicknerJ (Eds), 1999Protecting Public Health and the Environment: Implementing the Precautionary Principle (Island Press, Washington, DC)
53.
RCEP, 1998aSetting Environmental Standards, Twenty-first Report, Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (HMSO, London)
54.
RCEP, 1998b, “Statement on genetically modified crops in agriculture”, Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, Steel House, 11 Tothill Street, London SW1H 9RE
55.
RennO, 1998, “Three decades of risk research: Accomplishments and new challenges”Journal of Risk Research1(1) 49–72
56.
RennOWeblerTWiedemannP, 1995Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse (Kluwer, Dordrecht)
57.
RennOWeblerTKastenholzH, 1996, “Procedural and substantive fairness in landfill siting: A Swiss case study”Risk, Health, Safety and Environment7(2) 95–98
58.
RescherN, 1993Pluralism: Against the Demand for Consensus (Clarendon Press, Oxford)
59.
RipAMisaTSchotJ, 1996Managing Technology in Society (Pinter, London)
60.
Royal Society, 1992Risk: Analysis, Perception and Management (Royal Society, London)
61.
Royal Society, 1998, “Statement on genetically modified plants for food use”, Royal Society, London
62.
Science Museum, 1994, “UK national consensus conference on plant biotechnology”, final report, Science Museum, London
63.
SCIMAC, 1998, “Discussion document on guidelines for growing newly developed herbicide tolerant crops”, Supply Chain Initiative on Modified Agricultural Crops, June; copy available from SCIMAC Secretary, The Chamberlain Partnership, 4 The Forum, Minerva Business Park, Peterborough PF2 6FT
64.
ScloveR, 1995Democracy and Technology (Guilford Press, New York)
65.
SlovicP, 1993, “Perceived risk, trust and democracy”Risk Analysis13675–682
66.
SmithsonM, 1989Ignorance and Uncertainty: Emerging Paradigms (Springer, New York)
67.
StirlingA, 1996, “On the NIREX MADA”, in Radioactive Waste Disposal at Sellafield Ed. HaszeldineS (University of Glasgow Press, Glasgow) pp 93–108
68.
StirlingA, 1997a, “Limits to the value of external costs”Energy Policy25517–540
69.
StirlingA, 1997b, “Multicriteria mapping: Mitigating the problems of environmental valuation”, in Valueing Nature Ed. FosterJ (Routledge, London) pp 186–210
70.
StirlingA, 1998, “Risk at a turning point?”Journal of Risk Research1(2) 97–110
71.
StirlingA, 1999Science and Precaution in the Management of Technological Risk: Volume I—A Synthesis Report of Case Studies EUR 19056 EN, European Commission, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, Seville
72.
StirlingAMayerS, 1999Rethinking Risk: A Pilot Multicriteria Mapping of a Genetically Modified Crop in Agricultural Systems in the UK, Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Sussex, Brighton, Sussex
73.
StirlingAMayerS, 2000, “Precautionary approaches to the appraisal of risk: A Case study of a GM crop”International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health6342–357
74.
UKCEED, 1999Consensus Conference on Radioactive Waste Management, final report, UK Centre for Economic and Environmental Development, Priestgate House, 3/7 Priestgate, Peterborough PE1 1JN
75.
Van den BergNDotilhCHupponG, 1995, “Beginning LCA: a guide to environmental life cycle assessment”, CML/Unilever/RIVM; Publications Office, Unilever NV, PO Box 760, 300 DK Rotterdam
76.
von SchombergR, 1998An Appraisal of the Working in Practice of Directive 90/220/EEC on the Deliberate Release of Genetically Modified Organisms, STOA (Scientific and Technological Options Assessment), European Parliament, Luxembourg, January
77.
VoogdH, 1983Multicriteria Evaluation for Urban and Regional Planning (Pion, London)
78.
WakefordT, 1999, “‘Citizen's Forsight’: the future of food and agriculture”, The London Centre for Governance, Innovation and Science, University of East London, Stratford, London
79.
WeblerTKastenholzHRennO, 1995, “Public participation in impact assessment: A Social learning perspective”Environmental Impact Assessment Review15443–463
80.
WinnerL, 1977Autonomous Technology: Technics Out of Control as a Theme in Political Thought (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA)
81.
WinnerL, 1980, “Do artifacts have politics?”Daedalus Winter, pages 121–136
82.
WynneB, 1987Risk Management and Hazardous Waste: Implementation and the Dialectics of Credibility (Springer, Berlin)
