From Bio to Nano: Learning Lessons from the UK Agricultural Biotechnology Controversy
From Bio to Nano: Learning Lessons from the UK Agricultural Biotechnology Controversy
复制标题
从生物到纳米：从英国农业生物技术争议中吸取教训
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2006
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
B. Wynne
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
M. Kearnes;R. Grove;P. Macnaghten;James Wilsdon;B. Wynne
在本文中，我们开发了一个分析的公众和政治的争议超过转基因（GM）食品和作物在英国在20世纪90年代，并确定一些关键的经验教训，为未来的监管和治理的纳米技术。考虑到“转基因争议”的严峻性，现在许多方面都在猜测纳米技术是否不会经历类似的艰难时期，这并不奇怪。有人认为，这是另一种潜在的变革性技术，目前可以说大致处于1970年代末或1980年代初农业生物技术的发展阶段，受到类似程度的乌托邦承诺、期望和反乌托邦恐惧的影响（Nordmann，2004 b）。一些非政府组织已经提出，纳米技术引起的问题具有深远的政治和社会重要性，"各国政府[应该]宣布立即暂停新纳米材料的商业生产，并启动一个透明的全球进程，以评估该技术的社会经济、健康和环境影响"（ETC，2003年，第72页）。粗略地说，农业转基因的经验代表了一个警告，一个警告如何不评估一项新兴技术和减轻公众担忧的故事。对于许多人来说，解决“纳米技术是下一个转基因吗？”对于该领域新兴应用的商业成功和公众可接受性至关重要。因此，“转基因经验”已被描绘成一个模式，以避免在未来的发展和治理纳米技术。转基因技术和纳米技术之间的比较，以及从生物技术的监管中可以吸取的教训，已经在许多不同的背景下进行（见，例如，Einsiedel和Goldenberg，2004年; Mayer，2002年; Brumfiel，2003年; Wolfson，2003年; Mehta，2004年）。正如下面所讨论的，我们的分析在这里是科学文化第15卷，第4期，291 - 307，2006年12月
In this paper we develop an analysis of the public and political controversy which overtook genetically modified (GM) foods and crops in the UK in the 1990s and identify some key lessons for the future regulation and governance of nanotechnologies. Given the starkness of the ‘GM Controversy’, it is not surprising that there is now speculation in many quarters as to whether nanotechnologies might not be expected to experience a similarly rough passage. Here, it is suggested, is a further potentially transformative technology, now arguably at roughly the stage of development as was agricultural biotechnology in the late 1970s or early 1980s, and subject to similar levels of utopian promise, expectation and dystopian fear (Nordmann, 2004b). Some NGOs are already suggesting that the issues and problems that nanotechnology raises are of such far-reaching political and social importance that ‘governments [should] declare an immediate moratorium on commercial production of new nanomaterials and launch a transparent global process for evaluating the socioeconomic, health and environmental implications of the technology’ (ETC, 2003, p. 72). Crudely put, the agricultural GM experience represents a warning, a cautionary tale of how not to assess an emerging technology and allay public concern. For many, addressing the question ‘Is nanotechnology the next GM?’ is critical to the commercial success and public acceptability of emerging applications in the field. As such the ‘GM experience’ has been portrayed as a model ‘to be avoided’ in the future development and governance of nanotechnology. The comparison between GM and nanotechnology—and the lessons that may be drawn from the regulation of biotechnology—has been made in a number of different contexts (see, for example, Einsiedel and Goldenberg, 2004; Mayer, 2002; Brumfiel, 2003; Wolfson, 2003; Mehta, 2004). As discussed below our analysis here is Science as Culture Vol. 15, No. 4, 291–307, December 2006