Response to “Science, Expertise, and the Democratization of the Decision-Making Process” (Michael Carolan)

Background

This article by Michael Carolan builds on the framework of “Silvio Funtowicz and Jerome Ravetz, with their now famous discussion of ‘‘postnormal science,’’ and Alvin Weinberg, with his well-known distinction between ‘‘research’’ and ‘‘trans-science’’P.661. He explains the concept that the level of uncertainty and complexity should determine how much public involvement is appropriate in the decision-making process. For problems with low uncertainty and low complexity the science was to be “done” by applied / research scientists with little if any public participation. Conversely, highly complex highly uncertain problems should include the participation of the trans-science/ policy science community. This trans-science community involvement would give (subjective) value based concerns validity. He suggests that “public experts” are needed to be a liaison for social concerns. “Public expertise is particularly valuable (and some might say ethically mandatory) when dealing with, for instance, environmental threats/risks.” P.665.

Topic

These public experts would work with contributory experts (who do research in specific fields), and interactional experts (who help experts from different field cooperate). This combination of experts would help avoid situations where local/public knowledge/values from being ignored because they, “(lack) proper scientific training and credentials.”P.664. Public experts provide these credentials. Carolan also mentions the need for public experts specifically when dealing with social concerns that relate to the environment. This can be seen clearly with the current ballot measure 92 on the labeling of GMO foods.

Are GMO Foods unhealthy for humans? No.

“GM foods currently available on the international market have undergone risk assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health any more than their conventional counterparts.”¹ WHO

“Numerous studies have not shown any link between genetically modified food and negative health impacts”³ Register Guard

“In fact, no peer-reviewed publications of clinical studies on the human health effects of GM food exist.”⁴

“Thus far, GM food has not been proven to be harmful”⁵

It seems clear that the scientific community when looking at the health effects of GMO’s are either 1) No peer reviewed studies support the fact that GMO’s are directly dangerous to human health or 2) there is inadequate research in on GMO’s safety on human health.  This supports my experience both politically and academically. I haven’t been able to find or met people who can cite a valid scientific source proving that GMO are unhealthy. There is plenty of research that supports that non GMO and organic foods are healthier in that they provide more nutrients but nothing that GMO’s directly cause negative health impacts. A common anti-GMO explanation is that, “insufficient research exists to prove they are safe, therefor should be assumed dangerous.”

Since the scientific community has found that GMO’s are safe, policy should reflect that right? NO, this is not a low uncertainty/ low complexity issue. Therefore, the trans-science community must be involved. There is well documented research on the negative social externalities of GMO food production. The applied science community is not equipped to incorporate those findings into their research without interactional and public expert participation. This is a social problem not a science experiment.

Conclusion

The issue of GMO foods in my opinion is not whether they are safe or not for human consumption but if are they socially responsible. The controversy of labeling GMO foods should not focus on the direct health effects on humans (because that argument is not substantiated by the scientific community) but should include economic feasibility and to a larger degree social implications. That is what Public experts should advocate for. I believe labeling of GMO should be thought of/argued for in similar respects as the labeling of fair trade. Fair trade labeling rightfully informs the consumer of a social issue that is present in the production and distribution of, (coffee) for example. Coffee that is not fair trade isn’t unhealthy and will not make you sick if you consume it. But, it has other negative implications that are valid. Fair trade coffee (theoretically) has less negative social externalities, that same is true for Non GMO foods. Social values have validity under the trans-science approach and allows for the democratization of decision-making. This is obviously something the public needs to have a say in.

PS I encourage feedback and education on the facts of GMO’s direct health effects on humans. If there is valid research in this field I would love to know. I hope people can see that I do support labeling GMO but only based on their social implications. Again, that is my “applied science” objective understanding of that aspect of the problem. If there is information to the contrary I’m more than willing to consider it.

Sources

1.) World Health Organization. “Modern food biotechnology, human health and development: an evidence-based study.” (2005). Peer reviewed

2.) Carolan, Michael S. 2006. “Science, Expertise, and the Democratization of the Decision-Making Process.” Society & Natural Resources 19 (7) (August): 661–668.

3) Register Guard GMO: Opposition has been gaining ground in the polls Friday October 24,2014

4) Pusztai, Arpad. “Genetically Modified Foods: Are They a Risk to Human/Animal Health?.” (2001): 173-180. Peer reviewed

5) Greenwell, Pamela, and Sanjiv Rughooputh. “Genetically modified food: good news but bad press.” Biomedical Scientist 48.8 (2004): 845-846. Peer reviewd

Peer review sources were found using google scholar