PROGRESS REPORT II AquAdvantage Salmon Lisa Danielson

Outline New Research Design Literature Review Progress (I hope) Questions & Comments

Revised Question Given the scales of impact of the approval of this product, are current regulatory procedures in the US adequately equipped to make this decision? Should there be more public participation in the FDA’s approval process of the AquAdvantage Salmon? *I am no longer evaluating the FDA in terms of the issues brought up by the salmon, but am instead evaluation if there is value in having more participation in this decision

Research Design 1.Examine the standards that should be applied to a model of participation.  I will review existing literature on the merits of deliberative democracy and how it can be applied in the case of regulation of genetically modified food  Examine the current process that Salmon is going through and see if it meets any of these standards

Research Design 2. Examine the implications of increased participation by examining what kind of information the general public has on biotechnology to get an idea of what new inputs will be involved in the process.  I plan to create a “cultural survey” to gain understanding of media/culture with respect to this issue  Does the FDA address any issues highlighted by the media?  Time frame: from 1990 – potential starting event: 1990 Nutritional Labeling Act

hypothesis There should be more consultation and public participation in the regulation of genetically modified salmon in the United States, as higher participation increases the legitimacy of institutions and promotes the acceptance of new technology. However, it is important that participation is incorporated in such a way as it does not slow down scientific progress. This is why it is necessary to study the cultural climate that informs the decisions of those who will be participating in the decision making to see if increased participation is a viable model for science based regulation.

Lit. Review: What I Have done Not going to list the sources… On Science and Technology: -Not going to do much work here, but taking the idea that science is political given the fact that it creates conflict and gives rise to power relations. -Science and technology studies generally lack explanation as to why these relations are problematic

Lit. Review: What I Have done On Deliberative Democracy -Need to read more, as I have mostly looked at survey literature and direct applications to biotechnology -Going to focus on consensus conferences as a form of participation to narrow scope -Plan to build on critic of ignorance limiting ability to deliberate

Lit. Review: What I Have done On Public Opinion -Building on Hagendijk: looking at social acceptance of science by examining cultural climate -Looking at the difference between skepticism and ignorance

…What I plan to do 1.An ever growing reading list 2.Start surveying cultural sources 3.Look at past attempts to increase participation in technological decisions Examples: - Canadian Consensus Conference on Biotechnology, March Danish and Dutch models -British Model

Concerns 1.How to chose a random sample of media / cultural sources? What will be my criteria for examining them? 2. Is what I just explained clear? (your questions will hopefully help me clean everything up..)