Salmon Or Progress Report 4 Lisa Danielson February 2 nd, 2011

How can democratic values be preserved in a society where science and technology decisions are made by a non-elected academic elite? Are current scientific institutions in the United States responsive to public needs and interests? Aught there be more public participation in the FDA regulation of Genetically modified salmon?

What does this mean for my project? Media survey is dropped for now A New Hypothesis! Some new counter arguments

Hypothesis Democratic values can be preserved in a society where science and technology are increasingly dominant institutions by separating social and ethical issues from technical questions of safety, as it is the normative issues that are the focal point for public interest and concern. However, current scientific institutions are not responsive to public needs and interests as they are isolated from the political process. There should be more public input on the decision to release genetically modified salmon into the open market as this decision will have a variety of impacts that have not been properly examined. With that said, democratic procedures cannot cope with complex technological decisions and preliminary questions of safety should be examined by an specialized body (such as the FDA with some minor modifications). A separate, participatory regulatory body should be made that works concurrently with the FDA that uses social and ethical concerns as a final say and builds off the FDA isolated technical decision.

Argument Elite Decision Making VS. Deliberative Model of Participation

Introduction (6 pg?) The issue I am examining Why the specific case of the salmon is important/ a good way of examining this issue  Poised on a brink of second wave technological innovations (plants/seeds first wave)  Food politics are often sensationalized / publically salient  Case of Britain and the bad management of Mad Cow

The FDA – 12 pgs a.Pro: expert specialized knowledge, isolated politically for increased efficiency. Argument to “leave science to the scientists”  George Ball, David Baltimore b. Problem: gains its credibility from its neutrality of science it is dealing with, but on various occasions has acted politically / science has been proved faulty i.The morning after pill case ii. Financial COI’s iii. Monarch butterfly case c. Drawing from problem b  While acting politically about some issues, no room for meaningful public Commentary i.Examples of animal cloning and milk d. Does not examine full scope of issues  Not in its mandate, but there is no new Policy specifically for GMO food

Increased Participation – 12 page Theoretical background increased legitimacy etc Problems: public understanding of science – tomato survey etc

Creating a New Body (8 pgs) keeps the technical, specialized knowledge isolated democratic input on other issues gives opportunity for wide range of issues to be addressed and increases legitimacy of proceedings Examples of past attempts – citizens councils etc (this part is very fuzzy)

Problems 6 pg? Or, counter-arguments  There is no such thing as objective science.  Value judgments are made in risk assessment procedures as there is choices where to examine risk and how much weight to place on different criteria  Scientific truths are just an ideology of elites masking itself as facts. The parameters of debate of the public are framed by this “expert ideology” (biopower…) And then CONCLUSIONS (6 pg)

my new favorite scholar.. Jasanoff, Sheila, Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States, Princeton University Press, Jasanoff, Sheila, The Fifth Branch: Science Advisors as Policymakers, Harvard University Press, 1990.

The End (for now) Comments are appreciated!