Regulating technological risk: the case of genetically-modified crops in

India

Ian Scoones STEPS Centre, Institute of Development Studies,

University of Sussex, UK

 

From Bt cotton to Bt brinjalThree phases1. Regulatory approval: science and protest 

(1995-2002)2. Regulatory impasse (2002-2009): informal, 

then formal release3. Regulatory precaution (2009- ): 

public consultations, political intervention and a moratorium

Technical risk: experts rule?

• A regulatory framework - RCGM and GEAC• Imports, and technical discussions • Protest and direct action• 2002 decision: release• Attempts by the centre to regulate, but resistance from states and farmers

A regulatory impasse• Experts, inquiries, new regulatory structures proposed

• Business pressure to reduce regulatory ‘red tape’ – pharma vs agriculture

• Disputes within scientific establishment and regulatory body (GEAC) Increase in registered

• Concerns about Bt resistance (CICR, Nagpur report)

• Bt cotton varieties and massive expansion of cropped area.

The Bt brinjal episode

• Significant public mobilisation: a symbolic food crop

• Technical vs political response• A recognition of uncertainty/ignorance and the need for dialogue about contrasting framings to build broader public trust as part of regulation

• Towards a co-evolutionary approach to the regulation of risk (and uncertainty)

Key developments….

• A recognition of uncertainty/ ignorance and the need for a precautionary approach

• The importance of dialogue about contrasting framings to build broader public trust as part of regulation

• Towards a co-evolutionary approach to the regulation of technological risk – in the context of scientific uncertainty and public contention

unproblematic

problematic

unproblematic problematic

knowledge about likelihoods

knowledge about outcomes

Risk and regulation: a simple framework

unproblematic

problematic

unproblematic problematic

knowledge about likelihoods

knowledge about outcomes

RISK

Biosafety – environmental &

health risks are predictable

‘Closing down’ around a narrow risk framing

unproblematic

problematic

unproblematic problematic

knowledge about likelihoods

knowledge about outcomes

UNCERTAINTY

Unfamiliar toxic effects, complex synergies, unknown pest emergence/resistance ecology

RISK

‘Closing down’ ’

Biosafety – environmental &

health risks are predictable

unproblematic

problematic

unproblematic problematic

knowledge about likelihoods

knowledge about outcomes

AMBIGUITY

Different interests and priorities

divergent notions of harm

trust, fairness, ethics

RISK

UNCERTAINTY

‘Closing down’

Biosafety – environmental

&health risks

are predictable

Unfamiliar toxic effects, complex synergies, unknown pest emergence/resistance ecology

unproblematic

problematic

unproblematic problematic

knowledge about likelihoods

knowledge about outcomes

IGNORANCE

Unknowns, surprise, novelty

of envtal and health impacts

RISK

UNCERTAINTY

AMBIGUITY

different interests / priorities

divergent notions of harm

trust, fairness, ethics

‘Closing down’

Biosafety – environmental

&health risks

are predictable

Unfamiliar toxic effects, complex synergies, unknown pest emergence/resistance ecology

unproblematic

problematic

unproblematic problematic

knowledge about likelihoods

knowledge about outcomes

Three phases

Technical approval1995-2002

Dialogue, debate, and 

precaution 2009 -

Regulatory impasse2002-09

unproblematic

problematic

unproblematic problematic

knowledge about likelihoods

knowledge about outcomes

RISK

UNCERTAINTY

AMBIGUITY

IGNORANCE

expert decisions aggregative analysis political closure

risk based regulationreductive modelinglegal frameworksinsurance

` public deliberation political debate agenda-setting  horizon scanning multiple expertises

harm definitions indicators / metrics regulatory remits Liability law

powerful pressures to justify a narrow risk framing

‘Closing down’

unproblematic

problematic

unproblematic problematic

knowledge about likelihoods

knowledge about outcomes

RISK

UNCERTAINTY

AMBIGUITY

IGNORANCE

uncertainty heuristics sensitivity testingtracking

participatory deliberationscenario workshops

stakeholder dialogues interactive options modellingsocial, political and technical

dimensions

precautioncontinuous monitoringadaptive management

institutional learninghigh reliability management

‘Opening up’ regulation

Narrow , expert-ledbiosafety-focused,technical riskregulation

Reimagining regulation

• Accept uncertainty and ignorance, avoid closing down towards narrow versions of risk regulation

• Debating ambiguities – different perspectives, opinions and evidence – should be encouraged

• Multiple expertises are important. Science on tap, not on top.

• Regulation is both technical and political – requires a mature, transparent co-evolutionary approach. Not the dominance of one or the other.