Abstract
Scientific risk evaluations are constructed by specific evidence, value judgements and biological background assumptions. The latter are the framework-setting suppositions we apply in order to understand some new phenomenon. That background assumptions co-determine choice of methodology, data interpretation, and choice of relevant evidence is an uncontroversial claim in modern basic science. Furthermore, it is commonly accepted that, unless explicated, disagreements in background assumptions can lead to misunderstanding as well as miscommunication. Here, we extend the discussion on background assumptions from basic science to the debate over genetically modified (GM) plants risk assessment. In this realm, while the different political, social and economic values are often mentioned, the identity and role of background assumptions at play are rarely examined. We use an example from the debate over risk assessment of stacked genetically modified plants (GM stacks), obtained by applying conventional breeding techniques to GM plants. There are two main regulatory practices of GM stacks: (i) regulate as conventional hybrids and (ii) regulate as new GM plants. We analyzed eight papers representative of these positions and found that, in all cases, additional premises are needed to reach the stated conclusions. We suggest that these premises play the role of biological background assumptions and argue that the most effective way toward a unified framework for risk analysis and regulation of GM stacks is by explicating and examining the biological background assumptions of each position. Once explicated, it is possible to either evaluate which background assumptions best reflect contemporary biological knowledge, or to apply Douglas' 'inductive risk' argument.
Highlights
The increased use of technology for resource production creates new uncertainties concerning human health and environmental safety
A full explanation of experts disagreement needs an elucidation of all its extraevidential components, both value judgements and biological background assumption, since these two are intimately connected (Longino 1990, Douglas 2000). We focus on those biological background assumptions that are relevant for the safety assessment of stacked genetically modified (GM) plants (GM stacks)
Socio-economic and practical issues such as feasibility, length and costs of risk assessment fall outside the purposes of our analysis. (b) Publication date: our aim was to compare papers based on common evidence, older publications were excluded. (c) Transparency: selected papers stated explicitly their standpoint in respect to the issue of GM stacks risk assessment (Table 1). (d) Specific topic: in order to narrow the selection, we included only papers dealing with molecular composition and stability of GM stacks in relation to food/feed safety
Summary
Background The increased use of technology for resource production creates new uncertainties concerning human health and environmental safety. Decision-making in the governance of new technologies relies heavily on scientific risk assessment This reliance has been debated due to its numerous limitations (Jasanoff 2005), one of the problems being that risk assessment is under-determined by evidence (Miller and Wickson 2015). IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) classified glyphosate as a “probable human carcinogen”, while shortly after EFSA (European Food and Safety Agency) concluded that “glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard to humans” (Portier et al 2016). This and similar cases illustrate how risk evaluation includes extra-evidential components (Sawyer 2015). Objectivity follows from transparency about, rather than absence of, value judgements (Longino 1990; Douglas 2000; Althaus 2005; Hermansson 2012; Hartley et al 2016)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
