Bogner Alexander, Torgersen Helge
Institute of Technology Assessment, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna, Austria.
Front Plant Sci. 2018 Dec 18;9:1884. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2018.01884. eCollection 2018.
The recent ruling by the European Court of Justice on gene edited plants highlighted regulatory inadequacy as well as a decades-old political problem, namely how to reconcile diverging expectations regarding agricultural biotechnology in Europe. Over time, regulators had tried out various tools to address concerns and overcome implementation obstacles. While initially focussing on risk (with the Precautionary Principle), they later tried to better embed technology in society (e.g., through Responsible Research and Innovation). The PP got criticized early-on; meanwhile, it seems to have lost much of its salience. Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) is associated with problems of participation and political impact, often rendering it a public awareness tool only. We discuss problems with both approaches and conclude that also RRI falls short of facilitating technology implementation in the way regulators might have had in mind. Rather than leaving political decisions to technical risk assessment or ethics and public awareness, we argue for re-establishing a broad yet sober process of opinion formation and informed decision-making in agricultural policy.
欧洲法院最近对基因编辑植物的裁决凸显了监管不足以及一个存在数十年的政治问题，即如何协调欧洲对农业生物技术的不同期望。随着时间的推移，监管机构尝试了各种工具来解决相关问题并克服实施障碍。最初，他们关注风险（采用预防原则），后来又试图更好地将技术融入社会（例如，通过负责任的研究与创新）。预防原则很早就受到了批评；与此同时，它似乎已失去了大部分影响力。负责任的研究与创新（RRI）与参与问题和政治影响相关，这常常使其仅成为一种公众意识工具。我们讨论了这两种方法存在的问题，并得出结论，即便是RRI也未能以监管机构可能设想的方式促进技术实施。我们主张，不应将政治决策留给技术风险评估或伦理及公众意识，而应重新建立一个广泛且冷静的农业政策意见形成和明智决策过程。
