ABSTRACT

The increasing privatisation and politicisation of scientific knowledge has for some time raised concerns about the uncertainty of empirical exactness and its utility for public policy. More than a decade ago, Warren (1998) argued that for too long there has been over-reliance on scientific voices in the creation of environmental policy. When scientific evidence becomes skewed, tainted and contradictory, as demonstrated in the previous chapter, common sense, caution and public opinion become important aspects for policy-making and regulation. Existing notions of precaution (discussed later) require both scientific and

commonsense analyses. As a result, public opinion has become important for the development of environmental law and policy in the UK. Some writers suggest that consultation processes about biotechnology are creating a ‘scientific citizen’ (see Irwin, 2001). Others have suggested that policy and law-making regarding conservation and the precautionary principle that ‘puts the environment first’ is less about precaution and more about commonsense (Earll, 1992). While recognising that science and reliable programmes of research are useful tools to formulate sound policy, he argues that ‘absence of evidence’ is often used by commercial enterprises and developers to pursue initiatives that result in environmental damage. He asserts that the precautionary principle must direct all future environmental initiatives as well as policies and laws of regulation and control. In this sense preventing environmental harm is seen as a priori knowledge rather than a scientific and technical specialism. Others for some time have been arguing that the scientific hegemony in environmental decisions is unacceptable. For example, Gray (1990: 174) argues ‘that it is no longer necessary to have scientific facts to back up environmental legislation, one can simply “have reason to assume” that an effect can take place. This argument clearly is not good enough and has no place in science’. This chapter explores GM food and the public voice, and ways in which

public opinion has been both mobilised, marginalised and manipulated. Public opinion has become a form of science in its own right, a means

of political persuasion, a method of risk measurement and management and a means of social resistance.