Regulatory science in ctnbio: technopolitical deliberations and implications for brazilian democracy
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
What are the factors that lead to the "risk assessment technology" of scientific advisory committees becoming an authority among actors involved in political decision-making processes? On the other hand, why do regulatory processes such as these, strongly committed to rational decisions and the use of expert knowledge, so often fail to produce consensus on the use of risk science? This article addresses these questions which, despite having been formulated almost 30 years ago by Sheila Jasanoff in the book The Fifth Branch (1990), are still the subject of current reflection. For this, the National Technical Commission on Biosafety (CTNBio) is taken as a case study. Through documentary analyses, interviews and observations, the research investigates what and how the processes of legitimisation and delegitimisation of the risk analyses produced by CTNBio take place and, in particular, the regulatory deliberations derived from them. The research analyzes the model adopted for biosafety policies that gave centrality and sovereignty to the commission to indicate how it seeks to resolve the historical tension between technocratic and democratic values that has guided the transgenesis process in Brazil during the last decade. This raises questions not only about the legitimacy of this risk assessment model of GM agriculture, but especially about the risks of this system to Brazilian democracy itself.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish in this journal accept the following terms of the copyright policy:
- Authors shall retain their copyright (including copyrights) and shall grant to the journal the right of first publication of their work, which shall simultaneously be subject to the Creative Commons Recognition License: No commercial use of the original work or any derivative works is permitted, distribution of which must be made under a license equal to that which governs the original work.
- Authors may adopt other non-exclusive license agreements for the distribution of the version of the published work (e.g., placing it in an institutional repository or publishing it in a book) provided that the initial publication in this journal is indicated.
- Authors are allowed and encouraged to disseminate their work through the Internet (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) after the publication process, which may lead to interesting exchanges and increased citations of the published work. (See The Effect of Open Access).
How to Cite
References
ALTIERI, MIGUEL A. Agroecologia: bases científicas para uma agricultura sustentável. Guaíba: Agropecuária, 2002.
ALTIERI, MIGUEL A.; NICHOLLS, CLARA I. Agroecology and the Search for a Truly Sustainable Agriculture. Mexico D.F., Mexico: United Nations Environment Programme, 2005.
ANDERSON, BENEDICT. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. New York: Verso, 2006.
BINIMELIS, R.; MYHR, A. I. Socio-economic considerations in GMO Regulations: opportunities and challenges. In: (Ed.). Know your food: Wageningen Academic Publishers, 2015. cap. 8, p.61-67. ISBN 978-90-8686-264-1.
BLANCKE, STEFAAN et al. Fatal attraction: the intuitive appeal of GMO opposition. Trends in Plant Science, v. 20, n. 7, p. 414-418, 7// 2015. ISSN 1360-1385.
BRASIL. Lei nº 8.974, de 5 de Janeiro de 1995. 1995.
______. Lei nº 11.105, de 24 de Março de 2005 2005.
______. Lei No. 11.460, de 21 de março de 2007. 2007.
BROWN, MARK B. Politicizing science: Conceptions of politics in science and technology studies. Social Studies of Science, v. 45, n. 1, p. 3-30, February 1, 2015 2015.
CARROLL, DANA et al. Regulate genome-edited products, not genome editing itself. Nat Biotech, v. 34, n. 5, p. 477-479, 05//print 2016. ISSN 1087-0156.
CETINA, KARIN KNORR. Epistemic Cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999.
CONKO, GREGORY et al. A risk-based approach to the regulation of genetically engineered organisms. Nat Biotech, v. 34, n. 5, p. 493-503, 05//print 2016. ISSN 1087-0156.
CTNBIO. Opinia?o Te?cnica. 2011.
FERMENT, GILLES et al. Lavouras Transge?nicas: riscos e incertezas - Mais de 750 estudos desprezados pelos o?rga?os reguladores de OGMs. Brasília: Ministério do Desenvolvimento Agrário, MDA, 2015.
FERREIRA HOLDERBAUM, DANIEL et al. Chronic Responses of Daphnia magna Under Dietary Exposure to Leaves of a Transgenic (Event MON810) Bt–Maize Hybrid and its Conventional Near-Isoline. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A, v. 78, n. 15, p. 993-1007, 2015/08/03 2015. ISSN 1528-7394.
FONSECA, PAULO. El papel de la prensa en el debate acerca de la reglamentación sobre Biotecnología en Brasil: ¿seguridad de los transgénicos o de las células madre embrionarias? , 2010.
FUCK, MARCOS PAULO; BONACELLI, MARIA BEATRIZ. Sementes geneticamente modificadas: (in)segurança e racionalidade na adoção de transgênicos no Brasil e na Argentina. Revista iberoamericana de ciencia tecnología y sociedad, v. 4, p. 9-30, 2009. ISSN 1850-0013.
FUGLIE, KEITH O.; TOOLE, ANDREW A. The Evolving Institutional Structure of Public and Private Agricultural Research. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 2014.
GLENNA, L.L.; CAHOY, D.R. Agribusiness concentration, intellectual property, and the prospects for rural economic benefits from the emerging biofuel economy. . Southern Rural Sociology v. 24, p. 111–129, 2009.
GLIESSMAN, STEPHEN R. Agroecologia: processos
ecológicos em agricultura
sustentável. Porto Alegre: Ed. Universidade/UFRGS, 2001.
GUIVANT, JULIA. Governance of GMO and the constraints for a redefinition of the public arena in Brazil. In: DASGUPTA, S. (Ed.). Understanding the Global Environment. Delhi: Pearson, 2009.
JASANOFF, SHEILA. The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1990.
______. Procedural Choices in Regulatory Science. Technology in Society, v. 17, n. 3, p. 279-293, 1995.
______. The idiom of co-prduction. In: JASANOFF, S. (Ed.). States of Knowledge. The co-production of science and social order. London, New York: Routledge, 2004a. p.1-12.
______. Ordering knowledge, ordering society. In: JASANOFF, S. (Ed.). States of Knowledge: The co-production of science and social order. London and New York: Routledge, 2004b.
______. Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and The United States. New Jersey: Princeton Universtiy Press, 2005.
______. Biotechnology and Empire: The Global Power of Seeds and Science. OSIRIS, v. 21, p. 273-292, 2006.
JASANOFF, SHEILA S. Contested Boundaries in Policy-Relevant Science. Social Studies of Science, v. 17, n. 2, p. 195-230, 1987/05/01 1987. ISSN 0306-3127.
KRIMSKY, SHELDON. An Illusory Consensus behind GMO Health Assessment. Science, Technology & Human Values, 2015.
KUHN, THOMAS. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1962/1970.
LATOUR, BRUNO. Science in Action. How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, Massachussets: Harvard University Press, 1987.
LEGUIZAMÓN, AMALIA. Modifying Argentina: GM soy and socio-environmental change. Geoforum, v. 53, p. 149-160, 5// 2014. ISSN 0016-7185.
LEVIDOW, LES. EU Regulatory Conflicts over GM Food: Lessons for the Future. In: THOMPSON, P. B. e KAPLAN, D. M. (Ed.). Encyclopedia of Food and Agricultural Ethics: Springer Netherlands, 2014. cap. 359-2, p.1-8.
LIMA, MARCIA TAIT. Tecnociência e Cientistas: Cientificismo e Controve?rsias na poli?tica de biosseguranc?a brasileira. São Paulo: Annablume, 2011.
LOPEZ OVEJERO, RAMIRO F. et al. Frequency and Dispersal of Glyphosate-Resistant Sourgrass (Digitaria insularis) Populations across Brazilian Agricultural Production Areas. Weed Science, v. 65, n. 2, p. 285-294, 2017/03/01 2017. ISSN 0043-1745.
LOSEY, JOHN E.; RAYOR, LINDA S.; CARTER, MAUREEN E. Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae. Nature, v. 399, n. 6733, p. 214-214, 05/20/print 1999. ISSN 0028-0836.
MARINHO, CARMEM L. C.; MINAYO-GOMEZ, CARLOS. Decisões conflitivas na liberação dos transgênicos no Brasil. São Paulo em Perspectiva, v. 18, p. 96-102, 2004. ISSN 0102-8839.
MARRIS, CLAIRE. Public views on GMOs: deconstructing the myths. EMBO reports, v. 2, n. 7, p. 545-548, 2001.
MELGAREJO, LEONARDO; FERRAZ, JOSE? MARIA; FERNANDES, GABRIEL B. Transge?nicos no Brasil: a manipulac?a?o na?o e? so? gene?tica. Agriculturas, v. 10, n. 1, p. 14-21, 2013.
NATIONAL ACADEMIES OF SCIENCES, ENGINEERING, AND MEDICINE, . Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects. Washington, DC: The National Acadmies Press, 2016.
PAVONE, VINCENZO; GOVEN, JOANNA; GUARINO, RICCARDO. From risk assessment to in-context trajectory evaluation - GMOs and their social implications. Environmental Sciences Europe, v. 23, n. 1, p. 3, February 02 2011. ISSN 2190-4715.
PORTER, THEODORE. Trust in numbers : the pursuit of objectivity in science and public life / Theodore M. Porter. Princeon, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1995.
PRESTON, CHRISTOPHER J.; WICKSON, FERN. Broadening the lens for the governance of emerging technologies: Care ethics and agricultural biotechnology. Technology in Society, v. 45, p. 48-57, 2016.
RODEN, DUNCAN. . How Monsanto threatens people and planet. Green Left Weekly, v. 1009, 2014.
ROOTES, CHISTOPHER. Environmental Protest in Western Europe. Oxfortd: Oxford University Press, 2003.
ROY, DEVPARNA. Contesting Corporate Transgenic Crops in a Semi-peripheral Context: The Case of the Anti-GM Movement in India1. Journal of World-Systems Research, v. 21, n. 1, p. 88-105, 2015.
SÉRALINI, G. E. et al. Republished study: long-term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Environ Sci Eur, v. 26, 2014// 2014.
SÉRALINI, GILLES-ERIC et al. Republished study: long-term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Environmental Sciences Europe, v. 26, n. 1, p. 1-17, 2014/06/24 2014. ISSN 2190-4707.
STRAUSS, STEVEN H.; SAX, JOANNA K. Ending event-based regulation of GMO crops. Nat Biotech, v. 34, n. 5, p. 474-477, 05//print 2016. ISSN 1087-0156.
TAKANO, H. K. et al. GOOSEGRASS RESISTANT TO GLYPHOSATE IN BRAZIL. Planta Daninha, v. 35, 2017. ISSN 0100-8358.
WICKSON, FERN et al. Addressing Socio-Economic and Ethical Considerations in Biotechnology Governance: The Potential of a New Politics of Care. Food ethics, v. Oline, 09 June, 2017.
WYNNE, BRIAN. Risk and Environment as Legitimatory Discourses of Technology: Reflexivity Inside Out? Current Sociology, v. 50, n. 3, p. 459-477, May 1, 2002 2002.
ZANONI, MAGDA; FERMENT, GILLES. Transge?nicos para quem? Agricultura, Cie?ncia e Sociedade. Brasília: NEAD/MDA, 2011.
ZANONI, MAGDA et al. O biorrisco e a Comissão Técnica Nacional de Biossegurança: Lições de uma experiência. In: ZANONI, M. e FERMENT, G. (Ed.). ransge?nicos para quem? Agricultura, Cie?ncia e Sociedade. Brasília: Ministério do Desenvolvimento Agrário - MDA 2011.