Britain's biotechnology controversy: Elusive science, contested expertise

Abstract

In Britain's risk controversy over genetically modified (GM) crops and food, regulators have been mediating among rival framings of the risk problem. Public protest has led regulators to seek more scientific evidence regarding broader uncertainties. They have tried to test claims that wildlife habitats may be harmed by spraying broad-spectrum herbicides on herbicide-tolerant crops. Through a cyclical 'peer review', various public bodies have reconsidered scientific disagreements about GM food. These dynamics can be analysed as a reflexive scientization, whereby specialists dispute and investigate various cause-effect models of risk. Through a reflexive expertization, moreover, would-be experts contend for authority to provide credible policy advice. Expert claims are publicly scrutinized for their framing of the risk problem, accounts of uncertainties, trustworthiness, possible biases and commercial pressures. Science may seem elusive yet remains ever-present within a contested expertise. Ultimately, the legitimacy of GM products will depend upon how the official expertise accommodates or marginalizes dissent.