This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (15) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Dietrich, H. Articles by Schibeci, R. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Beyond Public Perceptions of Gene Technology: Community Participation in Public Policy in Australia

Renato Schibeci

Murdoch University

Public policy assumptions, which view "the public" as passive consumers, are deeply flawed. "The public" are, in fact, active citizens, who constitute the innovation end of the seamless web of relationships, running from research and development laboratory to shop, hospital or farm, or local neighborhood. "The public" do not receive the impact of technology; they are the impact, in that they determine with gene technology (GT) developers and sellers what happens to the technology in our society. In doing so, they, or more rightly we, exercise particular, contextual knowledges and actions. We suggest that it is the ignorance of this aspect of innovation in policy processes that produces the distrust and resentment that we found in our interviews with "publics" interested in gene technology. This is consistent with Beck’s description of the deep structural states of risk and fear in modern advanced societies with respect to new technologies, such as gene technology. Only policy processes that recognize the particular, local, and contextual knowledges of "the public," which co-construct innovation, can achieve deep, social structural consideration of gene technology. And only such a deep consideration can avoid the polarized attitudes and deep suspicions that we have seen arise in places such as Britain. Such consideration needs the type of processes that involve active consultation and inclusion of "the public" in government and commercial innovation, the so-called deliberative and inclusionary processes (DIPs), such as consensus conferences and citizen juries. We suggest some measures that could be tried in Australia, which would take us further down the path of participation toward technological citizenship.

Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 12, No. 4, 381-401 (2003)
DOI: 10.1177/0963662503124004


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. S. Schafer From Public Understanding to Public Engagement: An Empirical Assessment of Changes in Science Coverage Science Communication, June 1, 2009; 30(4): 475 - 505. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. C. Gamble Guardians of our future: New Zealand mothers and sustainable biotechnology Public Understanding of Science, March 1, 2009; 18(2): 189 - 198. [Abstract] [PDF]

				R. Schibeci and J. Harwood Stimulating authentic community involvement in biotechnology policy in Australia Public Understanding of Science, April 1, 2007; 16(2): 245 - 255. [Abstract] [PDF]

				R. Schibeci, J. Harwood, and H. Dietrich Community Involvement in Biotechnology Policy?: The Australian Experience Science Communication, March 1, 2006; 27(3): 429 - 445. [Abstract] [PDF]