IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v32y2005i4p301-308.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How the French GM controversy led to the reciprocal emancipation of scientific expertise and policy making

Author

Listed:
  • Christophe Bonneuil

Abstract

This paper examines the role of the precautionary principle (PP) in transforming the French regulatory landscape for genetically modified organisms used in food and agriculture over the last decade. Despite few explicit references to the PP, we argue that it has been instrumental. The changes do not result from a linear top-down process, as in the application of a new law. Instead, the PP has acted as a point of articulation for debates in different public arenas; through these debates, the PP has been progressively translated into pragmatic practices. New boundaries have been drawn between risk assessment and risk management practices. This has facilitated the progressive emergence of a distinct arena of scientific expertise and opens the possibility for the reciprocal emancipation of public decision and scientific expertise. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Christophe Bonneuil, 2005. "How the French GM controversy led to the reciprocal emancipation of scientific expertise and policy making," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(4), pages 301-308, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:32:y:2005:i:4:p:301-308
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/147154305781779425
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:32:y:2005:i:4:p:301-308. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.