Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Science and values in risk assessment: The case of deliberate release of genetically engineered organisms

  • Published:
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To make more responsible decisions regarding risk and to understand disagreements and controversies in risk assessments, it is important to know how and where values are infused into risk assessment and how they are embedded in the conclusions. In this article an attempt is made to disentangle the relationship of science and values in decision-making concerning the deliberate release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) into the environment. This exercise in applied philosophy of science is based on Helen Longino's contextual empiricism which attempts to reconcile the ‘objectivity’ of science with its social and cultural construction. Longino distinguishes different levels of research on which values apparently contextual with respect to a given research program can shape the knowledge emerging from that program. Her scheme is applied for locating and identifying the values that affect environment risk assessments of the field experiments with GMOs. The article concludes with some provisional suggestions for the decision process and the role of scientists in it.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adelberg, Edward A. 1988. Closing Address. InThe Release of Genetically-engineered Microorganisms, edited by M. Sussman et al. London: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arts, F. 1994. Kernenergie en Duurzame Ontwikkeling, Vakgroep Natuurwetenschap en Samenleving Nr. 94114. Utrecht, The Netherlands.

  • Buttel, Frederick H. 1989. Theoretical Issues in the Regulation of Genetically Engineered Organisms: A Commentary.Politics and the Life Sciences 7(2):135–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cairns, J. Jr., and J.R. Pratt. 1986. Ecological Consequence Assessment: Effects of Bioengineered Organisms. InBiotechnology Risk Assessment, by J.R. Fiksel and V.T. Covello, pp. 88–108. New York: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carson, Rachel. 1962.Silent Spring, with drawings by Louis Darling. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox, Louis Anthony Jr., and Paolo F. Ricci. 1989. Legal and Philosophical Aspects of Risk Analysis. InThe Risk Assessment of Environmental and Human Health Hazards. A textbook of Casestudies, edited by Dennis J. Paustenbach, pp. 1017–1046. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cranor, C.F. 1985. The Justice of Workplace Health Protection: A Preliminary Inquiry.Logos 6:131–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dommelen, Ad van. 1994. Quality of Risk Assessment: Artificial and Fundamental Controversies. InDiscourse, Morality and Society, edited by R. von Schomberg.

  • Dutton, Diana B. 1988.Worse than the Disease. Pitfalls of Medical Progress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehrenfeld, David. 1991. Environmental Protection: The Experts Dilemma.Report from the Institute for Philosophy & Public Policy 11(2):8–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • FDA. 1989. U.S. Food and Drug Association Survey.Biotechnology 7:326–327.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiksel, Joseph R., and Vincent T. Covello. 1986. The Suitability and Applicability of Risk Assessment Methods for Environmental Applications of Biotechnology. InBiotechnology Risk Assessment, edited by J.R. Fiksel and V.T. Covello, pp. 1–34. New York: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fowler, Cary et al. 1988. The Laws of Life. Another Development and the New Biotechnologies.Development Dialogue 1–2:1–343.

    Google Scholar 

  • Funtowicz, Silvio O., and Jerome R. Ravetz. 1991. A New Scientific Methodology for Global Environmental Issues. InEcological Economics. The Science and Management of Sustainability, edited by Robert Costanza, pp. 137–152. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ginzburg, Lev R., ed. 1991.Assessing Ecological Risks of Biotechnology. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, Sheila. 1986.Risk Management and Political Culture: A Comparative Analysis of Science in the Policy Context. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1991. Acceptable Evidence in a Pluralistic Society. InAcceptable Evidence: Science and Values in Risk Assessment, by Deborah G. Mayo and Rachelle D. Hollander, pp. 29–47. New York: Oxford, Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kollek, Regine. 1992a.Kommentar zum Gutachten zur biologischen Sicherheit bei der Nutzung der Gentechnik des Instituts für Biochemie/TH Darmstadt (Dezember 1991) und zum Gutachten zur biologischen Sicherheit bei der Nutzung der Gentechnik' des ÖKO-Instituts Freiburg (Nov.1991). Bonn: Büro für Technikfolgen-Abschätzung der Deutschen Bundestage.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1992b. Controversies about Risks and their Relation to Different Paradigms in Biological Research. InScience, Politics, and Morality, edited by René von Schomberg, pp. 27–41. Dordrech/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kollek, Regine. 1993. The gene concept: historical disputes and their relation to current controversies in genetic engineering. Paper given at the XIX International Congress of History of Science, 22–29 July 1993. Zaragoza, Spain.

  • Krimsky, Sheldon. 1991.Biotechnics and Society. The Rise of Industrial Genetics. New York: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levidow, Less. 1994. Antagonistic Ethics Discourses for Biotechnology Regulation. InDiscourse, Morality and Society, edited by R. von Schomberg.

  • Levin, Morris, and Harlee Strauss, eds. 1991.Risk Assessment in Genetic Engineering: Environmental Release of Organisms. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Longino, Helen. 1990.Science as Social Knowledge. Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowrance, William W. 1976.Of Acceptable Risk: Science and the Determination of Safety. Los Altos, CA: William Kaufman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynn, Frances M. 1986. The Interplay of Science and Values in Assessing and Regulating Environmental Risks.Science, Technology and Human Values 11(2): 40–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macer, Darryl R.J. 1990.Shaping Genes: Ethics, Law and Science of Using Genetic Technology in Medicine and Agriculture. Christchurch, New Zealand: Eubios Ethics Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayo, Deborah G. 1988. Toward a more Objective Understanding of the Evidence of Carcinogenic Risk.PSA 2:489–503.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1991. Sociological Versus Metascientific Views of Risk Assessment. InAcceptable Evidence: Science and Values in Risk Assessment, by Deborah G. Mayo and Rachelle D. Hollander, pp. 249–279. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mooney, Harold A., and Giorgio Bernardi, eds. 1990.Introduction of Genetically Modified Organisms into the Environment. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council. 1983.Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • NATO. 1987.Recommendations for a Scientific Approach to Safety Assurance for Environmental Introductions of Genetically-Engineered Organisms, Advanced Research Workshop Report, Rome (Italy), June 6–10.

  • NOTA. 1994.Het Publiek Debat: Praktijk, Ethiek en Methodiek, werkdocument. Nederlandse Organisatie voor Technologische Aspecten Onderzoek, Leiden.

  • O'Neill, R.V., D.L. DeAngelis, J.B. Waide, and T.F.H. Allen. 1986.A Hierarchical Concept of Ecosystems. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruckelshaus, W. 1983. Risk, Science and Public Policy.Science 221:130–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, Milton, and Michael Gruber. 1987. Risk Assessment in Environmental Policy-Making. InScience, 236/April.

  • Schwarz, Michiel, and Michael Thompson. 1990.Divided We Stand: Redefining Politics, Technology and Social Choice. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharples, Frances E. 1987. Regulation of Products from Biotechnology.Science 235, 13 March: 1329–1335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shrader-Frechette, Kristin S. 1991. Reductionists Approaches to Risk. InAcceptable Evidence: Science and Values in Risk Assessment, by Deborah G. Mayo and Rachelle D. Hollander, pp. 218–248. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silbergeld, Ellen K. 1991. Risk Assessment and Risk Management: An Uneasy Divorce. InAcceptable Evidence: Science and Values in Risk Assessment, by Deborah G. Mayo and Rachelle D. Hollander, pp. 99–114. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simberloff, Daniel. 1991. Keystone Species and Community Effects of Biological Introductions. InAssessing Ecological Risks of Biotechnology, edited by Lev R. Ginzburg, pp. 1–19. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sturtevant, A. 1925. The Effects of Unequal Crossing Over at The Bar Locus in Drosophila.Genetics 10:117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szanto, Tibor R. 1993. Value Communities in Science: The Recombinant DNA Case. InControversial Science, by Thomas Brante, Steve Fuller and William Lynch, pp. 241–263. New York: SUNY Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wachbroit, Robert. 1991. What's in a Risk? InPhilosophy and Public Policy 11(1):6–9.

  • Warren, Karen J., and Jim Cheney. 1993. Ecosystem Ecology and Metaphysical Ecology: A Case Study. InEnvironmental Ethics 15(3): 99–116.

  • Watts, Susan. 1990. Looser rules tempt genetic engineers East.New Scientist 20, Jan. 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whittemore, Alice S. 1983. Facts and Values in Risk Analysis for Environmental Toxicants.Risk Analysis 3(1):23–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wrubel, R.P., S. Krimsky, and R.E. Wetzler. 1992. Field Testing Transgenic Plants. An Analysis of the US Department of Agriculture's Environmental Assessments. InBioScience 42(4):280–289.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Theoretical Biology, Institute for Ethics Free University, De Boelelaan 1087, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Soemini Kasanmoentalib

Authors
  1. Soemini Kasanmoentalib
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kasanmoentalib, S. Science and values in risk assessment: The case of deliberate release of genetically engineered organisms. J Agric Environ Ethics 9, 42–60 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01965669

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01965669

Keywords

Search

Navigation