To clarify concerns that the public has with genetic technologies, the article presents the results of focus group interviews conducted in Denmark in 2000. The concerns of the public are divided into three ideal-typical categories: social, economic, and cultural. Following a general discussion of why it is important to take these discourses of concern seriously, each discursive category is discussed with examples taken from the focus group interviews.

In public debate GMPs are oftenreferred to as being unnatural or a violationof nature. Some people have serious moralconcerns about departures from what is natural.Others are concerned about potential risks tothe environment arising from the combination ofhereditary material moving across naturalboundaries and the limits of scientificforesight of long-term consequences. To addresssome of these concerns we propose that anadditional element in risk assessment based onthe concept of familiarity should beintroduced. The objective is to facilitatetransparency about uncertainties inherent inthe risk assessment of (...) the GMP. Familiarityconventionally involves data and experiencerelating to the plant species and the ecosystemin question. We would like to extend thisconcept to the molecular level of plantbreeding and suggest that GMP characteristicsshould be compared to a reference baselinedetermined by conventional breeding techniques.Three GMPs are ranked according to familiarityat the plant and ecosystem level and themolecular level. The approach may help tointegrate discussion of the scientificarguments and moral questions raised in thedebate about GMOs by providing an operationalscheme within which moral concerns are broughtwithin the framework of science-based riskassessment. (shrink)

Over recent decades, public participation in technology assessment has spread internationally as an attempt to overcome or prevent societal conflicts over controversial technologies. One outcome of this new surge in public consultation initiatives has been the increased use of participatory consensus conferences in a number of countries. Existing evaluations of consensus conferences tend to focus on the modes of organization, as well as the outcomes, both procedural and substantial, of the conferences they examine. Such evaluations seem to rest on the (...) assumption that this type of procedure has universally agreed goals and meanings, and that therefore consensus conferences can readily be interpreted and applied across national boundaries. This article challenges this approach to consensus conferences. The core of the article is a study of national differences in ideas about what constitutes legitimate goals for participatory arrangements. The study looks at three consensus conferences on GMOs, which took place in France, Norway, and Denmark. Drawing on this study, the article discusses the ways in which interpretations of the concept of participation; the value attributed to lay knowledge vs. technical expertise; as well as ideas about the role of the layperson, are all questions that prompt entirely different answers from country to country. Further, the article analyses these national differences within a theoretical framework of notions of democratic legitimacy. (shrink)

Participatory methods aim to address controversy over new technologies through public consultation. This paper first describes the emergence of participatory methods within the framework of technology assessment, then provides an overview of the landscape of participatory arrangements; and, finally, discusses participatory methods in relation to different democratic ideals. The article challenges the widespread assumption that participatory methods can function as normatively neutral tools, which can readily be employed in various social and political settings. Through a case study of consensus conferences (...) on GMOs in three European countries, the article investigates the interpretive processes that take place when participatory procedures are applied in new national political settings. (shrink)

Background: Individual, comprehensive, and written informed consent is broadly considered an ethical obligation in research involving the sampling of human material. In developing countries, however, local conditions, such as widespread illiteracy, low levels of education, and hierarchical social structures, complicate compliance with these standards. As a result, researchers may modify the consent process to secure participation. To evaluate the ethical status of such modified consent strategies it is necessary to assess the extent to which local practices accord with the values (...) underlying informed consent. Methods: Over a 2-week period in April 2014 we conducted semistructured interviews with researchers from a genetic research institute in rural Pakistan and families who had given blood samples for their research. Interviews with researchers focused on the institute’s requirements for consent, and the researchers’ strategies for and experiences with obtaining consent in the field. Interviews with donors focused on their motivation for donating samples, their experience of consent and donation, and what factors were central in their decisions to give consent. Results: Researchers often reported modifications to consent procedures suited to the local context, standardly employing oral and elder consent, and tailoring information to the social education level of donor families. Central themes in donors’ accounts of their decision to consent were the hope of getting something out of their participation and their remarkably high levels of trust in the researchers. Several donor accounts indicated a degree of confusion about participation and diagnosis, resulting in misconceived expectations of therapeutic benefits. Conclusions: We argue that while building and maintaining trusting relationships in research is important—not least in developing countries—strategies that serve this endeavor should be supplemented with efforts to ensure proper provision and understanding of relevant information, specifically about the nature of research and measures for individual consent and opt-out. (shrink)

In Europe the use of genetically modified (GM) crops in food production has so far failed to gain wide public approval. Ordinary people are concerned about issues not covered by the existing regulation, including usefulness and unnaturalness. In response, particularly to worries about unnaturalness, biotechnologists have suggested that inserted genes should derive only from the plant itself, or from close relatives. This paper examines public perceptions of these so-called ‘cisgenic crops’ and asks whether the public shares the idea that they (...) are less unnatural and thus more acceptable than transgenic plants. Using five focus group interviews, we identified five lines of argument about naturalness with a bearing on the assessment of cisgenic crops as well as GM crops in general. The paper concludes that, depending on perceptions of naturalness, some people would agree that cisgenic crops are more acceptable than their transgenic counterparts. The finding that ordinary people value different aspects of naturalness may be relevant to a broader audience than just those interested in gene technology. It cautions against a simplistic interpretation of what counts as ‘natural’. (shrink)