Inclusive governance over agricultural biotechnology: risk assessment and public participation

Beyleveld, D.; Jianjun, Li

doi:10.1080/17579961.2017.1377908

Inclusive governance over agricultural biotechnology: risk assessment and public participation

Beyleveld, D.; Jianjun, Li

Authors

Professor Deryck Beyleveld deryck.beyleveld@durham.ac.uk
Professor

Li Jianjun

Abstract

A public outcry opposing the use of genetic modification of rice has produced a governance deadlock in China, which threatens to undermine attempts to reap the benefits that modern agricultural biotechnology can offer to the Chinese people. It is argued that this opposition to the agricultural use of modern technology is, in large part, the result, not only of lack of public participation in the decisions involved, but of an over-reliance on conventional approaches to risk assessment that do not adequately take account of the interests of all who stand to be affected by the use of the technology. Public participation is necessary, but it must be guided by equitable principles that take proper account of the rights and interests of all stakeholders. It is argued that a governance strategy based on the Principle of Generic Consistency (PGC) of the American philosopher Alan Gewirth has promise to counter the distrust of the regulators that fuels the deadlock because the PGC can be justified from the perspective of Marxist and Confucian principles that dominate the Chinese political and ethical landscape.

Citation

Beyleveld, D., & Jianjun, L. (2017). Inclusive governance over agricultural biotechnology: risk assessment and public participation. Law, Innovation and Technology, 9(2), 301-317. https://doi.org/10.1080/17579961.2017.1377908

Journal Article Type	Article
Acceptance Date	Aug 23, 2017
Online Publication Date	Sep 26, 2017
Publication Date	Sep 26, 2017
Deposit Date	Sep 27, 2017
Publicly Available Date	Mar 26, 2019
Journal	Law, Innovation and Technology
Print ISSN	1757-9961
Electronic ISSN	1757-997X
Publisher	Taylor and Francis Group
Peer Reviewed	Peer Reviewed
Volume	9
Issue	2
Pages	301-317
DOI	https://doi.org/10.1080/17579961.2017.1377908

Files

Accepted Journal Article (686 Kb)
PDF

Copyright Statement
This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Law, Innovation and Technology on 26 Sep 2017, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/17579961.2017.1377908.