This thesis examines the Swedish political response to the challenges posed by gene technology, seen through the prism of governmental commissions. It discerns and analyses continuities and changes in the Swedish political conception of gene technology, over the course of two decades, 1980–2000. This is done by thematically following ideas of “risks” and “ethics” as they are represented in the inner workings and reception of three governmental commissions. The Gene-Ethics Commission (1981–1984), the Gene Technology Commission (1990–1992) and the Biotechnology Commission (1997–2000) form the empirical focal points of this analysis. The first two provided preparatory policy proposals that preceded the implementation of the Swedish gene technology laws of 1991 and 1994. The last one aimed at presenting a comprehensive Swedish biotechnology policy for the new millennium. The study takes into account the role of governmental commissions as arenas where science and politics intersect in Swedish political life, and illuminates how this type of “boundary organisation”, placed on the border of science and politics, impinges on the understanding of the gene technology issue. The commissions have looked into the limits, dangers, possibilities and future applications of gene technology. They have been appointed to deal with the problematic task of distinguishing between what is routine and untested practices, realistic prediction and “science fiction”, what are unique problems and what are problems substantially similar to older ones, what constitutes a responsible approach as opposed to misconduct and what it means to let things “get out of hand” in contrast to being “in control”. Throughout a period of twenty years, media reports have continued to frame the challenges posed by gene technology as a task of balancing risks and benefits, walking the fine line between “frankenfoods” and “miracle drugs”. One salient problem for the commissions to solve was that science and industry seemed to promote a technology the public opposed and resisted, at least in parts. For both politics and science to gain, or regain, public trust it needed to demonstrate that risks – be it environmental, ethical or health related ones – were under control. Under the surface, it was much more complicated than “science helping politics” to make informed and rational decisions on how to formulate a regulatory policy. Could experts be trusted to participate in policy-making in a neutral way and was it not important, in accordance with democratic norms, to involve the public?

Univ., Diss.--Göttingen, 2004. / Literaturverz. S. [393] - 410.

Made available in DSpace on 2014-06-11T19:28:04Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2010-04-06Bitstream added on 2014-06-13T19:36:35Z : No. of bitstreams: 1 martins_ara_me_mar.pdf: 1727865 bytes, checksum: 41a6e57b4b578aaa8907c747ef4fe13c (MD5) / Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) / Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP) / Com a Revolução Científica e Tecnológica (1970), a informação e o conhecimento transformam-se em fontes de maior produtividade e de desenvolvimento socioeconômico. No mundo agrário, os Organismos Geneticamente Modificados, também denominados transgênicos, representam a conformação dessa nova dinâmica tecnológica internacional. Em uma economia diretamente enraizada na produção e uso de conhecimentos, este trabalho prima pela investigação da existência de uma monopolização das técnicas transgênicas por determinadas empresas e países restringindo as possibilidades de concorrência no setor de sementes geneticamente modificadas, o que prejudicaria países menos avançados em biotecnologia agrícola. Em que medida conhecimentos e tecnologias de ponta estão organizados em fluxos globais ou estão inseridos em uma estrutura assimétrica, estabelecendo uma divisão entre os países capazes de participar dos processos de geração de novas tecnologias agrícolas e aqueles que passivamente absorvem conhecimentos advindos do exterior? Como a polarização de conhecimentos e informações estratégicos acarretaria e perpetuaria desigualdades na economia global e quais são os mecanismos jurídicos e políticos que corroborariam essa concentração? / In the Scientific-Technical Revolution (1970), information and knowledge are transformed in sources of higher productivity and socioeconomic development. In agriculture, the genetically modified organisms represent the conformation of that new international technological dynamic. In an economy directly rooted in the production and use of knowledge, this research primarily investigates the existence of a monopoly in the field of genetically modified seeds by certain companies and countries, which would undermine less advanced countries in agricultural biotechnology. To what extent are technology and information organized into global flows or in an asymmetric structure establishing a division between countries able to participate in the process of generating new agricultural technologies and those who passively absorb knowledge coming from outside? How the polarization of strategic knowledge and information would result and perpetuate inequalities in the global economy and what legal and political mechanisms support this concentration?