Regulatory science in ctnbio: technopolitical deliberations and implications for brazilian democracy

What are the factors that lead to the "risk assessment technology" of scientific advisory committees becoming an authority among actors involved in political decision-making processes? On the other hand, why do regulatory processes such as these, strongly committed to rational decisions an...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:
Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Fonseca, Paulo F. C.
Formato: Artículo revista
Lenguaje:Español
Publicado: Instituto de Investigación y Formación en Administración Pública (IIFAP-FCS-UNC) 2019
Materias:
CTNBio
Ciencia Regulatoria
Riesgo
Organismos Geneticamente Modificados
Regulation
Risk
GMOs
Acceso en línea:https://revistas.unc.edu.ar/index.php/APyS/article/view/24477
Aporte de:
Administración Pública y Sociedad (APyS) de Universidad Nacional de Córdoba
id I10-R357-article-24477
record_format ojs
spelling I10-R357-article-244772021-10-01T17:25:45Z Regulatory science in ctnbio: technopolitical deliberations and implications for brazilian democracy La ciencia regulatoria en la CTNBio: deliberaciones tecnopolíticas e implicaciones para la democracia brasileña Fonseca, Paulo F. C. CTNBio Ciencia Regulatoria Riesgo Organismos Geneticamente Modificados CTNBio Regulation Risk GMOs What are the factors that lead to the "risk assessment technology" of scientific advisory committees becoming an authority among actors involved in political decision-making processes? On the other hand, why do regulatory processes such as these, strongly committed to rational decisions and the use of expert knowledge, so often fail to produce consensus on the use of risk science? This article addresses these questions which, despite having been formulated almost 30 years ago by Sheila Jasanoff in the book The Fifth Branch (1990), are still the subject of current reflection. For this, the National Technical Commission on Biosafety (CTNBio) is taken as a case study. Through documentary analyses, interviews and observations, the research investigates what and how the processes of legitimisation and delegitimisation of the risk analyses produced by CTNBio take place and, in particular, the regulatory deliberations derived from them. The research analyzes the model adopted for biosafety policies that gave centrality and sovereignty to the commission to indicate how it seeks to resolve the historical tension between technocratic and democratic values that has guided the transgenesis process in Brazil during the last decade. This raises questions not only about the legitimacy of this risk assessment model of GM agriculture, but especially about the risks of this system to Brazilian democracy itself. ¿Cuáles son los factores que llevan a que la "tecnología de evaluación de riesgos" de los comités consultivos científicos se convierta en una autoridad entre los actores involucrados en los procesos de toma de decisiones políticas? Por otro lado, ¿por qué procesos regulatorios como éstes, fuertemente comprometidos con decisiones racionales y el uso del conocimiento experto, tan a menudo fracasan en producir consenso sobre el uso de la ciencia del riesgo? Este artículo aborda estas cuestiones que, a pesar de haber sido formuladas hace casi 30 años por Sheila Jasanoff en el libro The Fifth Branch (1990), siguen siendo objeto de reflexión actual. Para ello, se toma como caso de estudio la Comisión Técnica Nacional de Bioseguridad (CTNBio). A través de análisis documentales, entrevistas y observaciones, la investigación indaga sobre qué y cómo tienen lugar los procesos de legitimación y deslegitimación de los análisis de riesgo producidos por CTNBio y, en especial, las deliberaciones regulatorias que de ellos se derivan. La investigación analiza el modelo adoptado para las políticas de bioseguridad que dieron centralidad y soberanía a la comisión para indicar cómo busca resolver la tensión histórica entre valores tecnocráticos y democráticos que ha guiado el proceso de transgénesis en Brasil durante la última década. Esto plantea interrogantes no sólo sobre la legitimidad de este modelo de evaluación de riesgos de la agricultura transgénica, sino especialmente sobre los riesgos de este sistema para la propia democracia brasileña. Instituto de Investigación y Formación en Administración Pública (IIFAP-FCS-UNC) 2019-07-04 info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion application/pdf https://revistas.unc.edu.ar/index.php/APyS/article/view/24477 Administración Pública y Sociedad (APyS); Núm. 7 (2019): Enero - Junio; 103-118 2524-9568 spa https://revistas.unc.edu.ar/index.php/APyS/article/view/24477/24162 Derechos de autor 2019 Paulo Fonseca http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0
institution Universidad Nacional de Córdoba
institution_str I-10
repository_str R-357
container_title_str Administración Pública y Sociedad (APyS)
language Español
format Artículo revista
topic CTNBio
Ciencia Regulatoria
Riesgo
Organismos Geneticamente Modificados
CTNBio
Regulation
Risk
GMOs
spellingShingle CTNBio
Ciencia Regulatoria
Riesgo
Organismos Geneticamente Modificados
CTNBio
Regulation
Risk
GMOs
Fonseca, Paulo F. C.
Regulatory science in ctnbio: technopolitical deliberations and implications for brazilian democracy
topic_facet CTNBio
Ciencia Regulatoria
Riesgo
Organismos Geneticamente Modificados
CTNBio
Regulation
Risk
GMOs
author Fonseca, Paulo F. C.
author_facet Fonseca, Paulo F. C.
author_sort Fonseca, Paulo F. C.
title Regulatory science in ctnbio: technopolitical deliberations and implications for brazilian democracy
title_short Regulatory science in ctnbio: technopolitical deliberations and implications for brazilian democracy
title_full Regulatory science in ctnbio: technopolitical deliberations and implications for brazilian democracy
title_fullStr Regulatory science in ctnbio: technopolitical deliberations and implications for brazilian democracy
title_full_unstemmed Regulatory science in ctnbio: technopolitical deliberations and implications for brazilian democracy
title_sort regulatory science in ctnbio: technopolitical deliberations and implications for brazilian democracy
description What are the factors that lead to the "risk assessment technology" of scientific advisory committees becoming an authority among actors involved in political decision-making processes? On the other hand, why do regulatory processes such as these, strongly committed to rational decisions and the use of expert knowledge, so often fail to produce consensus on the use of risk science? This article addresses these questions which, despite having been formulated almost 30 years ago by Sheila Jasanoff in the book The Fifth Branch (1990), are still the subject of current reflection. For this, the National Technical Commission on Biosafety (CTNBio) is taken as a case study. Through documentary analyses, interviews and observations, the research investigates what and how the processes of legitimisation and delegitimisation of the risk analyses produced by CTNBio take place and, in particular, the regulatory deliberations derived from them. The research analyzes the model adopted for biosafety policies that gave centrality and sovereignty to the commission to indicate how it seeks to resolve the historical tension between technocratic and democratic values that has guided the transgenesis process in Brazil during the last decade. This raises questions not only about the legitimacy of this risk assessment model of GM agriculture, but especially about the risks of this system to Brazilian democracy itself.
publisher Instituto de Investigación y Formación en Administración Pública (IIFAP-FCS-UNC)
publishDate 2019
url https://revistas.unc.edu.ar/index.php/APyS/article/view/24477
work_keys_str_mv AT fonsecapaulofc regulatoryscienceinctnbiotechnopoliticaldeliberationsandimplicationsforbraziliandemocracy
AT fonsecapaulofc lacienciaregulatoriaenlactnbiodeliberacionestecnopoliticaseimplicacionesparalademocraciabrasilena
first_indexed 2024-09-03T22:22:12Z
last_indexed 2024-09-03T22:22:12Z
_version_ 1809215266214641664

Ejemplares similares