Library Open Repository

Gene technology, risk, regulation and communication

Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

Gogarty, B (2005) Gene technology, risk, regulation and communication. PhD thesis, University of Tasmania.

[img]
Preview
PDF (Front Matter)
bgogarty_PhD_20...pdf | Download (181kB)
Available under University of Tasmania Standard License.

| Preview
[img]
Preview
PDF (Whole Thesis)
bgogarty_PhD_20...pdf | Download (2MB)
Available under University of Tasmania Standard License.

| Preview

Abstract

This thesis examines the social, political and legal basis for the establishment of a
national regime for the oversight of risks posed by gene technology in Australia.
It provides an overview of the public debate about gene technology and considers
how that debate served to motivate and shift the focus of regulatory reform which
led to the Gene Technology Act 2000 (Cth) (GTA).
The debate about gene technology belies a much deeper social preoccupation with
novel risk generally - something described by risk theorists as the 'risk society'.
This risk society has placed pressure on legislatures to manage the perceived risks
posed by novel technologies or to use novel technologies to manage man-made or
natural risks. Yet the traditionally prescriptive and cumbersome process of
regulatory reform is ill-suited to the pace and transient nature of scientific
innovation. Consequently, legislatures have developed a new legislative form,
risk governance, designed to provide a more flexible scientifically based
response to novel technologies. This form of legislation is exemplified by the
GTA. Yet risk governance has proved to create problems of its own. Maintaining
regulatory flexibility necessitates that rule making is virtually, if not officially,
undertaken outside of the parliamentary process. Furthermore, because risk
governance adopts a scientifically based assessment and management process
(risk analysis) it must co-opt technical specialists (the subjects of regulation) into
the decision making process. These factors have contributed to risk governance
being perceived as anti-democratic in some quarters. Such perceptions are agitated
by a growing distrust of technocrat's ability to serve the public interest in the risk
society. Lack of trust was a major theme throughout the Australian gene
technology debate.
The response to public distrust in technocratic oversight of novel technology has
been the inception of risk communication, a process that encourages public
involvement in risk analysis. Unfortunately, best practice risk communication has
tended to be promulgated in policy but avoided in practice - something revealed
with the commercialisation of gene technology. This has resulted in increased
pressure to put promise into practice by institutionalising participatory risk
communication principles within risk governance. I have referred to this more
democratic regulatory form as 'deliberative risk governance'.
The GTA was enacted with the promise that it would involve the public in all
aspects of regulating risks posed by gene technology. I consider how we arrived
at such a system, if it matters and whether the promise of deliberative risk
governance is real, efficacious and genuine within this act.

Item Type: Thesis (PhD)
Keywords: Law, Regulation, Legislation, Gene Technology, Regulatory Theory, Regulatory Reform, Gene Technology Act 2000, Risk, Risk Theory, Risk Governance, Deliberative Risk Governance, Regulatory Communication, Risk Communication, Public Involvement, Consultation, Public Engagement, Science & Society, Risk Society, Blame Society, Australia
Date Deposited: 17 May 2007
Last Modified: 11 Mar 2016 05:54
Item Statistics: View statistics for this item

Actions (login required)

Item Control Page Item Control Page