Click the star to add/remove an item to/from your individual schedule.
You need to be logged in to avail of this functionality.
Log in
Accepted Paper:
Paper short abstract:
How were ‘the public’ and ‘public knowledge’ imagined and mobilised by the UK Government during the GM public debate, itself a very public performance in accountability, consultation and deliberative democracy? And how did this vision differ from events outside of governmentally authenticated sites?
Paper long abstract:
In 2002, the British government announced that it would sponsor a three-pronged process of inquiry into genetically modified food and crops. The inquiry was to include a science review, an economic review, and a public debate. This gesture was interpreted by many as a pro-GM Government's response to a broadly anti-GM British public. The public debate, to be run at arm's length from the Government by a Steering Board, was tasked with organising and running a process of deliberative consultation on genetic modification with members of the public. Entitled "GM Nation?", the public debate (in conjunction with the science and the economic reviews) was promoted as a way to fully inform Government decision-making on whether or not genetically modified crops should be commercially produced in Britain.
This paper examines the ways in which 'the public', 'public opinion', and 'public knowledge' became imagined and then mobilised by the Steering Board in its (very public) performance of accountability, consultation, and deliberative democracy. The Steering Board envisaged the public debate as a way of tapping into 'local networks' and 'the grassroots' of public opinion, glorifying the debate as a robust channel into real public knowledge. In contrast to this particular vision of the public and public knowledge, I present findings from ethnographic research into public understandings of genetically modified food. Conducted outside of governmentally authenticated sites during 2003-2004, this fieldwork overlapped with "GM Nation?". However, it highlighted very different issues in terms of public, knowledge and expertise, such as trust, secrecy, and building authority through kinship relations.
Public knowledge: redistribution and reinstitutionalisation
Session 1