Search

Purpose of the paper is to elucidate various factors which lead to settlement of arguments among scientists in the context of regulatory science (safety assessment) using a case of a transgenic crop showing drought tolerance. The transgenic crop was regarded as a new type of GMO and posing scientific uncertainty. Novel assessment techniques (Omics) were proposed to use to assess the safety of the crop. While seemed promising at first, after discussing various aspects of the method, the GM Food Safety committee finally decided not to adopt the technique at that time. Minutes of the meeting of the Committee and interviews to related scientists were analyzed to understand the process to reach the conclusion. It is observed that the discussion among scientists has reached consensus through taking into account various kinds of knowledge, not only purely scientific but also institutional one, such as chronological consistency. Under the context of regulatory science, this latter type of knowledge (institutional knowledge) are accumulated within the committee and applied to the issue which constitutes a crucial factor to bring closure of the discussion. Science communication would need to take a harder look at this fairly neglected area, and foster the public to understand this aspect of science in action.

Recently there has been growing emphasis on "upstream public engagement" in emerging technologies such as nanotechnologies, against the background of bitter experiences of miscommunication on genetically modified food and crops (GMOs). This paper explores the efficacy of consensus conference for engaging the public in early stages of scientific or technological development. The paper presents the results of a three-day consensus conference which we call NanoTRI, concerning nanotechnologies in food. Previously, consensus conference is considered as a method for engaging the public in the downstream of scientific and technological innovations, often times when given science or technologies are viewed controversial in public fora. We argue that with an extra structure and strategies in place such as provision of clearly-defined subject of discussion, a methodological framework that the consensus conference suggests would work for upstream engagement for future technologies.

This paper explores deliberative methods for the general public and experts to have meaningful dialogue and evaluate future technologies at the early stage of their scientific and technological development (upstream engagement). For this purpose, we planned and conducted an experimental dialogue event on the theme of applications of nanotechnologies in food. The event, named NanoTRI, consisted of three types of deliberative methods: consensus conference, group interview, and science cafe. Through this experiment we found that, by utilizing consensus conference and other deliberative methods, it is possible to incorporate various aspects of public values in decision making on nanotechnologies. We also found that a session without experts, group interviewing, is quite useful for seeking frank opinions of the participants while the other two methods are more suitable for provision of information or formation of definite opinions.

この論文は国立情報学研究所の電子図書館事業により電子化されました。, 研究会報告

アメリカにおける遺伝子組換え（GM）作物に関する規制は非常に複雑であり，これを理解することは特に外国に居住する人々にとっては非常に困難である。欧州における遺伝子組換え政策に関しては「迷宮」と称されることがあるが，この場合におとらずアメリカの規制制度ももうひとつの迷宮ということもできる，本稿においては，このような複雑な規制制度の概要について，主としてPew Initiative on Food and Biteochnologyが刊行した報告書に依拠しつつ述べた。アメリカにおけるGM作物規制に関しては，アメリカ農務省，環境保護庁，食品医薬品局の３省庁が所管しているが，それぞれの省庁が所管する規制制度に関して，上市前認可権限，上市後監督権限，透明性と市民参加という観点から特徴づける。さらにGM作物規制における連邦政府と州政府との関係についても基本的な特徴を概観した。というのも両者の関係はGM作物の監督やモニタリングに関して近年重要なテーマとなっているからである。またアメリカにおける現地調査にもとづき，新しいタイプのGM作物（例：医薬品産出作物）に対応するために検討されている規制改訂案に関しても述べる。, The US regulations of genetically modified（GM）crops are very complicated in nature and the understanding of these regulations in details is a challenge for people living outside US. It could constitute another labyrinth which is comparable with the EU regulations of GM crops. In this report, I would like to show the overviews of these complicated regulations related to GM crops in the US mainly employing resources published by the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology. As there are three agencies in charge of the regulations of GM crops, such as USDA, EPA and FDA, I will describe major characteristics of their regulatory frameworks including those aspects such as pre-market authority, post-market authority, and public involvement. I also describe basic features of relationships between federal and state government, since they have turned out to be a hot issue in terms of oversight and monitoring of GM crops nowadays. Based on the interviews to resource persons in the US, recent proposals to update the regulatory systems to incorporate new types of GM crops, such as plant-made pharmaceuticals, are also reviewed in this report.

1998年より欧州では遺伝子組換え体(GMO)の事実上のモラトリアムが続いていたが，2001年に環境放出指令が改定されると共に，2003年７月には新たな規制(食品・飼料規則および表示・トレーサビリティ規則)が成立したことで，欧州におけるGMO認可のための制度的な環境の見直しが最終的な局面を迎えつつある。こうした欧州レベルでの政策策定過程と並行して，加盟国においても，それぞれの農業事情や社会経済事情に応じて，GMOを国内政策上どのように位置づけるかについて，様々な検討が続けられている。なかでも注目されるのは，英国政府の動きであり，2003年に国を挙げてGMOについての公開討論等を行うと共に，これと並行して政府レベルでも科学的観点および経済的観点からGMOを評価する作業が行われた。また４年越しの大規模農場実験の結果も同年秋に公表され，GMOの生態系への影響に関して一定の見通しが示された。このように2003年は，ここ数年遅々とした動きしか見せなかった欧州において，GMO政策をめぐって様々な画期となる政策導入や政策論争が行われた年となり，ある意味では，今後のGMO政策の分水嶺を形作る年となったともいえる。本稿では，2003年12月に行った欧州での現地調査で得られた知見を踏まえ，このGMO政策における分水嶺ともいうべき2003年における英国および欧州委員会の動きについて，その概要を述べる。, In 2003, the European Union (EU) has issued its new regulations regarding genetically modified organisms (GMOs), and this has given momentum to uplift current de facto moratorium of GMOs since 1998. We can also watch ａ national-scale public dialogue on GMOs in the United Kingdom (UK) in 2003. Almost at the same time, the UK government has released the outcome of farm scale evaluation (FSE), which would have profound impact on policy direction related to European GMOs. In this way, we can witness various events in 2003 that would have crucial impact on the future GMO policy in the European countries. In this sense, what occurred in the year of 2003 would be regarded as a watershed to create future course of GMO policy in Europe. This report traces these major events occurred in the UK and EU, and try to shed lights on the future policy development related to GMOs. The first part of the report focuses on the UK, describing the outcomes of the FSE, public dialogue process, and reactions from the UK government. The second part of the report tries to elucidate complicated process of EU regulatory system related to GMOs; what kind of changes happened through the introduction of new regulations, how the approval procedures have been changed, what kind of other measures are being discussed to prepare future commercialization of GMOs, and so on. The final part wraps up these situations surrounding GMOs in Europe and mention future research issues.

この論文は国立情報学研究所の電子図書館事業により電子化されました。

n August 1999, the Japanese government decided to introduce mandatory labeling for genetically modified (GM) food starting from April 2001. Under the labeling system, certain types of processed food such as oil and sweeteners from corn are exempted from labeling, since scientific verification tests detecting GMO ingredient cannot be applied persuasively. The result of the introduction of labeling system was contrary to the initial expectation of the Japanese government. That is, the shift from conventional grain, which might contain GMO, to Non-GMO has been observed very rapidly among various actors consisting of the US-Japanese agro-food system. Those actors made a major effort to create an identity preserved (IP) handling system to procure Non-GM grains from the US. The establishment of IP handling system, however, has raised various socio-economic issues, such as the distribution of additional costs among actors, further coordination among trading partners, liability issues for certification, and so on. In this paper, we would like to focus on two major crops, soybean and corn, which represent strong relationships between the US-Japanese agro-food system and, try to understand what kind of outcomes are observed from the major shift to Non-GMO and what kind of factors are working behind those outcomes. The shift to Non-GMO forces all actors of the agro-food system to engage in IP handling, and vertical coordination will be much more typical among them as they move to procure Non-GM grains. This means that the US-Japanese agro-food system becomes a more coordinated one than before.