Deconstructing a 'science-based' regulation: Towards rendering the risks of genetic engineering visible

In this thesis I argue that, in Canada, restrictive definitions of risk are produced through the construction of a "science-based" regulation of genetic engineering. Science-based regulation defines the risks of genetic engineering as technical issues where scientific criteria are privileged in risk regulation above non-scientific considerations such as socio-economic and ethical concerns. The science basis thus constructed dismisses the qualitatively new risks of genetic engineering. It marginalizes lay knowledge and restricts lay participation in risk evaluation. I argue that science alone is unable to evaluate the risks of genetic engineering in agriculture and that the construction of science-based regulation enhances the risks of genetic engineering and aggravates lay-expert conflict in risk evaluation. I argue that the narrowing of definitions of risk to scientific or technical issues is shaped by a particular policy community in order to successfully commercialize products of genetic engineering. Science based regulation is used to promote innovation and legitimate genetic engineering. I conclude that in order for abandonment of genetic engineering to become a political possibility, lay knowledge and non-scientific criteria in risk evaluation must be engaged and contestation must move outside regulatory institutions that are now implicated in risk manufacture and legitimation.