53 factors influencing public policy development in

53

Factors Influencing Public PolicyDevelopment in Agricultural

BiotechnologyKlaus Ammann and Biljana Papazova Ammann

Botanic Garden, University of Bern, Switzerland

Integral: the word means to integrate, to bring together, to join, to link, to embrace. Not in the senseof uniformity, and not in the sense of ironing out all the wonderful differences, colors, zigs and zagsof a rainbow-hued humanity, but in the sense of unity indiversity, shared commonalities along withour wonderful differences: replacing rancor with mutual recognition, hostility with respect, invitingeverybody into the tent of mutual understanding. Not that I have to agree with everything you say,but I should attempt at least to understand it, for the opposite of mutual understanding is, quitesimply, war.

(Wilber, 2002), Boomeritis, p. 15

THE WIDER PICTURE

‘Public policy’ is a complex term for a complexsituation. The temporal and spatial complexityof public policy is the result of the multitudeof factors influencing it, such as the opinions ofvocal minorities and majorities, and its embeddedposition in the overall development of humanculture, science and art.

It may now be stated as a matter of fact thatbiotechnology, which has developed rapidly dueto the recent upsurge in the molecular sciences,has become a major factor in everybody’s life.Biology, which not long ago was still the romanticscience of rare animals and beautiful plants, hasnow definitely lost its innocence and needs to belooked at not only with a spirit of belief in the great

potential to be gained from understanding life andlife processes but also with some concern.

If we want to work towards a positive transitionfrom global inequality to a generally more humaneworld, we will ultimately need to improve thedialogue on knowledge, science and society inorder to provide a more positive social trend ina world of ever-growing potential for conflict.Knowledge is understood here as value-ladenlong-term dimensions of cultural and socialknowledge.

For example, it is obvious that discussionson agricultural biotechnology have been thecentremost in recent debates. A major focal pointin these discussions has been genetic engineeringas a tool for modern plant breeding. It is clearthat many lay people have developed a fine-tuned

Handbook of Plant Biotechnology. Edited by Paul Christou and Harry Klee.C© 2004 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. ISBN 0-471-85199-X.

1006 HANDBOOK OF PLANT BIOTECHNOLOGY

anxiety about the new developments in this field,and it is not only ignorance that makes them fear-ful. There is a Range public divide on this matter,not only between lay people and scientists butalso between politicians and voters. The importantquestion is, how can we overcome divisions ofthis size and, given appropriate time scales, whatdo we want to set as new policy goals in thisarea?

Recent developments have clearly shown thatthere are tight connections between economics andthe resolution of conflict. Terrorism is an elementof society that has always been present, but it hasnow become a global problem since technology hasfacilitated new organisational structures and formsof violence on all sides. The Third World War willbe fought without frontiers, and it is not certainwhether or not it has already begun. Opinionsabout this are numerous and each side has its ownarguments, but here we want to look forward in aconstructive way.

Science and the Public Trust: The PresentState of Error and the Way Out

The divide between science and moralities (in-cluding, for example, public trust, value-ladenknowledge) is growing dramatically, and thereseems to be no control over the process any more.It is no longer possible to continue the scientificeducation of the public with the old didactics ofthe anonymous ‘it-language’ of science (Wilber,1998). It is naıve to assume that ‘If the lay peopleknew more, they would not be afraid of futuretechnological developments’. Resistance does notcome primarily from the unwillingness of people tolearn; it stems from their unease when experiencingscience as the sole explanatory ideology in modernlife. Many people have a distinct feeling thatbiotechnology will intrude into all areas oftheir personal life without anybody asking themwhether they want that or not. The debate abouttransgenic food is a classic example of this—peoplefeel threatened by the fact that in many countriesconsumers do not have a free choice betweengenetically modified (GM) and non-GM food.This ‘enforcement’ could be a major reason for thepublic reluctance to accept the fact that geneticengineering is taking over in modern breeding.There is actually no reason why modern plant

breeding should not profitably use all kinds ofmolecular methods, including genetic engineering.But with this uneasiness underlying many people’sthinking, individuals are all too easily convinced byprotest bodies that there is something inherentlywrong with GM food, although the facts tellus the contrary. The problem here is that manypeople correctly sense that scientific facts are notthe only element in the debate, and facts alone,without any social or cultural context, cannot bean ultimately convincing argument. In addition,people are aware that facts can be filtered andmanipulated. Actually, when it comes to findingsolutions we should all obey the rule of the‘symmetry of ignorance’ (Fischer, 2001; Fischeret al., 2002; Rittel, 1984), especially when takinginto account people’s emotions and vested inter-ests. Conversely, ‘symmetry of ignorance’ can alsobe defined as ‘asymmetry of knowledge’.

When involved in such debates, how dare wepretend that experts know more than lay people?Particularly when those experts are imprisoned intheir ‘it-language’ cage. This is the point at whichwe have to recognise, and admit to, our common‘symmetry of ignorance’ when we are tacklingsocial issues.

We, therefore, desperately need to develop, newforms of dialogue that take into account theconcerns of both sides using ‘it- and we-language’in the various problem fields and between par-ticipants. If scientists do not learn to respectthe realms of non-scientific knowledge, they willindirectly build up a public resistance to thevery science that they are preaching, the ironyof this situation is somehow hilarious and tragicat the same time. A functional dialogue betweenincompatible languages in the spheres of scienceand moralities in modern and post-modern timesneeds to start from basics, which are well definedin some important terms.

In order to bridge the gap between those sphereswe have to attempt to integrate truth (science)and meaning (moralities) in society. At the sametime we have to understand both the good andthe bad news of modernity and post-modernity,particularly if we want to use the social history ofthe last two centuries to support our efforts.

The good features of modern life include: liberaldemocracies; emancipation; democratisation ofknowledge; higher standards of living and steadilyincreasing life expectancy, due to the highly

FACTORS INFLUENCING PUBLIC POLICY DEVELOPMENT 1007

successful fight against disease. Conversely, thebad features, which cumulatively lead to neglectthrough affluence, include: the widespread lossof meaning in social and personal life (Spretnak,1997); an increasing loss in the quality of life, bothsocial and cultural; a general brutalisation of dailylife; the loss of family love and an escalating drugproblem.

The good news of post-modernity indicates thenew importance of the role of interpretation inhuman understanding, a renaissance of the ‘we-language’, developed in art and now hopefullyimplemented in social structures, such as engagingin help for developing countries. Contrasted withthis is the bad news that there is nothing else butinterpretation, and, as a result, we can dispensewith the objective component of truth altogether.Science is routinely questioned and people feelmore and more reluctant, therefore, to accept pro-gress in technologies that stem from that science.

If we really want to bridge these growing gapsin both understanding and action, we must tryto initiate a considered and constructive debateon decision-making processes, which does not mixthe languages of science and moralities, but bringsthem together by means of a procedural language.

It is fruitless to debate in a hostile atmosphere,where opponents clash in an incompatible ‘dia-logue’, yet refuse to accept that a common platformhas still to be developed. The deplorable alternativeis parallel preaching, fights and accusations,resulting in a match without a winner and a lackof pleasurable creativity.

Towards a New Common Platform BetweenOpponents

A new ‘common language’ between the spheres ofscience and morality must be found step by step,without mixing factual and deontic knowledge.In the context of planning, knowledge is bridgingtheory with reality in a particular context. Thereis no third and miraculous pathway to solve thisproblem. What we need to do is develop a new wayof coexisting through the use of a reconciliatoryprocess that aims at developing a new ‘commonlanguage’. This ‘new common language’ is themetaphor for a procedural language that gives usthe chance to reconcile contrasting cultures andinterests.

Discursive Processes Illustrated by theExample of Traditional Versus ScientificKnowledge

We must make it clear right from the start thatpolarity in debates often stems from the wrong useof language. For example, patenting (or protectionof knowledge) has a different background in vari-ous cultures. Intellectual property rights (IPRs) inthe first world have their own legislation language,while shamans, on the other side, try to protecttheir own knowledge by quite different waysand means, all of which is reflected in language.An excellent example of this is provided by thedifferent kinds of plant nomenclature used byAmazon Indians, based on medicinal and spiritualuse (Wicker oral communication), and westerntaxonomists, based on morphology and genetics.In a world with a growing global vision of survival,successful attempts to find common goals start bylearning about differences, then proceeding tochoose a common platform that enables jointdecisions to be taken that, inevitably, lead tosolutions.

We must conduct a debate about inequality.This will provide the capability to generate newknowledge (and hence new intellectual property).We have to accept that these issues will involve thearea of inequity in human capabilities.

Motivations, Drivers and Incentives forTackling Science and Technology Problemsin the Future

It is very important to review the motivationsof the major players in this global debate. Itis also indispensable to invite to discussionsall the major interested parties who undertakeprofessional work initiated as a result of their ownmotivations. Government representatives (regu-lators, legislators and executives), professionalrepresentatives of the civil society sector andscientists, all of whom have a direct interestin getting together and debating the topic ofIPRs, should be ready to go through an iterativeprocess, in an effort to find common ground ininnovative processes which lead to new solutions.We need to develop a common understanding ofthe differences in power systems in the developingworld, indigenous populations and the western


world—power systems that are reflected in thedifferences within the respective health services,to give just one example. It is the various healingstrategies, the different medical philosophies andmultiplicity of technologies behind these whichneed to be respected—and it is from there that wewill be able to make common ground and achieve aworld view with enough room for human, culturaland spiritual diversity and values.

Can We Direct Science and TechnologyDevelopment in Order to Create a BetterWorld Where a New IPR Concept can Playa New and Important Role?

The real issue is hidden by inequalities in the use ofexisting information, especially where such infor-mation is under IPR protection. Here there are twoissues. The first relates to the capability of usingavailable knowledge (whether protected or not),and the second is access to patented knowledgeunder conditions that do not compromise theincentives provided to promote the creation ofintellectual property in the first place. If we wantto achieve new solutions concerning IPRs weneed to question both scientific progress and theinstitutions producing it.

There is no room within the four topics discussedabove for a division or fruitless debate about de-pendent or independent research, a concept whichharps back to the old-fashioned Marxist views.We should concentrate instead on the question ofwhether such research is of high quality and usefulfor reaching the ultimate goals: goals which havebeen defined within the decision-making process,and which might result in real surprises.

Is it really true, for example, that researchsupported by the private sector is less creative, morelinked to shortsighted goals and under heavy com-mercial constraints? And what about the present-day system of scientific publication—does itguarantee quality in scientific research? Can westill allow basic research to be absolutely free andcompletely separate in its outcome from societalneeds and ethics? Do we need novel public andprivate financing concepts? For many successfulscientists patenting is not the solution. There areother functional mechanisms for measuring sci-entific merit, which then lead to better positionswithin the scientific workplace. Patenting in life

sciences needs to be adapted to the facts of life—living organisms’ genetics and unique ability toreproduce. How can the needs of developingcountries be included in the development of newtechnologies? What about IPRs and the absoluteneed to feed additional billions of people in a fewdecades?

This is the crucial part of any debate, wherewe need to build common ground, which willhopefully evolve into the idea of IPR clearinghouses, such as have been proposed by variouscivil groups in accordance with the big life sciencecompanies.

SOME INSIGHTS IN THE PUBLIC ANDSCIENTIFIC DEBATE

After having discussed the general picture we nowneed to go into more detail about the debate onGM crops and agriculture. We need to have acloser look at some of the more important playersparticipating.

The Scientists

Scientists still tend to see the world through fact-tinted spectacles. This is understandable sincethey are dependent on high-quality publicationsin order to start and maintain a good scientificcareer. They live in a world of facts, and thisworld has been quite successful in producingprogressive and successful new technologies. Itis also a world of reductionism, experimentationand clean conclusions and, naturally, there areonly a few thoughts given to follow-ups andsocial responsibility. It is usually a world oflaboratory experiments. It is only recently that fieldecology caught up with computer models, strictstatistical discipline and quantitative analysis. Itis good to remember what Karl Popper saidabout scientific data—he took falsifiability as hiscriterion for demarcating science from non-science(Popper, 1972). In the fight for scientific truth,with opponents who often indulge in unscientificpopulist slogans, scientists tend to focus entirelyon rectifying facts in fighting for the good cause.In a deplorable way, this leads to a strong belief inscientific facts alone and, even worse, it becomesdifficult to keep the balance and admit to lacunaein knowledge.


The Corporates

Industry representatives and scientists workingwithin companies often live in an euphoricatmosphere, believing in the good cause of theirproduct development. It is a world of deonticknowledge (planning knowledge, the knowledgewhat ought to be) and there is little space forother kinds of knowledge, other than scientific anddeontic. In the best scenario, this can lead to a clashwith business-oriented colleagues who have to dealwith the shareholders and, furthermore, who needto keep the company on an economic coursewhich will allow future development. Industrialscientists experience a conflict between their desirefor both scientific and deontic knowledge, becausethe latter may be at odds with the strategies ofthe companies they work for. A clash helps torecognise contrasts, and this can be very helpfulfor developing future creative processes. It is alsotrue that there is a certain stress in developingproducts with market potential but, as in academicscience, in the commercial sector sustainability ofwork quality is the best guarantee of long-termcareer success. The idea of corporate scientistsbeing forced to produce and validate opinions thatdo not necessarily match with good science is toosimplistic. It is known that in both academic andcorporate science some scientists develop dubiousethics and produce flawed results on purpose. Inboth cases, many pressures relating to career as wellas finance can be the reason for this. It is certainlybetter to distinguish between good and bad scienceand to have a certain, if limited, confidence in thepeer-review process.

The Non-Governmental Organisations

The Non-governmental Organisations (NGOs),or civil society representatives, as they are calledtoday, play an important role in our risk-mindedsociety. It is not widely known that the bigNGOs are powerful organisations on a globalscale, well organised and supported by numerousmembers. NGOs still portray a ‘David’ imagewhen comparing themselves to the ‘Goliath’ globalcompanies. However, when one compares the PRbudgets of both, these images are hardly accuratenowadays. Nothing can be said against the powerof the NGOs; in fact we need to see powerfulorganisations of this type in the debate, but

there are details that should not be overlooked.First, these organisations are neither elected noraccountable democratically. Second, they are oftennot internally structured in a democratic way.Third, and worst of all, they are more interestedin making money (and attracting members) bythe use of populist slogans—they are far lesskeen to solve problems by means of hard fieldwork. Of course, this sweeping generalisation is nottrue for hundreds of small NGOs, and dozens ofimportant ones utilise problem-solving strategiesto carry through plenty of professional projects,often learning the hard way, just as corporates,scientists and governments do.

The Regulators in Governments

Regulators are the neutral stakeholders who carefor public health and well-being. In preparationfor their regulatory activity, they must be excellentscientists who keep themselves up to date withprogress in technologies currently being honedfor implementation. This is an extremely sensitivetask, since they need to maintain a central positionin the debates, and must listen to both sides of theargument. This is all the more difficult if the debatehas been driven into emotive realms and thusstrongly influences both opinion making and thedrafting of new regulatory structures. In Europe,it is a sad fact that regulators’ offices are notonly notoriously understaffed and unsupportedby strong regulatory rules but also, which is evenworse, that their work is considerably hamperedby politics. This is a result of the present dramaticlack of trust in European governments due totheir dubious treatment of scandals such as HIVblood contamination and BSE. Consequently, thepublic, along with many politicians, believes thatin the GM debate the corporations and scientistsdeveloping those promising technologies just lie inorder to justify them. It is not easy for regulatorsto work and fight for the truth in this climateof mistrust. Regulators need more harmonisation,more biosafety research documentation and,certainly, more support in all areas of their work.

The Journalists

Journalists serve the public by providing impartialreports. Despite the daily battles to fill columns


and attract readers, these should contain basicfacts, straightforward interpretations, supported,if possible, by extensive documentation. In the bestcases, both sides of the argument should be clearlypresented.

Good journalism attempts to separate docu-mentation from opinion as a comment, but thesedays more and more we see articles with a strangemixture of both. As we all know, sensationalism isan important marketing tool for all newspapers,although it is often camouflaged by terms like‘good stories’, ‘lively reporting’, and so on. TheMonarch butterfly story is a typical example.The first sensationalist publication in Nature waspicked up and reported immediately, but whensix extensive publications in the Proceedings ofthe National Academy of Science appeared somemonths later, because there was no story aboutthe killing of innocent butterflies by the evil toxicplants produced by global corporates, the subjectwas no longer news and was reported in only a fewpapers (Sears, 2000; Sears et al., 2001).

But this is only part of the story. Today we have tocope up with an unfortunate media-driven publicmix of anti-global, anti-corporate, anti-businessand anti-technology attitudes, which is a greatproblem as far as the GM debate is concerned.

The Population

It is difficult for the man in the street to followthis intellectual debate and to see through the fogof true filtered and alas, false arguments presented.The difficult choice of whom to believe ordisbelieve is often an emotive one. It is also truethat the public has a fine-tuned sense of anxietyand many have realised—maybe even earlier thanthe researchers did—that the biological scienceshave lost their innocence. This comprehensionshould act as a strong motivator, driving peopleto go deeper into the matter, to get educated,to understand the details, but more often theyencounter a contrary attitude. Instead of gettinginvolved in this debate, one of the most historicof the 21st century, many people just turn away.It is baffling to see how, on the one hand,people are ready to learn swiftly and seriouslyabout computing and the many other technologiesrelated to mobility and communication while, onthe other hand, biology—the very subject of life

itself—hardly seems interesting enough for themto study. This trend is deplorable and needs to bereversed. We need scientific communication of thehighest standard, with plenty of investment. Evenmore, we need to be able to trust in the ability of thepublic to learn about, and to discuss, the difficultand complex issues involved, and the potentialbenefits that they confer.

THE WAY OUT

The solution to this problem will not be easy. Wemust find a way to influence the various factorsinvolved in this public debate. This will be a longand arduous process, which will need to be adaptedto the problems and solutions envisaged and willalso require professional moderation. It needs a‘new approach’, which will provide a paradigm forthe treatment of socio-ecological systems. In this,teaching methods and decision making must begiven equal weight. The conceptual framework ofthis approach has five questions that correspondto five-fold knowledge. This new framework helpsthe individual to develop self-respect and, througha better appreciation of his/her own strengths andweaknesses, to recognise false theories (Papazova,1986, 1991).

We shall now give an example of how to use aprecautionary approach to tackle the problem. Thetext that follows is mainly based on the writingsand thoughts of Horst Rittel and Frank WestChurchman (Rittel, 1992; Verma and Churchman,1998); however, the extensive account publishedwithin UNED should also be consulted (Hemmati,2001).

The thesis of this section is to demonstratethat the static use of a single, generally accepted,definition of the precautionary approach (PA)will be extremely difficult. Although an importantlegislative tool, introduced in many important con-ventions with the goal of protecting biodiversity,the PA does not meet the real needs of a guidingprinciple. The way out of the dilemma will be amore discursive model, a model which allows foradaptation to local conditions, and which enforcessolution-oriented procedures.

Discussions concerning the PA usually concen-trate on definitions. PA definitions are plentiful,but they depend on the scientific and socialbackground of their authors and they all contain


elements of both truth and error. However, becausethere is no such thing as an ‘overall’ definition,the application of a PA always depends heavilyon the context. In our view, there is no point intrying to solve problems in the application of aPA by achieving a generally accepted definitionof it, since it is difficult to sharply define aprinciple where uncertainty is the main element.Terms and concepts such as uncertainty alwaysdepend heavily on the scientific, social, cultural andeconomic background of the people involved.

Problems in the application of the PA have manyother roots, the two most important of which are:

(1) A lack of knowledge on how the PA has beenfirst defined and where it is coming from.

(2) The debate about the PA is too closely relatedto factual knowledge alone.

These two problems are discussed further below,but let us first look at the most importantcharacteristics of the PA.

The Roots of the Precautionary Approachand Environmental Debates

The PA was first introduced in legislation whenthe Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD,1992). And, after all, in the course of theintroduction of genetic engineering as a newmethod in biotechnology, there is a convincingexample of the application of a precautionaryapproach: the moratorium imposed on geneticcloning as discussed and implemented at theAsilomar Conference 1975 (Berg et al., 1975). Atthat time it was a nearly uncontested, meaningful‘principle’, based on the facticity of a deterioratingenvironment: an environment which was obviouslysuffering from human activity of all kinds. Therewas air pollution, soil pollution and, in somerestricted regions, alarming damage to naturalforests. Heavy-metal pollution was a reality, alongwith dioxin contamination. Although we have toadmit that, in the beginning, environmentalistswere often exaggerating, this nonetheless helped tobring the issues to the debating table. However, dueto this early ‘factual enhancement’, we now have acredibility gap in Europe, for example in relationto the dying-forest syndrome—whether we acceptit or not, the forests just refused to die. Duringthe 1970s, the environmental debates in Europe

were derailed. We believe that this happened whenactivists started to mix up deontic knowledge (howthings ought to be) with factual knowledge (howthings actually were).

However, during the constructive period of theCBD, there can be no doubt that factual knowledgehad to predominate in order to trigger decisions.It is true that some elements of the PA containedother kinds of knowledge right from the beginning,but the real nucleus of the ‘principle’ was alwaysfactual. Soon, environmentalists began to includedeontic knowledge (of how things ought to bein future), and before long some instrumentalknowledge was developed on how to solve theenvironmental problems being targeted. It was aform of peaceful debate, where everybody wasoptimistic about solving these problems within afew years or, at most, decades.

This complacency was jolted by Rachel Carson’sSilent Spring (1962, 2002). This work showedus all the long-term environmental effects thatcould seriously harm bird life. Indeed, the shockof the disclosure of the harmful side effects ofDDT even made us forget the positive aspectsof this particular pesticide, namely that it saved,according to official World Health Organizationstatistics, the lives of hundreds of millions ofpeople by killing the malaria-carrying mosquitoAnopheles (see Tren and Bates, 2001). Gradually,environmentalists started to realise that ecologicalproblems were not simple problems, which couldbe readily solved, and that remedies for them weregoing to be difficult to find.

We can still remember those difficult days ofendless debates about flux, modelling, circulationecology and interdisciplinary, or even transdisci-plinary, collaboration as the best way to solveresearch problems and to find swift solutions toenvironmental problems. In the end, however, weall realised that what we called interdisciplinary ortransdisciplinary research very soon degeneratedinto multidisciplinary structures: structures whichwere unavoidable, since research money waslimited and had to be divided up logically.

At the very least, interdisciplinary work shouldhave required some mutual understanding of, andeventual reaction to, what one’s research partnerwas doing. Trans-disciplinary work, moreover,should include a planning phase in order tofix a research goal for the various groups towork towards together, with the eventual aim of


producing a solution that would be the result of theamalgamation of all their research activities. Thislatter outcome, although very difficult to achieve,is a dream that many scientists still nurture today.

These difficulties are further complicated whenwe try to expand inter- or transdisciplinary workbeyond the natural sciences, to include the socialsciences, such as sociology, history and philosophy.This approach almost inevitably leads to the trapof statistical (and epistemological) debates andwhat can be termed the ‘factualisation’ of theresearch work in all the disciplines included. Thisis, of course, a dead end that will never leadto solutions with a broad consensus, which canbecome important politically.

After the last few paragraphs, the secondproblem mentioned previously, ‘the discussionabout PA is too closely related to factual knowledgealone’, now seems to be a paradoxical headline. Weare convinced, however, that the moment factualknowledge is treated in correct proportion to allother kinds of knowledge and analysed by meansof a true systems approach, we will cut through theGordian knot easily.

We have to realise, of course, that the problemsinvolved in discussions about the PA are ‘wickedproblems’ (Rittel and Weber, 1973). A ‘wickedproblem’ is one where each attempt to createa solution changes the understanding of theproblem. Wicked problems cannot be solved ina traditional linear fashion because the problemdefinition evolves as new possible solutions areconsidered and/or implemented. These problemsalways occur in a social context, the wickedness ofthe problem reflecting the diversity of the problemstakeholders. This is why it is virtually impossibleto attack the problem of knowledge lacunae in adirect and linear way. It can only be solved bya discursive process, using a second-generationmanagement strategy (for more information seeConklin, 2003). As Laurence J. Peter said, ‘Someproblems are so complex that you have to be highlyintelligent and well informed just to be undecidedabout them’ (Peter, 2003).

How Can We Move from Knowledgeto Action?

Some years ago the introduction of geneticallyengineered crops into the environment or the

handling of living modified organisms (LMOs)in international trade would have been seen astame problems to be solved by executives in a fewsessions. The plan would then have been handedover to professional PR people, and everythingwould have been solved within a few months. Itwould have just been a matter of presenting somecomprehensive scientific data and the solutionwould have been defined almost automatically.

Unfortunately, planning problems in the field ofgreen biotechnology have now evolved into wickedproblems with complex structures and no obviouscausal chains. Such problems cannot be totallydetermined in a quantitative and scientific way;there are no existing solutions in the sense ofdefinitive and objective answers alone. This appliesequally to the PA.

Unfortunately, wicked problems have mainlybeen treated in two ways: First, through formalised(linear) methods, which are only suitable for thesolution of tame problems. Second, solutions haveoften been found empirically. Acceptable solutionscan sometimes be discovered by trial and error.Gifted planners or regulators often develop goodintuition when also taking into account socio-economic factors. But, unfortunately, too oftenthe systems approach, which works well for tameproblems, ends in a fiasco when tackling wickedproblems.

First- and Second-Generation SystemsApproach

Much hope has been placed in the first-generationsystems approach, which certainly had its merits(for example NASA missions, toll bridges, defencesystems, designing a super crop). Planning goalswere ‘clearly’ defined and all decisions wereoriented towards them.

However, in general it can be said that the first-generation systems approach has been followed byan era of disappointment, since it has not yieldedwhat was expected of it. A number of large andcomplex projects such as urban renewal, improvingthe environment, tackling the nutrition problemsof mankind, or the ‘green revolution’ can only beconsidered as failures or partial failures.

The main reason for this is the fact thatthe classic paradigm of (rational) science andtechnology is not applicable to the problems


of open ecological and/or societal systems. Itis very important to realise that problems inbiotechnology are not solely problems of science,but also problems of society. This does not meanthat risk assessment should not be science based.On the contrary, it would be a big mistake toassume that the involvement of open structuresin ecology and human society would allow cheapsolutions to deviate from the path of science, whenit comes to questions of safety and regulation. Or,even worse, to abuse formal scientific language inorder to achieve an ideological agenda, as certainmembers of the newly grown protest industry aredoing.

Professional management tools, which are basedon a second-generation systems approach, shouldnot be mixed up with the ‘future workshops’of activists groups, with their frequent and ill-considered use of pin walls for ‘planning’. ‘Action’of that kind has rarely led to sustainable results.All too often ‘future workshops’ start with a noisybrain-storming session and a lot of enthusiasm,but later on the participants go home to live theirnormal lives and they tend to forget about thebig decisions they took earlier. If such workshopswere properly carried through, following theprocedures of Jungk and Mullert (1987), resultswould certainly be better.

We should also note the difference betweenmanagement tools and ‘collaborative learningworkshops’, which can be very enjoyable, andthus also, in the heads of the participants atleast, successful. These events, however, even ifthey have an effect on attendees’ subsequentdecisions, rarely achieve sustainable results. Theylack the process of collaborative decision making.It is important to avoid a misunderstanding here.In its basic structure, decision making is not ademocratic process, it is a process where the peopleparticipating are genuinely involved. To be evenmore explicit, participants in the decision-makingprocess should have their own genuine interest inthe cause: this avoids the danger of manipulationby clever PR exponents, utilising populist or, evenworse, fundamentalist arguments.

‘Consensus’ and citizens’ conferences are ex-tremely helpful in cases of conflicts with the public,but here again it is difficult to believe that theprocesses criticised will be changed for the betteror negative trends be definitively turned around.Let’s face the practical difficulties—how on earth

can you expect a lay group to learn everythingnecessary for the comprehension of both theproblem and the solution in a few days of intensivebriefing? Another kind of internal consensusconference has been designed by the promoters ofthe ‘Syntegrity approach’, which brings togethercorporate people in order to analyse internaldynamics and processes and to discern negativeeffects, and seems especially appropriate in crisismanagement (Hagelstedt and Persson, 2000).

Despite the fact that a great deal of effort is beingput into designing new planning and managementmethods, negative results are predominant andthey continue to form part of a planning crisisstemming from the 1970s that is still continuingtoday.

What is the ‘Second-Generation SystemsApproach’?

It was primarily the paradox of rationality thatwas severely underestimated in the first-generationsystems approach. The more questions we asked,the more answers were possible, and vice versa. Thelimitations of technological solutions are alwayshidden in open ecological and social systems,for example, as in the infamous case of DDT.Constraints due to possible secondary effects inecology should be examined carefully. This wasdemonstrated in the case of the Monarch larvaebeing killed by Bt maize pollen, the result of ahighly sophisticated laboratory study where thepress interpretation got way out of proportion—even though the author himself had warned aboutthis. If the farmers had been asked, they wouldhave been able to say that caterpillar feeding timeand pollination rarely overlapped and, moreover,that the plants the Monarchs fed upon wereconsidered as weeds by them and treated withherbicides.

In order to tackle wicked problems you need togo through an extensive process of argumentation,also called objectification, which should not beconfused with an ‘objective approach’ to theproblem.

There is rational planning, but there is no wayto begin to be rational. One should always starta step earlier, since there are important trendsand facts which will make straightforward rationalthinking and acting in solving wicked problems


pointless. It is not the theoretical, but rather thepolitical component of knowledge that determinesthe vector of the action. This is the ‘zero step’that is so important in the publications of HorstRittel. It is also the basis for understandingthe term ‘symmetry of ignorance’ (Rittel, 1984).As an example let us mention the fact thatexperts can be wrong and that farmers can knowbetter in certain agricultural situations because, asdaily practitioners, they are often better observersin the field. After all, agriculture is especiallywell suited to the second-generation systemsapproach.

The knowledge required to solve wicked plan-ning problems cannot be found in a singleperson. It is absolutely essential for all theparticipants involved to join in the problem-solving process. This includes representatives of thegeneral population (mainly farmers’ organisationsand consumer groups), government regulators,NGOs, life-science companies and scientists. Thereis no monopoly of knowledge, and no singleperson can decide on the PA. Having illustratedthe difficulties encountered in solving wickedproblems, we now need to develop a new problem-solving approach in order to avoid the pitfalls ofignoring bottom-up feedback.

You can only go through a successful decision-making process if you implement the importantrule that: ‘all partners in the planning process mustavoid hidden agendas’. Naturally, the enforcementof this will be somewhat eased if the partnersdisplay a certain amount of respect towards eachanother. Nobody should be criticised for speakingup in their own interest. It is wrong, for example,to perpetuate reciprocal accusations of ‘abuse ofthe PA for the purposes of conducting a trade war,or to denigrate the PA to one’s own advantage inunhindered global trade.

As the difficulties involved in communicatingbiotechnological information grow, especially inagriculture, it is obvious that all participants inthe process still have a lot of work to do. Thebiotechnology companies are populated by peoplewho are convinced about the efficacy of their ownproducts, since they have precise knowledge aboutsafety standards and regulatory processes. Thisis all very good. However, these people live in aworld of euphemisms and perfection, and over timethey develop a lack of understanding of outsidecriticism. On the other hand, scientists are often

naıve enough to stick to factual, instrumental andexplanatory knowledge alone. Many of them missthe very important point that, as Hannah Arendt(1975) put it, ‘one of the most noble tasks ofscientists is to manufacture public opinion outof facts’. The regulators have to find ways andmeans of keeping up with the growing speedof new developments. One of the main reasonswhy things in Europe turn sour is the fact thatEuropean regulation is way behind that in theUnited States. On the other hand, this providesan excellent opportunity to see the geographicaldifferences in regulation more clearly. Some ofthe NGOs have developed into powerful protestindustries and are not interested in thoroughscientific analysis since this could blur populistargumentation, which they need to promote inorder to get more donors, who are in fact theirshareholders. Meanwhile, the public often becomeslost in the fog generated by the two warringfactions, and, not surprisingly, only a minority feelsthe need for better education on the matters underdispute.

How to Solve Wicked Problems inBiotechnology and the Environment

What we need in such cases is an action-oriented approach. In developing a professionalframework for decision making, risk assessmentand management must both be seen as second-generation planning strategies. Strategies have tobe developed to recognise the consequences ofour actions, on the one hand, and to specify ourknowledge, on the other. This knowledge has to begained step by step and case by case. If we want toseparate clearly our present state of knowledge (orignorance) from inappropriate decisions not basedon our views and opinions, we need to go throughthe following steps (Rittel, 1992):� What is the problem?� What do we want?� What are the alternatives?� How do we compare them?� How can we reach the solution?

All participants need to keep in mind thatthere are various types of planning knowledge(arranged according to the five questions above).The examples that follow are lumped together as


simple keyword illustrations, taken out of theirreal planning context. They cannot, therefore, beregarded as examples of a realistic situation, as thiswould be exactly the task of a second-generationplanning process.

Factual Knowledge

This is the knowledge of what actually happens(quantitative data or empirical, observationaldata). For example: gene flow species by species orregion by region; facts about insect resistance; andenvironmental benefits in agriculture (Ammannet al., 2001; Carpenter et al., 2002).

Deontic Knowledge

This is the very important knowledge of ‘whatought to be’. For example: knowledge concerningnew crops which enhance agricultural production;new agricultural techniques that avoid erosion;new biological approaches to fighting insect pests;and the segregation of European imports (Foodand Agriculture Organization, 2002; Pinstrup-Andersen and Pandya-Lorcha, 2001). In 2001,more than 900 people from both the public andprivate sectors met in Bonn for three days to discussgoals, solutions and the actions necessary to endhunger within the next two decades.

Explanatory Knowledge

This explains why things are as they are or whycertain effects happen. Here it is possible to beginto determine the correct direction of the solution.

For example: the way Bt proteins act on specificpests and/or beneficial species; what the mainreasons for unwelcome erosion are; the effects/mechanisms of vertical gene flow; and themechanisms of resistance development (Searset al., 2001).

Instrumental Knowledge

This is about how to steer certain processes, or howto achieve certain goals, and needs to be balancedagainst regulation and safety. For example: how

to build Bt and other genes into crops and howto stabilise them there; how to avoid vertical geneflow; how to avoid unwelcome soil erosion and howto avoid the early development of pest resistance(Ammann et al., 1999; Traynor and James, 1999;Trevavas, 2001).

Conceptual Knowledge

This allows us to avoid conflicts before theybegin. It is compound knowledge about complexsituations, which takes into account all theprevious kinds of knowledge and weighs themagainst arguments generated by open ecologicaland societal systems. For example: concepts abouttransgenic crops compatible with the ideas ofsustainable agriculture (Swaminathan, 2001).

It is necessary to go through an extensive processof argumentation, also called ‘objectification’, notto be mixed up with an ‘objective approach’ to theproblem. Hopefully, the use of this process shouldenable us to:

� forget less;� raise the right issues;� look at the planning process as a sequence of

events;� stimulate doubt by raising questions;� avoid short-sighted explicitness and� control the delegation of judgement (experts

have no absolute power; scientific knowledge isalways limited).

There is No Scientific Planning

Solving practical problems, such as the develop-ment of sustainable transgenic crops, cannot beundertaken by the ‘scientification of planning’,which means that planning cannot be steeredby scientific facts alone. Dealing with wickedproblems is always political because of theirdeontic premises (which means that you alwayshave to involve knowledge of ‘what ought to be’).Science only generates factual, instrumental or, inthe best cases, explanatory knowledge.

The planner (here the regulator who must takedecisions concerning the PA) is not primarily anexpert, but more a problem-solving ‘midwife’; ateacher more than a doctor. Useful attributes


are moderate optimism combined with a careful,seasoned lack of respect (casting doubt is a virtue,not a disadvantage in an action-plan manager).

The planning process for dealing with wickedproblems has to be understood as an argu-mentative one. It should be seen as a venture(or even an adventure) within a conspiratorialframework, where one cannot anticipate all theconsequences of plans. Second-generation systemsmethods attempt to make this deliberation explicit,to support it and to find a way of makingthis process more powerful, while at the sametime getting it under better control for all theparticipants.

OUTLOOK

It is not logical, given the present state of knowl-edge, to attempt to predict the outcomes in genetic-engineering debates designed as above. However,there are some ‘dreams’ and ‘hints’ that can beusefully listed here.

Precision Biotechnology

This could lead to better designs for crop seeds inthe future. Technology of such preciseness wouldallow for the provision of a great variety of differentkinds of seeds imbued with resistance to manyinsect pests, on the one hand, but all havinga genome specifically designed for final productquality, on the other. Genomic research offers agreat future and will greatly speed up modernbreeding and add considerably to its precision. Italso provides the bonus of reintroducing some oldconcepts for getting modern agriculture closer tobiodiversity again.

Organic Farming

In the future, organic farming needs to workin combination with modern breeding methods,including genetic engineering. In our opinion, thisis not only an absolute need but also a very difficultthing to achieve, since the transgenic crops ofthe first generation are either not made for thestrategies of organic farming or, even worse, theywork against such visionary strategies. Maybe we

need some newly designed products and processes,such as ‘organo-transgenic crops’ and ‘organicprecision biotechnology’ (Ammann, 1999).

Organo-Transgenic Crops and OrganicPrecision Biotechnology

This vision would, of course, break up the harshpresent-day debate on the PA. We would at last seethe possibility of developing a balanced approachto difficult PA decisions. This would also need abalanced approach to risk assessment, includingthe different kinds of knowledge described above.

Under this situation we would at least have thechance to make a breakthrough in the currentPA debate. Conversely, if we continue to fightabout factual knowledge alone, there is little hopeof solving these problems—which have an inter-national impact and need to be treated accordingto the latest management insights and systemsapproaches.

REFERENCES

Ammann K (1999). Towards precision biotechnology,accessed: 2003. http://www.cid.harvard.edu/cidbiotech/comments/comments38.htm

Ammann K, Jacot Y, Simonsen V, Kjellsson G (eds) (1999).Ecological Risks and Prospects of Transgenic Plants, WhereDo We Go from Here? A Dialogue Between Biotech Industryand Science, Vol III. Birkhauser: Basel; p 260.

Ammann K, Jacot Y, Al Mazyad PR (2001). An ecological riskassessment of vertical gene flow. In Custers R (ed), Safetyof Genetically Engineered Crops. Flanders InteruniversityInstitute for Biotechnology: Zwijinarde.

Arendt H (2003). Hannah Arendt im Internet, Hannah Ahrendt(1906–1975), Der Politischen Philosophin zum 25. Todestagim Jahr 2000. Accessed 2003.

Berg P, Baltimore D, Bremmer S, Roblin RO, Singer MF(1975). A slimar conference on recombinant DNA-molecules. Science 188: 991–4.

Carpenter J, Felsot A, Goode T, Hammig M, OnstadD, Sankula S (2002). Comparative Environmental Impactsof Biotechnology-Derived and Traditional Soybean, Corn,and Cotton Crops. Council for Agricultural Science andTechnology: Ames, IA.

Carson R (1962, 2002). Silent Spring. Houghton MifflinCompany: Boston.

CBD (1992). Convention on Biological Diversity. UnitedNations: New York.

Conklin J (2003). Wicked Problems and Fragmentation. Cog-Nexus Institute: Annapolis, MD.

Food and Agriculture Organization (2002). World FoodSummit: five years later reaffirms pledge to reduce hunger.FAO: Geneva.


Fischer G (2001). Communities of interest: learning throughthe interaction of multiple knowledge systems. In BjornestadtS, Morch A, Opdahl A (eds), Proceedings of the 24th IRISConference. Department of Information Science, Universityof Bergen: Bergen.

Fischer G, Ehn P, Engestrom Y, Virkkunen J (2002).Symmetry of ignorance and informed participation. InBinder JGT, Wagner I (eds), Proceedings of the Participa-tory Design Conference 2002, Malmo, CPSR: Palo Alto;pp 426–8.

Hagelstedt V, Persson M (2000). The systematic approachsyntegrity-4 in a command and control system. Departmentof Informatics, Mid Sweden University: Ostersund.

Hemmati M (2001). Multi-stakeholder Processes for Govern-ance and Sustainability—Beyond Deadlock and Conflict.Earthscan: London.

Jungk R, Mullert N (1987). Future workshops: how tocreate desirable futures. Institute for Social Inventions:London.

Verma N, Churchman C (1998). Similarities, Connections andSystems: The Search for a New Rationality for Planning andManagement. Lexington Books: Lanham, MD.

Papazova B (1986). A new approach to understanding theworld. PLET 23: 371–2.

Papazova B (1991). Sowohl Mittaterin als auch Vagabundin. InEngfer D, Fry P, Grazfeld R, Scheller A, Stalder GhidossiS (eds), Im Widerstreit mit der Objektivitat, eFeF-Verlag:Zurich-Dortmund; pp 67–83.

Peter L (2003). Search millions of documents for LaurenceJ. Peter, accessed, http://www.creativequotations.com/one/17.htm and http://ask.elibrary.com/search.asp

Pinstrup-Andersen P, Pandya-Lorcha R (2001). SustainableFood Security for All by 2020—Proceedings of an InternationalConference. International food Policy Research Institute,Washington, DC.

Popper K (1972). Objektive Erkenntnis, Ein EvolutionarerEntwurf. Hoffmann und Campe: Hamburg.

Rittel H (1984). Second generation design methods. In Cross N(ed), Developments in Design Methodology, Wiley: New York;pp 317–27.

Rittel H (1992). Planen, Entwerfen, Design, AusgewahlteSchriften. Kohlhammer: Stuttgart.

Rittel H, Weber M (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory ofplanning. Policy Sci 4: 155–69.

Sears M (2000). Preliminary report on the ecological impact ofBt corn pollen on the Monarch butterfly in Ontario. Preparedfor the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and EnvironmentCanada. University of Guelph: Canada.

Sears M, Hellmich RL, Stanley-Horn DE, Oberhauser KS,Pleasants JM, Mattila HR, Siegfriedi BD, Dively GP(2001). Impact of Bt corn pollen on Monarch butterflypopulations: a risk assessment. In: Berenbaum MR (ed),Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the UnitedStates of America; Vol 98, pp 11937–42.

Spretnak C (1997). States of Grace: The Recovery of Meaningin the Postmodern Age. Harper Collins: New York; 337 p.

Swaminathan MS (2001). Swaminathan Foundation.Swaminathan Foundation: Chennai.

Traynor P, James W (1999). Ecological effects of pest resistancegenes in managed ecosystems. Virginia Polytechnic Instituteand State University: Blacksburg, VA.

Tren R, Bates R (2001). Malaria and the DDT Story. Instituteof Economic Affairs. Profile Books: London.

Trevavas AJ (2001). The population/biodiversity paradox.Agricultural efficiency to save wilderness. Plant Physiol 125:174–9.

Wilber K (1998). The Marriage of Sense and Soul. IntegratingScience and Religion. Random House: New York.

Wilber K (2002). Boomeritis: A Novel That Will Set You Free,1st edn. Shambhala Publications: Boston, MA.

53 factors influencing public policy development in

Documents