英國基因改造作物與食品公共辯論：公民參與科技政策模式之評估

The UK's Public Debate on GM Crops and Foods: Evaluation of the Model of Public Participation in Science and Technology Decision-Making

10.30409/JPA.201112_(41).0004

范玫芳(Mei-Fang Fan)；邱智民(Chih-Ming Chiu)

公民參與 ； 審議民主 ； 科技決策 ； 風險溝通 ； 基因改造作物與食品 ； public participation ； deliberative democracy ； technology decisionmaking ； risk communication ； GM crops and foods

公共行政學報

41期（2011 / 12 / 01）

103 - 134

繁體中文

晚近公民參與受到歐洲、美國與新興民主國家的高度關注，學界嘗試建立各種評估參與模式的標準，以檢視其品質與成效。英國在2002-2003年間舉行「基因改造國家？公共辯論」（The GM Nation? Debate），採行多元的公民參與形式，包括：基礎討論工作坊、公開討論會、互動網站與深度焦點團體，針對基因改造科技爭議進行全國性討論，以作為政府在基改科技可能的應用與管制之參考。本文旨在針對公共辯論的參與過程與結果面進行評估，檢視公民參與過程、公共辯論對參與者與政策影響以及不同公民參與模式的成效，呈現此公共辯論的特殊性與侷限性，以作為台灣未來推動公民參與和審議民主的參考。本研究採取文件分析法並輔以深度訪談資料。研究發現基礎討論工作坊、深度焦點團體在過程評估上具較高成效；公開討論會、互動網站在過程評估之成效不理想；公共辯論對參與者具有提升其知識與能力的功效；政治菁英對於公民參與科技決策議題的論述轉變；對實際政策影響有限，卻開啟政府在後續科技決策上，更重視公共審議和參與管道。本文最後主張推動多元公民參與形式、建立「回溯上游參與」（upstream engagement）及強化行政課責機制以促進公共審議之推動。

As public participation has received considerable attention in Europe, North America and newly democratic countries, various criteria for evaluating participatory methods have been developed to examine the quality and efficiency of participatory mechanisms. To guide the government’s consideration for potentially adopting the applications of GM technology and regulations, the UK Government initiated a nationwide public debate - the ”GM Nation? Debate” - on the controversies of GM technology during 2002-2003. The UK government adopted various participatory mechanisms, which included public meetings, narrow-but-deep groups, interactive website and workshops. This paper aims to examine the UK public debate on GM issues and to evaluate the process and outcome of the debate. It explores the particularities and limitations of the GM public debate in the UK, and provides suggestions for future public deliberations on science and technology in Taiwan. The research methods adopted are archival analysis and interviews. It shows that the foundation discussion workshop and narrow-but-deep groups achieve more efficiency in process evaluation, while the public meeting and interactive website generate less result. Public discussions raise the specific knowledge and capacity of the participants. They have a limited direct effect on policy decision-making, but have led to the government’s greater emphasis on public consultation and participation. Finally, this paper argues for the need to facilitate various forms of public participation, establish upstream engagement and create an accountability mechanism to promote public deliberation.

1. 林國明(2009)。國家、公民社會與審議民主：公民會議在台灣的發展經驗。台灣社會學，17，161-217。
   連結：
2. 林國明、陳東升(2003)。公民會議與審議民主：全民健保的公民參與經驗。台灣社會學報，6，61-118。
   連結：
3. 黃東益(2008)。審議過後─從行政部門觀點探討公民會議的政策連結。東吳政治學報，26(4)，59-96。
   連結：
4. 鄧宗業、吳嘉苓(2004)。法人論壇：新興民主國家的公民參與模式。台灣民主季刊，1(4)，35-56。
   連結：
5. POST (Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology) (2004). GM crops in the UK. Retrieved April 21, 2010, from http://www.parliament.uk/post/home.htm.
6. DEFRA (Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) (2004). The GM dialogue-government response. London: Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs..
7. DEFRA (Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) (2006). Consultation on proposals for managing the coexistence of GM, conventional and organic crops. London: Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs..
8. Beck, U.(1992).Risk society: Towards a new modernity.London:Sage.
9. Beck, U.(1999).World risk society.Cambridge, UK:Polity Press.
10. Beierle, T. C.(1999).Using social goals to evaluate public participation in environmental decisions.Policy Studies Review,16(3/4),75-103.
11. Callon, M.(1999).The role of lay people in the production and dissemination of scientific knowledge.Science, Technology & Society,4(1),81-94.
12. Chakraborty, S.,Stratton, R.(1993).An integrated regional approach to risk management of industrial-systems.Nuclear Safety,34(1),1-8.
13. Corr Willbourn Research and Development Company(2003).,London:Corr Willbourn Research and Development Company.
14. Crosby, N.,Kelly, J. M.,Schaefer, P.(1986).Citizen panels: A new approach to citizen participation.Public Participation Review,46,70-178.
15. Dryzek, J. S.,Tucker, A.(2008).Deliberative innovation to different effect: Consensus conference in Denmark, France, and the United State.Public Administration Review,68(5),864-876.
16. Einsiedel, D. F.,Eastlick, D. L.(2000).Consensus conference as deliberative democracy: A communication perspective.Science Communication,21(4),323-343.
17. Fan, M. F.,Chiu, C. M.(2009).Citizen participation in science and technology policymaking: The case of the consensus conference on GM crops and foods in Taiwan.International Conference on Public Policy for Sustainable Development, International Institute of Public Policy and Management,Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia:
18. Fiorino, D. J.(1990).Citizen participation and environmental risk: A survey of institutional mechanisms.Science, Technology & Human Values,15(2),226-243.
19. Gene Watch(2003).,未出版
20. Gene Watch(2004).,未出版
21. GM Science Review(2003).GM science review: First report.London:Department of Trade and Industry.
22. Goodin, R. E.,Dryzek, J. S.(2006).Deliberative impacts: The macro-political uptake of mini-publics.Politics Society,34,219-244.
23. Guston, D. H.(1997).Critical appraisal in science and technology policy analysis: The example of Science, the endless frontier.Policy Sciences,30(4),233-55.
24. Guston, D. H.(1999).Evaluating the first U.S. consensus conference: The impact of the citizens'panel on telecommunications and the future of democracy.Science, Technology & Human Values,24(4),451-482.
25. Hackett, E.(Ed.),Amsterdamska, O.(Ed.),Lynch, M.(Ed.),Wajcman, J.(Ed.)(2008).The handbook of science and technology studies.Cambridge, Mass:MIT Press.
26. Healey, P.(2004).,未出版
27. Horlick-Jones, T.,Walls, J.,Rowe, G.,Pidgeon, N.,Poortinga, W.,Murdock, G.,O''Riordan, T.(2007).The GM debate: Risk, politics and public engagement.London:Routledge.
28. Irwin, A.(1995).Citizen science.London, England:Routledge.
29. Macflane, A.(2003).Underlying Yucca Mountain: The interplay of geology and politics in nuclear waste disposal.Social Studies of Science,33(5),783-807.
30. Middendorf, G.,Busch, L.(1997).Inquiry for the public good: Democratic participation in agricultural research.Agriculture and Human Values,14,45-57.
31. Nelkin, D.,Pollak, M.(1979).Public participation in technological decisions: Reality or grand illusion?.Technology Review,9,55-64.
32. Ng, K. L.,Hamby, D. M.(1997).Fundamentals for establishing a risk communication program.Health Physics,73(3),473-482.
33. PDSB=Public Debate Steering Board(2003).GM nation? The findings of a public debate.London:Public Debate Steering Board. Department of Trade and Industry.
34. Pidgeon, N.,Poortinga, W.,Rowe, G.,Horlick-Jones, T.,Walls, J.,O''Riordan, T.(2005).Using surveys in public participation processes for risk decision-making: The case of the 2003 British GM nation public debate.Risk Analysis,25(2),467-479.
35. Renn, O.(1992).Risk communication: Towards a rational discourse with the public.Journal of Hazardous Materials,29(3),465-519.
36. Renn, O.(Ed.),Webler, T.(Ed.),Wiedemann, P.(Ed.)(1995).Fairness and competence in citizen participation: Evaluating models for environmental discourse.Dordrecht, Germany:Kluwer Academic Publishers.
37. Renn, O.,Welber, T.,Rakel, H.,Dienel, P.,Johnson, B.(1993).Public participation in decision-making: A 3-step procedure.Policy Sciences,26(3),189-214.
38. Reynolds, L.,Soneryd, L.,Szerszynski, B.(2008).Risk deliberation.Brussels:European Commission Community Research.
39. Reynolds, L.,Szerszynski, B.,Kousis, M.,Volakakis, Y.(2007).,未出版
40. Rowe, G.,Frewer, L. J.(2000).Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation.Science, Technology & Human Values,25(1),3-29.
41. Rowe, G.,Marsh, R.,Frewer, L. J.(2004).Evaluating of a deliberative conference.Science, Technology & Human Values,29(1),88-121.
42. 吳嘉苓(2007)。STS 與科學治理─評Brian Wynne and Ulrike Felt，嚴肅面對歐洲知識社會。台灣民主季刊，4(3)，185-189。
43. 林國明(2007)。審議民主實踐的多元模式─評John Gastill and Peter Levine Eds.審議民主手冊：二十一世紀有效的公民參與策略。台灣民主季刊，4(3)，191-195。
44. 黃東益(2003)。審慎思辯、議題資訊與政策偏好形成─核四議題意見調查結果的初探。理論與政策，16(4)，65-87。

1. Huang, Tong-yi,Hsieh, Chung-an(2013).Practicing Deliberative Democracy in Taiwan Processes, Impacts, and Challenges.Taiwan Journal of Democracy,9(2),79-104.
2. 陳春富,李明穎,吳宜蓁(2020)。食品安全的風險溝通策略：初探專家與常民之對話與共識。傳播研究與實踐，10(1)，19-50。
3. 陳瑞麟(2020)。科技風險與倫理評價：以科技風險倫理來評估台灣基改生物與人工智能的社會爭議。科技醫療與社會，30，13-65。
4. 胡慧君、吳宗憲(2016)。當「道德」遇上「審議」─ 2014流浪犬政策公民會議效果之研究。文官制度季刊，8(1)，77-114。
5. 劉華美,陳璽尹,高佩懃,徐美苓,周桂田(2020)。在專家、媒體與公眾之間：作為科技風險溝通途徑的新興科技媒體中心。傳播研究與實踐，10(1)，51-78。
6. (2018)。缺席的多元公眾：Taiwan Biobank的建置、爭議與科學治理。臺灣社會學刊，64，49-110。