Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisorTaylor, George
dc.contributor.authorRuffley, Martin
dc.date.accessioned2017-07-14T10:52:09Z
dc.date.issued2017-07-13
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10379/6677
dc.description.abstractFrom its inception, Genetic Modification has generated intense debate. Supporters insist that the benefits significantly outweigh any alleged costs: increased productivity, particularly in areas where crops are difficult to grow; the technology reduces the need for pesticides and, it is safe. Critics remain unconvinced. They maintain that GM crops remain insufficiently tested, reduce biodiversity, impacting significantly upon plant forms, insects and birds and have potentially catastrophic and irreversible consequences. Addressing these political disputes, those such as Vogel has argued that unlike the USA, Europe has become a risk-averse political order because of a series of regulatory failures, most notably BSE. In short, it has led to a ‘transatlantic shift in regulatory stringency’ as Europe endorses the principle of precaution. This thesis challenges this view, arguing that if we are to understand the politics of GM, we need to understand the ‘forces’ that have influenced the way risk, science and politics interact. It maintains that the New Right’s critique of government intervention based as it is upon a conservative view of individual responsibility and a desire to release markets, has altered the role of science in decision-making. The New Right has argued that risk is a part of everyday life and should be embraced, not feared. The role of science should be to define those instances where individuals are exposed to risk, or define clearly where no risk can be established. And if no risk can be proven, intervention cannot be warranted, for it reduces innovation, impacts upon jobs and undermines economic growth.en_IE
dc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Ireland
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ie/
dc.subjectGMOen_IE
dc.subjectRisken_IE
dc.subjectPolitical scienceen_IE
dc.subjectSociologyen_IE
dc.subjectFooden_IE
dc.subjectGenetic modificationen_IE
dc.subjectScienceen_IE
dc.titleRisk and the politics of genetic modificationen_IE
dc.typeThesisen_IE
dc.contributor.funderN/Aen_IE
dc.local.noteThis thesis has argued that it is at this point that we can begin to appreciate how the controversies surrounding GM regulation relate so firmly to the critique of social democracy offered by modern conservatives, where there has been an insistence upon the need to reduce state intervention, release business from excessive regulatory oversight. In contrast to those such as Beck (1998), Giddens (1998) or Vogel (2003, 2012) this thesis maintains that we are not in a new risk averse political order. Nor, should we believe that risk in politics is an especially recent phenomenon. This thesis has argued that risk was always an important consideration of governments, it was just that it was altered through a social democratic lens.en_IE
dc.description.embargo2021-07-13
dc.local.finalYesen_IE
nui.item.downloads100


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Ireland
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Ireland