Genetically Modified Salmon

Lisa DanielsonApril 8th, 2011

How can democratic values be preserved in a society where science and technology decisions are made by a non-elected academic elite?

Are current scientific institutions in the United States responsive to public needs and interests?

Aught there be more public participation in the FDA regulation of Genetically modified salmon?

The Case: The AquAdvantage Salmon

- An Atlantic salmon that has been modified with an antifreeze gene from the ocean pout species so it can survive in colder waters, and a growth gene from the Chinook salmon so it will grow twice as fast as a regular Atlantic salmon.

The IssuesThe first genetically modified animal that is up

for human consumptionSocial, ethical, economic and environmental

impacts that are not taken into account in the risk assessment process

Being regulated as an “animal drug”

The ParadoxRegulatory bodies in the United States such as the

FDA gain their legitimacy from the “cognitive authority” of science

This “cognitive authority” stems from the fact that science is viewed as an objective fact

To maintain the objectivity of science, narrow technical risk assessment is used

However, a narrow analysis misses key issues which leads to a decline in public trust, taking away from the legitimacy of the institution

How is this Happening?1. Animal drug: only the gene is examined,

information is supplied by the company2. The FDA has frequently become political3. There is no forum for meaningful public

engagement

What does this mean for public acceptance of the FDA’s decision?

The Frankenfish

A Deliberative BodyIncreased fairness through procedural justice

+Incorporation of social and ethical concerns

+Provides reliable information

= Increased public acceptance of final decision

ConclusionsWhen to deliberate? Separation of the of the

technical issues from the social/ethical