Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Commentary
  • Published:

The tragedy of the commoners: biotechnology and its publics

Nature Biotechnology volume 18, pages 2–4 (2000)Cite this article

In one sense, the emergence of the GM issue should not be seen as surprising: it is only one of numerous debates over the applications of biotechnology. Scientists, politicians, and the public have also expressed concern about aspects of cloning, xenotransplantation, genetic testing, and gene prospecting, to name a few other prominent examples. We suggest that a major factor in the emergence of these controversies has been neglect of the needs, interests, and concerns of the primary stakeholders—the “commoners”—in the biotechnology arena. The sustainable development of biotechnology will require a renewed focus on stakeholders and their needs. This, in turn, demands a clearer understanding of public concerns as well as attention to issues of institutional structure and representation in decision-making processes. The framework presented in this paper suggests some steps in this direction. While many of the points raised in the following analysis are based on examples from agricultural biotechnology, our approach also applies to other areas where ongoing development hinges on proper process in the construction of new forms of governance.

The complexities of controversy

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1
Figure 2

References

  1. Nelkin, D. Science controversies, in Handbook of science and technology studies (eds Jasanoff, S. et al.) 445 (Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA; 1995).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Slovic, P. Beyond numbers: a broader perspective on risk perception and risk communication, in Acceptable evidence: science and values in risk management (eds Mayo, D.G. & Hollander, R.) 48–65, (Oxford Univ. Press, New York, NY; 1991).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Beck, U. Risk society: towards a new modernity. (Sage Publications, London; 1992).

  4. United Nations Development Program. Human development report 1999. (Oxford Univ. Press, New York, NY; 1999), p. 36.

  5. Anonymous. How to merge: After the deal. The Economist, January 9 (1999), pp. 21–23.

  6. World Bank. Global development finance 1999. (World Bank, Washington, DC; 1999).

  7. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Aid and private flows fell in 1997. (news release, June 18, 1998).

  8. Barre, R. World science report 1998. (UNESCO, Paris; 1998).

  9. World Bank. World development report 1999. (World Bank, Washington, DC; 1999).

  10. Of course, institutions and individuals are shaped by their past experiences. Institutional and personal experiences with disparate issues such as nuclear power, pesticides, globalization, or individual privacy often shape current perceptions in the debate on GM foods.

  11. Persley, G.J. & Doyle, J.J. Biotechnology and developing-country agriculture: problems and opportunities. Overview. International Food Policy Research Institute, 2020 Focus 2: Brief No. 1, Washington, DC; 1999.

  12. AgrEvo. To nourish ten billion people. AgrEvo Background Paper, Berlin, 1998).

  13. Rural Advancement Foundation International. Traitor technology: the terminator's wider implications. (RAFI Communiqué, Winnipeg, January/February 1999).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Science, Technology, and Public Policy Program, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA

    Ambuj Sagar & Arthur Daemmrich

  2. Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA

    Mona Ashiya

Authors
  1. Ambuj Sagar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Arthur Daemmrich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mona Ashiya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sagar, A., Daemmrich, A. & Ashiya, M. The tragedy of the commoners: biotechnology and its publics. Nat Biotechnol 18, 2–4 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1038/71861

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/71861

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing