鑑於科技民主化的呼聲以及對代議民主缺失的反思，愈來愈多學者主張審議民主以及肯定常民知識在科技風險決策之重要性。公民參與在晚近受到歐洲、美國與新興民主國家的高度關注，學界嘗試建立各種評估公民參與模式的準則，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」，針對基因改造科技爭議進行全國性討論，作為政府在基改科技可能的應用與管制之參考。英國政府採行不同公民參與形式，從中央到地方層級，舉辦逾六百場公開討論會、深度焦點團體與工作坊，同時也透過網路參與，吸引三萬以上人次的參與。
    本研究採取文件分析作為資料蒐集方法。本文主要根據不同公民參與評估準則瞭解公共辯論之過程、結果及其成效；探討不同參與者對基改作物與食品的風險論述；呈現公共辯論的特殊性、侷限性，作為台灣未來推動公民參與和審議民主的參考。本研究發現基礎工作討論坊、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；參與者與政府的風險論述存在歧異；公共辯論產出對參與者具有提升其知識與能力的效果，但對政治與政策的直接影響相當有限。本文最後主張台灣應嘗試推動多元公民參與形式、建立回溯上游的公民參與、預警原則的應用以及建立行政課責機制以促進公共審議之推動。

In response to the call for democratization of science and reflection on the deficits of representative democracy, more and more scholars argue for deliberative democracy and recognition of lay knowledge in risk decision-making. 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. The UK Government initiated a nationwide public debate – “GM Nation? Public Debate” on the controversies of GM technology during 2002-2003 to guide the Government’s consideration for potentially adopting the applications of GM technology and regulations. The UK government adopted various participatory mechanisms and held over 600 public meetings, narrow-but-deep groups and workshops took place with over 30,000 people taking part.
    This research adopts document analysis as its data-gathering method. The essay primarily focuses on using different public participation evaluation criteria to understand the process, outcome, and efficiency of public debate; discuss the risk discourse of GM crops and foods from a variety of participants; presents the uniqueness and limitations of public debate, and use the results as references for Taiwan’s public participation and deliberative democracy movement in the future. This research shows that foundation discussion workshop, narrow-but-deep group achieves higher efficiency in process evaluation, while public meeting and interactive website generate less result from the same evaluation. There are disagreements between the opinions of the participants and that of the government, although public discussions raises the specific knowledge of the participants, it has limited direct effect on policy decision-making. Finally, this essay argues the need for forming variety public participation, establishing upstream public participation, applying precautionary principle and creating accountability mechanism to promote public deliberation in Taiwan.

目次

第一章	緒論  1
第一節  研究背景與動機  1
壹、研究背景  1
貳、研究動機  2
第二節  研究問題與目的  4
第三節  研究方法與限制  7
壹、研究方法  7
貳、研究限制  9
第四節  評估準則與架構  11
第五節  章節安排  16
第二章  文獻檢閱  18
第一節  科技風險與民主  18
壹、風險相關概念介紹  18
貳、專家與公眾的風險論述  21
參、專家主導科技決策  25
肆、科技決策民主化  27
第二節  公民參與理論  30
壹、公民參與的提倡  31
貳、公民參與內涵  32
參、公民參與的立論與模式  34
肆、國內外公民參與經驗  39
伍、公民參與的限制  40
第三節  公民參與評估準則  42
壹、過程評估  43
貳、結果評估  43
參、綜合評估  45
第三章  基改風險爭議與公共辯論  49
第一節  基因改造科技爭議  49
壹、定義、功能與現況  49
貳、環境風險爭議  52
參、健康風險爭議  53
肆、社會風險爭議  55
伍、國際貿易爭議  56
小結  57
第二節  基改公共辯論之背景  58
壹、基改作物與食品抵達  58
貳、相關政策措施之推動  60
第三節  基改公共辯論之推動  66
壹、農業暨環境生物科技委員會推動公共辯論  66
貳、基改公共辯論之舉行過程  68
小結  71
第四章  基改公共辯論過程評估  74
第一節  基改公共辯論模式設計評估  74
壹、直接參與  74
貳、面對面討論  75
參、基於平等  76
小結  76
第二節  基改公共辯論參與者評估  77
壹、獨立性  78
貳、早期參與  78
參、公開透明  79
肆、工作闡述  80
伍、資源可接近性  81
陸、結構性決策  82
小結  83
第三節  基改公共辯論代表性評估  85
壹、人口結構特性  86
貳、基改議題態度  91
參、互動網站的代表性  95
小結  96
第五章  基改公共辯論結果評估  98
第一節  參與者對基改議題的觀點  98
    壹、支持基改者之觀點：低風險與視反對者為不理性  98
    貳、增加自然環境風險  99
    參、增加人體健康風險  100
    肆、沒有種植基改作物的必要性  100
    伍、社會倫理與選擇的自由  101
    陸、跨國生技公司擴張權力  101
    柒、發展中國家形成貿易依賴  102
    捌、強制標示與風險責任  102
    玖、參與者的預警觀點：社會理性  102
    小結  104
  第二節	 政府對公共辯論結果的回應  105
    壹、部份基改作物有利於環境  105
    貳、已上市的基改食品對健康安全無虞  106
    參、基改作物的走向由市場決定  106
    肆、基改科學知識的不同見解  107
    伍、強制標示、自由選擇  108
    陸、基改與非基改共存制度  108
    柒、政府的預警觀點：科學理性  110
    小結  112
第三節	 基改公共辯論之影響  113
壹、對參與者的影響  113
貳、對政策的影響  117
參、對政治的影響  119
小結  120
第六章  結論與建議  122
第一節	 研究發現  122
壹、公共辯論參與模式設計與過程評估  123
貳、公共辯論的風險論述與實際影響  125
第二節	 研究建議  128
壹、政策建議  128
貳、後續研究建議  133
參考書目  135

表次

表2-1  影響風險被接受的因素  22
表2-2  專家與非專家對風險認知與評估的差距比較表  23
表2-3  GMO風險評估與溝通比較分析  24
表2-4  各種正式的公民參與模式  37
表2-5  實質影響分析表  45
表2-6  公民參與設計與評估準則  47
表3-1  2008年全球前二十大基改作物商業化種植國家  51
表4-1  公共辯論之潛在成效評估  77
表4-2  公共辯論參與者評估結果  85
表4-3  基礎討論工作坊樣本  87
表4-4  公開討論會參與者人口結構特性  88
表4-5  深度焦點團體法樣本  90
表4-6  公共辯論參與者與英國人口結構特性比較  91
表4-7  不同樣本對七項基改議題的評分  93
表4-8  四種樣本對七項基改議題的認同度  94
表4-9  公共辯論的代表性評估  97
表5-1  公共辯論參與者與政府的風險論述比較  113
表5-2  深度焦點團體參與者前測與後測比較  115
表5-3  基改公共辯論結果與影響分析  121

圖次

圖1-1  研究架構圖  15
圖2-1  審議民主的動態性  48
圖3-1  基改作物對生態可能的影響  53
圖3-2  基改公共辯論實施程序  71

壹、中文

方俊育、林崇熙譯（2004），Winner, L. 著，吳嘉苓、傅大為、雷祥麟主編，〈技術物有政治性嗎？〉，《科技渴望社會》，台北：群學，頁123-150。

牛惠之、郭華仁主編（2005），《基因改造產品：發展、爭議、管理與規範》，台北：行政院農委會動植物防檢局。

丘昌泰（1996），《建構利害關係人取向的環境風險政策：以石化專業區為分析焦點》，台北：時英。

丘昌泰（1998），〈公害社區風險溝通之問題與對策〉，《法商學報》，第34期，頁17-58。

朱元鴻（1995），〈風險知識與風險媒介的政治社會學分析〉，《台灣社會研究季刊》，第19期，頁195-224。

吳宜蓁（2002），《危機傳播：公共關係與語藝觀點的理論與實證》，台北：五南。

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》，第4卷，第3期，頁185-189。
 
杜文苓（2009），〈高科技汙染的風險論辯─環境倡議的挑戰〉，《台灣民主季刊》，第6卷，第4期，頁101-139。

杜文苓、施麗雯、黃廷宜（2007），〈風險溝通與民主參與：以竹科宜蘭基地之設置為例〉，《科技、醫療與社會》，第5期，頁71-110。

杜文苓、陳致中（2007），〈民眾參與公共政策的反思─以竹科宜蘭基地設置為例〉，《台灣民主季刊》，第4卷，第3期，頁33-62。

李尚仁（2004），〈英國基因改造作物爭議〉，《科學發展月刊》，第374期，頁81-82。 
  
李國欽、徐慈鴻（2004），〈GMO/GMF風險評估與風險管理方法〉，郭華仁、牛惠之主編，《基因改造議題：從紛爭到展望》，台北：行政院農業委員會動植物防疫檢驗局，頁82-99。

汪銘生（1993），《環境決策與管理》，台北：淑馨。

周任芸譯，（2007），Wynne, B.著，〈風險社會、不確定性和科學民主化：STS的未來〉，《科技、醫療與社會》，第5期，頁15-42。

周桂田（2000），〈生物科技產業與社會風險─遲滯型高科技風險社會〉，《台灣社會研究季刊》，第39期，頁239-283。

周桂田（2004），〈獨大的科學理性與隱沒（默）的社會理性之「對話」─在地公眾、科學專家與國家的風險文化探討〉，《台灣社會研究季刊》，第56期，頁1-63。

周桂田（2005），〈知識、科學與不確定性—專家與科技系統的「無知」如何建構風險〉，《政治與社會哲學評論》，第13期，頁131-180。

林水波（1999），《公共政策新論》，台北：智勝。  

林宜平、張武修（2006），〈行動電話的健康風險管理與溝通：預警架構的政策應用〉，《研考雙月刊》，第30卷，第2期，頁68-80。

林祐聖（2007），〈我們沒有臺上臺下之分─代理孕母公民共識會議中的專家與常民關係〉，《台灣民主季刊》，第4卷，第3期，頁1-32。
 
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》，第4卷，第3期，頁191-195。

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》，第6期，頁61-118。

林國明、陳東升（2005），〈審議民主、科技決策與公共討論〉，《科技、醫療與社會》，第3期，頁1-49。

范玫芳（2006），〈台灣水資源管理公民會議之評估〉，《法政學報》，第20期，頁87-104。

范玫芳（2007），〈風險論述、公民行動與灰渣掩埋場設置爭議〉，《科技、醫療與社會》，第5期，頁43-70。

范玫芳（2008），〈科技、民主與公民身分：安坑灰渣掩埋場設置爭議之個案研究〉，《台灣政治學刊》，第12卷，第1期，頁185-228。   

范玫芳、陳俞燕（2009），〈預警原則在塑化劑管制之應用：政策利害關係人觀點分析〉，《法政學報》，第22期，頁39-72。   

國立台灣大學社會系（2008年4月25日），〈公民共識會議：基因改造食品〉，網址：http://cc-gmf.blogspot.com/2008/04/blog-post_25.html（上網日期：2009年12月3日）。

陳東升（2006），〈審議民主的限制─台灣公民會議的經驗〉，《台灣民主季刊》，第3卷，第1期，頁77-104。

陳俊宏（1998），〈永續發展與民主：審議式民主理論初探〉，《東吳政治學報》，第9期，頁85-122。

郭秋永（2007），〈多元民主理論─公民審議的一個理論基礎〉，《台灣民主季刊》，第4卷，第3期，頁63-107。

陳敦源、黃東益、李仲彬、蕭乃沂、林子倫（2008），〈資訊通訊科技下的審議式民主：線上與實體公民會議比較分析〉，《行政暨政策學報》，第46期，頁49-105。

彭淮棟譯（2000），McClelland J. S.著，《西洋政治思想史》，台北：商周。

黃東益（2000），〈審慎思辯民調─研究方法的探討與可行性評估〉，《民意研究季刊》，第211期，頁123-143。

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》，第16卷，第4期，頁65-87。
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》，第26卷，第4期，頁59-96。

黃東益、施佳良、傅凱若（2007），〈地方公共審議說理過程初探：2005年宜蘭社大公民會議個案研究〉，《公共行政學報》，頁71-102。  

黃東益、陳敦源（2004），〈電子化政府與商議式民主之實踐〉，《台灣民主季刊》，第1卷，第4期，頁1-34。

黃東益、陳敦源、陳俊明、蕭乃沂（2004），〈數位時代商議式民主的實驗原型：線上公民顧問團〉，《研考雙月刊》，第28卷，第1期，頁81-91。

黃清賢（1996），《危害分析與風險評估》，台北：三民。

黃瑞祺（1996），《批判社會學》，台北：三民。 

黃鵬林、張有明、鐘敏禕、杜宜殷（2005），〈世界主要國家基因轉殖植物隔離試 驗田管理概況〉，行政院農業委員會主編，《基因轉殖植物之生物安全評估與檢測專刊》，頁9-18。

黃競涓（2008），〈女性主義對審議式民主之支持與批判〉，《台灣民主季刊》，第5卷，第3期，頁33-69。 

楊日青、李培元、林文斌、劉兆隆譯（2002），Heywood, A. 著，《政治學新論》，台北：韋伯。

資策會（2007），《全球化浪潮‧爭議性科技─談各國基因改造管理規範》，台北：資訊工業策進會法律中心。

鄒文海（1986），《西洋政治思想史稿》，台北：鄒文海先生獎學基金會。

雷祥麟譯（2004），Latour, B. 著，吳嘉苓、傅大為、雷祥麟主編，〈直線進步或交引纏繞？〉，《科技渴望社會》，台北：群學，頁79-106。

潘明宏，陳志瑋譯（2003），Fraankfort-Nachmias, C. and Nachmias, D. 著，《最新社會科學研究方法》，台北：韋伯。

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》，第1卷，第4期，頁35-56。

賴沅暉（2005），《新興科技發展中的民主與治理：基因科技政策過程中的風險圖像》，台北：韋伯。 

謝宗學、鄭惠文譯（2006），Gutmann, A. and Thompson, D. 著，《商議民主》，台北：智勝。

羅致逑（2006），〈基改植物之環境安全風險評估〉，《科技發展與政策報導》，第95卷，第5期，頁446-470。 

釋昭慧（2008），〈異種基因轉殖的倫理爭議與佛法觀點〉，《弘誓雙月刊》，第91期，網址：http://www.awker.com/hongshi/mag/91/91-2.htm（上網日期：2009年12月3日）。

顧忠華（2007），〈風險、社會與倫理〉，顧忠華主編，《第二現代—風險社會的出路？》，台北：巨流，頁17-45。

貳、西文

Abelson, J., Forestb, P. G., Eylesa, J., Smith, P., Martin, E., and Gauvin, F. P. (2003). “Deliberations about deliberative methods: issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes.” Social Science & Medicine, 57: 239-251.

AEBC. (2001). Crops on Trail. Reported by Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission. Department of Trade and Industry, London.

Andersen, I.-E. and Jæger, B. (1999). “Scenario Workshops and Consensus     Conferences: Towards More Democratic Decision-Making.” Science and Public Policy, 26(5): 331-340.

Austen-Smith, D. and Duggan, J. (eds.). (2005). Social choice and strategic decisions : essays in honor of Jeffrey S. Banks. New York: Springer. 

Bakshi, A. (2003). “Potential Adverse Health Effects of Genetically Modified Crops.” Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, 6: 211-225

Barber, B. R. (1984). Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age. Berkeley: University of California Press.

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

Beck, U. (1995). Ecological enlightenment : essays on the politics of the risk society. Atlantic Highlands, N. J.: Humanities Press. 

Beck, U. (1999). World risk society. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Beierle, T. C. (1999). “Using Social Goals to Evaluate Public Participation in Environmental Decisions.” Policy Studies Review, 16(3/4): 75-103. 

Boham, J. (1996). Public deliberation: pluralism, complexity, and democracy. Cambridge: MIT Press. 

Bradbury, J. A. (1989). “The Policy Implications of Differing Concepts of risk.” Science, Technology, and Human Values, 14(4): 380-399.

Bucchi, M & Neresunu, F. (2008). “Science and Public Participation.” In E. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, and J. Wajcman (eds.). The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Callon, M. (1999). “The Role of Lay People in the Production and Dissemination of Scientific Knowledge. ” Science, Technology & Society, 4(1): 81-94.

CEC (2000, October). DG Research and Joint Research Centres, European Commission.

Chakraborty, S., and Stratton, R. (1993). “An integrated regional approach to risk management of industrial-systems.” Nuclear Safety, 34(1): 1-8.

Coleman, S. and Gotze, J. (2001). Bowling together: Online public engagement in policy deliberation. London: Hansard Society.

Common Dreams. (2005, March 22). The End for GM Crops: Final British Trial Confirms Threat to Wildlife. Retrieved Nov 6, 2009, from http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0322-04.htm

Corr Willbourn Research and Development. (2003). A Report on the Foundation Discussion Workshops conducted to informed the GM Public Debate. London: Corr Willbourn Research and Development. Retrieved Oct 10, 2009, from http://www.defra.gov.uk/ corporate/counsult/nationalist/-responses.pdf.

Crosby, N., Kelly, J. M. and Schaefer, P. (1986). “Citizen panels: A new approach to citizen participation.” Public Participation Review, 46: 70-178.

Dahl, R. A. (1985). A preface to economic democracy. Berkeley: University of California Press. 

Dahl, R. A. (1989). Democracy and Its Critics. New Haven: Yale University.

Dahl, R. A. (1998). On democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press.

DEFRA. (2004). The GM Dialogue-Government Response. London: DEFRA.

DEFRA. (2007). Consultations on Proposals for Managing the Coexistence of GM, Conventional and Organic Crops. Retrieved July 10, 2009,from http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/gm/crops/pdf/gmcoexist-condoc.pdf

Douglas, M. and Wildavsky, A. (1982). Risk and culture : an essay on the selection of technical and environmental dangers. Berkeley : University of California Press.

Dryzek, J. S. (2000). Deliberative democracy and beyond : liberals, critics, contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dryzek, J. S. and Tucker, A. (2008). Deliberative innovation to different effect: Consensus conference in Denmark, France, and the United State. Public Administration Review, 68(5): 864-876.

Dryzek, J. S., Robert, G. E., Tucker, A., and Reber, B. (2007). “Promothean elites encounter precautionary publics: the case of GM foods.” Unpublished manuscript (April).

Einsiedel, D. F. and Eastlick D. L. (2000). “Consensus Conference as Deliberative Democracy: A Communication Perspective.” Science Communication, 21(4): 323-343.

Elster, J. (1998). “Introduction.” In J. Elster (ed.). Deliberative Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1-18.

Epstein, S. (1996). Impure Science: AIDS, Activism and the Politics of Knowledge. Berkeley: University of California Press. 

European Communities, Conference on Science and Governance, Brussels, UK. Retrieved October 15, 2009, from http://www.jrc.es/sci-gov.

Fan, M. F. (2008). “Environmental citizenship and sustainable development: the case of waste facility siting in Taiwan.” Sustainable Development, 16(6): 381-389.

Fan, M. F. (2009). “Stakeholder Perceptions and Responses to GM Crops and Foods: the Case of Taiwan.” Sustainable Development, 17: 391-399.

Fan, M. F. and Chiu, C. M. (2009). “Citizen participation in science and technology policymaking: The case of the consensus conference on GM crops and foods in Taiwan.” Paper presented at International Institute of Public Policy and Management, International Conference on Public Policy for Sustainable Development, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (August).

Fiorino, D. J. (1990). Citizen participation and environmental risk: A survey of institutional mechanisms. Science, Technology & Human Values, 15(2): 226-243.

Fishkin, J. S. (1991). Democracy and Deliberation: New Direction for Democratic Reforms. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Fishkin, J. S., Luskin, R. C., and Jowell, R. (2000). “Deliberative Polling and Public Consultation.” Parliamentary Affairs, 53: 657-666. 

Frewer, L. (1999). “Public risk perceptions and risk communication.” In P. Bennett, and K. Calman (eds.). Risk Communciation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

Funtowicz, S., Shepherd, I., Wilkinson, D., and Ravetz, J. (2000). “Science and Governance in European Union: A Contribution to the Debate. ” Science and Public Policy, 27(5): 327-336.

Gene Watch. (2003). GM Nation? Engaging People in Real Debate?. A Gene Watch UK report on the conduct of the UK’s public debate on GM crops and food. Retrieved April 20, 2010, from http://www.genewatch.org/uploads/f03c6d66a9b354535738483c1c3d49e4/GM_Nation_Report.pdf.

Gene Watch. (2004). Avoiding the difficult issues. A GeneWatch UK report on the Government's response to the GM Nation? public debate. Retrieved April 20, 2010, from http://www.genewatch.org/uploads/f03c6d66a9b354535738483c1c3d49e4/GMNationReport2.pdf

Glendon, A. I. and McKenna, E. F. (1995). Human safety and risk management. London: Chapman & Hall. 

GM Science Review.（2003）. GM Science Rview- First Reoprt. Retrieved July 17, 2009, from http://www.gmsciencedebate.org.uk/report/pdf/gmsci-report1-full.pdf

Goldsbrough, A. P., Tong, Y., and Yoder, J. I. (1996.). “Lc as a non-destructive visual reporter and transposition excision marker gene for tomato.” Plant Journal, 9: 927-933.

Goodin, R. E. and Dryzek, J. S. (2006). “Deliberative Impacts: The Macro-Political Uptake of Mini-Publics.” Politics Society, 34: 219-244.

Grinnel, R. (ed.). (1993). Social Work, Research and Evaluation. Illinois F. E. Peacock Publishers.

Grogan, C. M. and Gusmano, M. K. (2005). “Deliberative Democracy in Theory and Practice: Connecticut's Medicaid Managed Care Council.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 5(2): 126-146.

Grove-White, R. (2006). “Britain’s Genetically Modified Crop Controversies: The Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission and the Negotiation of ‘uncertainty’.” Community Genetics, 9(3): 170-177.

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.

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.

Gutmann, A and Thompson, D. (1996). Democracy and Disagreement. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University.

Habermas, Jürgen. (1993). Justification and Application: Remarks on Discourse Ethics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Hamlett, P. W. (2003). “Technology Theory and Deliberative Democracy.” Science, Technology & Human Values, 28(1): 112-140.

Harbermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action. Vol.1. Reason and the rationalization of society. London: Heinemann.

Healey, P. (2004). The 2003 UK GM Crops Debate, STAGE (Science, Technology and Governance in Europe) Discussion Paper 28. From http://www.stageresearch.net/STAGE/documents/28 UK GM %20 Debate final.pdf.

Healey, P. (2004). The 2003 UK GM Crops Debate. (HPSE-CT2001-50003). Science, Technology and Governance in Europe, European Commission.

Horlick-Jones, T., Walls, J., Rowe, G., Pidgeon, N. Poortinga, W., Murdock, G., and O’Riordan, T. (2007). The GM Debate: Risk, Politics and Public engagement. London: Routledge. 

Irwin, A. (2008). “STS Perspectives on Scientific Governance.” In E. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch & J. Wajcman (eds.). The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

ISAAA. (2009). Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2008 The First Thirteen Years, 1996-2008. Retrieved Nov 2, 2009, from http://www. isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/39/executivesummary/default.html

Jasanoff, S. (1993). “Bridging the Two Cultures of Risk Analysis.” Risk Analysis. 13(2): 123-129.

Jasanoff, S. (ed.). (1997). Comparative Science and Technology Policy. Cheltenham: E. Elgar Pub.

Joss, S., and Durant, J. (1994). Consensus conferences: A review of the Danish, Dutch and UK approaches to this special form of technology assessment, and an assessment of the options for a proposed Swiss consensus conference. London: The Science Museum. 

Kerlinger, F. N. (1986). Foundations of Behavioral Research. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Kohn, M. (2000). “Language, Power, and Persuasion: Toward A Critique of Deliberative Democracy.” Consterllations, 7(3): 408-429.

Koprek, T., McElroy, D., Louwerse, J., Williams-Carrier, R., and Lemaux, P. G. (2000.). “An efficient method for dispersing Ds elements in the barley genome as a tool for determining gene function.” Plant Journal, 24: 253-263.

Levidow, L., Carr, S., Wield, D., and Schomberg, R. V. (1997). “European Biotechnology Regulation: Framing the Risk Assessment of a Herbicide-Tolerant Crop.” Science, Technology & Human Values, 22(4): 472-505.

Losey, J. E., Rayor, L. S. and Carter, M. E. (1999). “Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae.” Nature, 399: 214.

Lowrance, W. F. (1976). Of Acceptable Risk: science and the determination of safety. Los Altos, Calif.: William Kaufman Inc.

Lupton, D. (1999). Risk. London: Routledge.

Macflane, A. (2003). “Underlying Yucca Mountain: The Interplay of Geology and Politics in Nuclear Waste Disposal.” Social Studies of Science, 33(5): 783-807.

Middendorf, G., and Busch, L. (1997). “Inquiry for the public good: Democratic participation in agricultural research.” Agriculture and Human Values, 14: 45-57.

Miller, D. and Macintyre, S. (1999). “The relationships between the media, public beliefs, and policy-making.” In P. Bennet and S. K.Calman (eds.). Risk communication and public health, 229-240.

Moffet, J. (1996). “Environmental priority setting based on comparative risk and public input.” Canadian Public Administration, 39(3): 362-385.

Myhr A. I. and Traavik T. (2003). “Genetically modified (GM) crops: precautionary science and conflicts of interests.” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 16: 227-247.

National Research council. (1989). Improving Risk Communication. Washington, D. C: National Academy Press.

Nelkin, D. (1984). “Science, Technology, and Political Conflict: Analyzing the Issues. “In D. Nelkin (ed.). Controversy: Politics of Technical Decisions. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publiciactions, 9-24.

Nelkin, D., and Pollak, M. (1979). “Public participation in technological decisions: Reality or grand illusion?” Technology Review, 9: 55-64.

Ng, K. L., and Hamby, D. M. (1997). “Fundamentals for establishing a risk communication program.” Health Physics, 73(3):473-482.

Nino, C. S. (1996). The constitution of deliberative democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press. 

Nordlee, J. A., Taylor, S. L., Townsend, J. A., Thomas, L. A., and Bush, R. K. (1996). “Identification of a Brazil-nut allergen in transgenic soybeans.” New England Journal of Medicine, 334: 726-728.

O’ Riordan, T. and Jordan, A. (1995). “The Precautionary Principle in Contemporary Environmental Politics.” Environmental Values, 4: 191-212. 

PAGANINI (Participatory Governance and Institution Innovation). (2007). In L. Reynolds and B. Szerszynski (eds.) The Role of Participation in a Techno-Scientific Controversy. EU: 6th EU Framework Programme for Research and Technology. 

Pateman, C. (1970). Participation and Democratic Theory. New York: Cambridge University Press. 

PDSB(Public Debate Steering Board). (2003). GM nation? The Findings of a Public Debate. London: GM Nation? Public Debate Steering Board. 

Petts, J. (1997). “The public-expert interface in local waste management decisions: expertise, credibility and process.” Public Understanding of Science, 6: 359-381.

POST. (2004). GM Crops in the UK. Retrieved at April 21, 2010, from http://www.parliament.uk/post/home.htm

Purdue, D. (1999). “Experiments in the governance of biotechnology: a case study of the UK National Consensus Conference.” New Genetics and Society, 18(1): 79-99.

Rayner, S. (1992). “Cultural Theory and Risk Analysis.” In S. Krimsky and D. Golding (eds.) . Social Theories of Risk. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger.

Rayner, S. (1993). “Risk perception, technology acceptance, and institutional culture: case studies and some new definitions.” In Bayerische Rück (ed.). Risk is a Construct: Perceptions of Risk Perception. Munich: Knesebeck, 197-221.

Renn, O. (1992). “Risk Communication: Towards a rational discourse with the public.” Journal of Hazardous Materials. 29(3): 465-519.

Renn, O. (2005). Risk Governance: Towards an Integrative Approach. Geneva: International Risk Governance Council.

Renn, O., Welber, T., Rakel, H., Dienel, P., and Johnson, B. (1993). Public participation in decision-making : A 3-step procedure. Policy Sciences, 26(3): 189-214.

Reynolds, L., Soneryd, L., and Szerszynski, B. (2008). Risk Deliberation. Brussels: European Commission Community Research.

Roberts, N. C. (2004). “Public deliberation in an age of direct citizen participation.” American Review of Public Administration, 34(4): 315-353.

Rowe, G. and Frewer, L. J. (2000). “Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation.” Science, Technology & Human Values, 25 (1): 3-29.

Rowe, G., Marsh, R., and Frewer, L. J. (2004). “Evaluating of a Deliberative Conference.” Science, Technology & Human Values, 29(1): 88-121.

Royal Society. (1998.) Genetically modified plants for food use. London: The Royal Society, Policy Document 2/98.

Sanders L. M (1997). “ Against Deliberation.” Political Theory, 25(3): 347-376.

Savadori, L., Savio, S., Nicotra, E., Rumiati, R., Minucane, M., and Slovic, P. (2004). “Except and Public Perception of Risk from Biotechnology. Risk Analysis, 24(5): 1289-1299

Schwarz, M. and Tohmpson, M. (1990). Divided We Stand: Redefining Politics, Technology, and Social Choice. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Sclove, R. E. (1998). “Better Approaches to Science Policy.” Science, 279: 1283.

Slovic, P. (1987). “Perception of risk.” Science, 236: 280-285.

Slovic, P. (2000). “Trust, Emotion, Sex, Politics and Science: Surveying the Risk-assessment Battlefield.” The Perception of Risk. London : Earthscan Publications, 390-412.

Smith, G. and Wales, C. (1999). “Risk and rationality: Philosophical foundations for populist reforms.” Policy & Politics, 27(3): 295-308.

Somin, I. (1998). “Voter ignorance and the democratic ideal.” Critical Review, 12(4): 413-458.

Stirling, A. (2005). “Opening up or closing down? Analysis, participation and power in the social appraisal of technology.” In M. Leach, I. Scoones and B. Wynee (eds.). Science and citizens. Globalization and the challenge of engagement. London: Zed Books.
UK House of Lords (2000, March). Science and Society. Report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology. London: Lord Jenkin, Chair.  

UNCED (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development). (1992). Retrieved June 3, 2010, from http://www.un.org/documents/ga/conf151/aconf15126-lannex1.htm.

Understanding Risk team. (2004). A Deliberative Future? An Independent Evaluation of the GM Nation? Public Debate about the possible Commercialization of Transgenic Crops in Britain, 2003. Understanding Risk Working paper 04-02, Norwich.

United States Department of Agriculture. (2002). Butterflies and Bt corn- Allowing Science to guide Decisions. Retrieved Nov 8, 2009, from http://ars.usda.gov/sites/monarch/index.html

Webler, T. (1995). “Right Discourse in Citizen Participation: An Evaluative Yardstick.” In O. Renn; T. Webler, and P. Wiedemann (eds.). Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht, Germany.

Whiteside, K. H. (2006). Precautionary Politics. Principle and practice in confronting environment risk. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Williams, N. (2004). Organisational and Performance Review of the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission: Final Report. London: DTI. 

Williamson, O. (1975). Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications. New York: the Free Press. 

Wynne, B. (1996). “Misunderstood misunderstandings: social identities and public uptake of science.” In A. Irwin and B. Wynne (eds.). Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University.

Wynne, B. (2001). “Creating Public Alienation Expert Cultures of Risk and Ethics on GMOs.” Science as Culture, 10(4): 445-481.

Wynne, B. (2002). “Risk and Environment as Legitimatory Discourses of Technology: Reflexivity Inside out?” Current Sociology, 50(3): 459-477.

Yearley, S. (1996). Sociology, environmentalism, globalization : reinventing the globe. London: Sage.

Young I. M. (1996). “Communitication and the other: Beyond deliberative democracy.” In S. Benhabib (ed.). Democracy and Difference. N. J. :Princeton University Press. 

Young, I. M. (2000). Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.