Thanks to Jim from Ontario:
“An interesting and provocative lecture, being webcast this evening at 7:30 pm EDT, 5:30 pm CST. Pre-broadcast video is streaming at the moment, so you can check the connection. You can also participate real time in question period after the lecture.”
Coincidentally I caught part of the interview with Darin Barney on CBC Radio and really wanted to hear more. Now I can – his whole lecture!
http://www.harthouselecture.ca/index.html
First, Jim’s input. Then a few words of my own:
“Shelagh Rogers interviewed the lecturer, Darin Barney of McGill U, this morning on CBC radio. My provisional reaction (and the lecture may change my mind) is that I didn’t agree with a lot of what he said about the need for citizen review, approval and regulation of emerging technologies. Where there are risks to health or nature I think oversight by government already exists or can be quickly brought into place, e.g. with recombinant DNA, nuclear power, GM foods. A huge amount of discussion and debate also takes place in an open democratic society like ours, which politicians ignore at their peril. I don’t see how his formalized approach would help. I also don’t think Canadians’ concerns are really any different than those of Brits, Danes, Aussies or Japanese folks. One country can go it alone setting standards for awhile, but ultimately has to influence then sign on to international standards. Imagine if a Canadian citizens’ panel had decided in 1980 that the Internet would be more a threat than a positive influence and our government had forbid its deployment! (North Korea did.)
Listen in tonight and share your thoughts!” (Jim)
=========================
My reaction was different from Jim’s, largely because of our work on GMO’s and what little I know about nanotechnology.
To me, Darin Barney is making the point that in a democracy there will be bona fide involvement by citizens in decisions about – if, and – how new technologies will be introduced. The process should ensure that the public interest is protected.
If you use the example of the introduction of a new technology, bio-technology, as example:
The Governments in Canada invested very heavily in biotechnology without any debate in Parliament, without the public having any clue that it was happening. The deed was done before the public became aware. The public interest was not even considered, only the interests of Monsanto.
The introduction of new technologies needs to be done by the decision of an informed citizenry. The role of Government is to regulate new technologies, to protect the environment and citizens, to be wise about what is good for the public and future public.
Democracy is messy. That the corporate-driven biotechnology agenda was imposed on Canadians, along with a refusal to label gene-altered food products, is based on the attitude “Big Government knows better than the citizens what is best for the citizens”. It is an unsound and dangerous-to-democracy perspective. You cannot claim to have a democracy if decisions are made this way.