Thursday October 17
Dr. Richard Hindmarsh
5.30 - 6.30 pm
Mayne Hall Foyer

Marginalising Public Debate on Genetic Engineering: An Historical Overview

Abstract
An intense debate exists globally about the grand attempt of genetic engineers to 'choreograph' nature. Though said to promise much, the endeavour of creating novel organisms has also ushered in a host of profound issues, including: the desirability of genetically-modified (GM) foods and crops; labelling of GM foods, consumer choice and 'right' to know; the ideology of modern science and progress; the epistemology of modern science to offer viable solutions for long term sustainable futures, especially in the face of complexity and high uncertainty about the workings of ecological systems; the usefulness of techno-fix approaches; the wide scale environmental release of genetically engineered crops and a continuation of monoculture agriculture as well as so-called 'genetic pollution' emerging; gene therapy and the domination of the biomedical model; designer babies and neo-eugenics; scientific and social responsibility; monopoly control by 'life sciences' conglomerates over directions of health care and agri-food production, especially through intellectual property ownership of genetic material; the desirability of genetic engineering vis-à-vis other modes of production such as conventional, agroecology or organicist ones; the patenting of 'life'; and so forth. Because of the scope and depth of these issues, which remain unresolved, a vast oppositional movement representing a diverse range of interests now exists worldwide to contest the proponents' 'recoding' of nature for a proposed bio-utopia.

Yet another issue underscores this problematic, and that is the convergence of culture and science, such that both open and well-balanced scientific and public debates have been hindered since controversy began soon after the emergence of the recombinant-DNA technique in 1973.

Here, science stepped out of the lab to translate genetic engineering as a cultural image with popular representations of meaning. In so doing, the 'authority' of science was transformed into a form of theatre, a theatre of representation. In a period of economic reorientation, the industry and the state soon joined bioscientists on the stage to cast genetic engineering as an innovative technology of globalisation. Throughout the play, benevolent and bio-utopian narratives and images of genetic engineering have dominated. Other important messages from technology change and innovation theorists, from development researchers, from critics of genetic engineering, and from the public have been ignored, trivialised or downplayed, even as they concretely emerge to confront GM developers.

This paper provides a synopsis of that history and argues that the cast and stage play of genetics needs revamping. This is needed to empower a diverse range of viewpoints about (bio)technological change that can generate approaches and solutions that appeal to the broader audience of societal interests. Better environmental and social outcomes are envisaged.

About the presenter
Dr Richard Hindmarsh lectures in Nature and Technoscience studies in the Contemporary Studies Program, Faculty of Arts, Ipswich. He researches the social and cultural intersection of science, technology, and nature. His co-edited and authored anthology Altered Genes has become the standard critical text on genetic engineering in Australia. A second edition--Altered Genes II: The Future? (2001, Scribe) - is selling well in Australia and overseas, with the first edition listed in New Scientist's (Australia's) top ten books on science in 1999.

Currently, Dr Hindmarsh is writing a book on the history of the recombinant-DNA controversy in Australia (from which some of the lecture material draws upon), and another anthology with a new cohort of emerging writers is in preparation called Recoding Nature: Critical Perspectives of Genetic Engineering.