These are just some of the many controversial and timely questions that Sheila Jasanoff asks in this study of the way science advisers shape federal policy.

We provide examples of the extent and nature of environmental and human health problems and show why in the United States prevailing scientific and legal burden of proof requirements usually cannot be met because of the pervasiveness of scientific uncertainty. We also provide examples of how may assumptions, judgments, evaluations, and inferences in scientific methods are value-laden and that when this is not recognized results of studies will appear to be more factual and value-neutral than warranted. Further, we show that (...) there is a "tension" between the use of the 95 percent confidence rule as a normative basis to reduce speculation in scientific knowledge and other public policy and moral concerns embodied by the adoption of a precautionary principle. Finally, although there is no precise agreement regarding what a precautionary principle might entail, we make several recommendations regarding the placement of the burden of proof and the standard of proof that ought to be required in environmental and human health matters. (shrink)

Transgenic crops currently available foruse potentially provide environmental benefits, suchas reduction in insecticide use and substitution ofless toxic for more toxic herbicides. These benefitsare contingent on a host of factors, such as thepotential for development of resistant pests,out-crossing to weedy relatives, and transgenic cropmanagement regimes. Three scenarios are used toexamine the potential sustainability of transgeniccrop technologies. These scenarios demonstrate thatexisting transgenic varieties, while potentiallyimproving the sustainability of agriculture relativeto existing chemical based production systems, fail inenabling a fully sustainable agriculture. Genetictraits (...) that have a higher potential for promoting asustainable agriculture have been precluded fromdevelopment for a number of reasons. These include thelack of EPA and USDA regulatory policies thatexplicitly promote sustainable traits; the structureof the agricultural biotechnology industry, which isdominated by agricultural chemical companies; andpatent law and industry policies that proscribe farmhouseholds from saving transgenic seed and tailoringtransgenic crops to their local environmentalconditions – ecological, social, and economic. (shrink)