The Role of Public Opinion in the Regulation of Genomics in the United Kingdom

This thesis analyses the role played by public opinion in the regulation of genomics, and conversely the role that regulation plays in shaping public opinion. It is argued that there has been an over-emphasis on the use of public opinion by regulators, and that this is a rhetorical strategy. There are strong normative drivers behind the regulation of genomics, which include the argument that regulation has the capacity to imbue public confidence in novel technologies and that enhanced deliberation will help to placate public concerns. While not dismissing these arguments, the thesis shows that in practice the interaction between regulation and public opinion is not so clear. It is argued that both regulation per se and the very existence and visible presence of independent regulatory agencies overseeing genomics can help to alleviate public concern. A key finding is that although regulators refer to public opinion, in practice they actually respond to stakeholder opinion. The thesis analyses the classic interpretation of public opinion, survey data, and contrasts it with regulators’ understandings of public opinion and with public opinion data collected by independent regulatory agencies. The regulators interviewed agree that the public opinion data used in the regulatory process is not representative of public opinion. However, public opinion is still used as a way of legitimating policy. It is for this reason that I suggest ‘public opinion’ should, for reasons of transparency, be called ‘public opinion data’. Such a move would reflect its value in the regulatory process, but equally indicate that such data has inherent limitations. The argument is supported by evidence from two case-studies from genomics, both of which are significant areas of scientific and public concern. The first is prenatal testing and preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) and the second is Genetically Modified foods. The thesis questions whether the sui generis features of genomics merit its special regulatory handling and the enhanced role given to public opinion in this area

Proceduralisation and the Aarhus Convention

In the context of legal evolution, it is apparent that initiatives in environmental law are having an impact upon other legal fields and additionally upon the workings of the legal system itself. The legal system is failing adequately to protect the environment; once we accept this it is necessary to turn to solutions. Aspects of reflexive legal theory, such as increased access to the decision-making arena, are being eagerly adopted at EU level as an attempt to overcome the shortcomings inherent in the legalisation of environmental matters. One principal problem relating to the process of legalising environmental concerns is that of problem definition. It is argued that the advancement of enhanced participation in this field will result in more readily applicable solutions being raised. The issue assessed in this article is whether procedures which lead to greater participation in the decision-making process result in more effective legal output which ensures better protection of the environment. Enhanced participation is touted as a means to clarify the public interest and inculcate responsibility for the environment. It is thus assumed that the policy output is more representative of the consensus of public opinion. The Aarhus Convention is assessed in terms of its standing as a potential normative model of proceduralisation. Its compatibility with the sections of the Convention relating to participation and EU environmental law are analysed. </jats:p