View article

This paper explores the challenges entailed in applying the principles and methods of public participation to national and international policy processes. It draws on evidence from the field of biotechnology policy and biosafety regulation in Brazil, Canada, China, Denmark, Estonia, Ethiopia, India, Kenya, Malaysia, Mexico, Namibia, New Zealand, Norway, the United Kingdom, the United States and Zimbabwe. The paper is based on a distinction between the regulatory-scientific concept of" biosafety", developed largely at the international level to frame regulatory issues relating to genetically modified organisms (GMOs) within narrow and technically-defined boundaries, and the more encompassing and socially-defined politics of" biotechnology", which denotes a more diverse, unruly and contested politics situated at national and local levels. It concludes that the way in which participation occurs in practice is shaped and constrained by the interplay of the politics of" biosafety" and international harmonisation on one hand, and the more inclusive politics of biotechnology on the other, in particular national contexts. Conclusions drawn from the study include: while there are positive examples, there is an unsatisfactory compromise between the obligation to promote public participation and the need to conform to international standardslip service is often paid to participation without providing the substanceeven when governments have the will to include the public in decision making, they may lack the capacity to do so effectively, or to stand by the concerns of their public in the face of opposition from powerful foreign countries.[adapted from author]