بیوتکنولوژی و یادگیری اجتماعی: تجزیه و تحلیل تجربی از قانون حیوانات بیوتکنولوژی هلندی

Animal biotechnology raises moral dilemmas that require collective decisions concerning permitted use of technology. The technological and ethical complexity of biotechnology makes such collective decisions difficult and the lack of shared understanding of the moral implications demands social learning. The Minister for Agriculture in the Netherlands has created a legislative arrangement to enable collective learning about animal biotechnology. Has this legislation been successful? We conclude that initially the legislation succeeded in creating an arena for debate and collective learning, but soon learning in this arena was hindered by the legal nature of the arena. Our evaluation demonstrates that little substantive learning has taken place: standpoints have become fixed and antagonists continue to dispute one another in legal discourse. Though legal discourse may be suitable for dealing with conflicts, it seems to hinder social learning.

Animal biotechnology provides enormous potential benefits for the economy, health care, and the environment, but leads to practices that present risks to both people and animals [1] and [2]. Proponents of the application of animal biotechnology are found primarily at universities and companies; opponents of the application of biotechnology are primarily found among animal protectionists and religious groups. Materialistic values, focusing on the economic advantages of technology, are opposed to post-material values which emphasize the potential damage to people and environment [3]. Complex and controversial technologies, such as animal biotechnology [3], [4] and [5], raise both administrative and normative questions [6]. This paper focuses on the administrative questions and focuses on social learning about the application of biotechnology. The complexity of biotechnology makes a public debate about them difficult since the scientific, social, and normative issues are closely interwoven in a post-normal science discourse [7] and [8]. The traditional distinction between science and politics no longer applies to the issues that are raised by the new technologies. These developments require new ways to explore the borders between science and politics and allow debate between scientists and representatives of other interest groups [9] and [10]. Creating a legislative arrangement wherein (temporary) regulation of technologies occurs together with an attempt to establish greater clarity about technology seems a promising strategy. This strategy is based on a communicative approach to law and regulations, whereby norms are openly elaborated upon in a dialogue among legal, political, and social partners [23]. According to Witteveen and Van Klink [11], a communicative approach corresponds to the following situation: (1) the legislator has unsatisfactory knowledge about a technically complicated subject matter and is therefore unable to identify detailed rules; (2) the material to be regulated does not allow itself to be presented in general terms because of its conceptual complexity; and (3) the material is from an ideological perspective emotionally charged. In such a situation, the government can create a “communicative framework” from within which possible solutions to social problems can be sought. The Dutch government has created such a communicative framework to regulate animal biotechnology. Since 1989, animal biotechnology has become a highly politicized matter that has been discussed on numerous occasions in the parliament. Through changes to the Animal Health and Welfare legislation, the Dutch Parliament initiated the possibility to assess the permits for adopting biotechnological methods on animals on a case-by-case basis. In 1997, this possibility was made effective through a regulation entitled the Animal Biotechnology Act (ABA). The ABA was not only created to provide a legal-administrative resolution to conflicts. An important motivation for the legislation was also that it could contribute to social learning processes. In the description of the decision it was explained that the arrangement must clarify and strengthen the moral position of animals with respect to the emerging biotechnology. It was to provide an early signaling, formulation, and assessment of problematic developments. In addition, the assessment material was to enable the confrontation of existing opinions in our plural society and promote public discussion about them.

With regard to perceptions of learning, the stakeholders were of the opinion that they had obtained better insight into other viewpoints, but that these viewpoints are now known. In addition, they have learned how to argue within a legal framework but none of the stakeholders thought that substantive learning about the moral position of animals had taken place.Single loop learning did take place in the beginning phase of the arrangement: the participating stakeholders learned how they could argue about the application of animal biotechnology in a legal way. Applicants of permits learned how best to present their applications, while opponents of applications learned about the kinds of challenges that were most likely to receive consideration. The committee learned how the assessment criteria were to be managed when considering applications and how their advice should be designed. This learning process has at this time reached a saturation point.