# data[].attributes.body
Prince Charles, whilst being a public figurehead appealed to conservatism and this in some ways started to polarise public opinion. Whilst it didn’t cause angst, it certainly did not reassure the public. He generally appealed to a conservative sense of distrust of new technology.
Angst was avoided by not giving the public a choice, however there were no protests so although people were conservative, they didn’t dislike it so much to actually protest in the streets.
However this public distrust was enough to change britains understanding of expertise. Committee structures drew on wider spectrum of opinion in advisory processes. This included academics and practitioners, scientists and ethicists, farmers and industrialists.

# data[].attributes.headline
How were public concerns about food deliberated across different political systems?Pages 121-143

# data[].attributes.subject
How were public concerns about food deliberated across different political systems?Pages 121-143

# data[].attributes.headline
How did each government manage science's relation with the public in order to calm angst and distrust? pp97-116

# data[].attributes.subject
How did each government manage science's relation with the public in order to calm angst and distrust? pp97-116

# data[].attributes.headline
The Greening of Biotechnology - Three Tales

# data[].attributes.subject
The Greening of Biotechnology - Three Tales

# data[].attributes.body
what do we learn from the ice minus story?

Researchers were able to cross the line between peer-reviewed basic science and its regulated applications.
They wanted to prevent crops from freezing and destroying the crops during the colder months.
It brought controversy through it being sold and used without any  experimentation of the product.
Also ecologists believed it could release uncertainties that cannot be resolved with the current knowledge they have.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.nature.com/articles/455290a

# data[].attributes.body
1988 British election - Tory party introduced more environmental concern to their manifesto to compete with social and lib dem turning the environment into a campaign issue
- Experienced managerial scientists: David Bishop. His approaches to reassure the public and secure public trust helped initially Britain avoid public angst.

# data[].attributes.body
-Passing of a new genetic engineering law (p.103)
Green acitivism held GenTG responsible for empirical methodology -  'law required that releases should produce no unjustified harmful effects on humans, animals, plants, or the environment and property.' (p.104)

# data[].attributes.headline
Taming risks requires work- Who does this work and by what rules of the game? 

# data[].attributes.subject
Taming risks requires work- Who does this work and by what rules of the game? 

# data[].attributes.headline
What impacts did the UK BSE crisis have on support for agricultural biotechnology and GM foods?p.111, p.121-125

# data[].attributes.subject
What impacts did the UK BSE crisis have on support for agricultural biotechnology and GM foods?p.111, p.121-125

# data[].attributes.body
UK: BSE posed as a "visible threat" to "expert authority"- downfall in support for agricultural biotechnology- BSE turned to CJD and was killing humans- crisis, worldwide ban on imports of British beef worldwide. Breakdown in confidence of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food. New departments to help deal with this and prevent it from happening again.

# data[].attributes.headline
Britain: GM in the Shadow of BSE  (121-130)

# data[].attributes.subject
Britain: GM in the Shadow of BSE  (121-130)

# data[].attributes.headline
Unraveling: Normalization Breaks Down (106-117)

# data[].attributes.subject
Unraveling: Normalization Breaks Down (106-117)

# data[].attributes.headline
United States: Science Confounds Science

# data[].attributes.subject
United States: Science Confounds Science

# data[].attributes.body
The main concern of the public was the possible risk that GMOs may cause health and environmental issues.
In order to ease the public, "scientific" and "risk assessments" (p 107) were created to test the risk of the technology.

"The results were in full-blown public circulation" therefore allowing for "extended peer review". The awareness and publicity surrounding the subject, to some extent allows for the public to feel in the loop and informed.

"Abdicating editorial Omnisence... openly admitting the subjectivity of scientific judgment under conditions of uncertainty" Essentially the openness, and truthful statement about the trial and error involved in this process, may allow the public to gain more trust in those promoting the expertise.

# data[].attributes.body
-Delay commercialization in favor of continued, supervised scientific experimentation (p.118)

# data[].attributes.headline
United States: The Market Speaks  (130-139)

# data[].attributes.subject
United States: The Market Speaks  (130-139)

# data[].attributes.body
How did the naturalization work (p.131)?
No documented health risks.
Idea that GMOs had been 'certified by science as safe' (Pg.130).
Genetic modification seen to be as natural as many other agricultural practices.
Focus in US on risk assessment of products produced by GM rather than GM itself.
'It was as much a process of making the world safe for the introduction of GM as making GM safe for introduction to the world.' (pg.131)

# data[].attributes.body
-No public displays, not much media attention
-even the shock of the BSE scandal failed to rock the commitment to conducting politics through political parties and the institutions of the state; confidence in statist solutions was reinforced by the long national experience of expert agencies enforcing bright-line regulations by means of technical expertise and attentiveness to the law. (p.143-144)

# data[].attributes.headline
The Prince and his Nature: -To what extent did the idea of ‘sovereignty’ have an influence over the resistance to GMO’s? (p.127).

# data[].attributes.subject
The Prince and his Nature: -To what extent did the idea of ‘sovereignty’ have an influence over the resistance to GMO’s? (p.127).

# data[].attributes.body
UK: For outsiders, the British monarchy represents the nation and sovereignty. Charles resisted GMOs, identified himself as part of the ordinary public and making their concerns his own. Mixed opinions- but

# data[].attributes.headline
-How did the media influence the public’s views on GMO’s? (p.130 & p.139)

# data[].attributes.subject
-How did the media influence the public’s views on GMO’s? (p.130 & p.139)

# data[].attributes.body
UK: Prince Charles presenting his views on GMOs as in line with the
- concerns of the average man, a shared concern for the sanctity of nature
presented as a farmer himself
- mixed public reactions

# data[].attributes.body
Normalization came through scientists' support of the products' safety. "Rational risk calculations made by experts" created less controversy about GMOs throughout the public (p 99).

# data[].attributes.body
Not normalised and in widespread use, however there is less scaremongering now in media. It wasn’t presented as a choice as such, they just went ahead with it.

# data[].attributes.headline
How did the practice of genetic modification come to be normalized across Britain, Germany and the U.S? From pages 96-106.  What procedures and principles were put in place in each country?

# data[].attributes.subject
How did the practice of genetic modification come to be normalized across Britain, Germany and the U.S? From pages 96-106.  What procedures and principles were put in place in each country?

# data[].attributes.body
People were concerned about the unknown of genetic engineering.
When the controversy died down, the public were able to understand that genetic engineering of crops was safe and attainable.
Views on genetic engineering was normalized.
It was seen as a model that science could tame the uncertainties of technological innovation.
Scientists rationalized the idea and prospects of GM.

# data[].attributes.headline
How could scientists prove to the public that genetic modification is safe?P. 97-99

# data[].attributes.subject
How could scientists prove to the public that genetic modification is safe?P. 97-99

# data[].attributes.headline
Was [Peter] Meyer's confidence in the safety studies warranted? pg. 106

# data[].attributes.subject
Was [Peter] Meyer's confidence in the safety studies warranted? pg. 106

# data[].attributes.body
Participation in technical decision making (p.103); a new procedural forum in which the public could question the goals and premises of genetic engineering (p.106)

# data[].attributes.headline
Chapter 4: Unsettled Settlements (94 -118)

# data[].attributes.subject
Chapter 4: Unsettled Settlements (94 -118)