Political Liberalism. Neutrality and the Political

Abstract. The paper examines the current discussion in liberalism around the issue of the "neutrality" of the state. It scrutinizes the "political liberalism" defended by John Rawls and Charles Larmore and shows that the consequence of their approach is to evacuate the dimension of "the political" from the idea of a well-ordered society. By presenting the exclusions existing in their model of liberal society as the product of free agreement resulting from rational procedures, "political liberals" offer us a picture in which antagonism, violence and power have only disappeared because they have been made invisible. The consequence is to leave liberalism unable to conceptualize power and antagonism. The paper concludes that there cannot be such a thing as a "neutral justification of the neutrality of the state" (Larmore 1987) and that a pluralist perfectionist perspective like the one proposed by Joseph Raz offers a more adequate way to envisage the specificity of modern pluralist democracy.     

Hungry for Information: Public Attitudes Toward Food Nanotechnology and Labeling

What people think about food nanotechnology (nanofood) is under‐explored in the United States, especially outside of quantitative surveys. As such, we set out to examine public attitudes toward food nanotechnology in conversational, focus group settings in order to identify policy options for nanofood governance, and in particular, options for labeling. Through analysis of focus groups in six U.S. locations, we found that the vast majority of the participants wanted nanotechnology labels for all types of food products, and most were willing to pay a premium for labeling. Participants cited abilities to choose and avoid potential risk as the main purposes of nanofood labels. However, they recognized that labels alone do not provide much meaning and that information concerning food nanotechnology products needs to be sought and supplied beyond the label to enable informed choices. Additionally, willingness‐to‐use and risk–benefit perceptions varied according to the position and intended functions of the nanomaterials in food products.     

Unpackaging synthetic biology: Identification of oversight policy problems and options

The emerging field of synthetic biology (SB) is just entering policy debates. Reports from non-governmental organizations, such as the ETC Group and the International Risk Governance Council, have recently been issued, but there have been few systematic analyses of the policy problems that we will likely face as this area develops. Biosecurity issues are the most defined; other societal oversight issues and implications have not been well explored. Although SB could assist in addressing pressing global challenges, such as sustainable and renewable energy, there are considerable societal concerns that accompany its development and applications. This article is designed to anticipate and prepare for these concerns by identifying policy problems associated with SB oversight, upstream of its development. Projected applications of SB are reviewed and a typology of them is developed. Key oversight policy problems are then identified based on historical experiences with other emerging technologies, such as nanotechnology and biotechnology. Problems associated with biosecurity, biosafety, intellectual property, and ethics are discussed in relation to the typology of SB applications to identify applications of the highest potential concern. Finally, policy options for SB oversight are considered, preventative to promotional. We propose that different categories of SB application may warrant different oversight regimes: there might not be an appropriate “one size fits all” approach. We stop short of making specific recommendations, but suggest that the typology, problems, and oversight options identified in this article be used as a starting point for deliberative, democratic decisionmaking processes that take into account a wide range of perspectives about risk, economic impact, scientific progress, and moral reasoning in the design of oversight systems.     

Procedurally Robust Risk Assessment Framework for Novel Genetically Engineered Organisms and Gene Drives

In this article, a new framework for improving risk assessments of novel genetically engineered organisms (GEOs) is developed and applied. The Procedurally Robust Risk Assessment Framework (PRRAF) provides a set of principles and criteria for assessing and enhancing risk assessment protocols for GEOs under conditions of high uncertainty. The application of PRRAF is demonstrated using the case of a genetically engineered mosquito designed to kill its wild population and therefore decrease disease transmission. Assessments for regulatory approval of this genetically engineered insect fall short of several PPRAF criteria under the principles of humility, procedural validity, inclusion, anticipation, and reflexivity. With the emergence of GEOs designed to spread in ecosystems, such as those with gene drives, it will become increasingly important for regulatory agencies and technology developers to bolster their risk analysis methods and processes prior to field testing. PRRAF can be used as a flexible guide for doing so within a variety of institutional, regulatory, and governance contexts.