{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.026845637583892617, 'fraction_numerical': 0.012464046021093002, 'mean_word_length': 5.525, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Austria's agri-biotechnology regulation: political consensus despite divergent concepts of precaution

Science and Public Policy, August 2005, Vol. 32, No. 4, 277-284 The invocation of the precautionary principle, for instance, to prohibit the commercialisation of genetically modified crops in Austria, has been criticised for blurring the boundaries between science and politics. Three different understand- ings of precaution arise in the policy process around this case, and in the relevant actors’ view of precaution and the perceived relationship be- tween science and politics. The dominant ‘politi- cal–economic’ understanding has emphasised uncertainty about benefits and thus effectively reversed the burden of evidence. This was done without overtly shifting or challenging the boundary between science and politics, though their relative priority was reversed. The Austrian policy offers a pragmatic means to gain room for manoeuvre, rather than a coherent approach for a more reflexive way to deal with a controversial technology.