鑑於科技民主化的呼聲以及對代議民主缺失的反思，愈來愈多學者主張審議民主以及肯定常民知識在科技風險決策之重要性。公民參與在晚近受到歐洲、美國與新興民主國家的高度關注，學界嘗試建立各種評估公民參與模式的準則，以檢視其品質與成效。英國在2002-2003年間舉行「基因改造國家？公共辯論」，針對基因改造科技爭議進行全國性討論，作為政府在基改科技可能的應用與管制之參考。英國政府採行不同公民參與形式，從中央到地方層級，舉辦逾六百場公開討論會、深度焦點團體與工作坊，同時也透過網路參與，吸引三萬以上人次的參與。 本研究採取文件分析作為資料蒐集方法。本文主要根據不同公民參與評估準則瞭解公共辯論之過程、結果及其成效；探討不同參與者對基改作物與食品的風險論述；呈現公共辯論的特殊性、侷限性，作為台灣未來推動公民參與和審議民主的參考。本研究發現基礎工作討論坊、深度焦點團體在過程評估上具較高成效；公開討論會、互動網站在過程評估之成效不理想；參與者與政府的風險論述存在歧異；公共辯論產出對參與者具有提升其知識與能力的效果，但對政治與政策的直接影響相當有限。本文最後主張台灣應嘗試推動多元公民參與形式、建立回溯上游的公民參與、預警原則的應用以及建立行政課責機制以促進公共審議之推動。 In response to the call for democratization of science and reflection on the deficits of representative democracy, more and more scholars argue for deliberative democracy and recognition of lay knowledge in risk decision-making. As public participation has received considerable attention in Europe, North America and newly democratic countries, various criteria for evaluating participatory methods have been developed to examine the quality and efficiency of participatory mechanisms. The UK Government initiated a nationwide public debate – “GM Nation? Public Debate” on the controversies of GM technology during 2002-2003 to guide the Government’s consideration for potentially adopting the applications of GM technology and regulations. The UK government adopted various participatory mechanisms and held over 600 public meetings, narrow-but-deep groups and workshops took place with over 30,000 people taking part. This research adopts document analysis as its data-gathering method. The essay primarily focuses on using different public participation evaluation criteria to understand the process, outcome, and efficiency of public debate; discuss the risk discourse of GM crops and foods from a variety of participants; presents the uniqueness and limitations of public debate, and use the results as references for Taiwan’s public participation and deliberative democracy movement in the future. This research shows that foundation discussion workshop, narrow-but-deep group achieves higher efficiency in process evaluation, while public meeting and interactive website generate less result from the same evaluation. There are disagreements between the opinions of the participants and that of the government, although public discussions raises the specific knowledge of the participants, it has limited direct effect on policy decision-making. Finally, this essay argues the need for forming variety public participation, establishing upstream public participation, applying precautionary principle and creating accountability mechanism to promote public deliberation in Taiwan.
