论文部分内容阅读
关于转基因食品安全性的争议,凸显了专家、大众和官员之间存在巨大认知分歧。法学视角的欠缺,使得相关认知分歧演变为大量无意义的口舌之争。透过法学视角,能够发现转基因生物安全评价的制度设计,既未能确保科学领域质量保证的基本规范,亦未能遵循行政法治的基本原则。引入管制同行评审,能够有效提升安全评价过程和结论的可信度和可信赖性,有效避免管制机关滥用科学信息,增强管制决策的内在理性。管制同行评审所具有的潜在缺陷,需要通过确立正当程序予以规范和矫正。此外,同行评审在现代管制过程中的引入,能够有效揭示管制过程中科学依据和裁量要素之功能差异,有助于展现真实的行政过程。这是管制同行评审超越质量控制,对于现代行政法治的一般意义。
The controversy over the safety of genetically modified foods underscores the huge cognitive disagreement among experts, the general public and officials. The lack of legal perspective makes the relevant cognitive differences evolved into a lot of meaningless tongue dispute. Through the perspective of law, we can find out that the system design of safety assessment of GMOs can neither ensure the basic norms of quality assurance in science nor follow the basic principles of administrative law. The introduction of regulatory peer review can effectively enhance the credibility and credibility of the safety assessment process and conclusions, effectively prevent regulatory agencies from abusing scientific information and enhancing the inherent rationality of regulatory decisions. The potential pitfalls of controlling peer review need to be regulated and remedied by establishing due process. In addition, the introduction of peer review in the process of modern regulation can effectively reveal the functional differences between scientific evidence and discretionary elements in the regulatory process, and help to show the true administrative process. This is the control of peer review beyond quality control, the general significance of the modern administrative law.