The potential negative impacts of biological pest control on non-target species have become the focus of a contentious debate. In this article, we use examples from both classical and augmentative biological control of fruit fly pests in Hawaii to address several important factors in assessing non-target risks of fruit fly parasitoids. Several fruit fly parasitoids have been introduced to Hawaii and contribute substantially to the reduction of pest populations in the state's farms and forests. However, an historical lack of host-specificity testing of these parasitoids with non-target species has raised concerns about their impact on non-pest fruit flies, including some flies deliberately introduced for biological control of weeds and others that are endemic Hawaiian species. When developing protocols to assess risks of introduced fruit fly parasitoids, we need first to define an appropriate range of species against which host specificity should be tested. For assessing susceptibility of a non-target species to parasitoids, behavioral tests are as important as suitability tests. Experimental factors, such as host-exposure substrate, absence or presence of preferred hosts, and laboratory vs. natural conditions, are shown to affect the results of host-specificity tests and risk analysis. Still, assessing long-term, indirect ecological impacts of parasitoids and weighing potential risks and benefits in multiple dimensions (besides dollar values) remains a challenge to environmentalists, conservationists, applied ecologists, and biocontrol practitioners.

Scholars have recognized the importance of local and indigenousknowledge in less industrialized countries. Few studies havebeen done on the diversity of knowledge communities in moreindustrialized countries, however, because of researcherassumptions about the spatial and temporal dimensions of localand scientific knowledge. A distinguishing feature of knowledgecommunities is the way that time and space are perceived. Thesedifferences are reflected in farmers' decision-making.Depending on farmers' knowledge orientations, they may utilizequite different criteria to determine the reliability andapplicability of new information. Advocates of sustainableagriculture, and proponents of on-farm research will benefit byrecognizing the diverse ways that farmers know and understandtheir farming systems in both less and more industrializedcountries.

Greenline parks are typically regions of mixed agricultural,grazing, and forest lands of sufficient scenic and/orecological value to merit conservation and preservationunder a land-use management plan for land largely in privateownership. The Parcs Naturels Régionaux (PNR) are anational system of greenline parks created in France in1967 to protect agriculture and other values in less favoredareas (typically hills or low mountains) suffering depopulationand economic deprivation aggravated by the Common AgriculturalPolicy created under the European Economic Community in 1956with a major objective of self-sufficiency in food production.Two developments contributing to creation of the PNR were themechanization of French agriculture and increasing environmentalawareness in France. The PNR emphasizes rural agriculturaldevelopment, conservation, and recreation, but ecologicalpreservation has increased in importance, as reflected inrecent policy changes. The national parks of the United Kingdomare a system of greenline parks slightly older than the PNR.Recent research has allowed comparative studies of the twosystems, leading to the conclusion that the British NationalParks have suffered from heavy-handed centralized planningthat has alienated local farmers and communities, while thePNR, under more local control, has neglected some of itsconservation and preservation responsibilities. However,recent policy reform promises to improve the PNR throughmore rigorous enforcement of conservation and ecologicalgoals by the central government.

Whilst there has been much debateregarding the importance of public acceptance ofgenetic engineering and its applications, there isevidence to indicate that objections to the technologyare likely to focus on specific applications of thetechnology, rather than genetic engineering per se.Thus it becomes important to examine the extent ofobjections associated with individual applications,rather than to assess public feeling regarding thetechnology overall. Survey data were collected from200 respondents regarding their objections to generalapplications of genetic engineering (where thetangible benefits were not obvious). Similar objectiondata were collected from 200 different respondents,who were presented with specific applications withmore obvious tangible benefits. Overall patterns ofobjection to different applications were identifiedusing a novel method of objection mapping, inconjunction with analysis of variance to identifyindividual differences in the samples. For generalapplications, the results indicate that mostrespondents object less to applications involvingplants and microorganisms than to those involvinganimals or human genetic material. Individualdifferences in objection focus on applicationsinvolving animals or human genetic material, withwomen and those who are very concerned with theenvironment having greatest objections to theseapplications. Individual differences tend to reducewhen specific applications are used as stimuli,although the focus of concern is still on applicationsinvolving animals and human genetic material. However,gender differences were not statistically significant,and those respondents who have high levels ofenvironmental concern are differentiated by increasedobjections to large-scale agricultural applications.It is argued that effective communication regardingthe technology should focus on specific applications,and address issues of environmental impact within thecontext of these applications, if the public is tomake an informed choice regarding their acceptance ofthe products of the technology.

Social policies are used to regulate how members of a society interact and share resources. If we expand our sense of community to include the ecosystem of which we are a part, we begin to develop an ethical obligation to this broader community. This ethic recognizes that the environment has intrinsic value, and each of us, as members of society, are ethically bound to preserve its sustainability. In assessing the environmental risks of new agricultural methods and technologies, society should not freely trade economic gains for ecological damage, but rather seek practices that are compatible with ecosystem health. This approach is used to evaluate the environmental risks associated with genetically engineered insect-resistant trees. The use of insect-resistant trees is a biologically based pest control strategy that has several advantages over pesticide use. However, the use of genetically engineered trees presents particular ecological concerns because the trees are long lived and often are not highly domesticated. The main environmental concerns reviewed include: (1) adaptation of pests to the trees, leading to a non-sustainable agricultural practice, (2) transgenic trees producing environmental toxins, (3) insect resistance enhancing the invasiveness of the tree, causing it to become weedy or invade wild habitats, and (4) transfer of the transgene to wild or feral relatives of the tree, possibly increasing the invasiveness of weeds or wild plants. Some methods are available to offset these risks; however, the environmental risks associated with this technology have been poorly researched and need to be more clearly identified so that when we evaluate the risks, it is based on the best information obtainable. To fulfil an ethical obligation to the environment, public policies and government regulations are needed to preserve the sustainability of both the environment and the future of our production systems. A better understanding of both the ecological issues and of genetic engineering in general are needed on the part of citizens and policy makers alike to ensure that sound environmental decisions are made. Otherwise, the environmental benefits of this technology, mainly decreasing the use of more toxic pesticides in tree crops and forests, will either be lost or traded for other environmental hazards.

In public debate over agricultural biotechnology, at issue hasbeen its self-proclaimed aim of further industrializingagriculture. Using languages of ’risk‘, critics and proponentshave engaged in an implicit ethics debate on the direction oftechnoscientific development. Critics have challenged thebiotechnological R&D agenda for attributing socio-agronomicproblems to genetic deficiencies, while perpetuating the hazardsof intensive monoculture. They diagnosed ominous links betweentechnological dependency and tangible harm from biotechnologyproducts.

In response to scientific and public concerns, theEuropean Community enacted precautionary legislation for theintentional release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Inits implementation, choices for managing and investigatingbiotechnological risk involve an implicit environmental ethics.Yet the official policy language downplays the inherent valuejudgments, by portraying risk regulation as a matter of’objective‘ science.

In parallel with safety regulation, thestate has devised an official bioethics that judges where to’draw the line‘ in applying biotechnological knowledge, as ifthe science itself were value-free. Bioethics may also judge howto ’balance‘ risks and benefits, as if their definition were notan issue. This form of ethics serves to compensate for theunacknowledged value-choices and institutional commitmentsalready embedded in R&D priorities.

Thus the state separates’risk‘ and ’ethics‘, while assigning both realms to specialists.The risk/ethics boundary encourages public deference to theexpert assessments of both safety regulators and professionalethicists. Biotechnology embodies a contentious model of controlover nature and society, yet this issue becomes displaced andfragmented into various administrative controls. At stake arethe prospects for democratizing the problem-definitions thatguide R&D priorities.