Beyond Scientificity: Extensions and Diffractions in Post-Normal Science’s Ethos

Sixty years have passed since Merton’s famous publication of “a note on science and democracy,” outlining the scientific ethos via four sets of norms, namely communism, universalism, disinterest­edness, and organized skepticism (CUDOS). Merton’s rationale was that the implementation of this ethos was instrumental in realizing science’s institutional goal: “the extension of certified knowledge.” Throughout the ensuing decades, Merton’s conception has been at the center of heated debates in the emerging field of science and technology studies. It has also been addressed by em­pirical studies with a view to determine the scale at which CUDOS was supported by scientists them­selves in explicit terms and/or conformed to in their actual practice. Some of these studies also make room for the possibility that CUDOS might have evolved throughout the past decades, incrementally adapting the norm sets. This article contributes to such empirical endeavors. Building on ethno­graphic work at a technology assessment (TA) institute, I find that a distinct shared ethos is tangible in TA’s post-normal science practices—in collaborations with non-scientists as well as with “pure academics.” A reconstruction of TA’s distinct ethos from my empirical material results in the delin­eation of a post-normal scientific ethos, comprising “extended communism,” “diffracted uni­versal­ism,” “diffracted disinterestedness,” “extended organized skepticism,” “diffracted originality,” and “extended relevance.” These “extensions” and “diffractions” have ramifications for the organiza­tion of post-normal science and its interaction with academia, publics, and polities

Natural Sciences in Academic Vienna in the 1990s: From “[Peripheral] Outpost Near the Iron Curtain” to “Central Hub”

In 1999, four editorials in the journal Biological Chemistry commemorate how, since the 1980s, Vienna has transformed from a “[peripheral] outpost near the Iron Curtain” to a “central hub” for life science research.A closer look at these texts reveals the explicit and implicit role of drawing maps for and within science, depicting centers, peripheries and ‒ in this case ‒ geopolitically real and allegorical “iron curtains”.Based on this observation and the issues it raises, I re-examine the pertinent empirical material covering relevant times, places, (sub-) disciplines and institutions, as well as the period after 2000. I deal with “molecularization” in biology, (sub)disciplinary differentiation, internationalization, as well as changes in public-private relations and a pair of complementary concepts of innovation and tradition. Thus, I retrace the establishment of a techno-epistemic culture in a local, disciplinary context. I conclude that guiding principles such as excellence and internationality are understood and implemented in academia in locally and historically bounded ways, and I argue that a critical re-examination of empirical material can substantially enrich our approach to such topics

The seamless web of next generation sequencing and Covid-19

"When is Covid Covid?" is the title of a discussion paper published by the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at Oxford University on 11 September 2020. Amid the multinational struggle for an appropriate social and political approach to the crisis triggered by Covid-19, a recognized panel of medical experts alerts us that Covid-19 is defined very differently in different contexts. One definition focuses on symptoms, another one on RNA sequences of the virus. In the present contribution, this debate is taken up to discuss the extent to which new sequencing practices and their "seamless webs" become socially effective as instances of interpretation and design. At the same time, the limitations of such webs become noticeable as ruptures, seams, and scars."Wann ist Covid Covid?" titelt ein Diskussionsbeitrag des Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine der Universität Oxford vom 11. September 2020. Inmitten des multinationalen Ringens um einen geeigneten gesellschaftlichen wie politischen Umgang mit der durch Covid- 19 ausgelösten Krisensituation weist ein anerkanntes medizinisches Expert*innengremium darauf hin, dass Covid-19 in unterschiedlichen Kontexten sehr unterschiedlich definiert wird. Bei einer Definition geht es um klinische Symptome am Menschen, bei einer anderen um RNA-Sequenzen des Virus. In dem Beitrag wird diese Frage aufgegriffen und diskutiert, inwiefern neue Sequenzierungspraktiken und deren "nahtlose Netze" als Deutungs- und Gestaltungsinstanzen gesellschaftlich wirkmächtig werden. Dabei zeigen sich auch die Grenzen solcher Netze in Form von Brüchen, Nähten und Narben

“Should we stay or should we go now?”:Dis/Engaging with emerging technosciences

In this paper we focus on a special feature of science and technology studies: the trajectories of our engagement with ‘emerging technosciences’. Many of us entertain close links to a particular group of scientists; our scholarly careers and identities build around thematic specialisations, trans-field collaborations and convivialities. But more often than not, such engagement does not last a whole career. With every new technoscientific hype, scholars are pressed to ‘move on’, to disengage from one field and re-engage with another. It thus seems warranted to explicitly reflect on the temporal patterns of dis/engagement and to look at possible ramifications for individuals, collectives, and the innovation system at large. To inform such reflection, we opted for a mixed-methods approach, tracing patterns and moments of dis/engagement across various disciplines based on scientometric analysis, individual archaeologies of engagement, a qualitative survey, and a focused discussion among fellow scholars from the social sciences and humanities as well as the sciences. Our analysis brings distinct dis/engagement patterns to the fore, relating to disciplinary affiliations as well as career stages. In our conclusion, we discuss the relevance of these findings for science and technology studies scholars and technoscientists as well as for contemporary innovation regimes more generally

Zwischen "schwacher" und "starker" Interdisziplinarität

Sicherheitsforschung zu neuen Technologien wie Agrobiotechnologie oder Mobilfunk ist ein wichtiger Bestandteil gegenwärtiger Technologiepolitik, öffentlicher Meinungsbildung und Aushandlung. Zugleich fällt sie als inter- und transdisziplinäres Forschungsprogramm aus traditionellen Prozessen disziplinärer Qualitätssicherung heraus. Der folgende Beitrag versucht dieses Manko über die Diskussion spezieller Qualitätskriterien interdisziplinärer Forschung zu bearbeiten. Besondere Beachtung kommt dabei den epistemischen Kulturen der einzelnen Disziplinen sowie dem Umgang mit Nichtwissen und Unsicherheit zu. Es wird argumentiert, dass die Auswahl der zu beteiligenden Disziplinen auch die mit diesen verbundenen epistemischen Kulturen und "Nichtwissenskulturen" berücksichtigen muss; dass Ausmaß, Ort und Form interdisziplinärer Integration auch Implikationen für den wissenschaftlich-gesellschaftlichen Deliberations- und Entscheidungsprozess haben; sowie, dass wissenschaftliche Evidenzproduktion und gesellschaftliche Funktionalisierung(en) von Wissenschaft in diesem Kontext nicht gänzlich von einander zu trennen sind.Interdisziplinarität, Sicherheitsforschung, Technikfolgenabschätzung, epistemische Kulturen, Nichtwissen

Biología de sistemas y biología sintética como tecnociencias emergentes

Systems and synthetic biology can be understood as emerging technosciences. Both are characteristically shaped by promises and visions, a certain logic and function of labelling, specific forms of social organisation, an embedding in specific regimes of funding and innovation as well as a characteristic matrix of orientations within research practice. This characteristic constitution of systems and synthetic biology has fundamental consequences for scientific practice, its analysis and its governance.La biología de sistemas y la biología sintética pueden ser consideradas como ejemplos de tecnociencias emergentes. Están esencialmente marcadas por promesas de futuro y por visiones, por una cierta lógica y uso de términos, por determinadas formas de organización social, por la integración en un régimen específico de fomento e innovación, así como por una matriz característica de orientaciones para la praxis de investigación. Esta constitución específica de la biología de sistemas y de la biología sintética tiene, por su parte, consecuencias fundamentales para la práctica científica, su análisis y su gobierno

”Whose bread I eat, his song I sing”? Technology assessment and its clients

Weimer und Vining (1999) unterscheiden drei Rollen, die WissenschafterInnen in Politikberatung einnehmen können: den objective technician, den issue advocate und den client's advocate. Dieser Beitrag widmet sich jener Rolle, die in der gegenwärtigen Diskussion kaum reflektiert wird, aber dennoch für die Normativität von Technikfolgenabschätzung (TA) relevant ist: dem client’s advocate. Basierend auf Daten aus einer empirischen internen Erhebung von Praxen, Konstellationen und Paradigmen der Politikberatung am österreichischen Institut für Technikfolgen-Abschätzung (ITA), stellen wir (1) das in den Projekten des Instituts realisierte Portfolio an Geldgebern bzw. Auftraggebern dar, setzen es (2) in Bezug zu den in den Projekten des ITA angesprochenen Issues und zu Ergebnissen aus vier projektspezifischen Fallstudien und formulieren (3) offene Fragen an die TA-Praxis und TA-Community.Weimer and Vining (1999) discern three roles for scientific policy advisers: the objective technician, the issue advocate, and the client’s advocate. This contribution focuses on the latter – a role that is rarely reflected upon in current discussions about technology assessment (TA) practice. Based on empirical data on the practices, constellations, and paradigms prevalent in policy advice activities at the Austrian Institute of Technology Assessment (ITA), we (1) present the portfolio and characteristics of the institute’s clients, (2) relate these to the issues addressed in the institute’s projects and to four project-specific case studies, and (3) present open questions to the practice and community of TA pertaining to its relation to its clients

(Re-)connecting academia during a sudden, global crisis

Three years ago, the sudden onset of the COVID-19 pandemic challenged academia just like any other societal field, while at the same time putting science center stage. Media attention tended to focus on particular disciplines, such as epidemiology and microbiology, and on individual, mostly local, experts. Based on the idea that science as a global, multidisciplinary community has something to offer society beyond the highly specialized output of individual research fields prepared for local, short-term perspectives, the Institute of Technology Assessment of the Austrian Academy of Sciences launched a spontaneous expert survey in June 2021 with a global and interdisciplinary aspiration, addressing three non-standard issues related to the pandemic and its management: side effects, opportunities, and preparedness. In this paper, we present our methodology and the results of our analysis. We conclude with a discussion of potential contributions of technology assessment in times of sudden, global crises