734 research outputs found
Recommended from our members
Science and Technology Studies in Policy: the UK Synthetic Biology Roadmap
In this paper, we reflect on our experience as Science and Technology Studies (STS) researchers who were members of the working group that produced A Synthetic Biology Roadmap for the UK in 2012. We explore how this initiative sought to govern an uncertain future, and describe how it was successfully used to mobilize public funds for synthetic biology from the UK government. We discuss our attempts to incorporate the insights and sensibilities of STS into the policy process, and why we chose to use the concept of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) to do so. We analyze how the roadmapping process, and the final report, narrowed and transformed our contributions to the Roadmap. We show how difficult it is for STS researchers to influence policy when our ideas challenge deeply entrenched pervasive assumptions, framings and narratives about how technological innovation necessarily leads to economic progress, about public reticence as a roadblock to that progress, and about the supposed separation between science and society. We end by reflecting on the constraints under which we were operating from the outset, and on the challenges for STS in policy
Recommended from our members
Public perceptions of transgenic products: the influence of the behaviour of laboratory scientists
Recommended from our members
Swings and roundabouts: French public policy on agricultural GMOs since 1996
Recommended from our members
Negotiating the dynamics of uncomfortable knowledge: The case of dual use and synthetic biology
Institutions need to ignore some knowledge in order to function. This is "uncomfortable knowledge" because it undermines the ability of those institutions to pursue their goals (Rayner, 2012). We identify three bodies of knowledge that are relevant to understandings of the dual use threat posed by synthetic biology but are excluded from related policy discussions. We demonstrate how these "unknown knowns" constitute uncomfortable knowledge because they disrupt the simplified worldview that underpins contemporary discourse on the potential misuse of synthetic biology by malign actors. We describe how these inconvenient truths have been systematically ignored and argue that this is because they are perceived as a threat by organisations involved in the promotion of synthetic biology as well as by those involved in managing biosecurity risks. This has led to a situation where concerns about the biosecurity threat posed by synthetic biology are not only exaggerated, but are, more importantly, misplaced. This, in turn, means that related policies are misdirected and unlikely to have much impact. We focus on the dynamics of discussions about synthetic biology and dual use to demonstrate how the same "knowns" that are denied or dismissed as "unknown knowns" in certain circumstances are sometimes mobilised as "known knowns" by the same category of actors in a different context, when this serves to sustain the goals of the individuals and institutions involved. Based on our own experience, we argue that negotiating the dynamics of uncomfortable knowledge is a difficult, but necessary, component of meaningful transdisciplinary collaborations
Recommended from our members
Les Américains ont-ils accepté les OGM ?: Analyse comparée de la construction des OGM comme problème public en France et aux Etats-Unis
How can one explain that the use of genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) in food and agriculture poses a problem in France, where they are hardly used, yet seems to be taken for granted in the US, where their use is widespread ? Many observers see this as a sign that American consumers have accepted transgenic foods, due to a different attitude to risks, food and nature. The present article rejects that explanation. It presents a comparative analysis of the trajectory of GMOs as a public problem in France and the US, showing that very similar arguments were put forward by opponents to GMOs on both sides of the Atlantic, and that conflicts between opponents and defenders have focussed on the same issues : (i) food labeling ; (ii) the link between the choice of a technique (GMOs) and that of an economic system (intensive agriculture, capitalism) ; and (iii) the appropriate framework for evaluating risks. But whereas in France (and more generally in Europe), opponents’ arguments crystallized during specific key controversies, and contributed towards the definition of the cognitive and normative dimensions of GMOs as a public problem, this did not occur in the US. Three factors seem to explain this difference : (i) very different regulatory choices made in the late 1980s (based on processes in Europe and on products in the US) ; (ii) the fact that the usefulness of transgenic plants is perceived negatively in France whereas their association with the intensive export agriculture project is perceived positively in the US ; and (iii) the growing influence of a broader, “constructive” framework for risk analysis in Europe, whereas in the US regulatory authorities continue to base their legitimacy on the ideology of “sound science
Recommended from our members
Quand les ’candides’ evaluent les OGM... Nouveau modele de ’democratie technique’ ou mise en scence du debat public?
Recommended from our members
À la recherche d’une « démocratie technique ». Enseignements de la conférence citoyenne sur les OGM en France
This article presents an analysis of the consensus conference on GMO’s held in France in 1998. Centred on the experience of the citizen panel, it also discusses criticisms expressed by various actors in France about this conference, most of which related to the lack of representativeness of a panel of citizens with no prior knowledge or interest in the issue at stake. Our analysis of the deliberations and report of the panel reveals the reflexive endeavour undertaken by these citizens with respect to their own role and representativeness. We show how the members of the panel addressed, from the start, the issue of their role in relation to that of the experts and in the decision-making process; how they constructed their collective identity on the basis of their own definition of their role and how this in turn determined how they interacted with the experts and stakeholders invited to the public conference and the nature of their recommendations. We argue that the work conducted by the citizen panel inaugurates a new form of active representation, which is of a very different nature to representation by elected politicians and to “figurative” representation by professional institutions, trade unions and other non-governmental organisations. This novel form of representation enables the exploration of scientific and technical aspects together with social aspects, from the perspective of “ordinary citizens”. It is indeed the “ordinary” character of the panel members that is relevant, because the essence of the operation is to inform decision-makers about the views of those who do not speak out and who do not feel represented by political parties, trade unions, or environmental and consumer NGOs. The article demonstrates how these cognitive and political processes were intrinsically intermeshed in the activities of the panel. The extent and nature of this socio-technical exploration was, however, constrained by some aspects of the consensus conference method itself and we discuss ways in which these could be overcome. On the basis of this analysis, the article addresses two more general issues: the relationship between this type of participatory technology assessment initiative and NGO mobilisations and the link with decision-making processes
- …