Karen Kastenhofer

Scientific Nonknowledge and Its Political Dynamics: The Cases of Agri-Biotechnology and Mobile Phoning

While in the beginning of the environmental debate, conflicts over environmental and technological issues had primarily been understood in terms of ‘‘risk’’, over the past two decades the relevance of ignorance, or nonknowledge, was emphasized. Referring to this shift of attention to nonknowledge the article presents two main findings: first, that in debates on what is not known and how to appraise it different and partly conflicting epistemic cultures of nonknowledge can be discerned and, second, that drawing attention to nonknowledge in technology conflicts results in significant institutional effects and new constellations of actors in public debates. To illustrate and substantiate this political dynamics of nonknowledge we draw upon examples from the areas of agri-biotechnology and mobile phoning. In a first step, we develop in greater detail the concept of scientific cultures of nonknowledge and identify three such cultures involved in the social conflicts within the two areas. Subsequently, we analyze the specific dynamics of the politicisation of nonknowledge looking at the variety of actors involved and the pluralisation of perceptions and evaluations of what is not known. Then, we point out some of the institutional reactions to the political and cultural dynamics of scientific nonknowledge. We argue that the equal recognition of the diverse cultures of nonknowledge is a key prerequisite for socially legitimate and ‘‘robust’’ decision-making under conditions of politicised scientific nonknowledge.

CONVERGING EPISTEMIC CULTURES?: A discussion drawing on empirical findings

Convergence of research fields under a new techno-scientific paradigm is currently being discussed among scholars of social studies of science and technology, and in the context of research funding programmes and frameworks of science and technology policy. Mostly, these discussions refer to the macro-scale and adopt a broad understanding of convergence. The present paper introduces a focus on epistemic cultures and raises the question of what convergence might imply on the micro-level of everyday research practices. Relative similarities and differences of various epistemic cultures are indicated, drawing upon empirical investigations. Three forms of scientific change over time are distinguished (convergence, divergence and emergence) and three modes of convergence are further elaborated (cooperation, integration and assimilation). On this conceptual basis the thesis is put forward that the emergence of new technosciences is driven by the technological visions and realities of recent (bio)scientific developments. These, in turn, result in a fundamental reconfiguration of science and its role in society.

Risk Assessment of Emerging Technologies and Post-Normal Science

Post-Normal Science (PNS) as a theory links epistemology and governance. It not only focuses on problem situations where facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent, but also tries to develop epistemic approaches that allow for sound scientific answers. The following article addresses major epistemological challenges within a typical ‘‘wicked-problem situation’’, i.e., risk assessment of emerging technologies. Such challenges include (a) epistemological problems intrinsic to the task of proving the absence of risk, (b) problems related to the multi-sited production of evidence and the multitude of epistemic cultures involved, (c) the incompatibility of the various implicit objectives and (d) the complex actor-constellations, that shape not only the way scientific knowledge is translated into action, but also which kind of knowledge is produced and which experts are listened to. To illustrate and discuss these characteristics, the article draws on an empirical study of risk research in the fields of agri-biotechnology and telecommunication technology in Germany. It concludes that although some aspects of PNS are already part of current epistemic practices in these fields, a state of ‘‘functional post-normality’’ depends upon a meaningful co-evolution between post-normal science and post-normal governance that has not yet been achieved.

Obstacles to and potentials of the societal implementation of sustainable development: a comparative analysis of two case studies

Abstract Currently, a growing societal awareness of problems in the context of unsustainable development meets with conflicts of interest, and the actual implementation of sustainability research, and sustainable innovations and technologies, has only been mildly successful. Sustainable development demands nothing less than a radical change in our modes of consumption, production, technology, and decisionmaking. We have investigated the obstacles to and potentials of such a change in two representative case studies, one focusing on the role of sustainability research within science, the other on the energyefficient refurbishment of old buildings. A short presentation of the methodological approaches, and the respective results, is followed by a comparative systemic analysis of the two fields of investigation. Finally, we discuss possible implications of the discovered systemic comparisons for societal transition processes.

Debating the risks and ethics of emerging technosciences

Controversies on emerging technosciences, such as agri-biotechnology and medical biotechnology, have been a formative aspect of the public response to technoscientific innovations for the last decades. Within these controversies, the problematization of technoscience has not always been framed in the same way. Debates on agri-biotechnological applications focus mostly on issues of risk and safety and on questions about evidence and uncertainty. In contrast, debates on medical biotechnologies center primarily on differences of opinion about the ascribed ontological status of the related objects and the ethical acceptability of the technoscientific interventions. The first controversy can be described as mainly risk-focused, the second controversy as mainly ethically framed. These two different modes of framing agri-biotechnology and medical biotechnology are compared and discussed, addressing public and regulatory discourse, the related polity systems and modes of governance. Empirical examples stem from Germany and Great Britain.

Do we need a specific kind of technoscience assessment? Taking the convergence of science and technology seriously

The presented paper addresses the concept of technoscience and its possible implications for technology assessment. Drawing on the discourse about converging technologies, it formulates the assumption that a general shift within science from epistemic cultures to techno-epistemic cultures lies at the heart of the propagated convergence between nano-, bio-, info- and cogno-sciences and technologies. This shift is adequately captured—so the main thesis—by the technoscience label. The paper elaborates on the shared characteristics of the new technosciences, especially their hybrid character and their non-linear integration of basic research, object construction and technological innovation. Recent calls for new modes of technology governance (e.g. for upstream technology assessment and public participation) are discussed against the background of these technoscience characteristics. It is concluded that an adequate model of emerging technosciences and a detailed understanding of their characteristics is of paramount importance for current practices of technology assessment.RésuméL’article présenté traite du concept de technoscience et ses implications possibles pour l’évaluation de la technologie. En partant du débat sur les technologies convergentes, il formule l’hypothèse qu’un changement général au sein de la science de cultures épistémiques à des cultures techno-épistémiques se situe au cœur de la convergence propagée entre les nano-, bio-, info- et cogno-sciences et technologies. L’idée centrale est ainsi que le terme technoscience caractérise bien ce changement. L’article vise à spécifier davantage les caractéristiques partagées des nouvelles technosciences, en particulier leur caractère hybride et leur intégration non-linéaire dans la recherche de base, la construction des objets et l’innovation technologique. Des appels récents pour de nouvelles modes de gouvernance de la technologie (exemple: évaluation amont de la technologie et de la participation publique) sont discutés par rapport aux caractéristiques de technoscience. La conclusion tirée montre qu’un modèle pertinent de la technoscience ainsi qu’une compréhension de ses caractéristiques sont de la plus haute importance pour l’évaluation de la technologie.ZusammenfassungBrauchen wir eine neue Form der Technikfolgenabschätzung (TA), um gegenwärtig emergierende Technologiefelder zu adressieren? Der vorliegende Artikel versucht sich an einer Bearbeitung dieser Frage, indem er das Konzept der Technowissenschaft aus Perspektive der Wissenschaftstheorie und Wissenschaftsforschung beleuchtet. Insbesondere werden Modelle von Stokes („Pasteurs’ Quadrant”), Oeser (der „epistemo-genetische Zirkel”) und Rheinberger („epistemische Objekte” und „technische Dinge”) herangezogen, um zu einer genaueren Charakterisierung aktueller technowissenschaftlicher Entwicklungen im Bereich der Nano-, Bio-, Informations- und Kognitionsforschung zu gelangen. Auf Basis dieser Charakterisierung—so das zur Diskussion gestellte Resumé des Artikels—ergeben sich wesentliche neue Herausforderungen für den gesellschaftlichen Umgang mit Wissenschaft und Technologie und damit auch neue Themen und Ansatzpunkte für TA. Hierzu zählen der (postulierte) weitreichende und vielgestaltige Wirkhorizont der neuen Technowissenschaften und der damit verbundene Ruf nach einer partizipativen Wissenschafts- und Technologiepolitik, die fehlende Abgrenzung von Grundlagenforschung und Technologieentwicklung und damit verbunden der Ruf nach einem „upstream engagement” sowie die erschwerte Kategorisierung in Natur auf der einen und Kultur auf der anderen Seite und damit verbunden die Auflösung eines wesentlichen Bezugspunktes von Technikbewertung.

Technoscientia est Potentia

Within the realm of nano-, bio-, info- and cogno- (or NBIC) technosciences, the ‘power to change the world’ is often invoked. One could dismiss such formulations as ‘purely rhetorical’, interpret them as rhetorical and self-fulfilling or view them as an adequate depiction of one of the fundamental characteristics of technoscience. In the latter case, a very specific nexus between science and technology, or, the epistemic and the constructionist realm is envisioned. The following paper focuses on this nexus drawing on theoretical conceptions as well as empirical material. It presents an overview of different technoscientific ways to ‘change the world’—via contemplation and representation, intervention and control, engineering, construction and creation. It further argues that the hybrid character of technoscience makes it difficult (if not impossible) to separate knowledge production from real world interventions and challenges current science and technology policy approaches in fundamental ways.RésuméDans le monde des nano-, bio-, info- et cogno- (ou NBIC) technosciences, le «pouvoir de changer le monde» est souvent invoqué. Ces formulations pourraient être mises de côté comme «purement rhétoriques», ou bien interprétées comme étant rhétoriques et auto-réalisatrices, ou bien vues comme une description adéquate d’une des caractéristiques fondamentales de la technoscience. Dans le dernier cas, une connexion bien spécifique est imaginée entre la science et la technologie, ou bien le monde épistémique et obstructionniste. Cet article se concentre sur cette connexion, basé sur des conceptions théoriques ainsi que du matériel empirique. Il présente une vue d’ensemble des différentes manières de «changer le monde»— via la contemplation et la représentation, l’intervention et le contrôle, l’ingénierie, la construction et la création. De plus, l’étude soutient que le caractère hybride de la technoscience rend difficile (voire impossible) de séparer la production de la connaissance des interventions du monde réel et remet en question d’une manière fondamentale les approches actuelles de la politique de la science et de la technologie.ZusammenfassungIn Darstellungen der neuen Nano-, Bio-, Info- und Kogno-Technowissenschaften wird häufig deren „weltverändernde Macht“ beschworen. Man kann solche Formulierungen nun als „rein rhetorische Figur“ abtun, sie als rhetorisch und selbstbestätigend werten oder auch als treffende Charakterisierung von Technowissenschaft verstehen. In letzterem Fall wird eine sehr spezifische Verknüpfung von Wissenschaft und Technologie, dem epistemischen und dem konstruierenden Bereich thematisiert. Der vorliegende Artikel widmet sich dieser Verknüpfung von theoretischer und empirischer Seite. Er stellt unterschiedliche technowissenschaftliche Ansätze dar „die Welt zu verändern“—durch Kontemplation und Repräsentation, Intervention und Kontrolle, Konstruktion und (Neu-)Schöpfung. Der hybride Charakter von Technowissenschaften—so die weitere Folgerung—erschwert die praktische Trennung von Wissensproduktion und gesellschaftlicher Intervention und stellt somit Fundamente herkömmlicher Wissenschafts- und Technologiepolitik in Frage.

Old problems, new directions and upcoming requirements in participatory technology assessment.

Discussions on the role of participatory approaches in technology assessment and technology policy have a long history. While in the beginning this subject was handled mainly as a theoretical requirement for democratic governance of technology, active involvement of stakeholders and laypeople became popular in TA exercises throughout the 1980s. Since then, a variety of participatory TA (pTA) methods and strategies have been developed and widely used, raising further far-reaching expectations. It has been argued that participatory approaches might broaden and hence enrich the knowledge and value base in ongoing technological discourses and eventually improve the factual as well as democratic legitimacy of technology-related decisions (Joss and Bellucci 2002). Moreover, a stronger integration of diverse actors and stakeholders was linked to the promise of better socially embedded solutions, an increased acceptance and enhanced diffusion of technology as well as technology policy. However, practical experiences with pTA have shown that under real-world conditions, it is difficult to meet all these expectations (e.g. Abels and Bora 2004). Despite a continuing and widespread interest in pTA, empirical evidence and theoretical positions on the practical performance of pTA have remained ambiguous.

Antizipierte Technikkontroversen als Governance-Problem

In: Griesler, E.; Rohracher, H. (Hrsg.), Genomforschung – Politik – Gesellschaft: Perspektiven auf ethische, rechtliche und soziale Aspekte der Genomforschung (Osterr. Zeitschrift fur Soziologie – Sonderhefte, Bd. 8); Wiesbaden: VS, S. 69-98 Risiko und Ethik haben sich als dominante Problematisierungsweisen in Technikkontroversen etabliert. Diese Rahmungen sind mit bestimmten Governance-Regimes assoziiert. Im Fall der erst im Entstehen begriffenen, sogenannten emerging technologies wie Nanotechnologie oder synthetische Biologie wird Kontroversialitat vielfach antizipiert, ohne dass konkrete Anwendungen, Folgen oder Problematisierungen existieren. Hinter solchen Reaktionen auf antizipierte Zukunfte verbirgt sich die Annahme, dass zukunftige Kontroversen nach dem Muster vergangener gestrickt sein werden. Auf Basis dieser Unterstellungen werden Strategien einer antizipierenden Governance entwickelt. In diesem Artikel wird argumentiert, dass technology governance auf Basis einfacher Analogien zu kurz greift. Die Antizipation von Technikentwicklungen und -kontroversen wird selbst zu einem bedeutenden Einflussfaktor in der Produktion gesellschaftlich-technologischer Zukunfte. Fur die beteiligte sozialwissenschaftliche Expertise resultiert daraus ein Funktionswandel: Sie wird vom Schiedsrichter zum Mitspieler.

Systems Biology: Science or Technoscience?

“One major thesis I already gathered from the accumulated material is that systems biology as a (techno)epistemic culture shares a lot of its characteristics with other contemporary Big Science research approaches such as modern brain research instead of gaining its identity solely from (a linear advancement of) its historical forerunners. In other words, when looking at its cultural traits, systems biology is firstly characterized as a contemporary Big Science endeavor and only secondly as relating to a molecular biology tradition. When looking at the various subcommunities within systems biology and the interplay of systems and synthetic biology, the picture of course becomes more complex. These observations also raise the question what kind of category ‘systems biology’ represents: a discipline, an inter-discipline, a sub-discipline, a research approach or a new paradigm?”