Maximilian Fochler

Visions and Versions of Governing Biomedicine: Narratives on Power Structures, Decision-making and Public Participation in the Field of Biomedical Technology in the Austrian Context

In recent years, governance and public participation have developed into key notions within both policy discourse and academic analysis. While there is much discussion on developing new modes of governance and public participation, little empirical attention is paid to the publics perception of models, possibilities and limits of participation and governance. Building on focus group data collected in Austria within the framework of a European project, this paper explores lay peoples visions and versions of government, governance and participation for two biomedical technologies: post-natal genetic testing and organ transplantation. Building on this analysis, we show that people situate their assessments of public participation against the background of rather complex lay models of the governance and government of the respective technology. Because these models are very different for the two technologies, participation also had very different connotations, which were deeply intertwined with each socio-technical system. Building on these findings we argue for a more technology-sensitive approach to public participation.

Coming to Terms with Biomedical Technologies in Different Technopolitical Cultures: A Comparative Analysis of Focus Groups on Organ Transplantation and Genetic Testing in Austria, France, and the Netherlands

In this comparative analysis of twelve focus groups conducted in Austria, France, and the Netherlands, we investigate how lay people come to terms with two biomedical technologies. Using the term ‘‘technopolitical culture,’’ we aim to show that the ways in which technosciences are interwoven with a specific society frame how citizens build their individual and collective positions toward them. We investigate how the focus group participants conceptualized organ transplantation (OT) and genetic testing (GT), their perceptions of individual agency in relation to the two technologies and to more collective forms of acting and governing, and also their understanding of the two technologies’ relationship to broader societal value systems. Against the background of the sustained political effort to build common European values, we suggest that more fine-grained attention toward the culturally embedded differences in coming to terms with biomedical technologies is needed.

Unsustainable Growth, Hyper-Competition, and Worth in Life Science Research: Narrowing Evaluative Repertoires in Doctoral and Postdoctoral Scientists’ Work and Lives

There is a crisis of valuation practices in the current academic life sciences, triggered by unsustainable growth and “hyper-competition.” Quantitative metrics in evaluating researchers are seen as replacing deeper considerations of the quality and novelty of work, as well as substantive care for the societal implications of research. Junior researchers are frequently mentioned as those most strongly affected by these dynamics. However, their own perceptions of these issues are much less frequently considered. This paper aims at contributing to a better understanding of the interplay between how research is valued and how young researchers learn to live, work and produce knowledge within academia. We thus analyze how PhD students and postdocs in the Austrian life sciences ascribe worth to people, objects and practices as they talk about their own present and future lives in research. We draw on literature from the field of valuation studies and its interest in how actors refer to different forms of valuation to account for their actions. We explore how young researchers are socialized into different valuation practices in different stages of their growing into science. Introducing the concept of “regimes of valuation” we show that PhD students relate to a wider evaluative repertoire while postdocs base their decisions on one dominant regime of valuing research. In conclusion, we discuss the implications of these findings for the epistemic and social development of the life sciences, and for other scientific fields.

Beyond and between academia and business: How Austrian biotechnology researchers describe high-tech startup companies as spaces of knowledge production

Research and innovation policy has invested considerable effort in creating new institutional spaces at the interface of academia and business. High-tech startups founded by academic entrepreneurs have been central to these policy imaginaries. These companies offer researchers new possibilities beyond and between academia and larger industry. However, the field of science and technology studies has thus far shown only limited interest in understanding these companies as spaces of knowledge production. This article analyses how researchers working in small and medium-sized biotechnology companies in Vienna, Austria, describe the cultural characteristics of knowledge production in this particular institutional space. It traces how they relate these characteristics to other institutional spaces they have experienced in their research biographies, such as in academia or larger corporations. It shows that the reasons why researchers decide to work in biotechnology companies and how they organize their work are deeply influenced by their perception of deficiencies in the conditions for epistemic work in contemporary academia and, to a lesser degree, in industry.

Variants of Epistemic Capitalism Knowledge Production and the Accumulation of Worth in Commercial Biotechnology and the Academic Life Sciences

Capitalist dynamics in knowledge production are not limited to situations in which economic interests influence researchers’ practices. Building on laboratory studies and the French “pragmatic” tradition in sociology, this article proposes an approach to tackle more pervasive capitalist logics at work in contemporary research and their consequences. It uses the term epistemic capitalism to denote the accumulation of capital, as worth made durable, through the act of doing research, in and beyond academia. In doing so, it conceptualizes capitalism primarily not as a system of circulation and accumulation of monetary value but rather as a cultural way of producing, attributing, and accumulating specific forms of worth, which need not be monetary. Empirically, the article studies variants in epistemic capitalism by addressing the differing role of the accumulation of different forms of capital and the regimes connected to it in two institutional settings in Austria, academic life science laboratories and biotechnology start-up companies. Concluding, it argues that analytically dissociating the concept of capitalism from its link to economic value allows a finer-grained cultural analysis of the importance and effects of processes of accumulation in contemporary research. It ends with discussing the normative implications of these findings for debates about the commercialization of academia.

Re-ordering Epistemic Living Spaces: On the Tacit Governance Effects of the Public Communication of Science

Media have become an important arena of and actor in the co-evolution of science and society. Medialization re-shapes the professional and public identities of scientists, who are increasingly expected to consider communication activities as part of their professional role. Our interest in this contribution lies in tracing how medialization impinges on key processes and symbolic orders within research. The central thesis of this chapter is that medialization does not only affect the context in which research happens, such as its financial organisation or regulation, but that media have become deeply involved in shaping scientists’ epistemic living spaces. Our approach starts from a person-centred perspective, and asks what consequences the proliferation of communication activities and of media representations of research has for academic scientists and their ways of living and working in research. How does scientists’ increasing engagement in communication activities feed back into research and influence their identities and practices as scientists? How do these communication activities affect the social and symbolic orders that define what it means to do research today? And how do they both tacitly govern research environments as well as researchers’ self-understanding? By starting from these questions about how researchers’ ways of living and working in science are affected by medialization on a micro-level we aim to work towards conclusions about the more systemic effects of medialization, both in science as well as in its relation to other societal actors and systems.

IMAGINE RRI. A card-based method for reflecting on responsibility in life science research

ABSTRACTResponsible Research and Innovation (RRI) has become a new buzzword in science policy, pointing to a shift in the role of research in contemporary societies. While on a discursive level responsibility is easily welcomed, implementing RRI in research practice appears challenging. RRI as an agent for change must compete with other forces shaping the current research system and its institutions, such as innovation orientation, competition and indicator-driven evaluation cultures.To address these challenges, we created a new format for engaging life science researchers in reflections on the meaning of responsibility in their own research practices. In this conceptual paper, we present and discuss a card-based method: IMAGINE RRI. The method’s aim is twofold. First, it is meant to empower researchers to appropriate RRI through shared reflection while connecting it to their practices. Second, it aims to enable researchers to reflect on how the institutional context of their work and the embedded values ...

Anticipatory Uncertainty: How Academic and Industry Researchers in the Life Sciences Experience and Manage the Uncertainties of the Research Process Differently

ABSTRACT The institutional contexts of research increasingly require researchers to anticipate their productivity and the uncertainties inherent in their research. This applies to both academic researchers and to researchers in start-up companies. This creates a specific kind of uncertainty, anticipatory uncertainty, that we define as the state of being uncertain as to whether research processes will be productive in a specific time frame and along situated definitions of good performance. In the life sciences, this anticipatory uncertainty is experienced and managed differently, depending on how research is organized and the cultural resources available in specific institutional contexts. In biotechnology companies, there is a readiness to embrace dynamic changes in both research strategies and the organization of work in response to new developments in the progress of the overall research agenda. In academia, the ability of research groups to react with similar flexibility seems significantly constrained by the individual attribution of research work and credit, and the correspondingly high level of individual anticipatory uncertainty. This raises questions about how far the current organization of academic research allows epistemic uncertainty to be embraced and corresponding risks to be taken, rather than safe questions to be pursued.