This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (11) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Irwin, A. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

The Politics of Talk

Coming to Terms with the ‘New’ Scientific Governance

Faculty of Social and Environmental Studies, The University of Liverpool, 23 Abercromby Square, Liverpool L69 7ZG, UK; fax: +44 151 794 2403; alan.irwin{at}liverpool.ac.uk

Talk of public dialogue and engagement has become fashionable internationally, and particularly within Europe. Building especially upon recent British experience, this paper argues that ‘public talk’ (that is, talk both by and about the public) represents an important site for science and technology studies analysis. The relationship between ‘new’ and ‘old’ approaches to scientific governance is considered. Drawing upon a series of official reports, and also the GM Nation? public debate over genetically modified food, the paper suggests that, rather than witnessing the emergence of a new governance paradigm, the current approach can more accurately be portrayed as an uneasy blend of ‘old’ and ‘new’ assumptions. Eschewing a straightforward normative account, the paper explores the social construction of public talk, the relationship between talk and trust, the search for the ‘innocent’ citizen, and the pursuit of social consensus. Current initiatives should not simply be criticized for their inadequacies, but should also be viewed as symptomatic of the state of science–society relations. In that way, stresses and strains within the politics of public talk assume wider analytical significance than the ‘mere talk’ epithet would suggest.

Key Words: genetically modified food • GM Nation? • public engagement • science and democracy

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. C. Powell and M. Colin Meaningful Citizen Engagement in Science and Technology: What Would it Really Take? Science Communication, September 1, 2008; 30(1): 126 - 136. [Abstract] [PDF]

				G. Davies and C. Dwyer Progress reports Progress in Human Geography, June 1, 2008; 32(3): 399 - 406. [PDF]

				J. Chilvers Deliberating Competence: Theoretical and Practitioner Perspectives on Effective Participatory Appraisal Practice Science Technology Human Values, May 1, 2008; 33(3): 421 - 451. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. Chilvers Deliberating Competence: Theoretical and Practitioner Perspectives on Effective Participatory Appraisal Practice Science Technology Human Values, March 1, 2008; 33(2): 155 - 185. [Abstract] [PDF]

				C. Marris, P.-B. Joly, and A. Rip Interactive Technology Assessment in the Real World: Dual Dynamics in an iTA Exercise on Genetically Modified Vines Science Technology Human Values, January 1, 2008; 33(1): 77 - 100. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. N. Svendsen Between Reproductive and Regenerative Medicine: Practising Embryo Donation and Civil Responsibility in Denmark Body Society, December 1, 2007; 13(4): 21 - 45. [PDF]

				J. Lezaun and L. Soneryd Consulting citizens: technologies of elicitation and the mobility of publics Public Understanding of Science, July 1, 2007; 16(3): 279 - 297. [Abstract] [PDF]

				H. Nowotny How Many Policy Rooms are There?: Evidence-Based and Other Kinds of Science Policies Science Technology Human Values, July 1, 2007; 32(4): 479 - 490. [Abstract] [PDF]