|
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
|
The Politics of Talk
Coming to Terms with the ‘New’ Scientific Governance
Alan Irwin
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
References
- Bauman, Zygmunt (1991) Modernity and Ambivalence( Cambridge: Polity ).
- Blair, Tony (2002) ‘Science Matters’ (10 April), available at < www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page1715.asp >.
- Collingridge, David & Colin Reeve (1986) Science Speaks to Power: The Role of Experts in Policymaking( New York: St Martin's Press ).
- Collins, H.M. & Robert Evans (2002) ‘The Third Wave of Science Studies: Studies of Expertise and Experience’ , Social Studies of Science 32(2): 235–296 .[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2004) The GM Dialogue: Government Response(9 March), available at < www.defra.gov.uk >.
- Department of Trade and Industry (2000) Excellence and Opportunity: A Science and Innovation Policy for the 21st Century( London: The Stationery Office ).
- Department of Trade and Industry (2003) The Forward Look 2003: Government Funded Science, Engineering and Technology( Norwich, Norfolk: The Stationery Office ).
- European Commission (2000) Science, Society and the Citizen in Europe( Brussels: Commission of the European Communities ).
- European Commission (2001) European Governance: A White Paper( Brussels: Commission of the European Communities ).
- European Commission (2002) Science and Society: Action Plan( Luxembourg: Commission of the European Communities ).
- GM Nation?(2003) ‘The Findings of the Public Debate’, available at < www.defra.gov.uk/environment/gm/debate/index.htm >.
- Grint, Keith & Steve Woolgar (1997) The Machine at Work: Technology, Work and Organisation ( Cambridge: Polity ).
- Grove-White, R. (2001) ‘New Wine, Old Bottles? Personal Reflections on the New Biotechnology Commissions’ , Political Quarterly 72(4): 466–472 .[CrossRef]
- Hagendijk, R.P. (2004) ‘The Public Understanding of Science and Public Participation in Regulated Worlds’ , Minerva 42: 41–59 .[CrossRef]
- Horst, Maja (2003) Controversy and Collectivity: Articulations of Social and Natural Order in Mass-mediated Representations of Biotechnology, PhD Thesis, Doctoral School on Knowledge and Management, Copenhagen Business School.
- House of Commons, Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee (2003) Conduct of the GM Public Debate , Eighteenth Report of Session 2002–03 (ordered to be printed 12 November 2003).
- House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology (2000) Science and Society ( London: The Stationery Office ).
- Irwin, Alan (1995) Citizen Science( London: Routledge ).
- Irwin, Alan (2001) ‘Constructing the Scientific Citizen: Science and Democracy in the Biosciences’ , Public Understanding of Science 10(1): 1–18 .[Abstract]
- Irwin, Alan & Mike Michael (2003) Science, Social Theory and Public Knowledge ( Maidenhead, Berks.: Open University Press ).
- Irwin, Alan & Brian Wynne (1996) Misunderstanding Science?( Cambridge: Cambridge University Press ).
- Jasanoff, Sheila (1990) The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policy Makers( Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press ).
- Jasanoff, Sheila (2003) ‘Breaking the Wave in Science Studies’ , Social Studies of Science 33(3): 389–400 .[CrossRef][Web of Science]
- Jones, Kevin (2004) ‘BSE and the Phillips Report: A Cautionary Tale about the Update of "Risk"’, in N. Stehr (ed.), The Governance of Knowledge( New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction ): 161–186.
- Kerr, Anne (2003) ‘Rights and Responsibilities in the New Genetics Era’ , Critical Social Policy 23(2): 208–226 .[Abstract]
- Marris, Claire, Brian Wynne, Peter Simmons, Sue Weldon et al. (2001) ‘Public Perceptions of Agricultural Biotechnologies in Europe’, Final report of the PABE research project funded by the European Communities (December), available at < www.lancs.ac.uk/depts/ieppp/pabe/ >.
- Office of Science and Technology (2000) Guidelines 2000: Scientific Advice and Policy Making.
- O’Neill, Onora (2002) ‘A Question of Trust’, Reith Lectures, < www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2002 >.
- Phillips, Lord, J. Bridgeman & M. Ferguson-Smith (2000) The BSE Inquiry: The Report ( London: The Stationery Office ).
- Renn, Ortwin, Thomas Webler & Peter Weidemann (1995) Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse( Dordrecht: Kluwer ).
- Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (1998) Setting Environmental Standards, 21st Report ( London: The Stationery Office ).
- Royal Society/Royal Academy of Engineering (2004) Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and Uncertainties, RS policy document 19/04 (July).
- Strategy Unit (2002) Risk: Improving Government's Capability to Handle Risk and Uncertainty ( London: Cabinet Office ).
- Understanding Risk Team (2004) ‘An Independent Evaluation of the GM Nation? Public Debate about the Possible Commercialisation of Transgenic Crops in Britain, 2003’, Understanding Risk Working Paper 04–02 (February 2004), available at < www.risks.org.uk >.
- Urry, John (2000) Sociology Beyond Societies: Mobilities for the Twenty-first Century( London & New York: Routledge ).
- Wynne, Brian (2002) ‘Risk and Environment as Legitimatory Discourses of Technology: Reflexivity Inside Out?’ , Current Sociology 50(3): 459–477 .[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Wynne, Brian (2003) ‘Seasick on the Third Wave? Subverting the Hegemony of Propositionalism’ , Social Studies of Science 33(3): 401–417 .[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Social Studies of Science, Vol. 36, No. 2,
299-320 (2006)
DOI: 10.1177/0306312706053350
 CiteULike  Complore  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
|
|
 
M. C. Powell and M. Colin
Participatory Paradoxes: Facilitating Citizen Engagement in Science and Technology From the Top-Down?
Bulletin of Science Technology Society,
August 1, 2009;
29(4):
325 - 342.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U. Felt, M. Fochler, A. Muller, and M. Strassnig
Unruly ethics: on the difficulties of a bottom-up approach to ethics in the field of genomics
Public Understanding of Science,
May 1, 2009;
18(3):
354 - 371.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. Weiner
Lay Involvement and Legitimacy: The Construction of Expertise and Participation within HEART UK
Journal of Contemporary Ethnography,
April 1, 2009;
38(2):
254 - 273.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|
|
|
|
