Send message to Author

Long abstract:

STS scholars have long argued to democratize the governance of agribiotechnology (Hurlbut et al. 2015; Beumer 2021), often focusing on methods for public deliberation that aim to ‘open up’ the debate (Stirling 2008). Policy makers, however, tend to rely on methods that ‘close down’ debates by providing actionable priorities for decision-making. We argue that such ‘closing down’ methods are a strategic point for democratic interventions.

We specifically focus on the Delphi method, which has strongly informed priority-setting in agribiotechnology governance in the past (e.g. Daar et al. 2002; UNDP 2005). This method surveys natural scientists to produces a ranking of promising technological applications. We attempt to ‘democratize’ the Delphi method by redeveloping it based on more inclusive notions of expertise that also includes social scientists and societal stakeholders and instead asks what implications are most important.

We applied this new method to crop gene editing for smallholder farmers in the global South. We approached 500 experts, yielding 67 responses. The first survey round produced 27 societal implications, 15 of which were not identified by natural scientists, thus showing the added value of widening the notion of expertise. Importantly, in the second round, where experts rank all implications identified in round one, natural scientists also ranked highly implications that were identified by societal stakeholders. As such, the Democratic Delphi is not only more inclusive and democratic, it also manages to bridge the divide between the ‘two camps’ on both sides of the gene editing controversy, while still producing an actionable ranking.

Send message to Authors

Long abstract:

We analyse the case of a public dialogue initiative conducted in the Netherlands with the aim of understanding the views of Dutch citizens on the use of New Breeding Techniques (NGTs) in plants.

First, we describe the political debate in the Netherlands and the EU on the regulation of NGTs to situate the public dialogue. This debate takes place in the form a polemic, with a limited array of institutional actors advocating policy options (for or against exemption) with only marginal recourse to citizen perspectives. We examine how the wider political landscape has framed the debate, the assumptions underpinning such frames and the privileging of which epistemic cultures and knowledge claims.

Second, we develop and extend an anticipatory public engagement using focus group (APEFG) methodology to broaden the debate and include actors systematically omitted from regulatory and policy debates. By adopting an endogenous methodology open to the issues citizens view as relevant to the governance of gene edited crops, our aim is to extend the frames of what counts as publicly authoritative knowledge.

Third, we examine the knowledge politics dynamics implicated in the search for making citizen knowledge claims and discourses publicly authoritative. We focus in particular on the institutional logics of policy institutions and their (in)capacity to align with (marginalised) citizen frames and discourses.

Send message to Author

Long abstract:

The societal debate on the use of genome-edited crops (GE crops) has been polarised from the start. While policymakers struggle to democratically resolve the dilemma, plant scientists have been criticised for taking up advocative roles and thereby risking further polarisation. We examined how plant scientists themselves demarcate their roles and responsibilities, both in general and within this controversial context, and to what extent their demarcation aligns with traditional (e.g., linear model of innovation) or forward-looking (e.g., responsible research and innovation) models of science-responsibility. We found, first, that the perceived roles and responsibilities of the interviewees were persistently aligned with the traditional ideal of the scientist as value-free, as separate from society, and as producing knowledge that leads to unproblematic societal benefits through industry. Secondly, while our respondents were quite reflexive when discussing their roles and responsibilities in general, this reflexivity tended to be dispersed when confronted with the polarised debate on GE crops. We hypothesise that this decreased reflexivity is a product of the long-term polarisation of the GM/GE debate during which plant scientists have been in a kind of ‘echo chamber’; reflecting and reinforcing each other’s views on both GE crops and their own roles and responsibilities. Specifically in controversial contexts such as this, therefore, we see a role for the STS community to engage with natural scientists. We believe that interdisciplinary interaction could help to better align the perspectives of both groups on the topic of science-responsibility and aid natural scientists in contributing more constructively to polarised debates.

Send message to Author

Long abstract:

Past waves of biotech controversies have succumbed to risk frames and ethics frames mostly (cp. Kastenhofer 2009). These discursive framings related to the prevalent regulatory frameworks and institutional landscapes of the time (Böschen et al. 2010, Bogner and Menz 2010). Moreover, they further fueled a staging of biotech controversies as science-based controversies on the one hand and ethical conflicts on the other hand. Thus, the relevant expertise and relating experts were also pre-defined and pre-selected by the two framings. Within the contemporary conflict over agribiotechnology (de)regulation in the wake of the introduction of genome editing technologies, a new powerful frame is being propagated: proponents of the new ‘precision engineering’ raise hopes that genome edited plants can help with adapting to climate change. With this new frame, the scope of what biotechnology is, what the relevant actor-networks for realizing and safeguarding these new ambitions are, and what auxiliary measures would be necessary, also changes. But who are the experts to raise such concerns? Should STS and TA step in? What are the mechanisms of making and doing controversy and what are their downsides? What is (the scope of) biotechnology? Concludingly, I ask what the roles and practices of STS and TA scholars in making and doing innovation through science-based controversies are, what they could be and what we want them to be.

Send message to Author

Long abstract:

Controversies surrounding the risks of 5G are currently hampered by a stalemate between two camps. On one side, official risk assessment institutions assure European citizens that electromagnetic radiation below existing exposure limits poses no health risks. On the other side, opponents of ubiquitous wireless communication networks reject the scientific evidence underlying these limits as too narrow and biased. After previous unsuccessful attempts to resolve public controversies over 4G and 3G, there is little political will to address health concerns about 5G in 'hybrid forums' (Callon, Lascoumes, Barthe 2011). Mutual trust in the integrity of the other side has been lost. In Germany, opponents of wireless networks accuse governmental risk assessors of being too close to industry. The German government avoids debates with 'unconvertible' opponents and frames public concerns about 5G as a problem of lacking or decontextualised information. Meanwhile, the European Commission and EU member states are pushing for the deployment of 5G in all populated areas.

In this stalemate, co-developing a survey with electrohypersensitive (EHS) people inevitably becomes political. Since the causal relationship between EHS and EMF is not officially acknowledged, it forces us as STS researchers to position ourselves wisely. This talk will address the challenges we face in the WAVEMATTERS research project as we develop research partnerships and artistic formats to promote dialogue and knowledge production. Our aim is to open up spaces for controversy through different and more 'diplomatic' means (cf. Stengers 2011), even if this may slow down the roll-out of 5G.