Suchergebnisse

The significance of political-economic context for scientific citizenship is argued through an analysis of New Zealand's Royal Commission on Genetic Modification. My intention is not to provide an account of why the commission came to the decisions it did but to illustrate how the political-economic context and the culture of regulatory science both exacerbate public concerns about unacknowledged uncertainty and commercial influence and make it difficult for those concerns to influence the outcomes of public dialogues. The discursive flexibility of science as alternately predictive and provisional silences concerns about uncertainty, while a further interpretive choice of science as the autonomous activities of individuals unconstrained by political-economic context occludes the nature of concerns about commercial influence. Rather than the increasingly prevalent focus on processes of engagement, I argue that it is essential that researchers in this area attend to how public dialogue is placed in relation to the cultures and structures of regulatory science and neoliberalism.

Over the past decade we have seen an increasing emphasis on public engagement or dialogue in relation to controversial aspects of science and technology. This phenomenon is the product of a number of factors, of which I would highlight three: * Unexpected, widespread, and sustained public opposition to some commercial applications of biotechnology (and fears that other emerging technologies would be similarly received); * The intensification of pressure on governments to improve the "international competitiveness" of their economies, and the widespread embrace of the "knowledge economy" as the favoured vehicle for accomplishing this; * The direct and indirect influence of some elements of social science research (namely the discrediting of the "deficit model").

Preface -- Acknowledgements -- Contents -- Editors and Contributors -- Abbreviations -- List of Figures -- List of Tables -- Chapter 1 Introduction -- The Bioeconomy as a Biotechnological-Innovation Economy -- The Bioeconomy as a Biomass Economy -- The Bioeconomy as a Novel Form of Capitalism -- Value in the Bioeconomy -- Life Itself -- Labor -- Speculation -- Enclosure and Assets -- Subjectivities and the Bioeconomy -- References -- Part I Promissory and Performative: Remaking Institutions for the Bioeconomy -- Chapter 2 The "Entrepreneurial State" and the Leveraging of Life in the Field of Regenerative Medicine -- Introduction: The Entrepreneurial State and Translational Medicine -- Methods -- Regenerative Medicine and the Leveraging of Life -- The Commercialisation Imperative: The Cell and Gene Therapy Catapult -- The Promotion of Interdisciplinarity -- Reconfiguring Governance Mechanisms: Accelerating Access to Regenerative Medicines -- Reframing the Healthcare System as an Innovation Asset -- Discussion and Conclusions -- References -- Chapter 3 Technologies of Governance: Science, State and Citizen in Visions of the Bioeconomy -- Introduction -- Theorizing the Bioeconomy -- Potential and Urgency -- Building a Better Fish -- Ordering Institutions -- Failing the Future -- Spawning the Bioeconomy -- Governing Future Consumers -- Conclusion -- References -- Chapter 4 "Having a Structuring Effect on Europe": The Innovative Medicines Initiative and the Construction of the European Health Bioeconomy -- Introduction -- Analytic Perspective and Methodology -- Discursive Genealogies of European Construction -- From the Lisbon Agenda to the Health Bioeconomy -- The Origins of IMI in the European Technology Platforms (ETPs) and Joint Technology Initiatives (JTIs) -- The "Strategic Research Agenda" and the Translational Goals of IMI

The bioeconomy is becoming increasingly prominent in policy and scholarly literature, but critical examination of the concept is lacking. We argue that the bioeconomy should be understood as a political project, not simply or primarily as a technoscientific or economic one. We use a conceptual framework derived from the work of Karl Polanyi to elucidate the politically performative nature of the bioeconomy through an analysis of an influential Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) initiative, The Bioeconomy to 2030. We argue that this initiative is a response to some of the most acute challenges facing the current neoliberal-capitalist accumulation regime, which seeks to protect and extend that regime, through both what it occludes and what it promotes. Rather than taking the bioeconomy as a description of some subset of economic activity, we regard it as a promissory construct that is meant to induce and facilitate some actions while deterring others; most explicitly, it is meant to bring about a particular set of political–institutional changes that will shape the parameters of possible future action. The bioeconomy concept highlights the potential dangers of failing to situate ethnographic examinations of horizontal micro-relations within a political–economic macro-context that enables and constrains. Scholarly work in science and technology studies and elsewhere that does not recognize the wider politics of the bioeconomy risks unintentionally contributing to the legitimation of this political project.

Abstract Background Over the past 20 years, genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have raised enormous expectations, passionate political controversies and an ongoing debate on how these technologies should be assessed. Current risk assessment procedures generally assess GMOs in terms of their potential risk of negatively affecting human health and the environment. Can this risk-benefit approach deliver a robust assessment of GMOs? In this paper, we question the validity of current risk assessment from both a social and an ecological perspective, and we elaborate an alternative approach, namely in-context trajectory evaluation. This paper combines frame analysis, context analysis and ecosocial analysis to three different case studies. Results Applying frame analysis to Syngenta's recent campaign 'Bring plant potential to life', we first de-construct the technosocial imaginaries driving GMOs innovation, showing how the latter endorses the technological fix of socioeconomic problems whilst reinforcing the neoliberal sociopolitical paradigm. Applying context analysis to biopharming in New Zealand, we then explore local practices and knowledge, showing that particularities of context typically omitted from risk assessment processes play a key role in determining both the risks and the potential benefits of a technology. Finally, drawing from the Italian case, we outline through ecosocial analysis how the lack of long-term studies, further aggravated by current methodological deficiencies, prevent risk assessment from considering not only how GMOs affect the environmental context but also, and most importantly, the way people live in, and interact with, this context. Conclusion Incorporating frame analysis, context analysis and ecosocial analysis, in the form of in-context trajectory evaluation, into the assessment of GMOs can improve the social compatibility, political accountability and ecological sustainability of its outcomes. ; Peer Reviewed

Abstract Background Over the past 20 years, genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have raised enormous expectations, passionate political controversies and an ongoing debate on how these technologies should be assessed. Current risk assessment procedures generally assess GMOs in terms of their potential risk of negatively affecting human health and the environment. Can this risk-benefit approach deliver a robust assessment of GMOs? In this paper, we question the validity of current risk assessment from both a social and an ecological perspective, and we elaborate an alternative approach, namely in-context trajectory evaluation . This paper combines frame analysis, context analysis and ecosocial analysis to three different case studies. Results Applying frame analysis to Syngenta's recent campaign 'Bring plant potential to life', we first de-construct the technosocial imaginaries driving GMOs innovation, showing how the latter endorses the technological fix of socioeconomic problems whilst reinforcing the neoliberal sociopolitical paradigm. Applying context analysis to biopharming in New Zealand, we then explore local practices and knowledge, showing that particularities of context typically omitted from risk assessment processes play a key role in determining both the risks and the potential benefits of a technology. Finally, drawing from the Italian case, we outline through ecosocial analysis how the lack of long-term studies, further aggravated by current methodological deficiencies, prevent risk assessment from considering not only how GMOs affect the environmental context but also, and most importantly, the way people live in, and interact with, this context. Conclusion Incorporating frame analysis, context analysis and ecosocial analysis, in the form of in-context trajectory evaluation, into the assessment of GMOs can improve the social compatibility, political accountability and ecological sustainability of its outcomes.

Purpose: Over the past twenty years, GMOs have raised enormous expectations, passionate political controversies, and an on-going debate on how should these technologies be assessed. Current risk-assessment procedures generally assess GMOs in terms of their potential risk of negatively affecting human health and the environment. Yet, is this risk-benefit approach appropriate to a deliver a robust assessment of GMOs? In this paper, we question the validity of current risk-assessment from both a social and an ecological perspective, and we elaborate an alternative approach, namely in-context trajectory evaluation Methods: This paper combines frame analysis, context analysis and eco-social analysis to three different case studies. Results: Applying frame analysis to Syngenta´s recent campaign "Bring plant potential to life", we first de-construct the techno-social imaginaries driving GMOs innovation, showing how the latter endorses the technological fix of socio-economic problems while reinforcing the neoliberal socio-political paradigm. Applying context analysis to biopharming in New Zealand, we then explore local practices, rules and formal and informal procedures, showing that to assess how safe is a technology it is necessary to address how "safe" is the context. Finally, drawing from the Italian case, we outline through eco-social analysis how the lack of long-term studies, further aggravated by current methodological deficiencies, prevent risk-assessment from considering not only how GMOs affect the environmental context but also, and most importantly, the way people live in, and interact with, this context. Conclusions: Whilst it emerges that there might be a number of socio-political reasons to support a moratorium on GMOs in Europe even if they come to be considered technically safe, these results suggest that the integration of in-context trajectory evaluation with traditional risk assessment procedures may help promoting social compatibility, political accountability and ecological sustainability. ; Peer reviewed

Peer reviewed ; Purpose: Over the past twenty years, GMOs have raised enormous expectations, passionate political controversies, and an on-going debate on how should these technologies be assessed. Current risk-assessment procedures generally assess GMOs in terms of their potential risk of negatively affecting human health and the environment. Yet, is this risk-benefit approach appropriate to a deliver a robust assessment of GMOs? In this paper, we question the validity of current risk-assessment from both a social and an ecological perspective, and we elaborate an alternative approach, namely in-context trajectory evaluation Methods: This paper combines frame analysis, context analysis and eco-social analysis to three different case studies. Results: Applying frame analysis to Syngenta´s recent campaign "Bring plant potential to life", we first de-construct the techno-social imaginaries driving GMOs innovation, showing how the latter endorses the technological fix of socio-economic problems while reinforcing the neoliberal socio-political paradigm. Applying context analysis to biopharming in New Zealand, we then explore local practices, rules and formal and informal procedures, showing that to assess how safe is a technology it is necessary to address how "safe" is the context. Finally, drawing from the Italian case, we outline through eco-social analysis how the lack of long-term studies, further aggravated by current methodological deficiencies, prevent risk-assessment from considering not only how GMOs affect the environmental context but also, and most importantly, the way people live in, and interact with, this context. Conclusions: Whilst it emerges that there might be a number of socio-political reasons to support a moratorium on GMOs in Europe even if they come to be considered technically safe, these results suggest that the integration of in-context trajectory evaluation with traditional risk assessment procedures may help promoting social compatibility, political accountability and ecological ...

Frontmatter -- CONTENTS -- ACKNOWLEDGMENTS -- INTRODUCTION -- PART ONE: REPRODUCTION AS POLITICS -- CHAPTER 1 Between Ideology, Politics, and Common Sense: The Discourse of Reproductive Rights in Poland -- CHAPTER 2 Reproductive Policies in the Czech and Slovak Republics -- CHAPTER 3 Talking about Women and Wombs: The Discourse of Abortion and Reproductive Rights in the G.D.R. during and after the Wende -- CHAPTER 4 Birth Strike in the New Federal States: Is Sterilization an Act of Resistance? -- PART TWO: GENDER RELATIONS IN EVERYDAY LIFE -- CHAPTER 5 Changing Images of Identity in Poland: From the Self-Sacrificing to the Self-Investing Woman? -- CHAPTER 6 Women's Life Trajectories and Class Formation in Hungary -- CHAPTER 7 From Informal Labor to Paid Occupations: Marketization from below in Hungarian Women's Work -- CHAPTER 8 Women's Sexuality and Reproductive Behavior in Post-Ceausescu Romania: A Psychological Approach -- PART THREE: ARENAS OF POLITICAL ACTION: STRUGGLES FOR REPRESENTATION -- CHAPTER 9 New Gender Relations in Poland in the 1990s -- CHAPTER 10 New Parliament, Old Discourse? The Parental Leave Debate in Hungary -- CHAPTER 11 Women's NGOs in Romania -- CHAPTER 12 Women's Problems, Women's Discourses in Bulgaria -- CHAPTER 13 Belgrade's SOS Hotline for Women and Children Victims of Violence: A Report -- CHAPTER 14 Media Representations of Men and Women in Times of War and Crisis: The Case of Serbia -- CONCLUSION -- CONTRIBUTORS -- INDEX