Suchergebnisse

The Mandela government that came into power in 1994 made the democratiza- tion of science and technology a priority in post-apartheid South Africa. At- tendant ideas of Science Communication and Public Understanding of Biotech- nology have hitherto become currency in South Africa's public sector drive towards the democratization of science. Democratization of science and tech- nology implies that the people, as non-experts, are an integral part of all delibera- tions on policy, regulation and control of science and technology, for example, in debates or controversies on issues arising from biotechnology. Democratiza- tion of science and technology is about the sociopolitical control of science and technology by the wider society. Science and technology must be controlled by the society at large because evil-minded groups of people can ill-use it to inflict harm on other groups of people. Moreover, certain unscrupulous and corrupt business entities can collude with the state and/or powerful and influential sociopolitical figures in societies to exploit and abuse indigenous scientific resources as well as endogenous modes of specialized scientific knowledge. On the latter, for example, they can evoke intellectual property rights (IPR) to patent resources that are not theirs historically. Thus, the ideal-type of democracy makes it imperative for the people of South Africa and of other societies in Africa to understand and actively participate in the development of science and tech- nology. This necessitates increasing scholarly attention to be given to questions of science communication and public understanding of science, arising at the intersection between science, society and politics in South and southern Africa. This paper discusses the role and importance of social movements in science communication and public understanding of biotechnology in South and southern Africa.

International audience ; In the 2001/2002 farming season, southern Africa faced acute hunger. According to UN WFP/FAO statistics, about 14 million people were on the verge of death by starvation in the region. In Zambia alone, the UN WFP/FAO estimated that about 3 million people were threatened with serious food shortages, and they would need about 630 000 metric tons of food. The UN WFP offered genetically modified (GM) maize grain, procured from the US, to various countries in the region, including Zambia. A significant debate emerged around the question of US-produced GM maize grain in the region. This regional debate around the question of GM maize was most probably aroused by the issues raised by the Zambian case. The form of this debate and the issues driving its dynamics, are interesting both in themselves and also because they reveal something about the form by which public biotechnological debate, or public controversy on biotechnology, takes in public domains. This paper is an experimental intellectual exercise, an attempt at a conceptual analysis of "public debate" as a derivative, but quintessential, concept within what is broadly conceived of as public understanding of science. Thus, this conceptual analysis is an attempt at a prolegomena for, i.e. a preparatory conceptual approach to, our understanding better what public debate on science is and how it works in practice.

In the 2001/2002 farming season, southern Africa faced acute hunger. According to UN WFP/FAO statistics, about 14 million people were on the verge of death by starvation in the region. In Zambia alone, the UN WFP/FAO estimated that about 3 million people were threatened with serious food shortages, and they would need about 630 000 metric tons of food. The UN WFP offered genetically modified (GM) maize grain, procured from the US, to various countries in the region, including Zambia. A significant debate emerged around the question of US-produced GM maize grain in the region. This regional debate around the question of GM maize was most probably aroused by the issues raised by the Zambian case. The form of this debate and the issues driving its dynamics, are interesting both in themselves and also because they reveal something about the form by which public biotechnological debate, or public controversy on biotechnology, takes in public domains. This paper is an experimental intellectual exercise, an attempt at a conceptual analysis of "public debate" as a derivative, but quintessential, concept within what is broadly conceived of as public understanding of science. Thus, this conceptual analysis is an attempt at a prolegomena for, i.e. a preparatory conceptual approach to, our understanding better what public debate on science is and how it works in practice.

In this timely and erudite collection, writers from the Global South demonstrate that forms of publicness are multiple, mobile and varied. Drawing primarily on materials from Africa for their capacity to speak to global developments, they propose new concepts and methodologies to analyse how public engagements work in society.