Abstract
Epigenetics is one of a group of newly developing technosciences whose applications are just starting to leave the sphere of pure science. What is currently known about epigenetics is not only the basis for grand visions, but also for first applications especially in the medical sector. Epigenetics is therefore already of relevance to our daily lives. However, the consequences that epigenetics will have for society have hardly been investigated in detail and pose a number of challenges. Scientific and public discourses about epigenetics and its consequences have commenced, and are featuring in the media. This paper illuminates the extent to which technology assessment could (and should) incorporate the public discourse into its deliberations, and whether active steps to shape this discourse could contribute to the elaboration of a responsible approach to a new scientific discipline and its applications that enjoys societal support.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Bauer, M. W., Allum, N., & Miller, S. (2007). What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda. Public Understanding of Science, 16, 79–95.
Bijker, W. E. (2013). Technology assessment—The state of play. In Technology Assessment and Policy Areas of Great Transitions: Proceedings from the PACITA 2013 Conference in Prague. Prague: PACITA.
Bird, A. (2007). Perceptions of epigenetics. Nature, 447(7143), 396–398.
Blech, J. (2010). Gene sind kein Schicksal: Wie wir unsere Erbanlagen and unser Leben steuern können. Frankfurt a.M.: S. Fischer-Verlag.
Bogner, A. (2012). The paradox of participation experiments. Science, Technology and Human Values, 37(5), 506–527.
Bütschi, D., & Nentwich, M. (2000). The role of participatory TA in the policy-making process. In L. Klüver, M. Nentwich, W. Peissl, H. Torgersen, F. Gloede, L. Hennen, J. van Eijndhoven, R. van Est, S. Joss, S. Bellucci, & D. Bütschi (Eds.), European participatory technology assessment: Participatory methods in technology assessment and technology decision-making (pp. 133–151). Brussels: European Commission.
Charlesworth, B., & Charlesworth, D. (2009). Perspectives: Darwin and genetics. Genetics, 183, 757–776.
Collingridge, D. (1982). The social control of technology. London: Open University Press.
Donges, P., & Imhof, K. (2001). Öffentlichkeit im Wandel. In O. Jarren & H. Bonfadelli (Eds.), Einführung in die Publizistikwissenschaft (pp. 101–133). Bern: Haupt.
Gerhards, J., & Neidhardt, F. (1991). Strukturen and Funktionen moderner Öffentlichkeit: Fragestellungen and Ansätze. In S. Müller-Dohm & K. Neumann-Braun (Eds.), Öffentlichkeit, Kultur, Massenkommunikation (pp. 29–89). BIS: Oldenburg.
Grunwald, A. (2010). Technikfolgenabschätzung—eine Einführung, 2nd edn. Berlin: Edition Sigma (Gesellschaft—Technik—Umwelt, Neue Folge 1).
Grunwald, A. (2012). Synthetische Biologie als Naturwissenschaft mit technischer Ausrichtung: Plädoyer für eine “Hermeneutische Technikfolgenabschätzung”. Technikfolgenabschätzung—Theorie und Praxis, 21(2), 10–15.
Habermas, J. (1962). Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit. Neuwied/Berlin: Luchterhand.
Habermas, J. (1970). The scientization of politics and public opinion. In J. Habermas (Ed.), Toward a rational society (pp. 68–69). Boston: Beacon Press.
Handel, A., & Ramagopalan, S. (2010). Is Lamarckian evolution relevant to medicine? BMC Medical Genetics, 11(1), 73.
Hennen, L. (2012). Why do we still need participatory technology assessment? Poiesis & Praxis, 9(1–2), 27–41.
Hennen, L., Petermann, T., & Scherz, C. (Eds.). (2004). Partizipative Verfahren der Technikfolgen-Abschätzung und parlamentarische Politikberatung: Neue Formen der Kommunikation zwischen Wissenschaft, Politik und Öffentlichkeit. Berlin: Office of Technology Assessment at the German Bundestag (TAB), TAB working report no. 96.
Irwin, A., Jensen, T. E., & Jones, K. E. (2013). The good, the bad and the perfect: Criticizing engagement practice. Social Studies of Science, 43(1), 118–135.
Jasanoff, S. (2003). Technologies of humility: Citizen participation in governing science. Minerva, 41(3), 223–244.
Kegel, B. (2009). Epigenetik: Wie Erfahrungen vererbt werden. Cologne: DuMont Verlag.
Lefèvre, W. (2001). Jean Baptiste Lamarck. In I. Jahn & M. Schmitt (Eds.), Darwin and Co: Eine Geschichte der Biologie in Portraits, (Vol. 1, pp. 176–201). Munich: C.H. Beck.
Lehmkuhl, M. (2011). Die Repräsentation der synthetischen Biologie in der deutschen Presse: Abschlussbericht einer Inhaltsanalyse von 23 deutschen Pressetiteln. Berlin: Freie Universität Berlin, Institute for Media and Communication Studies.
Maletzke, G. (1972). Psychologie der Massenkommunikation: Theorie and Systematik. Hamburg: Hans Bredow Institute.
Negt, O., & Kluge, A. (1972). Öffentlichkeit and Erfahrung: zur Organisationsanalyse von bürgerlicher and proletarischer Öffentlichkeit. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp Verlag.
Rothstein, M. A., Cai, Y., & Marchant, G. E. (2009). The ghost in our genes: Legal and ethical implications of epigenetics. Health Matrix Clevel, 19(1), 1–62.
Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., & Macnaghten, P. (2013). Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy, 42(9), 1568–1580.
Stirling, A. (2008). “Opening up” and “closing down”: Power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Science, Technology and Human Values, 33(2), 262–294.
Swierstra, T., & Rip, A. (2007). Nano-ethics as NEST-ethics: Patterns of moral argumentation about new and emerging science and technology. NanoEthics, 1(1), 3–20.
Torgersen, H. (2013). TA als hermeneutische Unternehmung. Technikfolgenabschätzung—Theorie and Praxis, 22(2), 75–80.
Torgersen, H., & Schmidt, M. (2013). Frames and comparators: How might a debate on synthetic biology evolve? Futures, 48, 44–54.
von Schomberg, R. (2013). A vision of responsible research and innovation. In R. Owen, J. Bessant, & M. Heintz (Eds.), Responsible innovation: Managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society (pp. 51–74). Wiley: Hoboken.
Walk, H. (2013). Herausforderungen für eine integrative Perspektive in der sozialwissenschaftlichen Klimaforschung. In A. Knierim, S. Baasch, & M. Gottschick (Eds.), Partizipation und Klimawandel—Ansprüche, Konzepte und Umsetzung (pp. 21–35). Munich: Oekom Verlag.
Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J. H., & Jackson, D. D. (1967). Pragmatics of human communication. New York: W. W. Norton.
Wehling, P. (2012). From invited to uninvited participation (and back?): Rethinking civil society engagement in technology assessment and development. Poiesis Praxis, 9(1–2), 43–60.
Weinhold, B. (2006). Epigenetics: The science of change. Environmental Health Perspectives, 114(3), A160–A167.
Wynne, B. (2007). Public participation in science and technology: Performing and obscuring a political-conceptual category mistake. East Asian Science, Technology and Society, 1(1), 99–110.
Youngson, N. A., & Whitelaw, E. (2008). Transgenerational epigenetic effects. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics, 9(1), 233–257.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Seitz, S.B. (2017). Learning from and Shaping the Public Discourse About Epigenetics. In: Heil, R., Seitz, S., König, H., Robienski, J. (eds) Epigenetics. Technikzukünfte, Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft / Futures of Technology, Science and Society. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-14460-9_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-14460-9_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer VS, Wiesbaden
Print ISBN: 978-3-658-14459-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-658-14460-9
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)