Hybrid regimes of knowledge? Challenges for constructing scientific evidence in the context of the GMO-debate



Background, aim, and scope

Over the last two decades, there has been a remarkable shift of attention to the scientific and political fundamentals of the precautionary principle. The application of this principle has become a main strategy of coping with the different forms and problems related to non-knowledge. Thus, societies are increasingly confronted with the challenging and hitherto unresolved problem of political and technological decision-making under conditions of diverging framings of non-knowledge. At present, there seems to be no generally accepted scientific or institutional approach. This is why the fundamental question of how different scientific actors define and construct evidence is not answered yet. Hence, this paper is based on the consideration that the conflicts in risk policy concerning genetically modified organisms (GMO) depend on the unresolved conflicts about the diverging scientific strategies and structures of evidence-making between the epistemic cultures involved. Thus, this study investigates two questions: (1) do the epistemic strategies of evidence-making differ systematically with the scientific actors involved in the GMO-debate? (2) What consequences emerge considering institutionalized procedures of decision-making?

Main features

This article is based on a secondary analysis of findings and perspectives reported in the literature and on the methods of qualitative social empirical research, i.e., interviews with experts. A total number of 34 interviews were conducted to explore the different strategies of handling non-knowledge and constructing evidence. Actors from science, administration, business and NGOs were interviewed. In this way, typical epistemic cultures can be described. An epistemic culture is the constellation of methodological strategies, theoretical assumptions and practical-experimental settings which define in every speciality the ways how we know what we know.


There are two main results. Firstly, it was worked out that the epistemic cultures involved in the GMO-debate use rather distinct strategies to define non-knowledge and to classify evidence. There are three types of constructing evidence, which correspond to different types of epistemic cultures. Secondly, the findings imply that the intensity of the conflicts in risk policy fields like the GMO-debate is due to a lack of knowledge politics. Usually, knowledge politics is restricted to the design of institutional procedures to compile knowledge provided by experts. The institutional setting of risk analysis and risk management is based on the premise of strict separation between knowledge and power. However, inadmissible mixing-up of knowledge and power is observable.


It seems that non-knowledge leads to an epistemic no man’s land, and, hence, hybrid regimes of knowledge emerge. These regimes are hybrid with respect to the unclear and not explicitly reflected strategies of evidence-making. By lacking of knowledge politics, this situation opens up ‘windows of opportunity’ for actors with special interests in risk policy fields like the GMO-debate. Therefore, there is a difference between the visible institutionalized structures of risk policies and the rather invisible hybrid regimes of knowledge. Structure and scope of expertise have to be reflected and new instruments of knowledge politics have to be designed.


Different epistemic cultures can be qualified by describing their particular strategies of evidence-making. To solve the conflicts between these strategies, a meta-expertise is needed. Besides the institutionalized settings of knowledge politics, the underlying hybrid regimes of knowledge have to be identified.

Recommendations and perspectives

The concept of epistemic cultures and their strategies of evidence-making should be investigated more explicitly with respect to other risk policy fields The analysis of hybrid regimes of knowledge should be deepened by looking at the complex interactions between institutional, discursive and practical rules affecting risk assessment.


Epistemic cultures GMO Non-knowledge Politics of knowledge Precautionary principle Risk policy 


  1. Anderson EL, St. Hilaire C (2004) The contrast between risk assessment and rules of evidence in the context of international trade disputes: Can the U.S. experience inform the process? Risk An 24:449–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bardocz S, Pusztai A (2007) Post-commercialization testing and monitoring (or post-release monitoring) for the effects of transgenic plants. Biosafety First. Holistic Approaches to Risk and Uncertainty in Genetic Engineering and Genetically Modified Organisms (edited by Traavik T, Ching LL). Trondheim, Tapir, pp 507–520Google Scholar
  3. BMFT (Bundesministerium für Bildung, Forschung und Technologie) (1990) BMFT-Förderkonzept „Biologische Sicherheitsforschung“ im Programm der Bundesregierung „Angewandte Biologie und Biotechnologie“ 1990–1993. Bonn, BMFTGoogle Scholar
  4. Bogner A, Littig B, Menz W (ed., 2004) Das Experteninterview. Theorie, Methode, Anwendung. Wiesbaden, VSGoogle Scholar
  5. Bonneuil C, Pierre-Benoit J, Marris C (2008) Disentrenching experiment: the construction of GM crop field trials as a social problem. Sci Technol Hum Values 33:201–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Böschen S (2000) Risikogenese. Prozesse gesellschaftlicher Gefahrenwahrnehmung. Opladen, Leske + BudrichGoogle Scholar
  7. Böschen S, Viehöver W, Wehling P (2003) Partizipative Verfahren als Elemente gesellschaftlicher Gestaltungsöffentlichkeiten. Gutachten für den Deutschen Bundestag; vorgelegt dem Büro für Technikfolgenabschätzung beim Deutschen Bundestag (TAB). Augsburg (Ms. 46)Google Scholar
  8. Böschen S, Kastenhofer K, Marschall L, Rust I, Soentgen J, Wehling P (2006) Scientific cultures of non-knowledge in the controversy over genetically modified organisms (GMO). The cases of moledular biology and ecology. GAIA 15:294–301Google Scholar
  9. Böschen S, Kastenhofer K, Rust I, Soentgen J, Wehling P (2009) The political dynamics of scientific non-knowledge. Sci Technol Hum ValGoogle Scholar
  10. Boschert K, Gill B (2005) Germany’s agri-biotechnology policy: precaution for choice and alternatives. Sci Pub Pol 32:285–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Breckling B, Verhoeven R (eds., 2004) Risk Hazard Damage. Specification of Criteria to Assess Environmental Impact of Genetically Modified Organisms. Federal Agency of Nature Conservation, BonnGoogle Scholar
  12. Clarke T (2001) Monarchs safe from Bt. Nature News (12 September 2001; doi:10.1038/news010913-12)
  13. Collins HM (1998) The meaning of data: open and closed evidential cultures in the search for gravitational waves. Am J Sociol 104:293–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Collins HM, Evans R (2007) Rethinking expertise. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. Dressel K (2002) BSE – the new dimension of uncertainty. The cultural politics of science and decision-making. sigma, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  16. EC (European Commission, Expert Group on Science and Goverance) (2007) Taking European Knowledge Society seriously. DG Research, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  17. EEA (European Environment Agency) (2001) Late lessons from early warnings: the precautionary principle 1896–2000. EEA, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  18. Ferretti MP (2006) Participation, Democratic Deficit and Good Regulation. A Case Study of Participatory Strategies in the European Regulation of GMO Products. Bremen: ZERP-Diskussionspapier 6/2006Google Scholar
  19. Franken L, Burchardi J-E (2007) Assessing the WTO panel report in EC-Biotech. J Eur Environ Plann Law 4:47–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gläser J, Laudel G (2006) Experteninterviews und qualitative Inhaltsanalyse als Instrumente rekonstruierender Untersuchungen. VS, WiesbadenGoogle Scholar
  21. Groß M, Hoffmann-Riem H, Krohn W (2005) Realexperimente. Ökologische Gestaltungsprozesse in der Wissensgesellschaft. Transcript: BielefeldGoogle Scholar
  22. Grove-White R (2001) New wine, old bottles. Personal reflections on the new biotechnology commissions. Polit Quart 72:466–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jasanoff Sh (2004) States of knowledge. The co-production of science and social order. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. Jasanoff S (2005) Designs on nature: science and democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  25. Kastenhofer K (2007) Converging epistemic cultures? A discussion drawing on empirical findings. Innovation 20:359–373Google Scholar
  26. Knorr-Cetina K (1981) The manufacture of knowledge. An essay on the constructivist and contextual nature of science. Pergamon, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  27. Knorr-Cetina K 1999/2002 Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Harvard UP, Cambridge, MA (dt. 2002 Wissenskulturen Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp)Google Scholar
  28. Koenig A (2002) Negotiating the precautionary principle: regulatory and institutional roots of divergent US and EU positions. Int J Biotechnol 4:61–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Krohn W (2006) Deliberative constructivism. Sci Technol Innov Stud (Special Issue 1):41–60Google Scholar
  30. Latour B, Woolgar S (1986) Laboratory life. The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  31. Levidow L, Carr S, Wield D (2005) European Union regulation of agri-biotechnology: precautionary links between science, expertise and policy. Sci Publ Pol 32:261–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Levidow L, Murphy J, Carr S (2007) Recasting ‘substantial equicalence’. Transatlantic governance of GM food. Sci Techn Hum Val 32:26–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Losey JE, Rayor LS, Carter ME (1999) Transgenic pollen harm monarch larvae. Nature 399:214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mayntz R (1999) Wissenschaft, Politik und die politischen Folgen kognitiver Ungewissheit. Eigenwilligkeit und Rationalität sozialer Prozesse (edited by Gerhards J, Hitzler R). Opladen, pp 30–45Google Scholar
  35. Mauro IJ, McLachlan SM (2008) Farmer knowledge and risk analysis: postrelease evaluation for herbicide-tolerant canola in Western Canada. Risk Anal 28:463–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Merton RK (1987) Three fragments from a sociologist’s notebook: establishing the phenomenon, specified ignorance, and strategic research materials. Annu Rev Sociol 13:1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Meuser M, Nagel U (1991) Experteninterviews—vielfach erprobt, wenig bedacht. Ein Beitrag zur qualitativen Methodendiskussion. Qualitativ-empirische Sozialforschung (edited by Garz D, Kraimer K). Opladen, pp 441–468Google Scholar
  38. Millstone E, Brunner E, Mayer S (1999) Beyond substantial equivalence. Nature 401:525–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Millstone E, van Zwanenberg P (2003) Food and agricultural biotechnology policy: how much autonomy can developing countries exercise? Devel Pol Rev 21:655–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Murphy J, Levidow L (2006) Governing the transatlantic conflict over agricultural biotechnology: contending coalitions, trade liberalisation and standard setting. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  41. Myhr AI (2007) The Precautionary Prinicple in GMO Regulations. Biosafety First. Holistic Approaches to Risk and Uncertainty in Genetic Engineering and Genetically Modified Organisms (edited by Traavik T, Ching LL). Trondheim: tapir academic press, pp 457–467Google Scholar
  42. Myhr AI, Traavik T (2003) Genetically modified (GM) crops: precautionary science and conflicts of interest. J Agr Environ Ethic 16:227–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Obrycki JJ, Losey JE, Taylor OR, Jesse LC (2001) Transgenic insecticidal corn: beyond insecticidal toxicity to ecological complexity. BioScience 51:353–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pestre D (2003) Regimes of knowledge production in society: towards a more political and social reading. Minerva 41:245–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pinch TJ (1981) The sun-set: the presentation of certainty in scientific life. Soc Stud Sci 11:63–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pinch TJ (1986) Confronting nature: the sociology of solar-neutrino detection. Reidel, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  47. Pouteau S (2002) The food debate: ethical versus substantial equivalence. J Agr Environ Ethic 15:201–303Google Scholar
  48. Przyborski A, Wohlrab-Sahr M (2008) Qualitative Sozialforschung. Ein Arbeitsbuch, Oldenbourg, MünchenGoogle Scholar
  49. Ravetz JR (1990) The merger of knowledge with power. Essays in critical science. Mansell, LondonGoogle Scholar
  50. Rheinberger H-J (1997) Toward a History of Epistemic Things: Snthesizing Proteins in the Test Tube. Stanford University Press: Stanford, CA (dt. 2001 Experimentalsysteme und epistemische Dinge. Göttingen: Wallerstein)Google Scholar
  51. Scheringer M, Böschen S, Hungerbühler K (2006) Do we know more or less about Chemical Risks under REACH? CHIMIA 60:699–706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sengbusch P (1995) Evolutionsforschung—Wie schützen sich Pflanzen vor überschüssiger Information? Ökologie transgener Nutzpflanzen. (edited by Albrecht S, Beusmann V). Campus: Frankfurt am Main, pp 143–162Google Scholar
  53. Seifert F (2004) The hegemony of physical-ecological risk in the transatlantic biotechnology-conflict. http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p74420_index.html
  54. Seifert F (2006) Divided we Stand: the EU as Dissonant Player in the Global Governance of Agro-Food Biotechnology. Yokohama: UNU-IAS Working Paper No. 146Google Scholar
  55. Shapin S, Schaffer S (1985) Leviathan and the Air-Pump. Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life. Princeton UP, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  56. Soule E (2002) Assessing the precautionary principle in the regulation of genetically modified organisms. Int J Biotechnol 4(1):18–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Stirling A (2007) Risk Precaution and science: towards a more constructive policy debate. Talking point on the precautionary principle. EMBO reports 8:309–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Stichweh R (1997) Professions in modern society. Int Rev Soc 7:95–102Google Scholar
  59. Strehlow K (1988) Gentechnik zwischen Sonntagsreden und Forschungslabor. Eine allgemeinverständliche Einführung in die Gentechnologie und ihre Förderung durch Bund und Länder. Wisslit, KonstanzGoogle Scholar
  60. Traavik T, Nielsen KM, Quist D (2007) Genetically Engineered Cells and Organisms: Substantially Equivalent or Different? Biosafety First. Holistic Approaches to Risk and Uncertainty in Genetic Engineering and Genetically Modified Organisms (edited by Traavik T, Ching LL). Tapir, Trondheim, pp 137–152Google Scholar
  61. Van Asselt MBA, Vos E (2006) The precautionary principle and the uncertainty paradox. J Risk Res 9:313–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wehling P (2006a) Im Schatten des Wissens? Perspektiven einer Soziologie des Nichtwissens. UVK, KonstanzGoogle Scholar
  63. Wehling P (2006b) The situated materiality of scientific practices: postconstructivism—a new theoretical perspective in science studies? Sci Technol Innov Stud (Special Issue 1):81–100Google Scholar
  64. Wolt JD, Peterson RKD (2000) Agricultural biotechnology and societal decision-making: the role of risk analysis. AgBioForum 3(1):39–46Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of AugsburgInstitut für SoziologieAugsburgGermany

Personalised recommendations