Advertisement

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

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

Abstract

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.

Results

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.

Discussion

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.

Conclusions

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  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 24:449–459

  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 507–520

  3. BMFT (Bundesministerium für Bildung, Forschung und Technologie) (1990) BMFT-Förderkonzept „Biologische Sicherheitsforschung“ im Programm der Bundesregierung „Angewandte Biologie und Biotechnologie“ 1990–1993. Bonn, BMFT

  4. Bogner A, Littig B, Menz W (ed., 2004) Das Experteninterview. Theorie, Methode, Anwendung. Wiesbaden, VS

  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 33:201–229

  6. Böschen S (2000) Risikogenese. Prozesse gesellschaftlicher Gefahrenwahrnehmung. Opladen, Leske + Budrich

  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)

  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 15:294–301

  9. Böschen S, Kastenhofer K, Rust I, Soentgen J, Wehling P (2009) The political dynamics of scientific non-knowledge. Sci Technol Hum Val

  10. Boschert K, Gill B (2005) Germany’s agri-biotechnology policy: precaution for choice and alternatives. Sci Pub Pol 32:285–292

  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, Bonn

  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 104:293–338

  14. Collins HM, Evans R (2007) Rethinking expertise. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London

  15. Dressel K (2002) BSE – the new dimension of uncertainty. The cultural politics of science and decision-making. sigma, Berlin

  16. EC (European Commission, Expert Group on Science and Goverance) (2007) Taking European Knowledge Society seriously. DG Research, Brussels

  17. EEA (European Environment Agency) (2001) Late lessons from early warnings: the precautionary principle 1896–2000. EEA, Copenhagen

  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 6/2006

  19. Franken L, Burchardi J-E (2007) Assessing the WTO panel report in EC-Biotech. J Eur Environ Plann Law 4:47–60

  20. Gläser J, Laudel G (2006) Experteninterviews und qualitative Inhaltsanalyse als Instrumente rekonstruierender Untersuchungen. VS, Wiesbaden

  21. Groß M, Hoffmann-Riem H, Krohn W (2005) Realexperimente. Ökologische Gestaltungsprozesse in der Wissensgesellschaft. Transcript: Bielefeld

  22. Grove-White R (2001) New wine, old bottles. Personal reflections on the new biotechnology commissions. Polit Quart 72:466–472

  23. Jasanoff Sh (2004) States of knowledge. The co-production of science and social order. Routledge, London

  24. Jasanoff S (2005) Designs on nature: science and democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton University Press, Princeton

  25. Kastenhofer K (2007) Converging epistemic cultures? A discussion drawing on empirical findings. Innovation 20:359–373

  26. Knorr-Cetina K (1981) The manufacture of knowledge. An essay on the constructivist and contextual nature of science. Pergamon, Oxford

  27. Knorr-Cetina K 1999/2002 Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Harvard UP, Cambridge, MA (dt. 2002 Wissenskulturen Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp)

  28. Koenig A (2002) Negotiating the precautionary principle: regulatory and institutional roots of divergent US and EU positions. Int J Biotechnol 4:61–80

  29. Krohn W (2006) Deliberative constructivism. Sci Technol Innov Stud (Special Issue 1):41–60

  30. Latour B, Woolgar S (1986) Laboratory life. The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton University Press, Princeton

  31. Levidow L, Carr S, Wield D (2005) European Union regulation of agri-biotechnology: precautionary links between science, expertise and policy. Sci Publ Pol 32:261–276

  32. Levidow L, Murphy J, Carr S (2007) Recasting ‘substantial equicalence’. Transatlantic governance of GM food. Sci Techn Hum Val 32:26–64

  33. Losey JE, Rayor LS, Carter ME (1999) Transgenic pollen harm monarch larvae. Nature 399:214

  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 30–45

  35. Mauro IJ, McLachlan SM (2008) Farmer knowledge and risk analysis: postrelease evaluation for herbicide-tolerant canola in Western Canada. Risk Anal 28:463–476

  36. Merton RK (1987) Three fragments from a sociologist’s notebook: establishing the phenomenon, specified ignorance, and strategic research materials. Annu Rev Sociol 13:1–28

  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 441–468

  38. Millstone E, Brunner E, Mayer S (1999) Beyond substantial equivalence. Nature 401:525–526

  39. Millstone E, van Zwanenberg P (2003) Food and agricultural biotechnology policy: how much autonomy can developing countries exercise? Devel Pol Rev 21:655–667

  40. Murphy J, Levidow L (2006) Governing the transatlantic conflict over agricultural biotechnology: contending coalitions, trade liberalisation and standard setting. Routledge, New York

  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 457–467

  42. Myhr AI, Traavik T (2003) Genetically modified (GM) crops: precautionary science and conflicts of interest. J Agr Environ Ethic 16:227–247

  43. Obrycki JJ, Losey JE, Taylor OR, Jesse LC (2001) Transgenic insecticidal corn: beyond insecticidal toxicity to ecological complexity. BioScience 51:353–360

  44. Pestre D (2003) Regimes of knowledge production in society: towards a more political and social reading. Minerva 41:245–261

  45. Pinch TJ (1981) The sun-set: the presentation of certainty in scientific life. Soc Stud Sci 11:63–93

  46. Pinch TJ (1986) Confronting nature: the sociology of solar-neutrino detection. Reidel, Dordrecht

  47. Pouteau S (2002) The food debate: ethical versus substantial equivalence. J Agr Environ Ethic 15:201–303

  48. Przyborski A, Wohlrab-Sahr M (2008) Qualitative Sozialforschung. Ein Arbeitsbuch, Oldenbourg, München

  49. Ravetz JR (1990) The merger of knowledge with power. Essays in critical science. Mansell, London

  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)

  51. Scheringer M, Böschen S, Hungerbühler K (2006) Do we know more or less about Chemical Risks under REACH? CHIMIA 60:699–706

  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 143–162

  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. 146

  55. Shapin S, Schaffer S (1985) Leviathan and the Air-Pump. Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life. Princeton UP, Princeton

  56. Soule E (2002) Assessing the precautionary principle in the regulation of genetically modified organisms. Int J Biotechnol 4(1):18–33

  57. Stirling A (2007) Risk Precaution and science: towards a more constructive policy debate. Talking point on the precautionary principle. EMBO reports 8:309–315

  58. Stichweh R (1997) Professions in modern society. Int Rev Soc 7:95–102

  59. Strehlow K (1988) Gentechnik zwischen Sonntagsreden und Forschungslabor. Eine allgemeinverständliche Einführung in die Gentechnologie und ihre Förderung durch Bund und Länder. Wisslit, Konstanz

  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 137–152

  61. Van Asselt MBA, Vos E (2006) The precautionary principle and the uncertainty paradox. J Risk Res 9:313–363

  62. Wehling P (2006a) Im Schatten des Wissens? Perspektiven einer Soziologie des Nichtwissens. UVK, Konstanz

  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):81–100

  64. Wolt JD, Peterson RKD (2000) Agricultural biotechnology and societal decision-making: the role of risk analysis. AgBioForum 3(1):39–46

Download references

Acknowledgments

Special thanks to the three reviewers of a first draft of this paper. Special thanks also to my colleagues Karen Kastenhofer, Ina Rust, Jens Soentgen, and Peter Wehling for the joint research project “Cultures of non-knowledge”, where the interviews were carried out and the topic of non-knowledge deeply was discussed. Without these discussions, the paper could not have developed in this form. Special thanks finally to the organizers of the GMLS conference held on 02 to 04 April 2008 in Bremen for the opportunity to present and to discuss the topics of this paper.

Author information

Correspondence to Stefan Böschen.

Additional information

Responsible editors: Winfried Schröder and Gunther Schmidt

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Böschen, S. Hybrid regimes of knowledge? Challenges for constructing scientific evidence in the context of the GMO-debate. Environ Sci Pollut Res 16, 508–520 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-009-0164-y

Download citation

Keywords

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