Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 17, Issue 4, pp 621–638 | Cite as

Constitutional Moments in Governing Science and Technology

Article

Abstract

Scholars in science and technology studies (STS) have recently been called upon to advise governments on the design of procedures for public engagement. Any such instrumental function should be carried out consistently with STS’s interpretive and normative obligations as a social science discipline. This article illustrates how such threefold integration can be achieved by reviewing current US participatory politics against a 70-year backdrop of tacit constitutional developments in governing science and technology. Two broad cycles of constitutional adjustment are discerned: the first enlarging the scope of state action as well as public participation, with liberalized rules of access and sympathetic judicial review; the second cutting back on the role of the state, fostering the rise of an academic-industrial complex for technology transfer, and privatizing value debates through increasing delegation to professional ethicists. New rules for public engagement in the United Sates should take account of these historical developments and seek to counteract some of the anti-democratic tendencies observable in recent decades.

Keywords

Academic-industrial complex Bioethics Public engagement Science and democracy 

References

  1. Ackerman, B. A. (1983). Reconstructing American law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Ackerman, B. A. (1991). We the people: Foundations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Ackerman, B. A. (1998). We the people: Transformations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Corburn, J. (2005). Street science: Community knowledge and environmental health justice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Gallie, W. B. (1956). Essentially contested concepts. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 56, 167–198.Google Scholar
  6. Gieryn, T. (1999). Cultural boundaries of science: Credibility on the line. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  7. Guston, D. (2000). Between politics and science: Assuring the integrity and productivity of research. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Habermas, J. (1984). Theory of communicative action. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  9. Hackett, E. J., Amsterdamska, O., Lynch, M., & Wajcman J. (2007). eds. Handbook of science and technology studies, 3rd edn. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. Jasanoff, S. (1987). Contested boundaries in policy-relevant science. Social Studies of Science, 17(2), 195–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jasanoff, S. (1990). The fifth branch: Science advisers as policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Jasanoff, S. (1992). Science, politics, and the renegotiation of expertise at EPA. Osiris, 7, 195–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jasanoff, S. (1995). Science at the bar: Law, science and technology in America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Jasanoff, S. (1998). The eye of everyman: Witnessing DNA in the Simpson trial. Social Studies of Science, 28(5–6), 713–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jasanoff, S. (2003). In a constitutional moment: Science and social order at the millennium. In B. Joerges & H. Nowotny (Eds.), Social studies of science and technology: Looking back, ahead, yearbook of the sociology of the sciences (pp. 155–180). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jasanoff, S. (Ed.). (2004). States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Jasanoff, S. (2005a). Designs on nature: Science and democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Jasanoff, S. (2005b). Judgment under Siege: The three-body problem of expert legitimacy. In P. Weingart & S. Maasen (Eds.), Democratization of expertise? Exploring novel forms of scientific advice in political decision-making, sociology of the sciences yearbook (pp. 209–224). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  19. Jasanoff, S. (2006). Technology as a site and object of politics. In C. Tilly & R. Goodin (Eds.), Oxford handbook of contextual political analysis (pp. 745–763). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Judson O. (2008 May 20). Enter, the Cybrids. New York Times. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/20/enter-the-cybrids/. Visited July 2011.
  21. Kass, L. R. (1997 June 2). The Wisdom of repugnance. New Republic 216(22):17–26.Google Scholar
  22. Krimsky, S. (2003). Science in the private interest: Has the lure of profits corrupted biomedical research?. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  23. Krotoszynski, R. J., Jr. (2006). History Belongs to the Winners: The Bazelon-Leventhal debate and the continuing relevance of the process/substance dichotomy in judicial review of agency action. Administrative Law Review, 58, 995–1015.Google Scholar
  24. Mooney, C. (2005). The republican war on science. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  25. National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. (2005). Guidelines for human embryonic stem cell research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11278#toc. Visited July 2011.
  26. Shepard, G. B. (1996). Fierce compromise: The administrative procedure act emerges from new deal politics. Northwestern University Law Review, 90, 1557–1683.Google Scholar
  27. Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science, 19(4), 387–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tribe, L. (1998). On not banning cloning for the wrong reasons. In M. Nussbaum, C. Sunstein (Eds.), Clones and Clones: Facts and Fantasies about Human Cloning (pp. 221–232). New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
  29. US Department of Energy. (1998). Effective Public Participation under the National Environmental Policy Act, 2nd edn. http://nepa.energy.gov/nepa_documents/TOOLS/GUIDANCE/Volume2/4-1-pubpart.html. Visited July 2011.
  30. US Department of Justice. (1941). Final report of attorney generals committee on administrative procedure. http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/admin/1941report.html. Visited July 2011.
  31. US Department of Justice. (1947). Attorney generals manual on the administrative procedure act. http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/admin/1947i.html. Visited July 2011.
  32. Wynne, B. (1995). Public understanding of science. In S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Petersen, & T. Pinch (Eds.), Handbook of science and technology studies (2nd ed., pp. 361–388). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.John F. Kennedy School of GovernmentHarvard UniversityCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations