Wozu Experten? pp 370-389

Technologies of Humility: Citizen Participation in Governing Science

  • Sheila Jasanoff

Abstract

Long before the terrorist atrocities of 11 September 2001 in New York, Washington, DC, and Pennsylvania, the anthrax attacks through the US mail, and the US-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, signs were mounting that America’s ability to create and operate vast technological systems had outrun her capacity for prediction and control. In a prescient book, published in 1984, the sociologist Charles Perrow forecast a series of ‘normal accidents’, which were strung like dark beads through the latter years of the twentieth century and beyond — most notably, the 1984 chemical plant disaster in Bhopal, India; the 1986 loss of the Challenger shuttle and, in the same year, the nuclear plant accident in Chernobyl, USSR; the contamination of blood supplies with the AIDS virus; the prolonged crisis over BSE (‘mad cow disease’); the loss of the manned US space shuttle Columbia in 2003; and the US space programme’s embarrassing, although not life-threatening, mishaps with the Hubble telescope’s blurry lens, and several lost and extremely expensive Mars explorers (Perrow 1984). To these, we may add the discovery of the ozone hole, climate change, and other environmental disasters as further signs of disrepair. Occurring at different times and in vastly-different political environments, these events nonetheless have served collective notice that human pretensions of control over technological systems need serious re-examination.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Beck, Ulrich (1992): Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: SageGoogle Scholar
  2. Bimber, Bruce (1996): The Politics of Expertise in Congress: The Rise and Fall of the Office of Technology Assessment. Albany: State University of New York PressGoogle Scholar
  3. Boehmer-Christiansen, Sonja (1994): Global Climate Protection Policy: The Limits of Scientific Advice, and 2, in: Global Environmental Change Vol. 4, No. 2, p. 140–159 (Part 1); Vol. 4, No. 3, p. 185–200 (Part 2)Google Scholar
  4. Bush, Vannevar (1945): Science — The Endless Frontier Washington. DC: US Government Printing OfficeGoogle Scholar
  5. Clarke, Lee (1992): Acceptable Risk? Making Decisions in a Toxic Environment. Berkeley: University of California PressGoogle Scholar
  6. Commission of the European Communities (2001): European Governance: A White Paper. COM (2001), 428, http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/cnc/2001/com2001_0428en01.pdf,Google Scholar
  7. European Commission (1997): Communication of the European Commission on Consumer Health and Safety. COM (97), 183, fin. http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/index_en.html Google Scholar
  8. Ewen, Stanley W.B./Pusztai, Arpad (1999): Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine. In: Lancet Vol. 354, p. 1353–1354Google Scholar
  9. Funtowicz, Silvio O./Ravetz, Jerome R. (1992): Three Types of Risk Assessment and the Emergence of Post Normal Science. In: Krimsky, Sheldon/ Golding, Dominic (Eds.): Social Theories of Risk. New York: Praeger, p. 251–273Google Scholar
  10. Gibbons, Michael/Limoges, Camillie/Nowotny, Helga/Schwartzman, Simon/Scott, Peter/Trow, Martin (1994): The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London: SageGoogle Scholar
  11. Graham, John D./Wiener, Jonathan B. (Eds. 1995): Risk versus Risk: Tradeoffs in Protecting Health and the Environment. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
  12. Greenberg, Daniel S. (2001): Science, Money, and Politics: Political Triumph and Ethical Erosion. Chicago: University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar
  13. Guston, David H. (2001): Between Politics and Science: Assuring the Integrity and Productivity of Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  14. Irwin, Alan/Wynne, Brian (Eds. 1996): Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  15. Jasanoff, Sheila (1990): The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
  16. Jasanoff, Sheila/Markle, Gerald E./Petersen, James C./Pinch, Trevor (Eds. 1995): Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: SageGoogle Scholar
  17. Joss, Simon/Durant, John (Eds. 1995): Public Participation in Science: The Role of Consensus Conferences in Europe. London: Science Museum PressGoogle Scholar
  18. Kevles, Daniel J. (1998): The Baltimore Case: A Trial of Politics, Science, and Character. New York: NortonGoogle Scholar
  19. Losey, John E./Rayor, L.S./Carter M.E. (1999): Transgenic Pollen Harms Monarch Larvae. In: Nature Vol. 399, p. 214Google Scholar
  20. Nowotny, Helga/Scott, Peter/Gibbons, Michael (2001): Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. Cambridge: PolityGoogle Scholar
  21. Perrow, Charles (1996): Normal Accidents: Living with High Risk Technologies. New York: Basic BooksGoogle Scholar
  22. Porter, Theodore M. (1995): Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life. Princeton: Princeton University PressGoogle Scholar
  23. Price, Don K. (1965): The Scientific Estate Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
  24. Schon, Donald A./Rein, Martin (1994): Frame/Reflection: Toward the Resolution of Intractable Policy Controversies. New York: Basic BooksGoogle Scholar
  25. Service, Robert F. (1998): Seed-Sterilizing “Terminator Technology” Sows Discord. In: Science Vol. 282, p. 850–851Google Scholar
  26. Short, James F./Clarke, Lee (Eds. 1989): Organizations, Uncertainties, and Risk. Boulder: WestviewGoogle Scholar
  27. Stern, Paul C./Fineberg, Harvey V. (Eds. 1996): Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society. Washington, DC: National Academy of Science PressGoogle Scholar
  28. Stokes, Donald E. (1997): Pasteur’s Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings InstitutionGoogle Scholar
  29. United Kingdom (2000): House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology, Third Report, Science and Society, http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199900/ldselect/ldsctech/38/3801.htm Google Scholar
  30. Vaughan, Diane (1996): The Challenger Launch Decision: Risky Technology, Culture, and Deviance at NASA. Chicago: University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar
  31. Winner, Langdon (1986): On Not Hitting the Tar Baby. In: Winner, Langdon (Ed.): The Whale and the Reactor: A Search for Limits in an Age of High Technology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, p. 138–154Google Scholar

Copyright information

© VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften/GWV Fachverlage GmbH, Wiesbaden 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sheila Jasanoff

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations