Editing Engagement: Visions of Science, Democracy, and Responsibility in Gene Editing Discourse (2021)
Christian H. Ross (Author)
Hurlbut, James Benjamin (Advisor)
Maienschein, Jane A. (Advisor)
Arizona State University
Hurlbut, James Benjamin
Maienschein, Jane A.
Physical Details: 290
Language: English
This dissertation investigates how ideas of the right relationships among science, the public, and collective decision-making about science and technology come to be envisioned in constructions of public engagement. In particular, it explores how public engagement has come to be constructed in discourse around gene editing to better understand how it holds together with visions for good, democratic governance of those technologies and with what effects. Using a conceptual idiom of the co-production of science and the social order, I investigate the mutual formation of scientific expertise, responsibility, and democracy through constructions of public engagement. I begin by tracing dominant historical narratives of contemporary public engagement as a continuation of public understanding of science’s projects of social ordering for democratic society. I then analyze collections of prominent expert meetings, publications, discussions, and interventions about development, governance, and societal implications human heritable germline gene editing and gene drives that developed in tandem with commitments to public engagement around those technologies. Synthesizing the evidence from across gene editing discourse, I offer a constructive critique of constructions of public engagement as expressions and evidence of scientific responsibility as ultimately reasserting and reinforcing of scientific experts' authority in gene editing decision-making, despite intentions for public engagement to extend decision-making participation and power to publics. Such constructions of public engagement go unrecognized in gene editing discourse and thereby subtly reinforce broader visions of scientific expertise as essential to good governance by underwriting the legitimacy and authority of scientific experts to act on behalf of public interests. I further argue that the reinforcement of scientific expert authority in gene editing discourse through public engagement also centers scientific experts in a sociotechnical imaginary that I call “not for science alone.” This sociotechnical imaginary envisions scientific experts as guardians and guarantors of good, democratic governance. I then propose a possible alternatives to public engagement alone to improve gene editing governance by orienting discourse around notions of public accountability for potential shared benefits and collective harms of gene editing.
...MoreSimilar Citations
Article
Christian Ross;
(2022)
Handservant of Technocracy: Public Engagement and Expertise in Heritable Human Genome Editing
(/isis/citation/CBB828766557/)
Article
Monamie Bhadra Haines;
(February 2019)
Contested credibility economies of nuclear power in India
(/isis/citation/CBB710438620/)
Article
Harry Collins;
Robert Evans;
Martin Weinel;
(August 2017)
STS as science or politics?
(/isis/citation/CBB939789883/)
Article
Mott Greene;
(2022)
Experts, Managerialism, and Democratic Theory
(/isis/citation/CBB659481305/)
Article
Hiro Saito;
(January 2021)
The Developmental State and Public Participation: The Case of Energy Policy-making in Post–Fukushima Japan
(/isis/citation/CBB786983437/)
Article
Harry Collins;
Robert Evans;
Weinel;
(August 2016)
STS as science or politics?
(/isis/citation/CBB795627192/)
Article
Sergio Sismondo;
(August 2017)
Casting a wider net: A reply to Collins, Evans and Weinel
(/isis/citation/CBB445744492/)
Thesis
Emily L. Howell;
(2019)
Science & the Authoritarian: Deference to Scientific Authority & How It Disables Democratic Deliberation on Controversial Science Issues
(/isis/citation/CBB957399527/)
Article
Melanie Leenen;
Bart Penders;
(October 2016)
Dissident Dietary Credibility: The Power of Discontent
(/isis/citation/CBB229041974/)
Article
Matthew Hayes;
Noah Morritt;
(2020)
Michael W. Burke-Gaffney and the UFO Debate in Atlantic Canada, 1947-1969
(/isis/citation/CBB417665220/)
Article
Henry M. Cowles;
Chitra Ramalingam;
(2022)
Introduction
(/isis/citation/CBB356636672/)
Article
Karen Kovaka;
(2021)
Evaluating Community Science
(/isis/citation/CBB988749229/)
Article
Federico Brandmayr;
(2021)
When Boundary Organisations Fail: Identifying Scientists and Civil Servants in L’Aquila Earthquake Trial
(/isis/citation/CBB058662495/)
Article
Kristoffer Whitney;
(2020)
Valuing Shorebirds: Bureaucracy, Natural History, and Expertise in North American Conservation
(/isis/citation/CBB978624329/)
Article
Kurath, Monika;
Gisler, Priska;
(2009)
Informing, Involving or Engaging? Science Communication, in the Ages of Atom-, Bio- and Nanotechnology
(/isis/citation/CBB000932282/)
Book
Jason Chilvers;
Matthew Kearnes;
(2015)
Remaking Participation: Science, Environment and Emergent Publics
(/isis/citation/CBB367293541/)
Article
Nielsen, Annika Porsborg;
Lassen, Jesper;
Sandøe, Peter;
(2011)
Public Participation: Democratic Ideal or Pragmatic Tool? The Cases of GM Foods and Functional Foods
(/isis/citation/CBB001034661/)
Article
Gonçalves, Maria Eduarda;
Papon, Pierre;
(2004)
Introduction---Scientific and Technological Institutions and the New Knowledge-Based Society: A European Perspective
(/isis/citation/CBB000700958/)
Article
Levidow, Les;
(2007)
European Public Participation as Risk Governance: Enhancing Democratic Accountability for Agbiotech Policy?
(/isis/citation/CBB000760584/)
Book
Guarente, Leonard;
(2003)
Ageless Quest: One Scientist's Search for Genes That Prolong Youth
(/isis/citation/CBB000301515/)
Be the first to comment!