Thesis ID: CBB263669907

Editing Engagement: Visions of Science, Democracy, and Responsibility in Gene Editing Discourse (2021)


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.

Citation URI

This citation is part of the Isis database.

Similar Citations

Article Christian Ross; (2022)
Handservant of Technocracy: Public Engagement and Expertise in Heritable Human Genome Editing (/p/isis/citation/CBB828766557/) unapi

Article Monamie Bhadra Haines; (February 2019)
Contested credibility economies of nuclear power in India (/p/isis/citation/CBB710438620/) unapi

Article Harry Collins; Robert Evans; Martin Weinel; (August 2017)
STS as science or politics? (/p/isis/citation/CBB939789883/) unapi

Article Mott Greene; (2022)
Experts, Managerialism, and Democratic Theory (/p/isis/citation/CBB659481305/) unapi

Article Hiro Saito; (January 2021)
The Developmental State and Public Participation: The Case of Energy Policy-making in Post–Fukushima Japan (/p/isis/citation/CBB786983437/) unapi

Article Harry Collins; Robert Evans; Weinel; (August 2016)
STS as science or politics? (/p/isis/citation/CBB795627192/) unapi

Article Sergio Sismondo; (August 2017)
Casting a wider net: A reply to Collins, Evans and Weinel (/p/isis/citation/CBB445744492/) unapi

Article Melanie Leenen; Bart Penders; (October 2016)
Dissident Dietary Credibility: The Power of Discontent (/p/isis/citation/CBB229041974/) unapi

Article Matthew Hayes; Noah Morritt; (2020)
Michael W. Burke-Gaffney and the UFO Debate in Atlantic Canada, 1947-1969 (/p/isis/citation/CBB417665220/) unapi

Article Henry M. Cowles; Chitra Ramalingam; (2022)
Introduction (/p/isis/citation/CBB356636672/) unapi

Article Karen Kovaka; (2021)
Evaluating Community Science (/p/isis/citation/CBB988749229/) unapi

Article Federico Brandmayr; (2021)
When Boundary Organisations Fail: Identifying Scientists and Civil Servants in L’Aquila Earthquake Trial (/p/isis/citation/CBB058662495/) unapi

Article Kristoffer Whitney; (2020)
Valuing Shorebirds: Bureaucracy, Natural History, and Expertise in North American Conservation (/p/isis/citation/CBB978624329/) unapi

Article Kurath, Monika; Gisler, Priska; (2009)
Informing, Involving or Engaging? Science Communication, in the Ages of Atom-, Bio- and Nanotechnology (/p/isis/citation/CBB000932282/) unapi

Book Jason Chilvers; Matthew Kearnes; (2015)
Remaking Participation: Science, Environment and Emergent Publics (/p/isis/citation/CBB367293541/) unapi

Article Nielsen, Annika Porsborg; Lassen, Jesper; Sandøe, Peter; (2011)
Public Participation: Democratic Ideal or Pragmatic Tool? The Cases of GM Foods and Functional Foods (/p/isis/citation/CBB001034661/) unapi

Article Gonçalves, Maria Eduarda; Papon, Pierre; (2004)
Introduction---Scientific and Technological Institutions and the New Knowledge-Based Society: A European Perspective (/p/isis/citation/CBB000700958/) unapi

Book Guarente, Leonard; (2003)
Ageless Quest: One Scientist's Search for Genes That Prolong Youth (/p/isis/citation/CBB000301515/) unapi

Authors & Contributors
Collins, Harry M.
Evans, Robert
Weinel, Martin
Cowles, Henry M.
Gisler, Priska
Goncalves, Maria Eduarda
Social Studies of Science
Public Understanding of Science
Spontaneous Generations
East Asian Science, Technology and Society: An International Journal
Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences
Journal of the History of Biology
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
University of Wisconsin at Madison
Authority of science
Public understanding of science
Science and government
Science and technology studies (STS)
Time Periods
21st century
20th century, late
20th century

Be the first to comment!

{{ comment.created_by.username }} on {{ comment.created_on | date:'medium' }}

Log in or register to comment