1
東海大學九十四學年度第一學期課程教學綱要
社會學系 4706
生物科技與社會 (Biotechnology and Society)
授課時間: Tuesday 6-9 pm
授課教室: SS 314 (T 314)
授課教師: 陳正慧 (Cheng-Hui Lucy Chen)
辦公室: SS 536 (T 536)
電話: 04-2359-0121, ext 2985
E-Mail: slgcchen@thu.edu.tw
約談時間: Wednesday 3-5pm, Thursday 4-6pm, or by appointment
課程介紹：
在 1953 年‚二位科學家 Watson & Crick 發現 DNA 的双螺旋構造 (double
helix)‚而後獲諾貝爾獎。自此人類在分子生物學、細胞學、分子遺傳學等學科
上的研究突飛猛進‚生命的奧秘逐漸被揭開。隨著生命科學領域的成熟‚一相關的
新興科技—基因工程(genetic engineering)或生物科技 (biotechnology)—也
澎渤發展。一般認為‚生物科技是除資訊科技 (information technology) 之外‚
另一項能對人類社會產生巨大影響的科技 。
而在生物科技的應用中‚農業生物科技是全球最具爭議性的。一方認為基因
工程能創造、改良品種‚解決人類糧食不足的困境‚反對者只是不信任科學證
據。另一方認為基因工程技術仍有許多盲點‚貿然推廣將會對環境及社會造成無
可彌補的後果。既然我們已經進入生物科技世紀‚社會學家就應對基因科技可能
對人類社會造成的衝擊加以研究。在這一學期‚我們會把焦點放在幾項農業生物
科技產品上‚來探討生物科技已造成的一些社會爭議。
社會學對科學、科技的討論已有一些成果‚跨領域的 STS (science,
technology, & society) 研究為代表之一。但農業生物科技因其產品特性(可為
農業作物、食品) 及主要使用者 (農民及消費者)之故‚也是鄉村社會學家研究重
點之一。因我個人研究興趣之一是農業社會學‚這門課的教授與傳統 STS 的課程
會有一些差異。也因為我回國不到半年‚對臺灣生物科技研究認識不夠深刻‚教材
內容會以美國議題為主‚但我歡迎同學與我一起發掘臺灣的研究素材。
我希望透過理論與個案研究 (case study) 的方式‚讓學生對生物科技與社
會這一領域有基本認識。在這一學期中‚我們會特別關注以下的問題:
2








How have sociologists worked to “open the black box” of science and
technology?
What is biotechnology? Is it a brand “new” technology? What aspects of
this technology make it so controversial?
Can a “novel” life form be patented? How has patenting affected the
development of biotechnology industry?
Has biotechnology reinforced the industrialization and globalization of
agricultural production?
Who has benefited from the commercialization of a specific agricultural
biotechnology?
How should biotechnology be regulated? By whom?
Should the public participate in the formulation of scientific and
technological policies?
Should the genetically modified food be labeled? Should the public be
informed the benefits and/or risks of biotechnology products?
** Please note:
To make this course manageable, I purposely drop some other interesting topics such
as cloning, human genome project, informatics, among others. Students should also
know that we will not cover medical and pharmaceutical biotechnologies in this
course, although students can do their final projects on issues in those fields.
授課方式：
這門課的授課方式是講課、同學報告、討論等的組合。在前幾個星期，我們
會學習一些基本的理論、概念，來為以後的個案研究提供基礎。在這段時間，我
講課的時間可能會多一些。之後，我會扮演一個 “導讀者” 的角色，讓同學們
的報告、討論成為課程進行的主軸。
每週有二位同學擔任 “discussion leaders”，負責擬出 5-10 個與當週
閱讀材料有關的問題，帶領大家討論。我會對討論中發掘的議題再進行一番整理
論述， 然後進行總結。另外，我會簡介下星期的主題，先提供一些背景資料。
課程要求及評量：
這門課目前是給社會系研究生選修，我的假設是同學們對生物科技的認識不
深，但這並不影響我們的學習，我也會適時解釋較具技術性的資料。因為討論是
上課的重點之一，我要求同學事前一定要準備。為了讓討論進行順利，每位同學
(包括 discussion leader 在內) 在上課當天午夜 (12am) 前必須將 comment
3
paper 以 e-mail 寄給老師及其他同學。擔任 discussion leaders 的同學則應
於當天中午 (12pm) 前將 discussion questions 以 e-mail 寄給老師及其他同
學。
同學的成績評量如下：
Comment Papers & Discussion Participation
Discussion Leader
Final Paper & Presentation
40%
20%
40%
Comment Papers:
Students will be expected to write a short comment paper—at least one but no more
than two double-spaced 12 font pages long—during the semester, from the second
week onward. The main purpose of these comment papers is to show that you have
carefully or critically thought about an assigned reading (or readings). You should
not simply summarize an assigned reading (or readings).
expected to do one (or more) of the following:
Instead, you will be

Analyze the reading critically: Did you agree or disagree with the authors’
argument and why? Use the concepts you have learned in the class to
defend your position.

Compare the perspectives presented in two different readings or theories.
What are the pros and cons of each perspective? Which perspective is more
persuasive to you? Why?

Discuss how you think a particular reading could be improved. What other
alternative approaches or methods could the author(s) apply to improve the
study? What was missing? Was the reading biased in any particular way?
Why?

Make connections between current and previous readings. How have the
accumulated readings helped you to further understand some specific issues
or problems?

Describe how a particular reading made you excited or curious or frustrated
about a specific issue or problem.

Discuss any relevant policy implication from the reading(s).
To facilitate a constructive and productive discussion, each student’s comment paper
must be due no later than 12 am of the day of class by email. This should give us
plenty of time to think about and reflect on the readings. You are strongly
encouraged to respond to other students’ comment papers before class. Discussion
4
leaders can also base their discussion questions on fellow students’ comments.
NOTE: Comment papers are serious and real requirements. NO LATE
comment papers will be accepted.
Discussion Leaders:
The role of discussion leaders is not to comprehensively summarize the week’s
readings. Instead, discussion leaders should provide a critical evaluation of reading
materials: the strengths/weakness of arguments or analyses, a comparison between
competing or alternative perspectives, and/or identification of most important/critical
issues for further discussion. Discussion leaders should work to provide a
thought-provoking agenda to ensure a dynamic and fruitful discussion.
If you are not sure how to lead a discussion, you are welcomed to discuss your ideas
with me during office hours or at other mutually agreed time.
***Please remember:
Participation matters.
class!
There are no stupid questions, period. Do speak out in
Final Paper:
The final paper could be a term paper or a research proposal. The page limit is no
less than 15 and no more than 20 double spaced 12 font pages. The purpose of a
page limit is to require you to write a concise and crisp paper with clarity. The
format of the paper should follow the Journal of Taiwanese Sociology guidelines.
If you elect to write a term paper, you must engage the scholarship covered in the
course to a significant degree. You can do one or several of the following things in
your paper: elaborating or testing some of the theories, criticizing authors’
perspectives by providing competing or alternative arguments, and/or exploring some
new materials while examining/reflecting authors’ viewpoints. An empirical paper
is also acceptable, although I assume it is difficult to access some data for a student
within a semester’s time.
If you elect to write a research proposal pertaining to issues discussed in the class, you
must demonstrate your understanding of relevant scholarship covered in class, and
your ability to apply the theoretical/methodological tools you learned in this or other
classes to pursue your research. I don’t have plans to teach you how to write a
5
research proposal in this class, so you should discuss with me if you choose this
option, but you are not familiar with proposal writing.
Students must discuss with the instructor about their plans for the final paper, and a
draft of the paper will be due approximately one week before the scheduled
presentation time. I will try to give you feedback on your draft before the final due
date, and you should work to improve your draft after reading my
comments/suggestions.
** Papers or proposals related to your thesis or dissertation research are
strongly encouraged and recommended.
To help you develop your academic presentation skills, some class time near the end
of the semester will be devoted to students’ presentation about their final term papers
or research proposals. Students are required to give some constructive
comments/feedback to their fellow students’ projects.
A Gentle Warning: Some of the Materials in this Course Covers Controversial
Issues
Biotechnology is a controversial technology, and a considerable amount of topics
covered in this course are controversial as well. Different perspectives on these
issues will be discussed in class. A lesson in graduate school is to learn and
appreciate the richness provided by various perspectives. If you are not interested in
understanding why some of the issues are contested or in exploring new perspectives
on them, this course is probably not well suited for you.
Other Issues About the Course
 Students are encouraged to communicate with the instructor with emails. When
you send an email to the instructor, please add “soc 4706” or “4706” on the


subject line. This ensures that the instructor will not overlook your message
and will respond in a timely fashion.
Course-related emails will be sent to students regularly to your email address at
Tunghai University (i.e. @thu.edu.tw). I suggest you check your email account
at least once daily.
There will be NO “incomplete” given in this course. Based on my experience,
it will take students much longer time and effort to fulfill the requirements for
incomplete courses. It is for your best interest to finish this course within the
6
scheduled time frame.
If you have any questions or face extreme hardship, you
should discuss with me well in advance.
Course Schedule (上課內容與討論主題):
Part I. Background: Theoretical and Methodological Issues
Week 1:
Introduction (No readings)
Week 2: What is science? What is technology? The social origins and impacts
of science and technology
Webster, Andrew. 1991. Chapter One in Science, Technology and Society: New
Directions (pp. 1-14). Hampshire: Macmillan.
Mackenzie, Donald and Judy Wajcman. 1999. “Introductory Essay: The Social
Shaping of Technology” Pp. 3-27 in The Social Shaping of Technology, edited by
Donald Mackenzie and Judy Wajcman. Second edition. Buckingham: Open
University Press.
Kline, Ronald and Trevor Pinch. 1999. “The Social Construction of Technology” Pp.
113-115 in The Social Shaping of Technology, edited by Donald Mackenzie and Judy
Wajcman. Second edition.
Week 3:
Buckingham: Open University Press.
Biotechnology: a very brief history
Kenny, Martin. 1986. “DNA” Pp. 9-27 in Biotechnology: The University-Industrial
Complex. New Haven: Yale University Press.
[NOTE: Appendix 1 in Kenny’s book provides a very concise explanation for some
biotechnology terms.]
Busch, Lawrence, William B. Lacy, Jurrfey Burkhardt, and Laura R. Lacy. 1991.
“From Plant Breeding to Biotechnology” Pp. 57-96 in Plants, Power, and Profits:
Social, Economic, and Ethical Consequences of the New Biotechnologies. Oxford:
Basil Blackwell.
Week 4:
Agriculture and Biotechnology
The Economist. 2000. “Growing Pains: A Survey of Agriculture and Technology.”
7
(March 25, 2000): 3-16.
[This article provides a conventional overview of the issues to be covered in this
course.]
Kloppenburg, Jack Jr. 1984. “The Social Impacts of Biogenetic Technology in
Agriculture: Past and Future” Pp. 291-321 in The Social Consequences and
Challenges of New Agricultural Technology edited by G. M. Berardi and C. C. Geisler.
Boulder: Westview Press.
Goodman, David. 1991. “Some Recent Tendencies in the Industrial Reorganization
of the Agri-food system.” Pp. 37-64 in Towards a New Political Economy of
Agriculture, edited by W. Frienland, L. Busch, F. H. Buttel and A. Rudy. Boulder:
Westview.
Week 5:
Patents and Monopoly
Kevles, Daniel J. 1998. “Diamond v. Chakrabarty and Beyond: The Political
Economy of Patenting Life” Pp. 65-79 in Private Science: Biotechnology and the Rise
of the Molecular Sciences edited by Arnold Thackray. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press.
Boyd, William. 2003. “Wonderful Potencies? Deep Structure and the Problem of
Monopoly in Agricultural Biotechnology” Pp. 24-62 in Engineering Trouble:
Biotechnology and Its Discontents edited by Rachel A. Schurman and Dennis D. T.
Kelso. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Week 6:
A Global Struggle over Biotechnology
Buttel, Frederick H. 2003. “The Global Politics of GEOs: The Achilles’ Heel of the
Globalization Regime?” Pp. 152-173 in Engineering Trouble: Biotechnology and Its
Discontents edited by Rachel A. Schurman and Dennis D. T. Kelso. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
McAfee, Kathleen. 2003. “Biotech Battles: Plants, Power, and Intellectual Property in
the New Global Governance Regimes” Pp. 174-194 in Engineering Trouble:
Biotechnology and Its Discontents edited by Rachel A. Schurman and Dennis D. T.
Kelso. Berkeley: University of California Press.
8
Week 7:
Risk Society and the Politics of Labeling
Beck, Ulrich. 1992. “On the Logic of Wealth Distribution and Risk Distribution” Pp.
19-50 in Risk Society: Toward a New Modernity. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Guthman, Julie. 2003. “Eating Risk: The Politics of Labeling Genetically Engineered
Foods” Pp. 130-151 in Engineering Trouble: Biotechnology and Its Discontents edited
by Rachel A. Schurman and Dennis D. T. Kelso. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Brookes, Graham. 2002. “Identity Preservation of Genetically Modified Organisms in
the Food Chain: Requirements, Methods, and Costs.” Journal of AOAC International
85(3): 762-767.
NOTE: a brief memo (2-3 pages) about final paper is due on the day of class. In
this memo, you should include a tentative title of your paper, a list of bibliography,
and a brief description of your project.
Part II. Case Studies
Week 8:
The “epic” battle over approving rBGH
Krimsky, Sheldon and Roger Wrubel. 1996. “Animal Growth Hormones: The Case of
Bovine Somatotropin.” Pp. 166-190 in Agricultural Biotechnology and the
Environment. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
[Students should read this article first.]
Buttel, Frederick H. 1986. "Agricultural Research and Farm Structural Change:
Bovine Growth Hormone and Beyond." Agriculture and Human Values 3(4):88-98.
Week 9:
The rise and fall of “Flavr Savr” tomato
Martineau, Belinda. 2001. First Fruit: The Creation of the Flavr Savr™ Tomato and
the Birth of Biotech Food. New York: McGraw-Hill.
[NOTE: We will read Chapter 3-7 of the Chinese edition.]
Week 10:
Herbicide tolerant crops: what’s wrong with the picture?
9
Chen, Cheng-Hui Lucy. 2005. “A Tale of Two Agricultural Biotechnologies: Case
Studies of rBGH and Genetically Modified Organism Crops.” Pp. 146-158. Ph.D
dissertation, Department of Sociology, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Week 11:
Bt corn, the Monarch butterfly, and the Starlink™ incident
Chen, Cheng-Hui Lucy. 2005. “A Tale of Two Agricultural Biotechnologies: Case
Studies of rBGH and Genetically Modified Organism Crops.” Pp. 158-184. Ph.D
dissertation, Department of Sociology, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Week 12:
Second Green Revolution? The “Promise” of “Golden Rice”
Lipton, Michael with Richard Longhurst. 1989. “Modern Varieties and the
Poor.” Pp. 1-26 in New Seeds and Poor People. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Time. 2000. “Grains of Hope.” Time Magazine (July 31, 2000): 39-46.
Part III. Review
Week 13:
The struggle of democratizing science and technology
Middendorf, Gerad, Mike Skiadany, Elizabeth Ransom, and Lawrence Busch. 2000.
“New Agricultural Biotechnologies: The Struggle for Democratic Choice.” Pp.
107-123 in Hungry for Profit: The Agribusiness Threat to Farmers, Food, and the
Environment, edited by F. Magdoff, J. B. Foster, and F. H. Buttel. NY: Monthly
Review Press.
Martineau, Belinda. 2001. First Fruit: The Creation of the Flavr Savr™ Tomato and
the Birth of Biotech Food. New York: McGraw-Hill.
[We will read the final Chapter of the Chinese edition.]
NOTE: a preliminary draft of your final paper is due on the day of class.
Part IV. Students’ Presentations and Final Review
Week 14-15:
Students’ presentations
10
Week 16:
Final Review and Future Directions
NOTE: Final paper due date is at 5pm, January 17, 2006.