Field:
Social Sciences/Humanities
Session Topic:
Reasoning and Contradictions in Science and Democracy
Speaker:
Tomiko Yamaguchi/ International Christian University
Abstract Background: Advances in frontier technoscience have given rise to a
diverse range of concerns among the public and presented us with a complex set of
questions to deal with, hinging on the social, ethical, economic, political, and
ecological implications of technoscience. Whenever a new and controversial
application of technoscience is announced, we hear questions such as whether the
benefits of technoscience will be distributed fairly across different social and economic
strata and how the environmental or health risks will be distributed across people,
geographical regions and generations. Such questions indicate that the public feels
that the values of society at large are at odds with those of the scientific communities.
It also demonstrates the transformation of technoscience into an object of public
scrutiny as opposed to a subject of scientific inquiry.
Problem Statement: In reaction to changes in the social climate in the last decade,
various modes of interaction between the researchers of technoscience and the public
have emerged that lie somewhere along the continuum of confrontational to
consensual modes of communication. Drawing on the Japanese experience with
genetically modified organisms (GMOs), I will first look into two separate modes of
democratization efforts, one hinging on the notion of a “hybrid forum” (a theoretical
formulation of Callon et al. (1986) and Latour (1987)) and the other concerning
“compromising devices” (Boltanski and Thévenot 2006). GMO disputes are an
appropriate empirical case to work with because these disputes allow us to identify a
range of theoretical questions that lie at the heart of tensions between technoscientific
endeavor and democracy. Next, by comparing and contrasting these two modes of
democratization efforts, I will attempt to identify the areas of contradiction they
entail. Finally, I will extrapolate from the example of GMOs to other areas of
technoscience so as to gain both deeper insights and a broader picture of the forms of
governance that have emerged.
Prevailing Models for Democratic Governance of Technoscience: Situated closer to
the consensual end of the continuum, “hybrid forums” have been a prevailing model
for democratic governance of technoscience during the last decade. Hybrid forums
create a space in which the public is invited to participate in an informed debate
about a given subject. They aim to provide a means by which lay members of society
can be involved in a purposeful way in influencing the decisions on frontier
technoscience, decisions which are generally made by policymakers and a handful of
experts. Based on the principles of liberal democracy, the forums emphasize
inclusiveness and strive to ensure that every actor who holds stakes will have a voice.
The forum is called hybrid both because it presupposes that the people represented
are heterogeneous in their socioeconomic backgrounds, beliefs and values, and
demographics such as race, ethnicity and gender, and because the issues discussed are
multi-dimensional, ranging from social, economic, and ethical to political implications
of frontier technoscience. In the case of GMOs, a range of activities such as citizens’
panels, scenario workshops, and consensus conferences are included in this model.
Contradictions Entailed by These Democratization Efforts: The virtue of these models
in terms of enhancing the democratization of technoscience is beyond any doubt;
however, some questions remain. First, when disputes are intense and involve highly
personalized demands and concerns in such areas as food preferences and health
requirements, there is a question as to whether discussions in the form of a hybrid
forum will yield any meaningful resolution of disputed matters. Under these
circumstances, installing public policies that will help disputants to arrive at a
compromise with others might be a better approach. These “compromising devices”
mitigate disputes, however temporarily it may be. For instance, GM food labeling
policy clearly strives to harmonize two competing demands: allowing consumers to
choose what they consume while also allowing industries to sell GM food. Second,
there is some question as to whether hybrid forums are able to guide societal
decisions about technoscience, since these forums are implemented only sporadically
rather than continuously. Given the changing forms, stakes and context that surround
technoscientific governance, constant redefinition of issues involving technoscience is
required, but the present forms of hybrid forums do not allow such continuity. Finally,
democratic governance is frequently discussed within the confines of national
boundaries. If we are truly concerned with the democratization of technoscience, we
will need to incorporate perspectives from other countries.
References
Boltanski, Luc and Laurent Thévenot. 2006. On Justification: Economies of Worth.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Callon, Michel, John Law & Arie Rip. 1986. Mapping the Dynamics of Science and
Technology. London: MacMillan.
Latour, Bruno. 1987. Science in Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard U Press.