|
Article Excerpt
THE PURPOSE OF THIS PAPER IS TO INTRODUCE the conceptual framework and discuss some preliminary results of our research, which analyzes the framing and development of the Canadian ELSI (ethical, legal and social implications of genetics and genomics) agenda (1) and, in particular, the processes through which the Canadian ELSI field has been constituted as a form of expertise with a "legitimate" claim to participate in the governance of genomics and biotechnology more generally. (2) The research is theoretically informed, in a general sense, by the work of Science and Technology Studies (STS) scholars that investigates how it is that specific ways of knowing are socially sanctioned. This indicates the necessity of reconstructing the social processes and relations that allow certain types of claims to circulate as valid or accreditized knowledges. This is what Foucault referred to as discursive formation, a concept which is well suited to exploring the wider social, cultural and political conditions of possibility that allow certain types of knowledges to command epistemic authority across institutional domains. (3)
We begin by locating ELSI in the context of recent debates that have explored the opportunities for "society" to participate in the creation and governance of scientific knowledges. Following the theme of this special issue, we argue that an assessment of ELSI's future potential to democratically shape and govern genetic and genomic technology requires that we look back and explore how the field has been constituted. We then discuss the theoretical and methodological framing of our research and introduce some elements of our initial mapping of the ELSI knowledge space, which begins with a brief account of the institutionalization of bioethics in the 1980s and early 1990s. Although, bioethics has been an important component of the emerging ELSI field, we argue that ELSI cannot be reduced to the domain expansion of bioethics. To illustrate this, we discuss the emergence of the ELSI field within the context of Canada's various attempts to link biotechnology to economic growth and national well being. We focus on the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee (CBAC) as one of the strategic sites where the meaning of ELSI has been stabilized, and also explore the various ways "society" is mobilized as a "participant" in the governance of science; in others words, different modalities for linking genes and society. We conclude by discussing some of the wider implications associated with how "society" is currently included in the governance of biotechnology, as exemplified by CBAC.
Introducing the "Social" in Science
In The New Production of Knowledge, Gibbons and his coauthors introduce the notion of Mode 2 science. In contrast to Mode 1, which is driven by the interests of the academic community, Mode 2 scientific practices are located in the context of application and are oriented towards problem-solving. Mode 2 is said to rely more heavily on trans-disciplinarity, complex networks linking heterogeneous sites, and is characterized by more reflexivity, social accountability, and greater sensitivity to broader social implications. In ReThinking Science, Nowotny, Scott and Gibbons build on the earlier argument. They note that the boundary between "science" and "society" is becoming increasingly permeable. Thus, "not only does science speak to society (it always has), but the conditions are established in which society can 'speak back' to science" (Nowotny, Scott and Gibbons, 2002: 245). For the authors, "the work of scientists has acquired intense social significance," and has consequently "moved centre-stage in what we call the agora--the space in which market and politics meet and mingle, where the articulation of private emotions and meanings encounter the formation of public opinion and political consensus" (Nowotny, Scott and Gibbons, 2002: 183). Anchoring scientific practices in the agora, it is claimed, does not constitute a threat to the creation of scientific knowledge. Instead, it facilitates the production of more socially robust knowledges. This is so because the validation of scientific practices through conventional disciplinary norms is no longer sufficient. Science must increasingly negotiate meanings and mobilize support in the newly constituted agora, leading to a heightened sensitivity towards the social implications of scientific practices (2002: 246).
The transformation of knowledge production practices with which The New Production of Knowledge and Re-Thinking Science are concerned has been the object of varied analyses (see Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, 1998; 2000; Funcowicz and Ravetz, 1993; Guston, 2000; Ravetz, 1999; Rip, 2001; 2002). For a number of commentators, the presence of "knowledge users" as active participants at knowledge production sites contains the promise of more reflexive and democratic dynamics for the alignments of scientific and social priorities. Other scholars hold less sanguine views. For instance, Brown, in his analysis of the role of hype in the construction of biofutures, suggests that "[t]he 'post-normal science' thesis ... which sees science increasingly dependent on wider political and public aspirations should, it appears, be received with caution" (2003: 18). In his discussion of Mode 2 science, Pestre notes that the impact of neo-liberalism on these nascent forms of social governance of science has been ignored (2003: 251). Similarly, Delanty claims "Mode 2 is best seen as the penetration of the market into the domain of knowledge production. It leaves unanswered the democratic and reflexive contribution of knowledge" (2001: 112-13). Thus, a crucial task for the social sciences is to explore just how, at which sites and through which types of institutional practices the "social" is being conceptualized and mobilized in these new transaction spaces that bridge the gaps between "science" and "society" (Strathern, 2003). Nowotny, Scott and Gibbons cite the U.S. Human Genome Project's (HGP) ELSI program as an example of a new social site where dialogues between scientific development and its social implications are being established (2002: 239; see also Rip, 2002: Chap. 3). Indeed, as Strathern has argued, "Internal review panels in medicine--interdisciplinary across types of medical expertise--became hybrid fora, and modes for pubic debate, which brought society into the picture. Social, legal and ethical issues was the formula" (2003: 266).
The spokesperson for the U.S. HGP, Francis Collins, claimed in 1997 that "the project's Ethical, Legal and Social Implications (ELSI) program [was] unique among technology programs in its mandate to consider and deal with these issues alongside the development of the technology" (cited in McCain, 2002: 112). Recent assessments of its impact have been far from celebratory (e.g., Huijer, 2003; McCain, 2003). Indeed, it is claimed that the ELSI program was used as a "shield and sounding board" (Marshall, 1996), or that ELSI functioned to insulate the HGP from criticism rather than facilitate negotiations between scientists and non-scientists (Huijer, 2003: 488). Our position is that these types of reservations notwithstanding, it would be wrong to dismiss the opportunities created by the current social and political exigencies requiring technoscience to explore the ethical and social implications of its activities. Even if, as some maintain, it is just a facade, it represents a surface that can potentially be inscribed with critical discourses that did not exist previously. However, in order to assess the potential for reflexive and democratic dialogue, it is important to explore the scope and types of ELSI knowledge claims that are sanctioned to circulate in the Canadian context.
ELSI as a Discursive Formation
The participation of experts in the policy process...
|
