Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T23:48:50.430Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Negotiating “Sound Science”: Expert Disagreement about the Risks of Release of Genetically Engineered Micro-organisms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2016

Ullica Segerstrale
Ullica Segerstrale*
Affiliation:
Finnish Academy, Helsinki, Finland, and Department of Social Sciences, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, IL 60616
Get access

Extract

During recent years scientists coming from the ecologist and molecular biologist traditions have argued very differently about the risks of deliberate release of genetically engineered micro-organisms (GEOs) into the environment. When actual guidelines for regulation have been drawn up and “scientific experts” have been consulted, representatives of these different scientific camps have given quite different advice. In fact, we have a tacit battle between scientific experts as to who has the right to speak “for” science to the public and policy makers. It seems that the molecular biologists so far have had the upper hand because of concrete and spectacular achievements in this field. Meanwhile, these experts can profit from the fact that the general public and policy makers tend to see science as a unified enterprise and are typically unaware of systematic differences in conceptions about science between experts from different scientific traditions. Thus, a scientist from any scientific field may easily be seen as an expert on science in general.

Type
Further Commentaries
Information
Politics and the Life Sciences , Volume 8 , Issue 2: Special Issue: The Politics of Surrogacy Contracts , February 1990 , pp. 221 - 232
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Politics and the Life Sciences 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bourdieu, P. (1975). “The Specificity of the Scientific Field and the Social Conditions of the Progress of Reason.” International Social Science Information 14(5-6): 19–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brill, W. J. (1985). “Genetic Engineering in Agriculture.” Science 229:115–111.Google Scholar
Colwell, R. K. et al. (1985). “Genetic Engineering in Agriculture.” Science 229: 111–112.Google Scholar
Davis, B. D. (1985). Storm over Biology: Essays on Science, Sentiment and Public Policy. Buffalo: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
Davis, B. D. (1987). “Bacterial Domesticaion: Underlying Assumptions.” Science 235: 1329, 1332-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, B. D. (1989). “How Genetic Engineering Got a Bad Name.” Imprimis 18(2): 1–4.Google Scholar
Dickson, D. (1989). “The Search for Informed Consent: Environmental Release in a Political Context.” Keynote address delivered to Gen-Ethic Network Conference on “The Deliberate Release into the Environment of Genetically Engineered Organisms.” Brussels, February 22.Google Scholar
Gen-ethic Network and the Oeko-Institut (1988). “Deliberate Release-Oriented Research Projects in the Federal Republic of Germany: Pollution Control, Pesticides, Plants, Safety Research.” Booklet.Google Scholar
Kolata, G. (1985). “How Safe Are Engineered Organisms.” Science 229:34–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Academy of Science (1986). Ecological Knowledge and Environmental Problem Solving. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
National Academy of Science (1987). Introduction of Genetically Engineered Organisms into the Environment: Key Issues. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press (pamphlet).Google Scholar
Regal, P. J. (1987). “Safe and Effective Biotechnology: Mobilizing Scientific Expertise.” In Fowle, J.R. III (ed.), Application of Biotechnology: Environmental and Policy Issues. (AAAS Selected Symposium 106). Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Regal, P. J. (1988). “The Adaptive Potential of Genetically Engineered Organisms in Nature.” Tree 3(4); Tibtech 6(4).Google Scholar
Segerstrale, U. (1983). Whose Truth Shall Prevail? Moral and Scientific Interests in the Sociohiology Controversy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Department of Sociology, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Segerstrale, U. (1986). “Colleagues in Conflict: An ‘In Vivo’ Analysis of the Sociobiology Controversy.” Biology and Philosophy 1(1): 53–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segerstrale, U. (1987a). “Debates Involving Science.” Science 238:1296–1297.Google Scholar
Segerstrale, U. (1987b). “Scientific Controversy as Moral/Political Discourse: From Restoration Science to Sociobiology.” Contemporary Sociology 16(3): 544–547.Google Scholar
Segerstrale, U. (1988). “Problems in Science Affecting the Discussion about the Release of Genetically Engineered Micro-Organisms in the Environment.” Poster presented at REGEM I, Cardiff, Wales, 5-7 April. (Abstract in the Proceedings).Google Scholar
Segerstrale, U. (1990). “The Sociobiology of Conflict and the Conflict about Sociobiology.” In Falger, V. et al. (eds.), Sociobiology and Conflict. London: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
Simberloff, D. (1980). “A Succession of Paradigms in Ecology: Essentialism to Materialism and Probabilism.” Synthese 43(1): 3–39.Google Scholar
Synthese (1980). “Conceptual Issues in Ecology.” (1) and (2).Google Scholar
Tiejde, J.M. et al. (1989). “The Planned Introduction of Genetically Engineered Organisms: Ecological Considerations and Recommendations.” Ecology 70(2):248–315.Google Scholar