Developments in biotechnology have sparked off a number of social controversies during the past decades and it has been common to understand public debate as a necessary prerequisite for the ability to deal with these controversies. This is particularly true in the case of Denmark, where public debate has been taking place for more than 25 years; the article uses the Danish example to argue that controversies about biotechnology intersect with fundamental political discussions about order and control in today’s knowledge society. Inspired by cultural theory and the work of Mary Douglas, it is proposed that arguments about biotechnology are justified by reference to particular articulations of social order. Her four notions of social order are identified in the analysis of a sample of arguments from four major Danish newspapers. On the basis of this typology, the article examines the broad discursive consensus in favour of public debate and participatory exercises regarding the social responses to biotechnology. Simultaneously, however, it points to inherent tensions in expectations towards public debate and its role in the creation of solutions to controversies over science and technology.
Andersen, I.-E. and Jæger, B. ( 1999) ‘Danish Participatory Models. Scenario Workshops and Consensus Conferences: Towards more Democratic Decision-making’ , Science and Public Policy26: 331-40.
2.
Barns, I., Schibeci, A. Davison and Shaw, R. ( 2000) ‘What Do You Think about Genetic Medicine? Facilitating Sociable Public Discourse on Developments in the New Genetics’, Science, Technology & Human Values25: 283-308.
3.
Berkowitz, D. (ed.) (1997) Social Meanings of News. New York: Sage .
4.
Blok, A. ( 2007) ‘Experts on Public Trial: On Democratizing Expertise Through a Danish Consensus Conference’, Public Understanding of Science16: 163-82.
5.
Borch, K. and Rasmussen, B. ( 2000) ‘An Analytical Approach to the Implementation of Genetically Modified Crops’, Tibtech18: 484-6.
6.
Christoffersen, P. ( 1999) ‘Frygtens Præsteskab’ [The clergy of fear]. Ekstra Bladet, 26 March 1999, p. 24.
7.
Dalgaard, T. Junker and Dalgaard, E. ( 1998) ‘Den Biomedicinske Glidebane’ [The biomedical slippery slope]. Jyllandsposten, 31 May 1998 (3rd section), p. 11.
8.
Davison, A. and Barns, I. ( 1997) ‘Problematic Publics: A Critical Review of Surveys of Public Attitudes to Biotechnology’, Science, Technology & Human Values22: 317-39.
9.
Dijck, Jv. ( 1998) Imagination. Popular Images of Genetics. London: Macmillan.
10.
Douglas, M. ( 1978) Cultural Bias. London: Royal Anthropological Institute.
11.
Douglas, M. ( 1996a) Risk and Blame - Essays in Cultural Theory. London: Routledge.
12.
Douglas, M. ( 1996b) Thought Styles. London: Sage.
13.
Douglas, M. ( 1997) The Depoliticization of Risk. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
14.
Douglas, M. and Wildavsky, A. ( 1983) Risk and Culture. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Durant, J. (1999) ‘Participatory Technology Assessment and the Democratic Model of the Public Understanding of Science’, Science and Public Policy 26: 313-19.
15.
Edwards, A. ( 1999) ‘Scientific Expertise and Policy-Making: the Intermediary Role of the Public Sphere’, Science and Public Policy26: 163-70.
16.
Einsiedel, E.F., Jelsøe, E. and Breck, T. ( 2001) ‘Publics at the Technology Table: the Consensus Conference in Denmark, Canada, and Australia’, Public Understanding of Science10: 83-98.
17.
Ekstra Bladet’s Editorial (1998) ‘De Hvidkitlede og de Sortkjolede’ [The white-coated and the blackgowned] . Ekstra Bladet, 25 January 1998 (1st section), p. 2.
18.
Elam, M. ( 2005) ‘When Scientists Meet Film-makers: Inventing a Swedish Approach to Public Engagement with Biotechnology’, Acta Sociologica48: 237-52.
19.
Elam, M. and Bertilsson, M. ( 2003) ‘Consuming, Engaging and Confronting Science: The Emerging Dimensions of Scientific Citizenship’, European Journal of Social Theory6: 233-51.
20.
Engelhardt, R. ( 2000) ‘Livet er en Patentlov’ [Life is a patent law]. Information, 31 March 2000, p. 1.
21.
Engelhardt, T. and Caplan, A. ( 1987) Scientific Controversies. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
22.
Fahrendorff, L. ( 1997) ‘Det Grønne Håb efter Festen’ [The green hope after the party]. Information, 30 August 1997, p. 8.
23.
Finney, C. ( 1999) ‘Electronic Consultation. Extending Public Consultation via the Internet: the Experience of the UK Advisory Committee on Genetic Testing Electronic Consultation’, Science and Public Policy26: 361-73.
24.
Franz, S. ( 2006) ‘Local Steps in an International Career: a Danish-style Consensus Conference in Austria’, Public Understanding of Science15: 73-88.
25.
Friedman, S. M., Dunwoody, S. and Rogers, C. S. (eds) (1999) Communicating Uncertainty. Media Coverage of New and Controversial Science. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
26.
Hagendijk, R., Healey, P., Horst, M. and Irwin, A. ( 2005) Science, Technology and Governance in Europe: Challenges of Public Engagement. STAGE Final report, available at: www.stage-research.net.
27.
Horst, M. ( 2003) ‘Controversy and Collectivity: Articulations of Social and Natural Order in Mass Mediated Representations of Biotechnology’ . CBS: Doctoral School of Knowledge and Management. CBS-PhD. Series 28/2003.
28.
Horst, M. ( 2005) ‘Cloning Sensations: Mass Mediated Articulation of Social Responses to Controversial Biotechnology’, Public Understanding of Science14: 185-200.
29.
House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology ( 2000) Science and Society. London: Stationary Office.
30.
Irwin, A. ( 2001) ‘Constructing the Scientific Citizen: Science and Democracy in the Biosciences’, Public Understanding of Science2001: 1-18.
31.
Irwin, A. ( 2006) ‘The Politics of Talk: Coming to Terms with ‘‘New’’ Scientific Governance’, Social Studies of Science36: 299-322.
32.
Irwin, A. and Wynne, B. ( 1996) Misunderstanding Science?Cambridge : Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.
33.
Jensen, C.B. ( 2005) ‘Citizen Projects and Consensus Building at the Danish Board of Technology: On Experiments in Democracy’, Acta Sociologica48: 221-35.
34.
Jensen, J.B. ( 1999) ‘Den Nye Tid og den Nye Tidsånd’ [The novel times and the novel time-spirit]. Jyllandsposten, 3 January 1999 (3rd section), p. 4.
35.
Jensen, P.H. ( 1999) ‘En Rystende Udvikling for Parkinsons Syge’ [A shaking development for Parkinson’s disease]. Jyllandsposten , 5 September 1999 (4th section), p. 8.
36.
Joss, S. ( 1999) ‘Public Participation in Science and Technology Policy- and Decision-making - Ephemeral Phenomenon or Lasting Change?’ , Science and Public Policy26: 290-3.
37.
Joss, S. ( 2002) ‘Toward the Public Sphere - Reflections on the Development of Participatory Technology Assessment’, Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society22: 220-31.
38.
Jyllandsposten’s Editorial (2000) ‘Skabningens Herre’ [Lord of the creature]. Jyllandsposten , 9 April 2000 (1st section), p. 11.
39.
Jyllandsposten’s Editorial (2001) ‘Gal Forskning’ [Mad research]. Jyllandsposten , 10 August 2001 (1st section), p. 10.
40.
Kallerud, E. and Ramberg, I. ( 2002) ‘The Order of Discourse in Surveys of Public Understanding of Science’, Public Understanding of Science11: 213-24.
41.
Korsgaard, O. ( 2004) Kampen om Folket [Fighting about the people]. København: Gyldendal.
42.
Lembcke, R. ( 1998): ‘Gener er ikke Lego-klodser’ [Genes are not Lego blocks]. Information, 24 February 1998 , p. 9.
43.
Levidow, L. and Marris, C. ( 2001) ‘Science and Governance in Europe: Lessons from the Case of Agricultural Biotechnology’, Science and Public Policy28: 345-60.
44.
Lippert-Rasmussen, K. ( 2000) ‘Fremtidens Krop: Ville det være Dårligt, hvis Vi blev Bedre?’ [Future body: Would it be bad, if we were improved?] . Jyllandsposten, 10 October 2000 (1st section), p 11.
45.
McQuail, D. ( 1994) Mass Communication Theory. London: Sage.
46.
Michael, M. ( 1998) ‘Between Citizen and Consumer: Multiplying the Meanings of the ‘‘Public Understandings of Science’’’ , Public Understanding of Science1998: 313-27.
47.
Mikkelsen, S. ( 2000) ‘Kontrollen med Gentest’ [Control of genetic testing]. Jyllandsposten, 8 October 2000 (3rd section), p. 9.
48.
Mulkay, M. ( 1993) ‘Rhetorics of Hope and Fear in the Great Embryo Debate’, Social Studies of Science23: 721-42.
49.
Mulkay, M. ( 1997) The Embryo Research Debate. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
50.
Nelkin, D. (ed.) (1979) Controversy: Politics of Technical Decisions. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
51.
Nelkin, D. and Lindee, M.S. ( 1995) The DNA Mystique. The Gene as a Cultural Icon. New York: W. H. Freeman.
52.
Nielsen, L. ( 2000) ‘Den Genetiske Cocktail’ [The genetic cocktail] . Jyllandsposten, 1 January 2000 (4th section), p. 4.
53.
Perelman, C. and Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. ( 1969) The New Rhetoric. A Treatise on Argumentation. London: University of Notre Dame Press.
54.
Politiken’s Editorial (1998) ‘Gen-vejen’ [The genetic road]. Politiken, 26 July 1998 (2nd section), p. 2.
55.
Politiken’s Editorial (1999) ‘Genetisk Set’ [Genetically seen]. Politiken, 2 October 1999 (2nd section), p. 2.
56.
Politiken’s Editorial (2000) ‘Livets Bog’ [Book of life]. Politiken, 27 June 2000 (2nd section), p. 4.
57.
Politiken’s Editorial (2001) ‘Grænsen’ [The limit]. Politiken, 1 March 2001 (2nd section), p. 6.
58.
Rowe, G. and Frewer, L.J. ( 2005) ‘A Typology of Public Engagement Mechanisms’ , Science, Technology & Human Values30: 251-90.
59.
Sandberg, A. ( 2000) ‘Menneskehed 2.0’ [Humankind 2.0]. Jyllandsposten, 5 December 2000 (1st section), p. 11.
60.
Sohn, V. ( 1999): ‘Læger tager Etikken som Gidsel’ [Doctors take ethics hostage]. Jyllandsposten, 20 July 1999 (1st section), p. 7.
61.
Støvring, K. ( 1998) ‘Et Mange-hovedet Uhyre’ [A many-headed monster] . Information, 14 September 1998, p. 9.
62.
Tiedeman, E. ( 2000) ‘Opgivenhedsetikken Spreder sig’ [The ethics of resigning is spreading]. Politiken, 30 December 2000 (2nd section), p. 8.
63.
Toulmin, S. ( 2003) The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
64.
Turney, J. ( 1998) Frankenstein’s Footsteps. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
65.
Weale, A. ( 2001) ‘Deliberative Democracy. Science Advice, Democratic Responsiveness and Public Policy’, Science and Public Policy28: 413-21.
66.
Webler, T. and Tuler, S. ( 2002) ‘Unlocking the Puzzle of Public Participation’ , Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society22: 179-89.
67.
Wilsdon, J. and Willis, R. ( 2004) See-through Science. London: Demos.
68.
Wynne, B. ( 2005) ‘Risk as Globalizing ‘‘Democratic’’ Discourse? Framing Subjects and Citizens’, in M. Leach, I. Scoones and B. Wynne (eds) Science and Citizens. London: Zed Books.
