The paper investigates how field experimentation of genetically modified crops became central to the French controversy on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in recent years. Initially constructed in the 1980s as a cognitive endeavor to be preserved from lay interference, field trials of genetically modified crops were reconceived as “an intrusion in the social space,” which had to be negotiated with actors from that space. In order to analyze this transformation, the authors suggest that it is necessary to develop an interpretive framework that combines theoretical perspectives from science and technology studies and the sociology of social problems, and emphasizes the importance of the way in which actors compete in a heterogeneous public space, to put forward alternative framings of problems. The authors present a detailed analysis of the interactions and conflicts between actors in diverse social arenas in order to better understand the dynamics of this sociotechnical controversy.
Babusiaux, C., J.Y. Le Déaut, D. Sicard, and J. Testart.2002. Rapport à la suite du débat sur les OGM et les essais au champ. Paris: Ministère de l'Environnement.
2.
Beck, U.1992. Risk society. Towards a new modernity. London: Sage Publications [originally publ. 1986].
3.
Benford, R.D., and D.A. Snow.2000. Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology26: 611-39.
4.
Bertrand, A., P.B. Joly, and C. Marris.2005. L'expérience française d'évaluation technologique interactive sur les vignes transgéniques. Ethique Publique7 (1): 186-94.
5.
Boltanski, L., and L. Thévenot, 2006. On justification. The economies of worth. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press .
6.
Bonneuil, C.2005. Les transformations des rapports entre sciences et société en France depuis la Seconde Guerre mondiale: Un essai de synthèse . In Actes du colloque Sciences, Médias et Société, edited by J. Le Marec and I. Babou.Lyon: ENS:15-40. ( http://sciences-medias.ens-lsh.fr/IMG/pdf/actes.pdf)
7.
Bonneuil, C.2006. Cultures épistémiques et engagement des chercheurs dans la controverse OGM. Natures Sciences Société, 14 (3): 34-42.
8.
Bonneuil, C., and F. Thomas.2008. Du maïs hybride aux OGM. Une histoire de la génétique et l'amélioration des plantes en France. Paris: Quae. In press.
9.
Bové, J., and G. Luneau.2004. Pour la désobéissance civique. Paris: La Découverte.
10.
Callon, M., and A. Rip.1992. Humains, non-humains: Morale d'une coexistence . In La Terre outragée. Les experts sont formels , edited by J. Theys and B. Kalaora140-56. Paris: éditions Autrement .
11.
Callon, M., P. Lascoumes, and Y. Barthe.2001. Agir dans un monde incertain. Essai sur la démocratie technique. Paris: Seuil.
12.
Cefaï, D.1996. La construction des problèmes publics. Définitions de situations dans des arènes publiques. Réseaux, 75:43-66.
13.
Charles, G.1992. Les nourritures extraterrestres. L'Express , July 9th: 60-62.
14.
Clarke, A.E.1991. Social worlds/arenas theory as organizational theory . In Social organization and social process. Essays in honor of Anselm Strauss, edited by D. R. Maines , 119-58. New York: Aldinede Gruyter .
15.
Dahan, A., and D. Pestre.2004. Les sciences pour la guerre 1940-1960 . Paris: Editions EHESS.
16.
Deshayes, A.1986. Que peut apporter le génie génétique. In Les semences. Enjeux technologiques, stratégies économiques, rencontre organisée par les élèves de l'INA-PG le 27 nov. 1986. Paris: INAPG, roneotyped.
17.
Dodier, N.2003. Leçons politiques de l'épidémie de sida. Paris , Editions EHESS.
18.
François, B., and E. Neveu.2000. Espaces publics mosaïques. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes .
19.
Gibbons, M., C. Limoges, H. Nowotny, S. Schwartzmann, P. Scott, and M. Trow.1994. The new production of knowledge. The dynamics of science and research in the contemporary societies. London: Sage.
20.
Gieryn, T.F.1983Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists . American Sociological Review, 48:781-95.
21.
Gottweis, H.1998. Governing molecules: The discursive politics of genetic engineering in Europe and the United States. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
22.
Gusfield, J.R.1981. The culture of public problems: Drinking-driving and the symbolic order. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
23.
Heller, C.2002. From Scientific risk to paysan savoir-faire: Peasant expertise in the French and global debate over GM crops. Science as Culture11:5-37.
24.
Henke, C.R.2000. Making a place for science: The field trial. Social Studies of Science30 (4): 483-511.
25.
Hermelin, B.1996. Plus vite que des lapins!Campagne solidaire,100:6-7.
26.
Hilgartner, S., and C. Bosk.1988. The rise and fall of social problems: A public arenas model. American Journal of Sociology. 94 (1): 53-78.
27.
Jasanoff, S.2005. Designs on nature. science and democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
28.
Joly, P.-B., G. Assouline, D. Kréziak, J. Lemarié, and C. Marris.2000. L'innovation controversée: Le débat public sur les OGM en France. Rapport à la DGAL. Grenoble : INRA.
29.
Kahn, A.1992. Une suspicion injustifiée. Le Monde , May 27.
30.
Krohn, W., and J. Weyer.1994. Society as a laboratory: The social risks of experimental research. Science and Public Policy , 21 (3): 173-83.
31.
Latour, B.1983. Give me a laboratory and I will raise the world . In Science observed, edited by K. D. Knorr-Cetina and M. Mulkay, 141-70. London : Sage.
32.
Le Déaut, J.-Y.1998. De la connaissance des gènes à leur utilisation. Tome I: Conclusions du rapporteur. N°1054 Assemblée Nationale, Paris.
33.
Le Déaut, J.-Y., and C. Ménard.2005. Rapport fait au nom de la mission d'information sur les enjeux des essais et de l'utilisation des organismes génétiquement modifiés. Paris: Ass. Nationale .
34.
Limoges C., A. Cambrosio, F. Anderson, D. Pronovost, D. Charron, E. Francoeur, and E. Hoffman.1993. Les risques associés au largage dans l'environnement d'organismes génétiquement modifiés: Analyse d'une controverse . Cahiers de Recherche Sociologique,21:17-52.
35.
Marks, H.M.1997. The progress of experiment: Science and therapeutic reform in the United States, 1900-1990. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
36.
Marris, C., and P.-B. Joly.1999. Between consensus and citizens: public participation in technological decision-making in France. Science Studies12 (2): 3-32.
37.
Marris, C., B. Wynne, P. Simmons, and S. Weldon.2001. Public Perceptions of Agricultural Biotechnologies in Europe. Final report of the PABE research project funded by the commission of European Communities (http://csec.lancs.ac.uk/pabe/ )
38.
Nowotny H., P. Scott, and M. Gibbons.2001. Re-thinking science. Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
39.
Oecd.1986. Recombinant DNA safety considerations. Paris: OECD
40.
Oecd.1993. Field releases of transgenic plants 1986-1992. An analysis. Paris: OCDE.
41.
Pestre, D.2003. Regimes of knowledge production in society: Towards a more political and social reading. Minerva, 41 (3): 245-61.
42.
Ricou, G.1992. Tenir en laisse les apprentis sorciers. Le dossier du hérisson, 137:4-5.
Roy, A.2001. Les experts face au risque: Le cas des plantes transgéniques . Paris: PUF.
45.
Scott, J.1998. Seing like a state. How certain schemes to improve human condition have failed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
46.
Snow, D.A., E.B. Rochford, S.K. Worden, and R.D. Benford.1986. Frame alignment processes, micromobilization, and movement participation. American Journal of Sociology , 51:464-81.
47.
Surel, Y.2000. The role of cognitive and normative frames in policy-framing . Journal of European Public Policy, 7 (4): 495-512.
48.
Wrubel, R., and S. Krimsky.1996. Agricultural biotechnology and the environmentUrbana-Champaign: University of Illinois Press.
49.
Wynne, B.2002. Risk and environment as legitimatory discourses of technology: Reflexivity inside out? Current Sociology, 50 (3): 459-77.
