Coming to Terms with Biomedical Technologies in Different Technopolitical Cultures: A Comparative Analysis of Focus Groups on Organ Transplantation and Genetic Testing in Austria,France,and the Netherlands

Abstract

In this comparative analysis of twelve focus groups conducted in Austria, France, and the Netherlands, we investigate how lay people come to terms with two biomedical technologies. Using the term ‘‘technopolitical culture,’’ we aim to show that the ways in which technosciences are interwoven with a specific society frame how citizens build their individual and collective positions toward them. We investigate how the focus group participants conceptualized organ transplantation (OT) and genetic testing (GT), their perceptions of individual agency in relation to the two technologies and to more collective forms of acting and governing, and also their understanding of the two technologies’ relationship to broader societal value systems. Against the background of the sustained political effort to build common European values, we suggest that more fine-grained attention toward the culturally embedded differences in coming to terms with biomedical technologies is needed.

Keywords

technopolitical cultures in Europe governance biomedical technologies genetic testing organ transplantation

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aarts, W. , M. Hofman , and C. Smink. 2001. The Netherlands National Report of the ADAPTA Project. http://www.inra.fr/sed/science-gouvernance/pub/ADAPTA/nl-report.pdf (accessed December 5, 2007).

Akrich, M. 1992. The description of technical objects. In Shaping technology/building society. Studies in sociotechnical change , ed. W. E. Bijker and J. Law , 205-24. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Armstrong, D. 2002. The rise of surveillance medicine. In The sociology of health and illness reader, ed. S. Nettleton and U. Gustafsson , 112-8. Cambridge , UK: Polity.

Barry, A. 2001. Political machines. Governing a technological society . London: Athlone Press.

Bijker, W.E. 2002. The oosterschelde storm surge barrier: A test case for Dutch water technology, management, and politics. Technology and Culture 43 (3): 569-84.

Chavot, P. , U. Felt , and A. Masseran. 2001. Entre savoirs et confiance: Médiation et crise de la transplantation en France. Rapport final présenté à l’Etablissement Français des Greffes.

Clarke, A. , L. Mamo , J. Fisherman , J. Shim , and J. Fosket. 2003. Biomedicalization: Technoscientific transformations of health, illness, and U.S. biomedicine. American Sociological Review 68 (2):161-94.

Cohen, L. 2000. The other kidney: Biopolitics beyond recognition . Body and Society 7 (2-3):9-29.

Felt, U. , M. Fochler , A. Mager , and P. Winkler. 2008. Visions and versions of governing biomedicine: Narratives on power structures, decision-making, and public participation in the field of biomedical technologies in the Austrian context. Social Studies of Science 38 (2):233-57.

10.

Glaser, B. , and A. Strauss. 1968. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.

11.

Halcomb, E. , L. Gholizadeh , M. DiGiacomo , J. Philips , and P. Davidson. 2007. Literature review: Considerations in undertaking focus group research with culturally and linguistically diverse groups. Journal of Clinical Nursing 16 (6):1000-11.

12.

Hecht, G. 2000. The radiance of France. Nuclear power and national identity after World War II. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

13.

Hogle, L. 1999. Recovering the nation’s body: Cultural memory, medicine, and the politics of redemption. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Jasanoff, S. , ed. 2004. States of knowledge . The co-production of science and the social order. London: Routledge .

14.

Jasanoff, S. 2005. Designs on nature. Science and democracy in Europe and United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

15.

Kay, L. 2000. Who wrote the book of life? A history of the genetic code . Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

16.

Latour, B. 1991. Technology is society made durable. In A sociology of monsters. Essays on power, technology and domination , ed. J. Law , 103-31. London : Routledge.

17.

---. 1993. We have never been modern. New York : Harvester Wheatsheaf.

18.

Nowotny, H. 1979. Kernenergie: Gefahr oder Nowendigkeit. Frankfurt, Germany: Suhrkamp.

19.

Nowotny, H. , P. Scott , and M. Gibbons. 2001. Re-thinking science. Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge, UK: Polity.

20.

Sanner, M. 2002. Exchanging spare parts or becoming a new person? People’s attitudes toward receiving and donating organs. In The sociology of health and illness reader, ed. S. Nettleton and U. Gustafsson , 48-56. Cambridge , UK: Polity.

21.

Winner, L. 1986. Do artifacts have politics? Daedalus 109 (1):121-36.

22.

Wynne, B. 1995. Public understanding of science. In Handbook of science and technology studies, ed. S. Jasanoff , G. Markle , J. Petersen and T. Pinch , 361-88. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.