Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and scientific controversies are often the common denominators in most of the cases that have significantly shaped science and society relationships in the Global South during the past two decades. National and international NGOs and their network have often facilitated the “opening up” of regulatory governance in multiple sectors. This article draws from three cases—the bottled water controversy, the agribiotechnology debates, and the nanotechnology initiatives—and charts out the role of the NGOs and controversies in (re)defining the science-society relationship in India. The three cases illustrate how NGOs and controversies by their presence or absence at various stages of technology development shape the regulation-making exercise and the overall regulatory governance of science and technology.
AbrahamJ.ReedT. (2001). Trading risks for markets: The international harmonisation of pharmaceuticals regulation. Health, Risk & Society, 3, 113-128.
2.
AbrahamJ.ReedT. (2002). Progress, innovation and regulatory science in drug development: The politics of international standard-setting. Social Studies of Science, 32, 337-369.
3.
AbrahamJ.SheppardJ. (1999). Complacent and conflicting scientific expertise in British and American drug regulation: Clinical risk assessment of Triazolam. Social Studies of Science, 29, 803-843.
4.
AhmadM. M. (2006). The “partnership” between international NGOs (non-governmental organisations) and local NGOs in Bangladesh. Journal of International Development, 18, 629-638.
5.
AshfordN. A. (1984). Advisory committees in OSHA and EPA: Their use in regulatory decision making. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 9, 72-82.
6.
BanksN.HulmeD.EdwardsM. (2015). NGOs, states, and donors revisited: Still too close for comfort?World Development, 66, 707-718.
7.
BaviskarA. (1999). In the belly of the river: Tribal conflicts over development in the Narmada Valley. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
8.
BebbingtonA. (2004). NGOs and uneven development: Geographies of development intervention. Progress in Human Geography, 28, 725-745.
9.
BeumerK. (2018). Travelling risks: How did nanotechnology become a risk in India and South Africa?Journal of Risk Research, 21, 1362-1383.
10.
BhaduriS.SharmaA. (2014). Public understanding of participation in regulatory decision-making: The case of bottled water quality standards in India. Public Understanding of Science, 23, 472-488.
11.
BhushanC. (2006). Bottled loot: The structure and economics of the Indian bottled water industry. Frontline, 23(7), 8-21.
BijkerW. E. (2006). The vulnerability of technological culture. In NowotnyH. (Ed.), Cultures of technology and the quest for innovation (pp. 52-70). New York, NY: Berghahn Books.
14.
BijkerW. E. (2007). American and Dutch coastal engineering: Differences in risk conception and differences in technological culture. Social Studies of Science, 37, 143-151.
15.
BoliJ.ThomasG. M. (1997). World culture in the world polity: A century of international non-governmental organization. American Sociological Review, 62, 171-190.
16.
BowonderB. (1979). Appropriate technology for developing countries: Some issues. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 15(1), 55-67.
17.
ClarkeG. (2006). Non-governmental organisations and politics in the developing world. In The Politics of NGOs in Southeast Asia (pp. 33-56). New York, NY: Routledge.
18.
CollinsH. M. (1993). The structure of knowledge. Social Research, 60(1), 95-116.
19.
CollinsH. M. (1998). The meaning of data: Open and closed evidential cultures in the search for gravitational waves. American Journal of Sociology, 104, 293-338.
20.
Centre for Environment Education. (2010). National consultations on Bt brinjal (Report prepared for the Ministry of Environment and Forests). New Delhi, India: Author.
21.
Centre for Science and Environment. (2003). Poison vs nutrition: A briefing paper on pesticide contamination and food safety. New Delhi, India: Author.
22.
DaemmrichA. A. (2004). Pharmacopolitics: Drug regulation in the United States and Germany. Philadelphia, PA: Chemical Heritage Foundation.
23.
DasR. J. (1999). Geographical unevenness of India’s Green Revolution. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 29, 167-186.
24.
DemortainD. (2008). Standardising through concepts: The power of scientific experts in international standard-setting. Science and Public Policy, 35, 391-402.
25.
DemortainD. (2011). Scientists and the regulation of risk: Standardising control. Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.
26.
DemortainD. (2017). Expertise, regulatory science and the evaluation of technology and risk: Introduction to the special issue. Minerva, 55, 139-159.
27.
DouglasM.WildavskyA. (1983). Risk and culture: An essay on the selection of technological and environmental dangers. Berkeley: University of California Press.
28.
DrifeJ. O. (2001). The third generation pill controversy (“continued”): The risks are still small compared with those of pregnancy. BMJ, 323, 119-120.
29.
FaulknerA.PoortL. (2017). Stretching and challenging the boundaries of law: Varieties of knowledge in biotechnologies regulation. Minerva, 55, 209-228.
30.
FeltU. (2015). Keeping technologies out: Sociotechnical imaginaries and the formation of Austria’s technopolitical identity. In JasanoffS.KimS. H. (Eds.), Dreamscapes of modernity: Sociotechnical imaginaries and the fabrication of power (pp. 103-125). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
31.
FortunK. (2009). Advocacy after Bhopal: Environmentalism, disaster, new global orders. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
32.
GauchatG. (2012). Politicization of science in the public sphere: A study of public trust in the United States, 1974 to 2010. American Sociological Review, 77, 167-187.
33.
GruèreG.SenguptaD. (2011). Bt cotton and farmer suicides in India: An evidence-based assessment. Journal of Development Studies, 47, 316-337.
34.
GrunwaldA. (2007). Working towards sustainable development in the face of uncertainty and incomplete knowledge. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 9, 245-262.
35.
GuptaA. (2011). An evolving science-society contract in India: The search for legitimacy in anticipatory risk governance. Food Policy, 36, 736-741.
36.
HaerlinB.ParrD. (1999). How to restore public trust in science. Nature, 400(6744), 499.
37.
HagendijkR. P. (2004). The public understanding of science and public participation in regulated worlds. Minerva, 42, 41-59.
38.
HemphillT. A. (2016). Regulating nanomaterials: A case for hybrid governance. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 36, 219-228.
39.
HerringR. J. (2008). Whose numbers count? Probing discrepant evidence on transgenic cotton in the Warangal district of India. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 2, 145-159.
40.
HerringR. J. (2015). State science, risk and agricultural biotechnology: Bt cotton to Bt brinjal in India. Journal of Peasant Studies, 42, 159-186.
41.
HommelsA.MesmanJ.BijkerW. E. (Eds.). (2014). Vulnerability in technological cultures: New directions in research and governance. Cambridge: MIT Press.
42.
IrwinA.RothsteinH.YearleyS.McCarthyE. (1997). Regulatory science: Towards a sociological framework. Futures, 29, 17-31.
43.
JalanJ.SomanathanE.ChoudhuriS. (2003). Awareness and the demand for environmental quality: Drinking water in urban India. Kathmandu, Nepal: SANDEE.
44.
JasanoffS. (1990). American exceptionalism and the political acknowledgement of risk. Daedalus, 119, 61-81.
45.
JasanoffS. (1993). India at the crossroads in global environmental policy. Global Environmental Change, 3, 32-52.
46.
JasanoffS. (1995). Procedural choices in regulatory science. Technology in Society, 17, 279-293.
47.
JasanoffS. (2005). Designs on nature: Science and democracy in England and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
48.
JasanoffS. (2006). Transparency in public science purposes, reasons, limits. Law & Contemporary Problems, 69(3), 21-45.
49.
JayanthiA. P.BeumerK.BhatiM.BhattacharyaS. (2012). Nanotechnology: “Risk governance” in India. Economic and Political Weekly, 47(4), 34-40.
KearnesM.Grove-WhiteR.MacnaghtenP.WilsdonJ.WynneB. (2006). From bio to nano: Learning lessons from the UK agricultural biotechnology controversy. Science as Culture, 15, 291-307.
52.
KhagramS.RikerJ. V.SikkinkK. (2002). From Santiago to Seattle: Transnational advocacy groups restructuring world politics. In Restructuring world politics: Transnational social movements, networks, and norms (pp. 3-23). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
53.
KurathM.GislerP. (2009). Informing, involving or engaging? Science communication, in the ages of atom-, bio- and nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 18, 559-573.
54.
LeachM.ScoonesI. (2006). The slow race. London, England: Demos.
55.
LeachM.ScoonesI.WynneB. (2005). Science and citizens: Globalization and the challenge of engagement (Vol. 2). London, England: Zed Books.
56.
LeachM.SumnerA.WaldmanL. (2008). Discourses, dynamics and disquiet: Multiple knowledges in science, society and development. Journal of International Development: The Journal of the Development Studies Association, 20, 727-738.
57.
LevidowL. (2001). Precautionary uncertainty: Regulating GM crops in Europe. Social Studies of Science, 31, 842-874.
58.
LevidowL.MarrisC. (2001). Science and governance in Europe: Lessons from the case of agricultural biotechnology. Science and Public Policy, 28, 345-360.
59.
MajoneG. (1994). The rise of the regulatory state in Europe. West European Politics, 17(3), 77-101.
60.
MarresN. (2007). The issues deserve more credit: Pragmatist contributions to the study of public involvement in controversy. Social Studies of Science, 37, 759-780.
61.
MartinB. (1988). Analyzing the fluoridation controversy: Resources and structures. Social Studies of Science, 18, 331-363.
62.
MartinB. (1989). The sociology of the fluoridation controversy. Sociological Quarterly, 30, 59-76.
63.
MawdsleyE. (2004). India’s middle classes and the environment. Development and Change, 35, 79-103.
64.
MishraS. (2006). Farmers’ suicides in Maharashtra. Economic and Political Weekly, 41, 1538-1545.
65.
MurphyJ.LevidowL.CarrS. (2006). Regulatory standards for environmental risks: Understanding the US-European Union conflict over genetically modified crops. Social Studies of Science, 36, 133-160.
NowotnyH. (1975). Wissenschaftliche Kontroversen: Über verschiedene Arten von Wissenserzeugung und Wissensgebrauch [Controversies in science: Remarks on the different modes of production of knowledge and their use]. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 4(1), 34-45.
68.
PaarlbergR. L. (2001). The politics of precaution: Genetically modified crops in developing countries. London, England: International Food Policy Research Institute.
69.
PadmanabanG. (2009). Bt brinjal: Ban or boon?Current Science, 97, 1715-1716.
70.
PalshikarS. (2002). Civil society: Alternatives and differences. Indian Journal of Political Science, 63, 155-165.
71.
PandeyP. (2013). “Moving forward responsibly”: From agribiotechnology to agrinanotechnology in India. Asian Biotechnology & Development Review, 15(3), 81-101.
72.
PandeyP. (2016). Shaping of nanobiotechnology in India: Role of expectations, visions and imaginaries. New Delhi, India: Jawaharlal Nehru University.
73.
PatraD.EjnavarzalaH.BasuP. K. (2009). Nanoscience and nanotechnology: Ethical, legal, social and environmental issues. Current Science, 96, 651-657.
74.
PatraD.HaribabuE.McComasK. A. (2010). Perceptions of nano ethics among practitioners in a developing country: A case of India. NanoEthics, 4, 67-75.
75.
PidgeonN.Rogers-HaydenT. (2007). Opening up nanotechnology dialogue with the publics: Risk communication or “upstream engagement”?Health, Risk & Society, 9, 191-210.
RaynerS. (2003). Democracy in the age of assessment: Reflections on the roles of expertise and democracy in public-sector decision making. Science and Public Policy, 30, 163-181.
78.
RennO. (2015). Stakeholder and public involvement in risk governance. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 6(1), 8-20.
79.
RothsteinH.IrwinA.YearleyS.McCarthyE. (1999). Regulatory science, Europeanization, and the control of agrochemicals. Science, Technology & Human Values, 24, 241-264.
80.
von SchombergR. (2006). The precautionary principle and its normative challenges. In FisherE.JonesJ.von SchombergR. (Eds.), Implementing the precautionary principle: Perspectives and prospects (pp. 19-41). Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.
81.
ScoonesI. (2008). Mobilizing against GM crops in India, South Africa and Brazil. Journal of Agrarian Change, 8, 315-344.
82.
SeifertF.PlowsA. (2014). From anti-biotech to nano-watch: Early risers and spin-off campaigners in Germany, the UK and internationally. NanoEthics, 8, 73-89.
83.
SethiH. (1998). Micro-struggles, NGOs and the state. In TomquistO.MohantyM. (Eds.), Peoples’ rights: Social movements and the state in the Third World (pp. 404-420). New Delhi, India: Sage.
84.
ShantharamS.SulliaS. B.Shivakumara SwamyG. (2008). Peer review contestations in the era of transgenic crops. Current Science, 95(2), 167-168.
85.
SharmaA. (2014). Standards, technology and public participation: Regulation making for bottled water quality in India. New Delhi, India: Jawaharlal Nehru University.
86.
SharmaA.BhaduriS. (2013). Consumption conundrum of bottled water in India: An STS perspective. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 33, 172-181.
87.
ShrumW. (2000). Science and story in development: The emergence of non-governmental organizations in agricultural research. Social Studies of Science, 30, 95-124.
SinghR. B. (2000). Environmental consequences of agricultural development: A case study from the Green Revolution state of Haryana, India. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 82, 97-103.
90.
StirlingA. (2008). “Opening up” and “closing down” power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Science, Technology & Human Values, 33, 262-294.
91.
StoneG. D. (2012). Constructing facts: Bt cotton narratives in India. Economic and Political Weekly, 47(38), 62-70.
92.
TreibO.BährH.FalknerG. (2007). Modes of governance: Towards a conceptual clarification. Journal of European Public Policy, 14, 1-20.
93.
Van ZwanenbergP.MillstoneE. (2000). Beyond skeptical relativism: Evaluating the social constructions of expert risk assessments. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 25, 259-282.
94.
VéronR. (2006). Remaking urban environments: The political ecology of air pollution in Delhi. Environment and Planning A, 38, 2093-2109.
95.
VisvanathanS. (1985). Organizing for science: The making of an industrial research laboratory. New Delhi, India: Oxford University Press.
96.
WeinbergA. M. (1985). Science and its limits: The regulator’s dilemma. Issues in Science and Technology, 2(1), 59-72.
97.
WienerJ. B. (2004). The regulation of technology, and the technology of regulation. Technology in Society, 26, 483-500.
98.
WilkR. (2006). Bottled water: The pure commodity in the age of branding. Journal of Consumer Culture, 6, 303-325.
99.
WinickoffD. E.BusheyD. M. (2010). Science and power in global food regulation: The rise of the Codex Alimentarius. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 35, 356-381.
100.
WynneB. (1992). Public understanding of science research: New horizons or hall of mirrors. Public Understanding of Science, 1, 37-43.
101.
WynneB. (2002). Risk and environment as legitimatory discourses of technology: Reflexivity inside out?Current Sociology, 50, 459-477.
102.
WynneB. (2005). Reflexing complexity: Post-genomic knowledge and reductionist returns in public science. Theory, Culture & Society, 22(5), 67-94.
103.
ZachariahB. (2001). Uses of scientific argument: The case of “development” in India, c. 1930-1950. Economic and Political Weekly, 36, 3689-3702.
