Reviewing the main research approaches on the acceptance of science and technology (S&T) developed in the last decades, I will (1) summarize advances achieved and persisting problems concerning the understanding of both the public and S&T. I will show that the acceptance-centered framework has, at least implicitly, been linked to practical efforts in acceptance politics, i.e., attempts to improve a lack of acceptance. In order to investigate conflicts relating to S&T in a more reflective way, I will (2) suggest an epistemological shift towards the analysis of acceptance politics. Building on the distinction between the relevance and resonance of S&T, the ways in which S&T are valuated and gain legitimacy are investigated from a regime analytical perspective. I will (3) exemplify the advantages of this approach by comparatively analyzing the acceptance politics of three biotechnology applications in the USA and Germany. I will (4) conclude with an outlook on future research.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abels, G. and Bora, A. ( 2004) Demokratische Technikbewertung (Democratic Technology Assessment). Bielefeld: transcript Verlag.
2.
Barben, D. ( 2007a) "Changing Regimes of Science and Politics: Comparative and Transnational Perspectives for a World in Transition," Science and Public Policy34(1): 55-69.
3.
Barben, D. ( 2007b) Politische Ökonomie der Biotechnologie. Innovation und gesellschaftlicher Wandel im internationalen Vergleich (Political Economy of Biotechnology: Innovation and Societal Change in International Comparison) . Frankfurt/M., New York: Campus Verlag, Engl. translation in preparation
4.
Barben, D., Fisher, E., Selin, C. and Guston, D.H. ( 2008) "Anticipatory Governance of Nanotechnology: Foresight, Engagement, and Integration," in E.J. Hackett , O. Amsterdamska, M.E. Lynch and J. Wajcman (eds.) Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, Third Edition, pp. 979-1000. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
5.
Bijker, W.E., Hughes, T.P. and Pinch, T.J. (eds.) (1987) The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
6.
CEC (2004) Towards a European Strategy for Nanotechnology (No. COM (2004) 338 final). Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.
7.
Dierkes, M. and Grote, C.v. (eds.) (2000) Between Understanding and Trust: The Public, Science and Technology. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers.
8.
Douglas, M. ( 1985) Risk Acceptability According to the Social Sciences . New York: Russel Sage Foundation .
9.
Einsiedel, E. ( 2000) "Understanding ‘Publics’ in the Public Understanding of Science," in M. Dierkes and C.v. Grote (eds.) Between Understanding and Trust: The Public, Science and Technology, pp. 205-16. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers.
10.
Fischer, F. ( 2000) Citizens, Experts, and the Environment: The Politics of Local Knowledge. Durham, NC, London : Duke University Press.
11.
Gaskell, G. and Bauer, M. (eds.) (2001) Biotechnology 1996-2000: The Years of Controversy. London: Science Museum.
12.
Giddens, A. ( 1984) The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press.
13.
Gill, B. ( 1996) "Germany: Splicing Genes, Splitting Society," Science and Public Policy23(3): 175-179.
14.
Golding, D. ( 1992) "A Social and Programmatic History of Risk Research ," in S. Krimsky and D. Golding (eds.) Social Theories of Risk , pp. 23-52. Westport, CT, London: Praeger .
15.
Hamstra, A.M. ( 2000) "Studying Public Perception of Biotechnology: Helicopter or Microscope?," in M. Dierkes and C.v. Grote (eds.) Between Understanding and Trust: The Public, Science and Technology, pp. 179-202. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers.
16.
Hennen, L. ( 1994) Ist die (deutsche) Öffentlichkeit "technikfeindlich"? Ergebnisse der Meinungs- und der Medienforschung (Is the (German) Public "Hostile Toward Technology"? Results from Opinion and Media Research). Bonn: Büro für Technikfolgen-Abschätzung beim Deutschen Bundestag.
17.
Holland, S.,Lebacqz, K. and Zoloth, L. (eds.) ( 2001) The Human Embryonic Stem Cell Debate: Science, Ethics, and Public Policy. Cambridge, MA, London: MIT Press.
18.
Hollingsworth, J.R. and Boyer, R. (eds.) (1997) Contemporary Capitalism: The Embeddedness of Institutions. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.
19.
Howard, T. and Rifkin, J. ( 1977) Who Should Play God? The Artificial Creation of Life and What it Means for the Future of the Human Race. New York : Delacorte Press.
20.
Irwin, A. and Wynne, B. (eds.) (1996) Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology. Cambridge , New York: Cambridge University Press.
21.
Jasanoff, S. (ed.) (2004) States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and Social Order. London, New York: Routledge .
22.
Joss, S. and Durant, J. (eds.) (1995) Public Participation in Science: The Role of Consensus Conferences in Europe. London: Science Museum.
23.
Jungermann, H. and Slovic, P. ( 1993) "Charakteristika individueller Risikowahrnehmung" (Characteristics of individual risk perception), in Bayerische Rück (ed.) Risiko ist ein Konstrukt, pp. 89-107. München : Knesebeck.
24.
Jungermann, H., Rohrmann, B. and Wiedemann, P.M. (eds.) (1991) Risikokontroversen. Konzepte, Konflikte, Kommunikation (Risk Controversies: Concepts, Conflicts, and Communication). Berlin, Heidelberg, New York : Springer.
25.
Kasperson, R.E. ( 1992) "The Social Amplification of Risk: Progress in Developing an Integrative Framework," in S. Krimsky and D. Golding (eds.) Social Theories of Risk , pp. 153-78. Westport, CT, London: Praeger .
26.
Krimsky, S. ( 1992) "The Role of Theory in Risk Studies," in S. Krimsky and D. Golding (eds.) Social Theories of Risk, pp. 3-22. Westport, CT, London: Praeger.
27.
Luhmann, N. ( 1993) Risk: A Sociological Theory. New York : de Gruyter.
28.
Luhmann, N. ( 1998) Observations of Modernity. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
29.
MacKenzie, D. and Wajcman, J. (eds.) (1985) The Social Shaping of Technology . Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
30.
Macnaghten, P., Kearnes, M.B. and Wynne, B. ( 2005) "Nanotechnology, Governance, and Public Deliberation: What Role for the Social Sciences?" Science Communication27(2), 268-91.
31.
Mitsch, F.J. and Mitchell, J.S. ( 1999) Ag Biotech: Thanks, But No Thanks?New York: Deutsche Bank Alex. Brown.
32.
NRC (1989) Improving Risk Communication . Washington, DC: National Research Council, National Academy Press.
33.
Nstc (2004) National Nanotechnology Initiative: Strategic Plan. Washington, DC: National Science and Technology Council, Committee on Technology, Subcommittee on Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology.
34.
Otway, H. ( 1992) "Public Wisdom, Expert Fallibility: Toward a Contextual Theory of Risk," in S. Krimsky and D. Golding (eds.) Social Theories of Risk , pp. 215-28. Westport, CT, London: Praeger .
35.
Otway, H. and Wynne, B. ( 1989) "Risk Communication: Paradigm and Paradox," Risk Analysis9(2): 141-5.
36.
Perrow, C. ( 1984) Normal Accidents: Living with High-Risk Technologies . New York: Basic Books.
37.
Plough, A. and Krimsky, S. ( 1987) "The Emergence of Risk Communication Studies: Social and Political Context," Science, Technology, & Human Values12(3/4): 4-10.
38.
Rayner, S. ( 1992) "Cultural Theory and Risk Analysis," in S. Krimsky and D. Golding (eds.) Social Theories of Risk, pp. 83-115. Westport, CT, London: Praeger.
39.
Renn, O. ( 1992a) "Concepts of Risk: A Classification," in S. Krimsky and D. Golding (eds.) Social Theories of Risk, pp. 53-79. Westport, CT, London: Praeger.
40.
Renn, O. ( 1992b) "The Social Arena Concept of Risk Debates," in S. Krimsky and D. Golding (eds.) Social Theories of Risk, pp. 179-96. Westport, CT, London: Praeger.
41.
Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering ( 2004) Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and Uncertainties . London: The Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering.
42.
Slovic, P. ( 1992) "Perception of Risk: Reflections on the Psychometric Paradigm ," in S. Krimsky and D. Golding (eds.) Social Theories of Risk , pp. 117-52. Westport, CT, London: Praeger .
43.
Smith, R. and Wynne, B. (eds.) (1989) Expert Evidence: Interpreting Science in the Law. London, New York: Routledge.
44.
Sørensen, K.H., Aune, M. and Hatling, M. ( 2000) "Against Linearity - On the Cultural Appropriation of Science and Technology," in M. Dierkes and C.v. Grote (eds.) Between Understanding and Trust: The Public, Science and Technology, pp. 237-57. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers.
45.
Sturgis, P. and Allum, N. ( 2004) "Science in Society: Re-Evaluating the Deficit Model of Public Attitudes," Public Understanding of Science13: 55-74.
46.
US-EC Workshop. (1992) Methods of Communicating Biotechnology with the Public. Dublin : US-EC Task Force on Biotechnology Research.
47.
Wilsdon, J. and Willis, R. ( 2004) See-Through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream. London: Demos .
48.
Wynne, B. ( 1992) "Misunderstood Misunderstanding: Social Identities and Public Uptake of Science," Public Understanding of Science1: 281-304.
49.
Wynne, B. ( 1995) "Public Understanding of Science," in S. Jasanoff, G.E. Markle , J.C. Petersen and T. Pinch (eds.) Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, pp. 361-88. Thousand Oaks, CA, London, New Delhi: Sage.
50.
Wynne, B. ( 1996) "May the Sheep Safely Graze? A Reflexive View of the Expert-Lay Knowledge Divide," in S. Lash, B. Szerszynski and B. Wynne (eds.) Risk, Environment, and Modernity: Towards a New Ecology, pp. 44-83. London, Thousand Oaks, CA, New Delhi: Sage.
