Speech acts and performances of scientific citizenship: Examining how scientists talk about therapeutic cloning

Abstract

Scientists play an important role in framing public engagement with science. Their language can facilitate or impede particular interactions taking place with particular citizens: scientists’ “speech acts” can “perform” different types of “scientific citizenship”. This paper examines how scientists in Australia talked about therapeutic cloning during interviews and during the 2006 parliamentary debates on stem cell research. Some avoided complex labels, thereby facilitating public examination of this field. Others drew on language that only opens a space for publics to become educated, not to participate in a more meaningful way. Importantly, public utterances made by scientists here contrast with common international utterances: they did not focus on the therapeutic but the research promises of therapeutic cloning. Social scientists need to pay attention to the performative aspects of language in order to promote genuine citizen involvement in techno-science. Speech Act Theory is a useful analytical tool for this.

Keywords

Austin Butler cloning performativity public participation scientific citizenship speech act theory stem cells

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ankeny

Dodds

(2008) Hearing community voices: Public engagement in Australian human embryo research policy, 2005–2007. New Genetics and Society 27(3): 217–232.

Augoustinos

Russin

LeCouteur

(2009) Representations of the stem-cell cloning fraud: From scientific breakthrough to managing the stake and interest of science. Public Understanding of Science 18(6): 687–703.

Austin

(1962) How to do Things with Words: The William James Lectures Delivered at Harvard University in 1955. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Bickerstaff

Lorenzoni

Jones

Pidgeon

(2010) Locating scientific citizenship: The institutional contexts and cultures of public engagement. Science, Technology, & Human Values 35(4): 474–500.

Bourdieu

(1975) The specificity of the scientific field and the social conditions of the progress of reason. Social Science Information 14: 19–47.

Bourdieu

(1980) Le sens pratique. Paris: Editions de Minuit.

Bourdieu

Wacquant

LJD

(1992) An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Oxford: Polity Press.

Braun

Schultz

(2010) “… A certain amount of engineering involved”: Constructing the public in participatory governance arrangements. Public Understanding of Science 19(4): 403–419.

Brown

Michael

(2003) A sociology of expectations: Retrospecting prospects and prospecting retrospects. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 15(1): 3–18.

10.

Burchell

(2007) Empiricist selves and contingent “others”: The performative function of the discourse of scientists working in conditions of controversy. Public Understanding of Science 16(2): 145–162.

11.

Butler

(1997) Excitable Speech: A Politics of the Performative. New York: Routledge.

12.

Collins

Evans

(2002) The third wave of science studies: Studies of expertise and experience. Social Studies of Science 32(2): 235–296.

13.

Davies

(2008a) “A bit more cautious, a bit more critical”: Science and the public in scientists’ talk. In: Bell

Davies

Mellor

(eds) Science and its Publics. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars, pp. 15–36.

14.

Davies

(2008b) Constructing communication: Talking to scientists about talking to the public. Science Communication 29(4): 413–434.

15.

Delgado

Lein Kjølberg

Wickson

(2011) Public engagement coming of age: From theory to practice in STS encounters with nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science 20(6): 826–845.

16.

Dietrich

Schibeci

(2003) Beyond public perceptions of gene technology: Community participation in public policy in Australia. Public Understanding of Science 12(4): 381–401.

17.

Epstein

(1996) Impure Science: AIDS, Activism, and the Politics of Knowledge. Berkeley: University of California Press.

18.

Evans

Plows

(2007) Listening without prejudice? Re-discovering the value of the disinterested citizen. Social Studies of Science 37(6): 827–853.

19.

Felt

Fochler

Müller

Strassnig

(2009) Unruly ethics: On the difficulties of a bottom-up approach to ethics in the field of genomics, Public Understanding of Science 18(3): 354–371.

20.

Genus

Rogers-Hayden

(2005) Genetic engineering in Aotearoa, New Zealand: A case of opening up or closing down debate? In: Leach

Scoones

Wynne

(eds) Science and Citizens: Globalization and the Challenge of Engagement. London: Zed Books, pp. 244–248.

21.

Gieryn

(1982) Relativist/constructivist programmes in the sociology of science: Redundance and retreat. Social Studies of Science 12(2): 279–297.

22.

Gilbert

Mulkay

(1984) Opening Pandora’s Box: A Sociological Analysis of Scientists’ Discourse. London: Cambridge University Press.

23.

Gobo

(2004) Sampling, representativeness and generalizability. In: Seale

Gobo

Gubrium

Silverman

(eds) Qualitative Research Practice. London: SAGE, pp. 435–456.

24.

Goven

(2006) Processes of inclusion, cultures of calculation, structures of power: Scientific citizenship and the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification. Science, Technology, & Human Values 31(5): 565–598.

25.

Hagendijk

Irwin

(2006) Public deliberation and governance: Engaging with science and technology in contemporary Europe. Minerva 44(2): 167–184.

26.

Harvey

(2005) Regulating stem-cell research and human cloning in an Australian context: An exercise in protecting the status of the human subject. New Genetics and Society 24(2): 125–136.

27.

Harvey

(2008) Regulating stem cell research and human cloning in an Australian context: The Lockhart Review. New Genetics and Society 27(1): 33–42.

28.

Hauskeller

(2005) The language of stem cell science. In: Bender

Hauskeller

Manzei

(eds) Grenzüberschreitungen – Crossing Borders: Ethische, politische und religiöse Kontexte der Stammzellforschung. Münster: Agenda Verlag, pp. 39–60.

29.

Horst

(2007) Public expectations of gene therapy: Scientific futures and their performative effects on scientific citizenship. Science, Technology, & Human Values 32(2): 150–171.

30.

Inquiry into Legislative Responses to Recommendations of the Lockhart Review (2006) Submissions received by the committee. Available at (accessed 28 August 2011): http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/clac_ctte/completed_inquiries/2004-07/leg_response_lockhart_review/submissions/sublist.htm

31.

Irwin

(1995) Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise and Sustainable Development. London: Routledge.

32.

Irwin

(2001) Constructing the scientific citizen: Science and democracy in the biosciences. Public Understanding of Science 10(1): 1–18.

33.

Irwin

(2006) The politics of talk: Coming to terms with the “new” scientific governance. Social Studies of Science 36(2): 299–320.

34.

Irwin

Wynne

(eds) (1996) Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

35.

ISSCR (2004) Nomenclature statement. 2 September. Available at (accessed 13 August 2007): http://www.isscr.org/press_releases/nomenclature_statement.doc

36.

Katz

Solomon

Mee

Lovel

(2009) Evolving scientific research governance in Australia: A case study of engaging interested publics in nanotechnology research. Public Understanding of Science 18(5): 531–545.

37.

Kerr

Cunningham-Burley

Amos

(1997) The new genetics: Professionals’ discursive boundaries. The Sociological Review 45(2): 279–303.

38.

Kerr

Cunningham-Burley

Amos

(1998) Drawing the line: An analysis of lay people’s discussions about the new genetics. Public Understanding of Science 7(2): 113–133.

39.

Kerr

Cunningham-Burley

Tutton

(2007) Shifting subject positions: Experts and lay people in public dialogue. Social Studies of Science 37(3): 385–411.

40.

Kitzinger

Williams

(2005) Forecasting science futures: Legitimising hope and calming fears in the embryo stem cell debate. Social Science & Medicine 61(3): 731–740.

41.

Kurath

Gisler

(2009) Informing, involving or engaging? Science communication, in the ages of atom-, bio- and nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science 18(5): 559–573.

42.

Levinson

(1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

43.

Lezaun

Soneryd

(2007) Consulting citizens: Technologies of elicitation and the mobility of publics. Public Understanding of Science 16(3): 279–297.

44.

Lovell

(2003) Resisting with authority: Historical specificity, agency and the performative self. Theory, Culture & Society 20(1): 1–17.

45.

Lysaght

Kerridge

(2010) Rhetoric, power and legitimacy: A critical analysis of the public policy disputes surrounding stem cell research in Australia (2005–6). Public Understanding of Science 1: 1–16.

46.

Marks

(2008) Opening up spaces for reflexivity? Scientists’ discourses about stem cell research and public engagement. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh.

47.

Mey

(2001) Pragmatics, 2nd edn. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

48.

Michael

Brown

(2000) From the representation of publics to the performance of “lay political science”. Social Epistemology 14(1): 3–19.

49.

Mulkay

(1994) The triumph of the pre-embryo: Interpretations of the human embryo in parliamentary debate over embryo research. Social Studies of Science 24(4): 611–639.

50.

Mulkay

(1996) Frankenstein and the debate over embryo research. Science, Technology, & Human Values 21(2): 157–176.

51.

Nelkin

(1975) The political impact of technical expertise. Social Studies of Science 5(1): 35–54.

52.

Official Committee Hansard (2006a) Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs; Canberra. 20 October. Reference: Legislative Responses to the Lockhart Review. Available at (accessed 4 February 2011): http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/S9809.pdf

53.

Official Committee Hansard (2006b) Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs; Sydney. 23 October. Reference: Legislative Responses to the Lockhart Review. Available at (accessed 4 February 2011): http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/S9810.pdf

54.

Official Committee Hansard (2006c) Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs; Melbourne. 24 October. Reference: Legislative Responses to the Lockhart Review. Available at (accessed 4 February 2011): http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/S9811.pdf

55.

Parry

(2003) The politics of cloning: Mapping the rhetorical convergence of embryos and stem cells in parliamentary debates. New Genetics and Society 22(2): 177–200.

56.

Parry

(2009) Stem cell scientists’ discursive strategies for cognitive authority. Science as Culture 18(1): 89–114.

57.

Potter

Mulkay

(1985) Scientists’ interview talk: Interviews as a technique for revealing participants’ interpretative practices. In: Brenner

Brown

Canter

(eds) The Research Interview: Uses and Approaches. London: Academic Press, pp. 247–271.

58.

Prohibition of Human Cloning Act (2002) Canberra: The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia.

59.

Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Act (2006) Canberra: The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia.

60.

Research Involving Human Embryos Act (2002) Canberra: The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia.

61.

Robins

(2001) Overburdening risk: Policy frameworks and the public uptake of gene technology. Public Understanding of Science 10(1): 19–36.

62.

Robins

(2005) Biomedical innovation or bioethical precaution: The stem cell debate in Australia. In: Bender

Hauskeller

Manzei

(eds) Grenzüberschreitungen – Crossing Borders: Ethische, politische und religiöse Kontexte der Stammzellforschung. Münster: Agenda Verlag, pp. 391–410.

63.

Rubin

(2008) Therapeutic promise in the discourse of human embryonic stem cell research. Science as Culture 17(1): 13–27.

64.

Sbisà

Fabbri

(1980) Models (?) for a pragmatic analysis. Journal of Pragmatics 4(4): 301–319.

65.

Schibeci

Harwood

(2007) Stimulating authentic community involvement in biotechnology policy in Australia. Public Understanding of Science 16(2): 245–255.

66.

Scott

Du Plessis

(2008) Eliciting situated knowledges about new technologies. Public Understanding of Science 17(1): 105–119.

67.

Searle

(1968) Austin on locutionary and illocutionary acts. The Philosophical Review 77(4): 405–424.

68.

Searle

(1969) Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. London: Cambridge University Press.

69.

Streek

(1980) Speech acts in interaction: A critique of Searle. Discourse Processes 3(2): 133–153.

70.

Szerszynski

(1999) Risk and trust: The performative dimension. Environmental Values 8(2): 239–252.

71.

Wood

(2011) Hermeneutic pragmatics and the pitfalls of the normative imagination. Journal of Pragmatics 43(1): 136–149.

72.

Wright

Nerlich

(2006) Use of the deficit model in a shared culture of argumentation: The case of foot and mouth science. Public Understanding of Science 15(3): 331–342.

73.

Wynne

(2005) Risk as globalizing “democratic” discourse? Framing subjects and citizens. In: Leach

Scoones

Wynne

(eds) Science and Citizens: Globalization and the Challenge of Engagement. London: Zed Books, pp. 66–82.

74.

Young

Matthews

(2007) Experts’ understanding of the public: Knowledge control in a risk controversy. Public Understanding of Science 16(2): 123–144.