Frames and comparators: How might a debate on synthetic biology evolve?

Futures

Volumn 48, Issue , 2013, Pages 44-54

  Torgersen, Helge ^a   Schmidt, Markus ^b  

^a ERICH SCHMID INSTITUTE OF MATERIALS SCIENCE   (Austria)

^b Biofaction KG   (Austria)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADVOCACY; BIOTECHNOLOGY; FUTURE PROSPECT; INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY; NANOTECHNOLOGY; TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT; TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION;

EID: 84877924430     PISSN: 00163287     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.futures.2013.02.002     Document Type: Article

References (63)

1. G. Gaskell, et al., Europeans and Biotechnology in 2010: Winds of Change? A Report to the European Commission's Directorate-General for Research on the Eurobarometer 73.1 on Biotechnology, FP7 Project 'Sensitive Technologies and European Public Ethics' (STEPE), London School of Economics, London, 2010.
2. Schmidt M., Ganguli-Mitra A., Torgersen H., Kelle A., Deplazes A., Biller-Andorno N. A priority paper for the societal and ethical aspects of synthetic biology. Systems and Synthetic Biology 2009, 3:3-7.
3. Controversy - Politics of Technical Decisions 1984, Sage, Newbury Park. D. Nelkin (Ed.).
4. Biotechnology 1996-2000. The Years of Controversy 2002, Science Museum Press, London. G. Gaskell, M. Bauer (Eds.).
5. Evans J.H. Playing God? Human Genetic Engineering and the Rationalization of Public Bioethical Debate 2002, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
6. Herrmann S.L. Policy Debates on Reprogenetics. The Problematisation of New Research in Great Britain and Germany 2009, Campus, Frankfurt/New York.
7. Bauer M. Resistance to New Technology: Nuclear Power. Information Technology and Biotechnology 1995, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
8. Stirling A. Opening up and closing down: power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Science, Technology & Human Values 2008, 33(2):262-294.
9. Fiorino D. Environmental risk and democratic process: a critical review. Columbia Journal of Environmental Law 1989, 14:501-547.
10. EASAC (European Academies Science Advisory Council) Synthetic Biology: An Introduction 2011, (retrieved 06.03.12). http://www.easac.eu/home/reports-and-statements/detail-view/article//synthetic-bi-1.html.
11. Michael M. Ignoring science: discourses of ignorance in the public understanding of science. Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology 1996, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. A. Irwin, B. Wynne (Eds.).
12. EASAC (European Academies Science Advisory Council) Realising European Potential in Synthetic Biology: Scientific Opportunities and Good Governance 2010, (retrieved 06.03.12). http://www.easac.eu/home/reports-and-statements/detail-view/article//synthetic-bi-1.html.
13. PCSBI (Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues) New Directions The Ethics of Synthetic Biology and Emerging Technologies 2010, (retrieved 05.02.12). http://bioethics.gov/cms/sites/default/files/PCSBI-Synthetic-Biology-Report-12.16.10.pdf.
14. Harremoes P., Gee D., MacGarvin M., Stirling A., Keys J., Wynne B., Guedes Vaz S. The Precautionary Principle in the 20th Century - Late Lessons from Early 520 Warnings 2002, Earthscan, London.
15. H. deVriend, Constructing Life. Early Social Reflections on the Emerging Field of SB. Working Document 9, Rathenau Instituut, The Hague, 2006.
16. Collins H., Evans R. Rethinking Expertise 2007, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
17. Barben D., Fisher E., Selin C., Guston D.H. Anticipatory governance of nanotechnology: foresight, engagement, and integration. Handbook of Science and Technology Studies 2008, 979-1000. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. 3rd ed. E.J. Hackett (Ed.).
18. Nordmann A. The age of technoscience. Science Transformed? Debating Claims of Epochal Breaks 2011, Pittsburgh University Press, Pittsburgh. A. Nordmann, H. Radder, G. Schiemann (Eds.).
19. Wilsdon J., Willis R. See-through Science: Why public engagement needs to move upstream 2004, Demos, London.
20. IRGC (International Risk Governing Council) Risk Governance of Synthetic Biology. Concept Note 2009, IRGC, Geneva, (retrieved 06-03-2012). http://www.irgc.org/-Synthetic-Biology-.html.
21. Gaskell G., Allum N., Bauer M. Biotechnology, technoscience and the public sphere. Biotechnology 1996-2000. The Years of Controversy 2002, 116-127. Science Museum Press, London. G. Gaskell, M. Bauer (Eds.).
22. Bogner A. The paradox of participation experiments. Science, Technology & Human Values 2012, 37(5):506-527.
23. Simmel G. Der Streit. Soziologie. Untersuchungen über die Formen der Vergesellschaftung 1958, Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, pp. 186-255.
24. Bogner A. Let's disagree! Talking ethics in technology controversies. Science, Technology & Innovation Studies 2010, 6(2):183-201.
25. Schön D.A., Rein M. Frame Reflection: Toward the Resolution of Intractable Policy Controversies 1994, Basic Books, New York.
26. Goffman E. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience 1974, Harper and Row, London.
27. Levidow L., Boschert K. Segregating GM crops: why a contentious 'risk' issue in europe?. Science as Culture 2011, 20(2):255-279.
28. Dahinden U. Framing. Eine integrative Theorie der Massenkommunikation 2006, UVK, Konstanz.
29. W. van den Daele, A. Pühler, H. Sukopp, Transgenic Herbidcide-Resistant Crops: A Participatory Technology Assessment, Summary Report, WZB Discussion Paper FS II 97-302, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung, Berlin, 1997.
30. von Schomberg R. Prospects for technology assessment in a framework of responsible research and innovation. Technikfolgen abschätzen lehren: Bildungspotenziale transdisziplinärer Methoden 2012, 39-61. VS, Wiesbaden. M. Dusseldorp, R. Beecroft (Eds.).
31. Borup M., Brown N., Konrad K., van Lente H. The sociology of expectations in science and technology. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 2006, 18(3-4):285-298.
32. Dierkes M., Hoffman U., März L. Leitbild und Technik: Zur Entstehung und Steuerung technischer Innovationen 1992, Edition Sigma, Berlin.
33. Brown N. Hope against hype - accountability in biopasts, presents and future. Science Studies 2003, 16(2):3-21.
34. Wynne B. Public engagement as a means of restoring trust in science: hitting the notes, but missing the music?. Community Genetics 2006, 9(3):211-220.
35. Torgersen H., Schmidt M. Perspektiven der Kommunikation für die Synthetische Biologie. Biotechnologie-Kommunikation. Kontroversen, Analysen, Aktivitäten (acatech DISKUSSION) 2012, Springer, Heidelberg. M.-D. Weitze, A. Pühler, W.M. Heckl, B. Müller-Röber, O. Renn, P. Weingart, G. Wess (Eds.).
36. ETC Group Extreme Genetic Engineering: An Introduction to Synthetic Biology 2007, ETC Group, Ottawa.
37. IRGC (International Risk Governance Council) Guidelines for the Appropriate Risk Governance of Synthetic Biology 2010, International Risk Governance Council, Geneva, http://www.irgc.org/-Synthetic-Biology-html (retrieved 07.02.12).
38. Pauwels E., Ifrim I. Trends in American and European Press Coverage of Synthetic Biology. Tracking the Last Five Years of Coverage 2008, Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars, Washington, (retrieved 06.03.12). http://www.synbioproject.org/library/publications/archive/why_scientists_should_care/.
39. Cserer A., Seiringer B. Pictures of synthetic biology: a reflective discussion of the representation of Synthetic Biology (SB) in the German-language media and by SB experts. Systems and Synthetic Biology 2009, 3:27-35.
40. Sauter A. Synthetische Biologie: finale Technisierung des Lebens - oder Etikettenschwindel?. TAB-Brief 2011, 39:23-30.
41. Hellsten I., Nerlich B. Synthetic biology: building the language for a new science brick by metaphorical brick. New Genetics and Society 2011, 30(4):375-397.
42. Schummer J. Das Gotteshandwerk - Die künstliche Herstellung von Leben im Labor 2011, Unseld, Frankfurt.
43. Schmidt M. Public will fear biological accidents, not just attacks. Nature 2006, 441(7097):1048.
44. de Lorenzo V. Environmental biosafety in the age of synthetic biology: do we really need a radical new approach?. Bioessays 2010, 32:926-931.
45. Grobe A., Eberhard C., Hutterli M. Nanotechnologie im Spiegel der Medien: Medienanalyse zur Berichterstattung über Chancen und Risiken der Nanotechnologie 2005, Stiftung Risiko-Dialog, St. Gallen.
46. EGE (The European Group on Ethics of Science and New Technologies) Opinion on the Ethics of Synthetic Biology 2009, (retrieved 07.02.12). http://ec.europa.eu/bepa/european-group-ethics/docs/opinion25_en.pdf.
47. Benner S.A., Sismour A.M. Synthetic biology. Nature Reviews - Genetics 2005, 6:533-543.
48. Endy D. Foundations for engineering biology. Nature 2005, 438(7067):449-453.
49. Knight T.F. Engineering novel life. Molecular Systems Biology 2005, 10.1038/msb4100028.
50. Heinemann M., Panke S. Synthetic biology-putting engineering into biology. Bioinformatics 2006, 22:2790-2799.
51. MacDonald J.T., Barnes C., Kitney R.I., Freemont P.S., Stan G.-B.V. Computational design approaches and tools for synthetic biology. Integrative Biology 2011, 2:97-108.
52. Adrianantoandro E., Basu S., Karig D.K., Weiss R. Synthetic biology: new engineering rules for an emerging discipline. Molecular Systems Biology 2006, 2. 0028.
53. Carlson S. The pace and proliferation of biological technologies. Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefense Strategy, Practice, and Science 2003, 1(3):203-214.
54. Oye K.A., Wellhausen R. The intellectual commons and property in synthetic biology. Synthetic Biology: The Technoscience and ist Societal Consequences 2009, Springer, New York. M. Schmidt, A. Kelle, A. Ganguli-Mitra, H. de Vriend (Eds.).
55. Campos L. The BioBrick™ road. BioSocieties 2012, 7:115-139.
56. Joss S., Bellucci S. Participatory Technology Assessment - European Perspectives. Centre for the Study of Democracy (CSD) 2002, University of Westminster, London.
57. Levidow L., Carr S. GM Food on Trial 2010, Routledge, New York/Abingdon.
58. Kronberger N., Holtz P., Wagner W. Consequences of media information uptake and deliberation: focus groups' symbolic coping with synthetic Biology. Public Understanding of Science 2012, 21:174-187.
59. ETC Group and Heinrich Böll Foundation Biomassters Battle to Control the Green Economy 2012, http://www.etcgroup.org/content/biomassters-battle-control-green-economy.
60. Dana G.V., Kuiken T., Rejeski D., Snow A.A. Synthetic biology: four steps to avoid a synthetic-biology disaster. Nature 2012, 483(29):29.
61. Roco M.C., Bainbridge W.S. Converging technologies for improving human performance 2002, National Science Foundation/Department of Commerce, Washington, DC.
62. Delgado A., Lein Kjølberg K., Wickson F. Public engagement coming of age: from theory to practice in STS encounters with nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science 2011, 20(6):826-845.
63. Groves C. Public engagement and nanotechnology in the UK: restoring trust or building robustness?. Science and Public Policy 2011, 38(10):783-793.