Articles

Managing the Future Imaginary: Does ‘Post-Normal’ Science need Public Relations?

James Michael MacFarlane

Abstract


Contemporary conditions of so-called ‘post-normal’ science characterised by fundamental uncertainty and high decision stakes have been met by the call for an ‘extended peer community’ to include a full range potential stakeholders in the assessment and evaluation of future research policy (Functowicz and Ravetz, 1993; 1994). Correspondingly, the term ‘Anticipatory Governance’ (AG) has entered currency within Science and Technology Studies (STS) circles, where the phrase refers sympathetically to the fields involvement with an array of novel practices routinely carried-out in the name of increasingly public-focused, conscientious management of emerging science and technology. 

Existing literature in this area has typically focused on perceived benefits of social-scientist driven AG as ‘Real Time Technology Assessment’ (RTTA), rather than address how such participation — in line with STS’s contemporary post-social, object-centred, anti-normative research character — relates to a lack of institutional protection for most STS practitioners today. I argue the activities of social science researchers enrolled in AG-styled programmes appears to closely resemble those of PR professionals, and as such, in today’s knowledge economy the field could have much to gain by turning to clarify and formalise the unique cognitive-base and normative horizons befitting of a closed occupational group. I suggest an occupational restructuring in line with the ‘professional project’ (Macdonald, 1995) could bring about increased autonomy for STS practitioners, as well as purposeful direction for future research.


Keywords

post-normal science; anticipatory governance; science and technology studies; public engagement; technology assessment

Full Text:

PDF


DOI: https://doi.org/10.13130/2282-5398/9139

NBN: http://nbn.depositolegale.it/urn%3Anbn%3Ait%3Aunimi-22319

References


Barben, D., Fisher, E., Selin, C. and Guston, H. (2008) Anticipatory Governance of Nanotechnology: Foresight, Engagement, and Integration. In Hackett, E., Amsterdamska, O., Lynch, M., Wajcman, J. Eds. (2008) Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. 3rd Edition, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Callaway, E. (2013) Social Media: Centre of Attention. Nature. 499(7457) pp. 142-144.

Fuller, S. (2005) Is STS Revolutionary of Merely Revolting? Science Studies. 18(1) pp. 75-83

Fuller, S. (2011) Humanity 2.0: What it Means to be Human: Past, Present and Future. Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillian.

Funtowicz, S. and Ravetz, J. (1993) The Emergence of Post-Normal Science. In R.V. Schomberg (ed) Science, Politics and Morality: Scientific Uncertainty and Decision Making. London: Kluwer. pp. 85-123.

Funtowicz, S. and Ravetz, J. (1994) Uncertainty, Complexity and Post-Normal Science. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 13(12) pp. 1881-1885.

Gavelin, K. Wilson, R. and Doubleday, R. (2007) Democratic Technologies? The Final Report of the Nanotechnology Engagement Group. London: Involve. [Online] Available at: [Accessed 29 June 2017]

Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Scwartzman, S., Scott, P. and Trow, M. (1994) The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage.

Groves, C. (2011) Public engagement and Nanotechnology in the UK: restoring trust or building robustness? Science and Public Policy. 38(10) pp. 783 - 793.

Gupta, A. (2001) Searching for Shared Norms: Global Anticipatory Governance of Biotechnology. PhD Thesis, Yale University. New Haven, CT.

Guston, D.H. (2008) Preface. In: E Fisher, C. Selin and JM Wetmore (eds) The Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society: Presenting Futures. vol. 1. New York: Springer, pp. v-viii.

Guston, D.H. (2014) Understanding Anticipatory Governance. Social Studies of Science. 44(2) pp. 218-242

Guston, D.H. and Sarewitz, D. (2002) Real time technology Assessment. Technology in Society. 24(1-2) pp. 93-109.

MacDonald, K.M. (1995) The Sociology of the Professions. London: Sage.

Phillips, Lord, Bridgeman, J. and Ferguson-Smith, M. (2000) The BSE Inquiry: the Report. London: The Stationary office.

Rip, A. (2005) Folk Theories of Nanotechnologies. Science as Culture. 15(4) pp. 349-366.

Rose, N., (2006) Governing “advanced” liberal democracies. In A. Sharma & A. Gupta (Eds.). The anthropology of the state: a reader. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. pp. 144-162.

Sarewitz, D. Pielke, R.A. and Byerly, J. (eds) (2000) Prediction: Science, Decision Making, and the Future of Nature. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Woolgar, S. (1991) ‘Configuring the user: The case of usability trials’, in J. Law (ed.) A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination. pp. 58–97. London: Routledge.

Ziman, J. M. (2000) Real Science: What it is, and What it Means. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.