Advertisement

Beyond Technocracy: Democracy in the Age of Technoscience

  • Massimiano Bucchi
  • Adrian Belton
Chapter

Abstract

Why is the technocratic response unable to deal with the problems of technoscientific in contemporary societies? Certainly not because of the obtuseness of citizens or the reluctance of political decision makers to heed the opinions of experts. It is very likely that political decision makers would be well pleased to off-load onto a convenient expert – as for that matter they regularly did until a few decades ago – responsibility for deciding whether to authorize a transgenic flour or where to locate a nuclear waste disposal site. The problem is that this is no longer possible because of the factors that I mentioned when discussing the transformations in scientific expertise and its increasingly less monolithic perception among the general public.

It is not possible because the sacred aura of science as a sphere of neutral action super partes science has been eroded by the changes which have marked the advent of the post-academic phase and by phenomena such as the increasing public mobilization of researchers. This erosion is ongoing in a multiplicity of contexts, from the environmentalist movements which enlist or dispute expert knowledge to the judicial authorities. And it is also due to the media’s increasingly pervasive role in questioning policy decisions, their relationships with expertise, and their influence on the selection of experts in the public arena according to their own criteria and production routines, rather than those of the scientific community.

Keywords

Public Participation Democratic Politics Democratic Participation Environmentalist Movement Political Decision Maker 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Anspach, R. (1997). Deciding Who Lives. Fateful Choices in the Intensive-Care Nursery, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  2. Beck, U. (1986). Risikogesellschaft. Auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  3. Bernstein, J. (2001). Hitler’s Uranium Club. The Secret Recordings of Farm Hal. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  4. Bijker, W. (2004). Technological Responsibility and Social Dialogue, Paper Given at the Conference “La responsabilità tecnologica”, Rome, 2–3 December.Google Scholar
  5. Boncinelli, E. (2004). I precetti e il dolore. Il Corriere della Sera, 12 August, 1.Google Scholar
  6. Bucchi, M., Neresini, F. (2004a). Why are people hostile to biotechnologies? Science, 304, 1749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bucchi, M., Neresini, F. (2004b). Scienza contro politica o politicizzazione della scienza? La riforma degli enti e il dibattito sui problemi della ricerca. In: Fabbrini, S., Della Sala, V. (Eds.) Politica in Italia. I fatti dell’anno e le interpretazioni (167–187), Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
  8. Burns, T. R., Andersen, S. (1996). The European Union and the erosion of parliamentary democracy: A study of post-parliamentary governance In: Andersen, S., Eliassen, K. A. (Eds.) European Union - How Democratic is It? (371–397). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Callahan, D. (1998). False Hopes. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  10. Capezzone, D. (2004). No alla morale di Stato sulla fecondazione. Il Corriere della Sera, 9 ottobre.Google Scholar
  11. Cavadini, F. (2005). ‘Vivremo fino a 120 anni’. I nuovi vecchi saranno così. Il Corriere della Sera, 22 ottobre 2005, 29.Google Scholar
  12. Collins, H. M. (1985). Changing Order. Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. De Carolis, M. (2004). La vita nell’epoca della sua riproducibilità tecnica. Torino: Boringhieri.Google Scholar
  14. Dulbecco, R. (2004). Scienza e società oggi. La tentazione della paura. Milano: Bompiani.Google Scholar
  15. Elam, M., Bertilsson, M. (2003). Consuming, engaging and confrontino science. The emerging dimensions of scientific citizenship. European Journal of Social Theory, 6(2), 233–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ezrahi, Y. (1990). The Descent of Icarus: Science and the Transformation of Contemporary Democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Farkas, A. (2004). Addio a Superman, l’eroe americano che sfidò la paralisi. Il Corriere della Sera, 12 ottobre.Google Scholar
  18. Foucault, M. (1975). Surveiller et punir: Naissance de la prison. Paris: Gallimard. Translated in English. (1995). Discipline and Punish. The Birth of the Prison. New York, NY: Vintage.Google Scholar
  19. Friedman, R. M. (2001). The Politics of Excellence. Behind the Nobel Prize in Science. New York, NY: Times Books.Google Scholar
  20. Galli della Loggia, E. (2004). La chiesa, i valori, il laicismo. Il Corriere della Sera, 6 ottobre.Google Scholar
  21. Gusfield, J. R. (1981). The Culture of Public Problems: Drinking-Driving and the Symbolic Order. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  22. Hamer, M. (2005). How to stop the slaughter of innocent. New Scientist, 27 August, 22–23.Google Scholar
  23. Irwin, A., Michael, M. (2003). Science, Social Theory and Public Knowledge. Maidenhead, BE: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Israel, G. (2004). Alla scienza non basta la risatina di sufficienza degli zapateri relativisti. Il Foglio, 8 ottobre.Google Scholar
  25. Jasanoff, S. (2004a) Science and citizenship: A new synergy. Science and Public Policy, 31(2), 90–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jonas, H. (1979). Das Prinzip Verantwortung. Frankfurt: Insel.Google Scholar
  27. Latour, B. (1991). Nous n’avons jamais été modernes. Paris: La Découverte. Translated in English. (1993). We have never been modern. New York, NY: Harvester-Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
  28. Latour, B. (1997). Socrates’ and Callicles’ settlement – or, the invention of the impossible body politic. Configurations, 5(2), 189–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Latour, B. (1999). Politiques de la nature. Paris, Editions La Decouverte. Translated in English. (2004). Politics of Nature. How to Bring the Sciences into Democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Latour, B. (2004). Von ‘Tatsachen’ zu ‘Sachverhalten’. Wie sollen die neuen kollektiven Experimente protokollier werden? In Schmidgen, H., Geimer, P. (Eds.) Kultur im Experiment (17–36). Berlin: Kultuverlag Kadmos.Google Scholar
  31. Lippmann, W. (1925). The Phantom Public. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
  32. Maurizi, S. (2004). Una bomba, dieci storie. Gli scienziati e l’atomica. Milano: Bruno Mondadori.Google Scholar
  33. Merton, R. K. (1938b). Science and the Social Order. Reprinted in (1973), The Sociology of Science.Google Scholar
  34. Michael, M. (1998). Between citizen and consumer: Multiplying the meanings of public understanding of science. Public Understanding of Science, 7, 313–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Motluk, A. (2005). Tracing dad online. New Scientist, 5 November, 6–7.Google Scholar
  36. Mulkay, M. (1997). The Embryo Research Debate. Science and the Politics of Reproduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Nelkin, D. (1977). Technology and public policy. In Spiegel-Rösing, I., de Solla Price, D. (Eds.), Science, Technology and Society. A Cross-Disciplinary Perspective (393–441). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  38. Neresini, F. (2001). Bioetica, medicina e società. In Bucchi, M., Neresini, F. (Eds.), Sociologia della Salute (205–237). Roma: Carocci.Google Scholar
  39. Paccagnella, L. (2000). La comunicazione al computer. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
  40. Pizzini, F. (1992). Maternità in laboratorio. Torino: Rosenberg & Sellier.Google Scholar
  41. Price, F. (1996). Now you see it, now you don’t: mediating science and managing uncertainty in reproductive medicine. In Irwin, A., Wynne, B. (Eds.) Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Rusconi, G. E. (2002). Laicità e bioetica. Il Mulino, 51(4), 668–678.Google Scholar
  43. Rusconi, G. E. (2004). Embrioni prigionieri di Kant La Stampa, 28 settembre.Google Scholar
  44. Sartori, G. (1993). Democrazia. Cosa è. Milano: Rizzoli.Google Scholar
  45. Schiera, P. (1999). Specchi della politica. Disciplina, melancolia, società nell’Occidente moderno, Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
  46. Shapin, S., Schaffer, S. (1985). Leviathan and the Air Pump: Hobbes, Boyle and the Experimental Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Shaywitz, D., Mellon, D. (2004). How to resolve America’s stem cell dilemma. The Financial Times, 22 ottobre 2004.Google Scholar
  48. Stehr, N. (2005). Knowledge Politics. Boulder and London: Paradigm.Google Scholar
  49. Testa, G. (2006). Che cos’è un clone? Pratiche e significato delle biotecnologie mediche in un mondo globale. In Bucchi, M., Neresini, F. (Eds.) Cellule e cittadini. Biotecnologie nello spazio pubblico. Milano: Sironi.Google Scholar
  50. Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the Screen. Identity in the Age of the Internet. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  51. Wildawsky, A. (1979). Speaking Truth to Power. Boston, MA: Little Brown.Google Scholar
  52. Wynne, B. (2001). Expert discourses of risk and ethics of genetically manipulated organisms: The weaving of public alienation. Politeia, 17(62), numero monografico su Politica della scienza e diritto. Il rapporto tra istituzioni, esperti e pubblico, 51–75.Google Scholar
  53. Ziman, J. (2000). Real Science. What it is, and what it means. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dipto. Sociologia e Ricerca SocialeUniversita di TrentoTrentoItaly
  2. 2.Società editrice il MulinoBolognaItaly

Personalised recommendations