Science governance and the politics of proper talk

Governmental Bioethics as a New Technology of Reflexive Government

Bibliographic Data

ID2159556
AuthorsKathrin Braun (0000-0002-2015-3149), Alfred Moore (0000-0002-7252-5039), Svea Luise Herrmann, Sabine Könninger (0000-0001-8515-3687)
Year2010
Volume39
Issue4
Pages510-533
Publication date2010-11-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueEconomy and Society (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0308-5147 • E-ISSN: 1469-5766
PublisherInforma UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1080/03085147.2010.510682
OpenAlexW1998653056
LanguageEN
Citations received19
References cited21

The article examines the emergence of governmental bioethics in Great Britain, France and Germany, i.e. bodies, discourses and procedures meant to guide policy-making in terms of ethical considerations. It argues that governmental bioethics, marked by openness, transparency and participation, can be understood as a form of reflexive government in the realm of science governance. It grew out of the problematization of older forms of science governance based on ideas of effectiveness, scientific expertise and system stability, and operates through structuring and managing proper talk rather than intervening in processes of techno-scientific development. Yet, rather than challenging the commitment to techno-scientific 'progress', it stabilizes it through mechanisms of inclusion, involvement and mobilization: within the framework of proper ethical talk, participation can be employed to pursue rather than oppose system stability. Keywords: governmental bioethicsreflexive governmentpolitics of proper talkGermanyGreat BritainFrancescience governanceparticipatory turnimperative of scientific progress Acknowledgements This research is part of a project that studied the development and the forms of bioethics policies in France, Germany and the UK. The authors gratefully acknowledge funding from the German Federal Ministry of Research and Education, BMBF (promotional reference 07SP31) Notes 1 Following Alan Irwin (2006 Irwin, A. 2006. The politics of talk: Coming to terms with the 'new' scientific governance. Social Studies of Science, 63(2): 299–320. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]), we will use the term 'scientific governance', or 'science governance', as encompassing both the government of science, in the sense of steering, ordering, regulating and overseeing techno-scientific development, and the government of science-society relations, in the sense of developing and debating, ordering and re-ordering the forms and forums, institutions and practices of interaction between science, citizens, publics and politics. 2 The paper draws from research on the development of governmental bioethics regimes in Germany, France and the UK from the early 1980s up to 2005, based on documentary analysis, participant observation of meetings and interviews with members of governmental bioethics bodies. 3 There is some evidence suggesting that the existence of governmental bioethics bodies goes together with more flexible and liberal regulation of biomedicine rather than introducing more restrictive boundaries. At least in the case of embryonic stem cell research, Salter (2007 Salter, B. 2007. The global politics of human embryonic stem cell science. Global Governance, 13(2): 277–98. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]) shows a global trend towards more facilitative regulation, including in Germany, France and the UK. For the UK and Germany, Svea Herrmann (2009) has studied the interrelation of bioethical debate and deregulation in more detail. It would take further research, however, to draw more general conclusions. 4 It would be interesting to relate governmental bioethics as one layer of governance to what has been termed reflexive law (Teubner, 1983 Teubner, G. 1983. Substantive and reflexive elements in modern law. Law and Society Review, 17(2): 239–85. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]) as another layer. Arguably, much of recent biomedical regulation shows features of reflexive law as Teubner defines it, such as specifying the procedures of applying, updating or revising legal regulation and the type of institutions, organizations, etc., to be involved, rather than fixing detailed substantive norms. Reflexive law in the field of biomedicine in fact often refers to governmental bioethics as an element of specifying procedures rather than substance. A case in point would be the German Stem Cell Act which prescribes that the newly- founded Central Ethics Commission for Stem Cell Research is to decide which embryonic stem cell research projects get permission and which not. One could also make the point that much legal biomedical regulation includes elements of temporalizing governance such as establishing that the regulation has to be reviewed within a certain time period and/or including a 'state of the art' proviso. Again, it would take more research to expand on this relation. 5 Before, events such as the Nuremberg trials of Nazi doctors and the Helsinki and Tokyo declarations on the ethics of human subject research had led to the development of clinical ethics, but not yet to governmental bioethics referring to science and research policy. 6 In July 2007, the HGC had two formally trained moral philosophers (from nineteen members), the HFEA two (from nineteen), the NCB four (from eighteen). Brian Salter and Mavis Jones (2005 Salter, B. and Jones, M. 2005. Biobanks and bioethics: The politics of legitimation. Journal of European Public Policy, 12(4): 710–732. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) confirm this finding for a different area of bioethical activity, the area of national biobanks. They found that out of a total membership of eighty-eight of the bioethics committees of national biobanks, only eleven describe themselves as medical ethicists, philosophers or theologians. 7 Participant observation at Journées annuelles d'éthique, 16–17 November 2004, Université Paris V René Descartes, Paris, participant observation SK. 8 The facilitator at Journées annuelles d'éthique, 16–17 November 2004, Université Paris V René Descartes, Paris, participant observation SK. 9 Participant observation SLH/KB 10 Participant observation SK. 11 However, since our research covered a longer period of time, we could not undertake systematic analyses on the micro level of intra-institutional or intra-event interactions. Further research is needed on whether and how the rules of proper talk become subject to struggle and more adversarial contestation. 12 Notes taken from Dame Suzi Leather's presentation and the ensuing discussion at the conference on 'The New Governance of Life: Challenges, Transformations, Innovations', Vienna, 11–12 June 2007

Bioethics · Corporate governance · Economics · Environmental ethics · Epistemology · Government (linguistics · Governmentality · Management · Political science · Politics · Problematization · Realm · Reflexivity · Social science · Sociology · Structuring · Transparency (behavior · Biomedical Ethics and Regulation · Ethics in Clinical Research · Ethics in medical practice · Law · Public Administration

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub