Comparing regulatory processes in genome editing and autonomous vehicles
How institutional environments shape sociotechnical imaginaries
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 4074533 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Meghna Mukherjee (0000-0003-4227-685X, University of California, Berkeley, corresponding author), Konrad Posch (0000-0003-1058-0945, University of California, Berkeley), Santiago J Molina (0000-0001-9049-518X, Northwestern University), Ken Taymor (0000-0002-1289-4254, Berkeley Public Health Division), Ann Keller (0000-0001-5467-2898, Berkeley Public Health Division) |
| Year | 2023 |
| Volume | 40 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 433-457 |
| Publication date | 2023-05-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Review of Policy Research (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1541-132X • E-ISSN: 1541-1338 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1111/ropr.12532 |
| OpenAlex | W4316671937 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 1 |
| References cited | 31 |
This study compares the regulation of two emerging technologies, the CRISPR genome-editing system and Connected and Autonomous Vehicles (CAV) in the United States. The study draws on 33 in-depth interviews with innovation and governance experts to study the relationship between their regulatory environments and developing beliefs about these technologies. Using sociotechnical imaginaries as a framework, we explore how social actors envision technologically driven futures and the social order that enables them. These imaginaries are essential to emerging technologies, where experts build a framework of potentialities for innovation still underway. While scholarship has documented how sociotechnical imaginaries arise among policymakers, groups of scientists, state and local stakeholders, and public actors in different countries, less has been said about how regulatory organizations and their actors shape expectations around technologies that are in the early and middle stages of development. This article finds that regulatory institutions shape emerging imaginaries along three related axes: the distribution of authority, technological novelty, and risk. Interviewees negotiate these three contingencies differently based on relevant extant regulatory structures and ideologies, resulting in distinct imaginaries around each technology. CRISPR actors envision genome editing as largely diminishing biomedical harm and eventually suitable for health markets, while CAV actors diverge on whether self-driving cars alleviate or exacerbate risk and how they may enter roads. That organizational structures and practices of regulation inform broadly held sociotechnical imaginaries bears significance for studies of innovation trajectories, suggesting regulators can take an active role in shaping how risks and benefits of emerging technology are defined
Business · Corporate governance · Economic growth · Economics · Emerging markets · Emerging technologies · Knowledge management · Negotiation · Political science · Public relations · Scholarship · Social science · Sociology · Sociotechnical system · Biomedical Ethics and Regulation · CRISPR and Genetic Engineering · Genetically Modified Organisms Research
Agendas and Instability in American Politics, Second Edition
Science and Democracy
What Engineers Know and How They Know It
The Theory of Economic Regulation
Sociotechnical Imaginaries and National Energy Policies
Containing the Atom
Regional sociotechnical imaginaries and the governance of energy innovations
The everyday lives of energy transitions
Down the black hole
The rise of the regulatory state in Europe
Imagining energy futures
Bioenergy Futures
Sociotechnical imaginaries
Risk society
The social construction of reality
Disowning Fukushima
"The Science of "Muddling Through
Trust and technology
Crises, technology, and policy change
Risk Analysis of Nanomaterials
| Citations per year | 0.33 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2023 - 2023 (1) |
| Highly cited | No |