II. Monstrous politics Flashcards
What is the normative rationale for engagement? (Which governments might use)
belief that it is better to be democratic rather than expert-led; better than top-down “technocracy” or “expertocracy”
What is the substantive rationale for engagement?
knowledge produced in open settings is likely to be robust, broadly adopted and supported
What is the instrumental rationale for engagement?
governments/leaders enjoy greater trust and legitimacy, no longer isolated -> engagement for a reason
What is the procedural rationale for engagement?
most institutions have engagement surveys so as to look good, to be seen doing something
What is the BSE crisis?
BSE: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
Origin: video of rapid neurological decline in cow -> TSE in sheep aka. ‘scrapie’, cows being fed scrapie-infected sheep meat in bone-meal; 80s debate and uncertainty over how transmitted
Concern: fears that infected cows used in beef, could transmit disease to humans via food chain
What was the governments response to BSE fears?
expert panel that involved no social scientists, no industry people, no active researchers, only high-ranking scientists/vets
Scrapie (the same disease in sheep), looked at TSE literature, in this sheep version lab-experiments show most infective tissue i.e. brain, CNS, and endocrine organisms
Banned “specified bovine offal” (the infective parts) as precautionary measure
How did BSE become the turning point in UK science and society politics?
Failure - 90s cases of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD), BSE implicated -> slaughterhouses a mess, complex industry, couldn’t actually remove the infected meat from the entire system.
Phillips Report (2000): realisation that if an industry representative was on committee, disaster could have been avoided
findings: poor risk communication, failure in dealing with uncertainty, feared public response to uncertainty -> unwarranted reassurances, MAFF culture of secrecy -> reluctance to reveal messiness of science, political will to act as though in control
Towards a politics that is more OPEN, TRANSPARENT and ACCOUNTABLE since 2000s (MAFF closed down, FSA and DEFRA created)
What is the public education model (Callon, 1999)?
Baso the info-deficit model
public knowledge: to be corrected by science because they are ignorant and undifferentiated
aim: to overcome the deficit in their knowledge
problem: mistrust, where legitimacy is easily abused)
What is the public-debate model (Callon, 1999)
Baso an ‘asset-based’ model
public knowledge: differentiated, listened to
aim: to enhance, complete scientific specialist knowledge, to enrich expertise
problem: still obsessed with demarcation of public and science, and how to represent the public best?
What is the coproduction of knowledge model (Callon, 1999)
public knowledge: ‘concerned’, actively involved, act together
aim: to have collective learning to remove ‘the mode of trust’ (for equal knowledge and no hierarchy)
problem: but difficult to reach consensus, is costly (money and time)
What assumptions exist within attempts at public engagement? What is wrong with this?
level playing field
groups are meaningfully linked
there is time to debate and incorporate different views
content is easily communicated, info shared honestly
consensus can be reached
participants behave ‘rationally’, don’t protest or propose alternatives
they not necessarily true, so need to question them mate
What can be used to exemplify an attempt made by the UK government to engage the public? What rationales were at play?
GM Nation (2002) Concern: controversies, fears and concerns over their effect on us and the need to mess with nature
Intention: new gov to ‘do things differently’ (Tony Blair in response to NGO lobbying) -> nation-wide public engagement experiment to ‘regain trust’ (instrumental rationale)
How: consultation via regional events with 1000s ppl, 40 lectures and debates, website, emails + scientific, tech and economic review
What was the outcome of GM Nation? What rationales were at play?
Outcome: overwhelming results were that public ‘struggled to find benefits’ from GM crops; large concerns over health effects
But: science-based reviews isolated from public may have been more heavily relied upon than the GM Nation data; immediate accusation that NGOs hijacked the meetings so didn’t get public’s true view
-> dialogue mainly restricted to people of particular social and academic background! (asset-based problems, maybe procedural)
What is meant by the ‘public’?
Singular, homogenous mass to be corrected vs. differentiated, heterogenous group of individuals that have valuable expertise
