my introduction to Sheila Jasanoff

I first came to know of Sheila Jasanoff in July at the National Academies' symposium on opportunities and challenges in synthetic biology. She eloquently opened the meeting by encouraging participants to consider whether the emerging field of synthetic biology might present an opportunity for a kind of second enlightenment that allowed us to "put science back into society in meaningful ways." Who gets to imagine the scientific future? Who will give meaning to this future, and how? Who will be responsible for it? Thus Jasanoff began to "problematize" conventional wisdom about how biotechnology does and ought to advance.

Last night I read the first chapter of Dr. Jasanoff's latest book, "Designs on Nature." The book is a comparative analysis of how three political cultures (Germany, U.S., and U.K.) are trying to steer biotechnological development toward improving the human condition. It was an exhilarating read. It acquainted me with the constructivist approach to scientific meaning, the concept of "social kinds," and the notion that natural and social meaning is "coproduced." It affirmed many of the concepts and precepts I have learned from the Rabinow lab (no offense intended, Paul - just my personal measure of healthy skepticism). I can't wait to read the rest of Jasanoff's book.

As someone who usually "sides" with the natural scientists, however, I find myself anxious about some of these new ideas. For example, I was a little troubled by the implications of a constructivist view of science and technology. Jasanoff asserts that we must be "skeptical of absolutist claims about objectivity and progress" because terms as seemingly antipodal as "nature" and "culture" have different meanings in different social contexts that deny them universality. I agree with that notion as it relates to creating useful science policy in one political culture versus any other. But a purely constructivist view seems to overly discount the universal properties of scientific and technological knowledge. After all, science and technology does, in fact, demonstrate a converging, deterministic tendency (or else China would still be trying to independently develop PCR, right?). At its logical extension, the constructivist view seems to suggest that the empirical results of a biology experiment in Hong Kong are not the same as they would be in Canada or any other political culture. That's hard for scientists at the lab bench to swallow.

It was also deeply discouraging to hear such a clear and reasoned voice implying what to me sounded creepily like, 'Because of their realist tendencies, the biotechnologists working to expand our knowledge of and control over the natural world are especially unqualified to assess the meaning and significance of their own work.' There, too, a big tension between "natural" and "human" scientists. Or perhaps I am reading the constructivist approach too literally?

If from venue to venue we could find the happy middle ground where humanist constructivism and scientific determinism can not just tolerate but function thoughtfully with one another, then we may do a better job of meeting Jasanoff's challenge of putting science into the public in deeper, more meaningful ways than ever before.

Finally, though the actors and venues change slightly, it seems to me that the word "problematize" is nearly interchangeable with the word "politicize" in our context. (To problematize is to have experts make judgments about techno-scientific progress in more or less public venues, whereas to politicize is to do the same in a very public, democratic, and non-expert way.) Again, as one who tends to identify with the biotechnology community, I wonder what kind of burden "problematizing" daily research activities represents not just to the researchers themselves, but also to the publics that rely on continued discoveries for an improved quality of life. To put a cost around problematization is not to say it isn't worth it, but rather to encourage us to think about how to engineer problematization into emerging fields like synthetic biology in order to reduce the time and effort needed to vigilantly examine and re-examine how we are or are not contributing to "the good life." (For example, I have suggested to some within SynBERC that we build into our internal proposal process some means for operationalizing core values such as safety and security by requiring applicants to include meaningful activities that promote such values. The idea hasn't exactly caught fire, yet.)

I am motivated by practical concerns that move research forward in the right direction. As I'm feeling my way through some of these concepts, which are new to me, I invite comments from those who have thought through these issues more carefully.