| dc.description.abstract | The main topic of this thesis is the governance of gene technology in Norway, where I investigate efforts to re-imagine the use of gene technology in what has been a long-standing politically troubled area. The development of the novel gene-editing technique CRISPR in 2012 has triggered debates about the use and regulation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), and this thesis provides an empirical account of how gene technology governance is being re-constructed in this specific national and temporal context. The thesis contributes to the scholarship of science and technology studies (STS) by investigating the conditions for democratic governance of novel technologies, and I draw on theoretical and analytical approaches such as co-production, ANT, public engagement and sociotechnical imaginaries in my study of how governance is taking place, by whom and why this governance is possible. The thesis consists of three individual papers, as well as a final cross-analysis that aims to bring together the findings of the three papers to answer the over-arching research question, where I ask: What visions and articulations of gene-editing technology were emerging in governance discourses across multiple sites in the context of the introduction of CRISPR in Norway, and what can these discourses tell us about democratic governance of gene-editing technology?
The thesis is a qualitative study based on individual and focus group interviews, as well as a document analysis of relevant official documents and media content. The three research papers approach the relationship between science and society from three different perspectives and with three different sites as point of departure. These sites were chosen by their theoretical as well as empirical relevance in the debate, and a multi-sited design allowed for the comparison of how gene-editing technology and gene technology governance is articulated differently by different actors across different spheres of society. This study provides insights into these actors’ potential contributions to the democratic governance of gene-editing technology in Norway. In Research Paper 1, I investigate how the Norwegian Biotechnology Board constructed a democratic involvement process in a particular way, and thereby constructed a particular understanding of CRISPR as a governance object. In Research Paper 2, I investigate how the scientists constructed particular actor-networks to gather support for, and the opportunity to perform, their research, as well as how particular understandings of the CRISPR research object were constructed in the process. In Research Paper 3, I investigate how members of the public constructed particular understandings of gene-editing technology, how they constructed their own knowledge as less relevant, and more importantly, how scientists were granted the power to determine issues regarding the use of CRISPR.
The cross-analysis shows that gene technology is becoming shaped as a politically robust regulatory object – as a close-to-natural and less risky but more controllable gene technology, for which the Norwegian Biotechnology Advisory Board and the scientists create visions of a sustainable future. The board managed to shift and “move” this perception to other relevant stakeholders by manifesting a proposed regulatory model. I suggest that this shift was made possible by a favouring of scientific knowledge and “reversed ethics” – i.e., pushing ethics as a focus on the positive consequences of technology, more than on aspects of risks. This indicates that the bioethical organ (The Biotechnology Advisory Board) has become oriented more towards fostering innovations than preventing society from harm, as it seemingly loses sight of the possibly adverse consequences of the technology. Furthermore, it suggests a misalignment with the public values expressed in Paper 3, and the focus on changing public perceptions rather than considering them suggests that the public are losing influence. | en_US |
