Search

Nanobiotechnology as a “converged” technological platform (CT = Converging Technologies) is discussed in relation to discourse within civil society. The conflicts and ethical debates surrounding nanobiotechnology can be intuited from these larger discursive frames of reference. Complimenting Glimell and Fogelberg's (2003) research documenting an emergent epistemic culture amongst scientists researching and working on nanotechnologies, and more recent research on the multiple meanings of nanotechnology in the political economy (Wullweber, 2007), this paper traces an emergent ethnography of engaged actors within civil society as they develop discursive and mobilization repertoires. Whilst on occasion ambivalent about the combination of specific promises and risks in relation to nanobiotechnology, in general a broad critique of the politics of technology is emerging as a counter epistemology or “Master Frame” (Snow & Benford, 1992) amongst certain predisposed UK civil society groups. Converging Technologies provide the issue around which this broad critique is solidifying. Thus whilst many of the specific risks raised by nanobiotechnology (and other CT) are definitively new, many of the p?tential risks and grievances, have been raised before in relation to other issues of scientific and environmental controversy, often by the same actor groups. Thus convergence is a useful metaphor for appreciating that broader frame of reference from within which the emerging conflicts and ethical debates about nanobiotechnology are being situated. If you go ten, fifteen years in the future, you're not going to be able to distinguish between what's nano technology, what's bio technology, what's information technology or what's genetic engineering. They're all going to be the same kind of technologies … just employed in different ways and different places. (“Mike”, technology watchdog campaigner, in interview January 2004)

Genetic and other biotechnologies are starting to impact significantly upon society and individuals within it. Rose and Novas draw on an analysis of many patient groups to sketch out the broad notion of biocitizenship as a device for describing how the empowered and informed individual, group or network can engage with bioscience. In this paper, we examine critically the notion of biocitizenship, drawing on both sociological fieldwork that grounds the debate in the views of a large and varied group of concerned actors. Using work within green politics, we identify shortcomings in the concept of biocitizenship as it has so far been explicated. The value assumptions lying behind an account of biocitizenship, and its tendency to see issues through a reductive lens, are examined. Alternative views of values and goals, which may undermine any alleged rights and duties, are explored using interviews and other ethnographic data that illustrates the complexity of the terrain. The reductive lens of biocitizenship is explored through contrast with the wider scope of concerns emanating from various sources, including many within green politics. If such complexities are not recognised, there is a danger that a concept of biocitizenship may serve to create and amplify inequalities. Problems with identity issues are key: the construction of identity is complex and many groups are explicitly rejecting the ‘biological’ label. We discuss the multiple relations of citizens with the biotech and pharmaceutical industries. Arguably, existing inequalities in power relationships, exploitation, commodification and ownership patterns are being perpetuated in novel ways through the new biosciences. We pose the question of whether it is possible to construct a concept of biocitizenship that overcomes these problems.

The 3rd meeting of the European Social Forum was held in London during October 2004 with a broad ranging formal agenda and a penumbra of affiliated workshops and cultural activities. This paper focuses upon a range of sessions dealing with science in general and the sciences of human genetics in particular. Through participant observation this paper details the representations of science by ESF actors, their use of the ESF as a ‘convergence space’ for global activist network interaction and the various ways in which participants sought to create a more socially responsible and accountable science. Drawing on observations of, and participation in, these sessions we describe how scientific knowledge and practices were portrayed in the context of neo-liberal market relations by both ‘producers’ and ‘consumers’ of techno-science. The concluding section considers the implications of (re)negotiating scientific and social orders within such open network spaces. It is argued that ‘broad and shallow’ and ‘narrow and deep’ approaches towards public understanding of science need to be supplemented by the ‘broad and diverse’ processes typifying the forum milieu.