IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/revpol/v40y2023i3p433-457.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing regulatory processes in genome editing and autonomous vehicles: How institutional environments shape sociotechnical imaginaries

Author

Listed:
  • Meghna Mukherjee
  • Konrad Posch
  • Santiago J. Molina
  • Ken Taymor
  • Ann Keller

Abstract

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. Este estudio compara la regulación de dos tecnologías emergentes, el sistema de edición del genoma CRISPR y los vehículos autónomos y conectados (CAV) en los Estados Unidos. El estudio se basa en 33 entrevistas en profundidad con expertos en innovación y gobernanza para estudiar la relación entre sus entornos regulatorios y el desarrollo de creencias sobre estas tecnologías. Utilizando imaginarios sociotécnicos como marco, exploramos cómo los actores sociales imaginan futuros impulsados por la tecnología y el orden social que los posibilita. Estos imaginarios son fundamentales para las tecnologías emergentes, donde los expertos construyen un marco de potencialidades para la innovación aún en marcha. Si bien los estudios han documentado cómo surgen los imaginarios sociotécnicos entre los encargados de formular políticas, los grupos de científicos, las partes interesadas estatales y locales y los actores públicos en diferentes países, se ha dicho menos sobre cómo las organizaciones reguladoras y sus actores dan forma a las expectativas en torno a las tecnologías que se encuentran en etapas tempranas y medias. de desarrollo. Este artículo encuentra que las instituciones reguladoras dan forma a los imaginarios emergentes a lo largo de tres ejes relacionados: la distribución de la autoridad, la novedad tecnológica y el riesgo. Los entrevistados negocian estas tres contingencias de manera diferente en función de las estructuras e ideologías regulatorias existentes relevantes, lo que da como resultado imaginarios distintos en torno a cada tecnología. Los actores de CRISPR visualizan la edición del genoma como una disminución en gran medida del daño biomédico y eventualmente adecuada para los mercados de la salud, mientras que los actores de CAV divergen sobre si los automóviles autónomos alivian o exacerban el riesgo y cómo pueden ingresar a las carreteras. Que las estructuras organizacionales y las prácticas de regulación informen imaginarios sociotécnicos ampliamente aceptados tiene importancia para los estudios de trayectorias de innovación, lo que sugiere que los reguladores pueden desempeñar un papel activo en la definición de cómo se definen los riesgos y beneficios de la tecnología emergente. 本研究比较了美国CRISPR基因组编辑系统和网联自动驾驶车辆(CAV)这两种新兴技术的监管。本研究对33位创新和治理专家进行了深度访谈,以研究其监管环境与“形成对这些技术的信念”之间的关系。通过将社会技术想象作为框架,我们探究了社会行动者如何设想技术驱动的未来以及使其成为可能的社会秩序。这些想象对于新兴技术而言至关重要,其中专家为“仍在进行的创新”构建一个潜力框架。尽管现有研究记录了社会技术想象如何出现在不同国家的决策者、科学家团体、州和地方利益攸关方以及公共行动者之间,但很少有研究聚焦于监管机构及其行动者如何影响关于技术的期望,这些技术正处于早期和中期开发阶段。本文发现,监管机构沿着三条相关轴塑造新兴的想象,这三条轴分别是:权力分配、技术新颖性和风险。受访者根据相关的现存监管结构和意识形态,以不同方式协商这三种可能发生的事件,从而导致关于每种技术的独特想象。CRISPR行动者设想基因组编辑能在很大程度上减少生物医学危害并最终适用于健康市场,而CAV行动者就自动驾驶汽车是减轻还是加剧风险以及它们如何进入道路一事存在分歧。监管的组织结构和实践为广泛持有的社会技术想象提供了信息,这对创新轨迹研究具有意义,同时表明监管机构能积极影响新兴技术的风险和收益的定义方式。.

Suggested Citation

  • Meghna Mukherjee & Konrad Posch & Santiago J. Molina & Ken Taymor & Ann Keller, 2023. "Comparing regulatory processes in genome editing and autonomous vehicles: How institutional environments shape sociotechnical imaginaries," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 40(3), pages 433-457, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:40:y:2023:i:3:p:433-457
    DOI: 10.1111/ropr.12532
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12532
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ropr.12532?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Georgia Miller & Fern Wickson, 2015. "Risk Analysis of Nanomaterials: Exposing Nanotechnology's Naked Emperor," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 32(4), pages 485-512, July.
    2. John Downer, 2014. "Disowning Fukushima: Managing the credibility of nuclear reliability assessment in the wake of disaster," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(3), pages 287-309, September.
    3. Nils C. Bandelow & Johanna Hornung & Ilana Schröder & Colette S. Vogeler, 2022. "Crises, technology, and policy change," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 39(3), pages 252-254, May.
    4. Hood, Christopher & Rothstein, Henry & Baldwin, Robert, 2004. "The Government of Risk: Understanding Risk Regulation Regimes," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199270019.
    5. Tadeusz Józef Rudek, 2022. "Capturing the invisible. Sociotechnical imaginaries of energy. The critical overview [School of Social Sciences Working Papers Series, vol. 67. Cardiff: Cardiff University]," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(2), pages 219-245.
    6. Bohn, Roger E., 2005. "From Art to Science in Manufacturing: The Evolution of Technological Knowledge," Foundations and Trends(R) in Technology, Information and Operations Management, now publishers, vol. 1(2), pages 1-82, October.
    7. Bonnín Roca, Jaime & Vaishnav, Parth & Morgan, M.Granger & Mendonça, Joana & Fuchs, Erica, 2017. "When risks cannot be seen: Regulating uncertainty in emerging technologies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(7), pages 1215-1233.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Nils C. Bandelow & Johanna Hornung & Ilana Schröder, 2023. "Institutional environments and innovation in digital policy," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 40(3), pages 338-340, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Funk, Patrick & Davis, Alex & Vaishnav, Parth & Dewitt, Barry & Fuchs, Erica, 2020. "Individual inconsistency and aggregate rationality: Overcoming inconsistencies in expert judgment at the technical frontier," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    2. Bonnin Roca, Jaime & O'Sullivan, Eoin, 2020. "Seeking coherence between barriers to manufacturing technology adoption and innovation policy," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 230(C).
    3. Bonnín Roca, Jaime & Vaishnav, Parth & Morgan, Granger M. & Fuchs, Erica & Mendonça, Joana, 2021. "Technology Forgiveness: Why emerging technologies differ in their resilience to institutional instability," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 166(C).
    4. Andrew B. Whitford & Derrick Anderson, 2021. "Governance landscapes for emerging technologies: The case of cryptocurrencies," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(4), pages 1053-1070, October.
    5. Seokbeom Kwon & Jan Youtie & Alan Porter & Nils Newman, 2024. "How does regulatory uncertainty shape the innovation process? Evidence from the case of nanomedicine," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 49(1), pages 262-302, February.
    6. Julien Etienne, 2015. "Different ways of blowing the whistle: Explaining variations in decentralized enforcement in the UK and France," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(4), pages 309-324, December.
    7. Aven, Terje & Renn, Ortwin, 2018. "Improving government policy on risk: Eight key principles," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 230-241.
    8. Diwas Singh KC & Bradley R. Staats, 2012. "Accumulating a Portfolio of Experience: The Effect of Focal and Related Experience on Surgeon Performance," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 14(4), pages 618-633, October.
    9. Fatima, Samar & Desouza, Kevin C. & Denford, James S. & Dawson, Gregory S., 2021. "What explains governments interest in artificial intelligence? A signaling theory approach," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 238-254.
    10. Jeroen van der Heijden & Jitske de Jong, 2009. "Towards a Better Understanding of Building Regulation," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 36(6), pages 1038-1052, December.
    11. Anaïs Valiquette L’Heureux, 2022. "The Case Study of Los Angeles City & County Fraud, Embezzlement and Corruption Safeguards during times of pandemic," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 593-610, September.
    12. Peter J. May, 2007. "Regulatory regimes and accountability," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(1), pages 8-26, March.
    13. Marić, Josip & Opazo-Basáez, Marco & Vlačić, Božidar & Dabić, Marina, 2023. "Innovation management of three-dimensional printing (3DP) technology: Disclosing insights from existing literature and determining future research streams," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    14. Steinar Andresen & G. Kristin Rosendal & Jon Birger Skjærseth, 2018. "Regulating the invisible: interaction between the EU and Norway in managing nano-risks," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 18(4), pages 513-528, August.
    15. Julia Black & Robert Baldwin, 2012. "When risk‐based regulation aims low: Approaches and challenges," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(1), pages 2-22, March.
    16. Erik Brynjolfsson & Kristina McElheran, 2016. "Data in Action: Data-Driven Decision Making in U.S. Manufacturing," Working Papers 16-06, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    17. Mathias Ericson, 2018. "“Sweden Has Been Naïve”: Nationalism, Protectionism and Securitisation in Response to the Refugee Crisis of 2015," Social Inclusion, Cogitatio Press, vol. 6(4), pages 95-102.
    18. Demortain, David, 2008. "Institutional polymorphism: the designing of the European Food Safety Authority with regard to the European Medicines Agency," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 36534, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    19. Govender, Urishanie & van Eck, Gary & Genc, Bekir, 2022. "An integrated 4Cs safety framework for the diamond industry of Southern Africa," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    20. David Hidalgo-Carvajal & Ruth Carrasco-Gallego & Gustavo Morales-Alonso, 2021. "From Goods to Services and from Linear to Circular: The Role of Servitization’s Challenges and Drivers in the Shifting Process," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-26, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:40:y:2023:i:3:p:433-457. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ipsonea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.