IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ita/itaman/13_01.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Power of Framing in Technology Governance: The Case of Biotechnologies (ITA-manu:script 13-01)

Author

Listed:
  • Torgersen, Helge
  • Bogner, Alexander
  • Kastenhofer, Karen

Abstract

In past technology controversies, aspects such as risk or ethics have played a major role, apart from economic arguments. Public debates on agricultural biotechnology or biomedicine differed in the dominant aspect they addressed, respectively. This article specifies such aspects as discursive frames being tacit agreements over what is relevant and which arguments count. It investigates the role of frames in past debates and the relation between frames and issues relevant for technology governance such as policy advice, public participation and the political legitimation of decisions. For a newly emerging technology such as synthetic biology, the framing of a debate to come is often expected to follow patterns known from previous debates, and to influence governance in a foreseeable way. However, new frames might emerge that could change both the debate on and the governance of emerging technologies.

Suggested Citation

  • Torgersen, Helge & Bogner, Alexander & Kastenhofer, Karen, 2013. "The Power of Framing in Technology Governance: The Case of Biotechnologies (ITA-manu:script 13-01)," ITA manu:scripts 13_01, Institute of Technology Assessment (ITA).
    • Handle: RePEc:ita:itaman:13_01
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://epub.oeaw.ac.at/ita/ita-manuscript/ita_13_01.pdf
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bruna De Marchi, 2003. "Public participation and risk governance," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(3), pages 171-176, June.
    2. Drew Endy, 2005. "Foundations for engineering biology," Nature, Nature, vol. 438(7067), pages 449-453, November.
    3. Markus Schmidt, 2006. "Public will fear biological accidents, not just attacks," Nature, Nature, vol. 441(7097), pages 1048-1048, June.
    4. Laurie Boussaguet & Renaud Dehousse, 2009. "Too big to fly? A review of the first EU citizens' conferences," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 36(10), pages 777-789, December.
    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. Rose, Gloria & Gazsó, André, 2019. "Governing nanosafety in Austria – Striving for neutrality in the NanoTrust project," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 23-31.

    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. Chih-Yuan Hsu & Bor-Sen Chen, 2016. "Systematic Design of a Metal Ion Biosensor: A Multi-Objective Optimization Approach," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(11), pages 1-16, November.
    2. Klenk, Nicole L. & Hickey, Gordon M., 2011. "A virtual and anonymous, deliberative and analytic participation process for planning and evaluation: The Concept Mapping Policy Delphi," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 152-165, January.
    3. Nicolas Rossignol & Pierre Delvenne & Catrinel Turcanu, 2015. "Rethinking Vulnerability Analysis and Governance with Emphasis on a Participatory Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(1), pages 129-141, January.
    4. Yanwei Li & Araz Taeihagh & Martin de Jong & Andreas Klinke, 2021. "Toward a Commonly Shared Public Policy Perspective for Analyzing Risk Coping Strategies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 519-532, March.
    5. VAN DEN OORD, Ad & VAN WITTELOOSTUIJN, Arjen & DUYSTERS, Geert & GILSING, Victor, 2010. "The ecology of technology: An empirical study of US biotechnology patents from 1976 to 2003," ACED Working Papers 2010008, University of Antwerp, Faculty of Business and Economics.
    6. Naira R. Matevosyan, 2018. "Techno-borne Organs: Medical, Legal, and Policy Concerns," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 9(2), pages 544-560, June.
    7. Simeon D. Castle & Michiel Stock & Thomas E. Gorochowski, 2024. "Engineering is evolution: a perspective on design processes to engineer biology," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-10, December.
    8. Anna Scolobig & Michael Thompson & JoAnne Linnerooth-Bayer, 2016. "Compromise not consensus: designing a participatory process for landslide risk mitigation," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 81(1), pages 45-68, April.
    9. Mario A Marchisio & Jörg Stelling, 2011. "Automatic Design of Digital Synthetic Gene Circuits," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(2), pages 1-13, February.
    10. Victor Pelaez, 2005. "Science And Governance In The National Systems Of Innovation Approach," Working Papers 0010, Universidade Federal do Paraná, Department of Economics.
    11. Volker Stein & Arnd Wiedemann, 2016. "Risk governance: conceptualization, tasks, and research agenda," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 86(8), pages 813-836, November.
    12. Klenk, Nicole L. & Hickey, Gordon M., 2011. "A virtual and anonymous, deliberative and analytic participation process for planning and evaluation: The Concept Mapping Policy Delphi," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 152-165.
    13. Martin Mullins & Martin Himly & Isabel Rodríguez Llopis & Irini Furxhi & Sabine Hofer & Norbert Hofstätter & Peter Wick & Daina Romeo & Dana Küehnel & Kirsi Siivola & Julia Catalán & Kerstin Hund-Rink, 2023. "(Re)Conceptualizing decision-making tools in a risk governance framework for emerging technologies—the case of nanomaterials," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 43(1), pages 3-15, March.
    14. T. Kuiken & G. Dana & K. Oye & D. Rejeski, 2014. "Shaping ecological risk research for synthetic biology," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 4(3), pages 191-199, September.
    15. Durwin Lynch & Frank Kupper & Jacqueline Broerse, 2018. "Toward a Socially Desirable EU Research and Innovation Agenda on Urban Waste: A Transnational EU Citizen Consultation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-19, May.
    16. Stephen Whitfield, 2013. "Uncertainty, ignorance and ambiguity in crop modelling for African agricultural adaptation," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 120(1), pages 325-340, September.
    17. Anna Scolobig & Nadejda Komendantova & Anthony Patt & Charlotte Vinchon & Daniel Monfort-Climent & Mendy Begoubou-Valerius & Paolo Gasparini & Angela Ruocco, 2014. "Multi-risk governance for natural hazards in Naples and Guadeloupe," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 73(3), pages 1523-1545, September.
    18. Nylund, Petra A. & Ferràs-Hernández, Xavier & Pareras, Luis & Brem, Alexander, 2022. "The emergence of entrepreneurial ecosystems based on enabling technologies: Evidence from synthetic biology," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 728-735.
    19. Jan Corfee-Morlot & Ian Cochran & Stéphane Hallegatte & Pierre-Jonathan Teasdale, 2011. "Multilevel risk governance and urban adaptation policy," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 104(1), pages 169-197, January.
    20. Anna Scolobig & Johan Lilliestam, 2016. "Comparing Approaches for the Integration of Stakeholder Perspectives in Environmental Decision Making," Resources, MDPI, vol. 5(4), pages 1-16, November.

    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:ita:itaman:13_01. 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: Werner Kabelka (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ioeawat.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.