{"title":"The promise of ELSI: coproducing the future of life on earth","authors":"Tess Doezema","doi":"10.1080/09505431.2023.2182189","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Scientific knowledge and authority are central to dire warnings of biodiversity loss and climate change, as well as corollary visions of pathways for environmental repair and the provision of future human wellbeing. Such articulations of futures possible through the advance of science and technology, and especially genetics, have been extensively studied by STS scholars concerned with the ways society, government, and capital are ordered in relation to these expectations. In the Human Genome Project, projections of future benefit reached almost mythical – for some alarming – proportions, and initiated the now familiar model of institutional funding of Ethical, Legal and Social Implications (ELSI) research. Following this model, the Earth Biogenome Project seeks to sequence the genomes of all life on earth, with expansive promises about the good that will follow. While the inclusion of an ELSI committee is treated as the application of a known model of social ordering, and as routine and natural for such a project, its remit and role in negotiating right modes of relationality between humans and the environment are neither straightforward nor well institutionalized. In so doing, the project contributes to the stabilization of a particular set of concepts and practices as constitutive of environmental ethics while at the same time constructing biodiversity in distinct ways that align with its vision of the scientific pursuit of good human futures. As such, the constructions of environmental ethics and biodiversity that the project advances are coproduced, contributing to the shared articulations of right human-environment relationships, and institutionalized practices for ordering the world accordingly.","PeriodicalId":47064,"journal":{"name":"Science As Culture","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Science As Culture","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2023.2182189","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CULTURAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
ABSTRACT Scientific knowledge and authority are central to dire warnings of biodiversity loss and climate change, as well as corollary visions of pathways for environmental repair and the provision of future human wellbeing. Such articulations of futures possible through the advance of science and technology, and especially genetics, have been extensively studied by STS scholars concerned with the ways society, government, and capital are ordered in relation to these expectations. In the Human Genome Project, projections of future benefit reached almost mythical – for some alarming – proportions, and initiated the now familiar model of institutional funding of Ethical, Legal and Social Implications (ELSI) research. Following this model, the Earth Biogenome Project seeks to sequence the genomes of all life on earth, with expansive promises about the good that will follow. While the inclusion of an ELSI committee is treated as the application of a known model of social ordering, and as routine and natural for such a project, its remit and role in negotiating right modes of relationality between humans and the environment are neither straightforward nor well institutionalized. In so doing, the project contributes to the stabilization of a particular set of concepts and practices as constitutive of environmental ethics while at the same time constructing biodiversity in distinct ways that align with its vision of the scientific pursuit of good human futures. As such, the constructions of environmental ethics and biodiversity that the project advances are coproduced, contributing to the shared articulations of right human-environment relationships, and institutionalized practices for ordering the world accordingly.
期刊介绍:
Our culture is a scientific one, defining what is natural and what is rational. Its values can be seen in what are sought out as facts and made as artefacts, what are designed as processes and products, and what are forged as weapons and filmed as wonders. In our daily experience, power is exercised through expertise, e.g. in science, technology and medicine. Science as Culture explores how all these shape the values which contend for influence over the wider society. Science mediates our cultural experience. It increasingly defines what it is to be a person, through genetics, medicine and information technology. Its values get embodied and naturalized in concepts, techniques, research priorities, gadgets and advertising. Many films, artworks and novels express popular concerns about these developments. In a society where icons of progress are drawn from science, technology and medicine, they are either celebrated or demonised. Often their progress is feared as ’unnatural’, while their critics are labelled ’irrational’. Public concerns are rebuffed by ostensibly value-neutral experts and positivist polemics. Yet the culture of science is open to study like any other culture. Cultural studies analyses the role of expertise throughout society. Many journals address the history, philosophy and social studies of science, its popularisation, and the public understanding of society.