科学主义治理:台湾生物样本库与公众争议

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q4 BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY New Genetics and Society Pub Date : 2022-09-15 DOI:10.1080/14636778.2022.2115350
Wan-Ju Lee, Y. Tsai
{"title":"科学主义治理:台湾生物样本库与公众争议","authors":"Wan-Ju Lee, Y. Tsai","doi":"10.1080/14636778.2022.2115350","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Based on the concept of “governance through scientism”, this article aims to reveal the tacit practices of the institutional culture of scientism among Taiwan Biobank’s elite scientists, whose imaginaries have shaped the dominance of a deficit model of the public in dealing with public controversy and establishing regulatory mechanisms. Examining three periods of ELSI controversies from 2000 to 2021, we identify three types of scientific imaginaries of publics, namely the silent public (2000–2004), the anti-science public (2005–2010), and the EGC as the lawful public supervisory body (2010–2021). In 2010, the Human Biobank Management Act (HBMA) was passed in Taiwan as a solution to public controversy and as a strategy to bypass public engagement. However, the overemphasis on formative legislation caused actors to overlook the processual approach in which ongoing critical reflections are required for the changing operations of TBB","PeriodicalId":54724,"journal":{"name":"New Genetics and Society","volume":"74 6 1","pages":"293 - 311"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Governance through scientism: Taiwan Biobank and public controversy\",\"authors\":\"Wan-Ju Lee, Y. Tsai\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14636778.2022.2115350\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Based on the concept of “governance through scientism”, this article aims to reveal the tacit practices of the institutional culture of scientism among Taiwan Biobank’s elite scientists, whose imaginaries have shaped the dominance of a deficit model of the public in dealing with public controversy and establishing regulatory mechanisms. Examining three periods of ELSI controversies from 2000 to 2021, we identify three types of scientific imaginaries of publics, namely the silent public (2000–2004), the anti-science public (2005–2010), and the EGC as the lawful public supervisory body (2010–2021). In 2010, the Human Biobank Management Act (HBMA) was passed in Taiwan as a solution to public controversy and as a strategy to bypass public engagement. However, the overemphasis on formative legislation caused actors to overlook the processual approach in which ongoing critical reflections are required for the changing operations of TBB\",\"PeriodicalId\":54724,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"New Genetics and Society\",\"volume\":\"74 6 1\",\"pages\":\"293 - 311\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"New Genetics and Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14636778.2022.2115350\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"New Genetics and Society","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14636778.2022.2115350","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

基于“科学主义治理”的理念,本文旨在揭示科学主义制度文化在台湾生物库精英科学家中的隐性实践,他们的想象塑造了公众赤字模式在处理公众争议和建立监管机制方面的主导地位。通过对2000年至2021年ELSI争议的三个时期的考察,我们确定了三种公众的科学想象,即沉默的公众(2000 - 2004年)、反科学的公众(2005-2010年)和作为合法公共监督机构的EGC(2010-2021年)。2010年,台湾通过了《人类生物库管理法》(HBMA),作为一种解决公众争议的策略,也是一种绕过公众参与的策略。然而,过分强调形成性立法导致行为者忽视了程序方法,在这种方法中,需要对TBB不断变化的业务进行持续的批判性反思
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Governance through scientism: Taiwan Biobank and public controversy
Based on the concept of “governance through scientism”, this article aims to reveal the tacit practices of the institutional culture of scientism among Taiwan Biobank’s elite scientists, whose imaginaries have shaped the dominance of a deficit model of the public in dealing with public controversy and establishing regulatory mechanisms. Examining three periods of ELSI controversies from 2000 to 2021, we identify three types of scientific imaginaries of publics, namely the silent public (2000–2004), the anti-science public (2005–2010), and the EGC as the lawful public supervisory body (2010–2021). In 2010, the Human Biobank Management Act (HBMA) was passed in Taiwan as a solution to public controversy and as a strategy to bypass public engagement. However, the overemphasis on formative legislation caused actors to overlook the processual approach in which ongoing critical reflections are required for the changing operations of TBB
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
New Genetics and Society
New Genetics and Society 生物-生物工程与应用微生物
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
16.70%
发文量
19
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: New Genetics and Society: Critical Studies of Contemporary Biosciences is a world-leading journal which: -Provides a focus for interdisciplinary and multi-disciplinary, leading-edge social science research on the new genetics and related biosciences; -Publishes theoretical and empirical contributions reflecting its multi-faceted development; -Provides an international platform for critical reflection and debate; -Is an invaluable research resource for the many related professions, including health, medicine and the law, wishing to keep abreast of fast changing developments in contemporary biosciences. New Genetics and Society publishes papers on the social aspects of the new genetics (widely defined), including gene editing, genomics, proteomics, epigenetics and systems biology; and the rapidly developing biosciences such as biomedical and reproductive therapies and technologies, xenotransplantation, stem cell research and neuroscience. Our focus is on developing a better understanding of the social, legal, ethical and policy aspects, including their local and global management and organisation.
期刊最新文献
A place for science and technology studies. Observation, collaboration and intervention Constructing maternal responsibility: narratives of “motherly love” and maternal blame in epigenetics research “Law at the frontiers of biomedicine” The salience of genomic information to reproductive autonomy: Australian healthcare professionals’ views on a changing prenatal testing landscape Goffman against DNA: genetic stigma and the use of genetic ancestry tests by white nationalists
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1