Institut für Technikfolgenabschätzung Elektronische Publikation
|
epub.oeaw – Institutionelles Repositorium der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften epub.oeaw – Institutional Repository of the Austrian Academy of Sciences
A-1011 Wien, Dr. Ignaz Seipel-Platz 2
Tel. +43-1-515 81/DW 3420, Fax +43-1-515 81/DW 3400 http://epub.oeaw.ac.at, e-mail: epub@oeaw.ac.at |
|
DATUM, UNTERSCHRIFT / DATE, SIGNATURE
BANK AUSTRIA CREDITANSTALT, WIEN (IBAN AT04 1100 0006 2280 0100, BIC BKAUATWW), DEUTSCHE BANK MÜNCHEN (IBAN DE16 7007 0024 0238 8270 00, BIC DEUTDEDBMUC)
|
Institut für Technikfolgenabschätzung Elektronische Publikation
Alexander Bogner
doi:10.1553/ita-pa-AB-10-02 Institut für Soziologie, Universität Duisburg-Essen
Abstract: Science, Technology & Innovation Studies, Dec. 2010, Vol. 6, No. 2, 183-201 The central concern of this contribution is the question of whether discursively stabilised disagreement among experts leads to problems of legitimacy for science in its advisory capacity or for the taking of political decisions. In considering this question, it seems initially plausible that a failure to build consensus will endanger science as an important resource and as a basis of political decision-making. In my view, this conclusion is justified in respect of such science and technology contro- versies which can be understood as problems of risk. Where questions such as climate change, cellular radio, or transgenic crops are concerned, debate crystal- lises around the question of which claims to truth can be shown to be justified, and a consensus on the disputed issue between the experts involved is seen as the ideal way of ending the conflict (cf. Weingart 2006: 162-3). However, I want to argue in this contribution that an absence of consensus cannot be understood in principle as a deficit in terms of legitimation, or indeed as a gen- eral weakness of expert knowledge. On the contrary: to the extent that controver- sies about science and technology are understood and negotiated as problems of ethics rather than risk, disagreement becomes an indicator of quality as politics seeks to manage uncertainty. In order to demonstrate why ethics is currently such an important factor in con- flicts about science and technology, I begin (1) by presenting a short discursive history of the ebb and flow of ethics during the process of modernisation. It be- comes clear (2) that many of today’s conflicts about technology are being negoti- ated with the help of explicit reference to ethics. My main thesis (3) is that from the perspective of conflict theory, this appreciation of ethics means disagreement is being recognised and stabilised. In ethically framed value conflicts, no-one can – with good cause – expect a genuine agreement to be reached on the level of per- sonal moral reasoning (apart from basic values such as those expressed in the uni- versal declaration of human rights). The next section (4) shows that this cultivation of disagreement has considerable implications for the political management of controversies about technology. The empirical analysis is then centrally concerned with the question of how politics deals with expert disagreement in ethicised con- troversies. This analysis is confined to the case of Germany. It shows (5) that po- litical references to ethics expertise express a recognition of disagreement which opens up legitimatory possibilities for political action. In the conclusion (6), I reca- pitulate the central points of the argument. Published Online: 2013/08/26 13:01:44 Document Date: 2010/11/26 14:01:00 Object Identifier: 0xc1aa5576 0x002ed5f1 Rights: . Fallweise veröffentlicht das Institut für Technikfolgen-Abschätzung zu Themen der Technikfolgen-Abschätzung in elektronischem Format. |
epub.oeaw – Institutionelles Repositorium der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften epub.oeaw – Institutional Repository of the Austrian Academy of Sciences
A-1011 Wien, Dr. Ignaz Seipel-Platz 2
Tel. +43-1-515 81/DW 3420, Fax +43-1-515 81/DW 3400 http://epub.oeaw.ac.at, e-mail: epub@oeaw.ac.at |