Citizens At Risk: Cultures of Modernity in the US and EU
Citizens At Risk: Cultures of Modernity in the US and EU
复制标题
面临风险的公民：美国和欧盟的现代文化
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2002
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
S. Jasanoff
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
S. Jasanoff
没有共同风险2001年8月9日，美国总统乔治·W·布什首次向全国发表电视讲话。他的话题既不是国家安全，也不是税收政策，也不是教育--所有这些都在2000年的竞选活动中得到了突出的体现。相反，这是对干细胞研究的联邦资助。就在前一年，也就是2000年3月，比尔·克林顿总统和英国首相托尼·布莱尔发表了一份联合声明，呼吁公开有关人类基因组的“基本信息”。他们的声明让人回想起十多年前的一段插曲，也就是1987年3月，美国总统罗纳德·里根和法国总统雅克·希拉克签署了一项协议，以解决关于哪个国家的研究人员最先发现艾滋病病毒的优先权争端；出于对这一发现的巨大经济潜力的敬意，两国元首下令分享这一发现的功劳。显然，科学政策已经成为一个高级政治问题，世界各国领导人正在争先恐后地展示对研究和开发的支持。这与科学和技术社会学家的观察一致，即目前正在进行根本性的转变，从19世纪生锈的工业社会向21世纪闪闪发光的高科技“知识社会”转变。在这种新的社会结构中，知识已成为不可或缺的资源，国家政策制定者相应地必须争先恐后地生产更多的知识，并培养更熟练的劳动力，以利用这一日益宝贵的商品。然而，每当政府要求支持科学的人应对知识革命的破坏性后果时，分歧和矛盾情绪就会浮出水面。作为科学的市场
j NO COMMON RISKS On 9 August 2001, US President George W. Bush delivered his rst televised address to the nation. His topic was neither national security nor tax policy nor education—all of which had gured prominently in the 2000 election campaign. Rather, it was federal funding for stem cell research. Just the previous year, in March 2000, President Bill Clinton and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair had issued a joint statement calling for ‘fundamental information’ about the human genome to be made publicly available. Their declaration recalled an episode more than a decade earlier, in March 1987, when US President Ronald Reagan and French President Jacques Chirac signed an agreement to resolve the priority dispute over which country’s researchers had rst identi ed the AIDS virus; in a bow to the discovery’s enormous economic potential, the two heads of state decreed that credit for it should be shared. Clearly, science policy has become a matter of high politics, and world leaders are vying with one another to demonstrate support for research and development. This is consistent with the observation by sociologists of science and technology that a fundamental shift is currently in progress from the rusty industrial societies of the 19th century to the glistening, high-tech ‘knowledge societies’ of the 21st. In this new social con guration, knowledge has become the indispensable resource, and state policymakers correspondingly must scramble both to produce more knowledge and to nurture better skilled workforces to capitalize on this increasingly valuable commodity. Yet divisions and ambivalence surface whenever governmental cheerleaders for science are asked to cope with the disruptive consequences of the knowledge revolution. As the marketplace for science