Sociotechnical Imaginaries and Science and Technology Policy: A Cross-National Comparison

这一比较项目由科学与社会计划资助，旨在开发一个新的理论框架，以理解全球科技创新政治(S和T；T)。它将考察美国、韩国和德国S与技术政策制定中的国家政治文化与“社会技术想象力”的产生之间的关系。社会技术想象被定义为“以创新的科学和/或技术项目的发展和实现为中心的社会生活和社会秩序的想象形式”。通过系统的跨国比较，该项目希望克服许多STS研究的微观焦点，并阐明三种不同的民主政治文化是如何框定技术创新的目标、风险和收益的，以及它们如何应对民主包容、专家建议、伦理和问责等相关政治挑战。该项目的第一阶段将开发S与安泰政策的国家案例研究，重点关注三项技术-一项旧的，一项当前的，一项新兴的：核能、干细胞和纳米技术。这一设计将提供历史深度以及对国家技术科学想象力的当代洞察。这些案件将按几个方面进行主题组织，包括如何处理国家需要、团结、暂时性、竞争力以及风险和利益。第二阶段将在全国范围内比较第一阶段的结果，得出规范性和与政策相关的结论，并传播结果。这项研究将使用定性的、解释性的科学研究方法，整合政策分析、法学、人类学、科学史和社会学的方法。这项拟议的研究将增进我们对当代S科技在世界三个快速创新地区(美国、欧洲和亚洲)的发展的理解，并将阐明以下问题：每个技术科学项目在S科技政策制定过程中的社会意义是如何想象、框定和表现的？在政策制定和实施期间，如何定义、建模和评估实际的、社会的和环境的好处和风险？在每个案例研究中，公民和公众是如何概念化的？公民身份和参与的文化观念对每个选定的技术科学项目的制定、实施和可能的争辩有什么影响？我们能识别和刻画每个研究国家的S科技政策制定的民族风格吗？对三个国家的S科技政策制定和社会技术想象的比较分析有望产生三种更广泛的影响。首先，它将增进对S和电信全球政治的跨文化理解，从而为美国的政策以及跨国合作和治理奠定更坚实的基础。其次，它将为改进S科技政策的分析和实施提供新的概念和经验资源，特别是在评估新技术和新兴技术的风险和收益方面；在标准制定和不确定性的处理方面；在设计新的公共参与形式方面；在制定改进的伦理分析和审议程序方面；在突出S科技国际合作的机会、障碍和可能的模式方面。第三，它将有助于博士后、研究生和本科生的教学和培训。

This comparative project, funded by the Science and Society Program, aims to develop a new theoretical framework for understanding the global politics of innovation in science and technology (S&T). It will examine the relationship between national political cultures and the production of ''sociotechnical imaginaries'' in S&T policymaking in the United States, South Korea, and Germany. Sociotechnical imaginaries are defined as ''imagined forms of social life and social order that center on the development and fulfillment of innovative scientific and/or technological projects.'' Through systematic cross-national comparison, the project hopes to overcome the micro-focus of many STS studies and to illuminate how three different democratic political cultures are framing the goals, risks, and benefits of technological innovation, and how they are meeting the associated political challenges of democratic inclusion, expert advice, ethics, and accountability.Phase I of the project will develop national case studies of S&T policy, focusing on three technologies - one old, one current, and one emerging: nuclear power; stem cells; and nanotechnology. This design will provide historical depth as well as contemporary insight into national technoscientific imaginations. The cases will be organized thematically along several dimensions, including the treatment of national needs, solidarity, temporality, competitiveness, and risks and benefits. Phase II will compare the results of Phase I cross-nationally, draw normative and policy-relevant conclusions, and disseminate the results. The research will use qualitative, interpretive STS methods, integrating approaches from policy analysis, law, anthropology, and history and sociology of science.The proposed study will advance our understanding of contemporary S&T developments in three rapidly innovating regions of the world (US, Europe, Asia) and will shed light on the following questions: How is the societal significance of each technoscientific project imagined, framed, and represented in the course of S&T policymaking? How are the benefits and risks - physical, social, and environmental - defined, modeled, and assessed, during policy formulation and implementation? How are citizens and publics conceptualized in each case study? What influences do cultural ideas of citizenship and participation have on the framing, implementation, and possible contestation of each selected technoscientific project? Can we identify and characterize national styles of S&T policymaking in each study country?The comparative analysis of S&T policymaking and sociotechnical imaginaries in three nations promises to have three kinds of broader impacts. First, it will improve cross-cultural understanding of the global politics of S&T, thereby building stronger foundations for US policy and for transnational cooperation and governance. Second, it will provide new conceptual and empirical resources for improving S&T policy analysis and implementation, specifically: in assessing the risks and benefits of new and emerging technologies; in standard-setting and the treatment of uncertainty; in the design of new forms of public engagement; in developing improved processes of ethical analysis and deliberation; and in highlighting opportunities for, barriers to, and possible modes of international S&T collaboration. Third, it will contribute to postdoctoral, graduate, and undergraduate teaching and training.