Team:UCL/Humans/Soci/2b

In order to capture the duality of synthetic biology governance, in terms of its positive and negative discourses in relation to the environment, this study has drawn on two ‘seemingly incompatible’ theories of late-modernity. The theoretical framework which will be discussed here has been proposed by Maurie J. Cohen (1997). It involves an integrative approach to the theories of ecological modernisation and risk society, based on their alternative visions of scientific rationality in post-industrial societies (Cohen 1997). Before discussing both theories within the suggested single framework, it is necessary to give an outline first of how the theories envision the current late modernity in relation to the condition of the environment.

Ecological Modernisation Theory

When it comes to the theory of ecological modernisation, problem-solving strategies to environmental decline is configured through the way the state operates in relation to market forces. It has been framed within the context of modernisation where the market economy is perceived as instrumental in addressing ecological concerns. The state itself has, according to the theory, performed inadequately considering the lack of governmental reform to resolve the environmental crisis. Meanwhile, actors participating in the market economy gained prominence as they were increasingly seen as important contributors to reform. Moreover, one of the central elements of the theory is its positive emphasis on the role of technological innovation to solve environmental problems. As a policy strategy, emerging technologies such as genetic engineering, can help carve out a path towards sustainable outcomes, notwithstanding that certain practices such as genetic modification are being confronted with a form of antipathetic vigilance coming from environmental activists. However, as a discursive theory, it mainly envisions a reformist trajectory for industrial society in which the latter puts these technologies to use and contribute to the greening of production and consumption as a way to render capitalism environmentally sound (Mol and Jänicke 2009).

The success of ecological modernisation depends on the extent to which science, business, governments and moderate environmental advocacy groups can collaborate and continue to do this by reforming institutional configurations so that they can operate at a structural level. The capitalist political economy thus remains fundamentally unaltered but the institutional framework for economic performance takes environmental considerations as an inherent part of its policy actions. This, however, does not mean that the environment becomes the main focus of concern. It is rather about serving the needs and preferences of humans so that society can start developing sustainably without having ecological setbacks hindering progress and modernisation. It is therefore important that the aforementioned collaborating entities of society are motivated by their intentions to serve the public good. As reform is expected from politics, non-governmental actors become also increasingly significant in their connections with governmental action (Dryzek 2005).

Risk Society

While ecological modernisation perceives technology as a predominantly positive, the theory of risk society views technological applications in terms of what it means for the distribution of risk in society. In the era of late modernity, risks tend to be described in relation to the difficulty to detect them while at the same time having a possible effect spanning several generations. This makes it difficult to enforce mechanisms of accountability when the technologies constitute an environmental hazard, either intentionally or unintentionally. As the late-modern society was more and more confronted with the prevalence of ecological crises, or as a potential future threat, environmental hazards and growing uncertainties led to a greater attention to risk as a central policy concept for action. With the unfolding of modernisation itself, attempts have been made to exert control on the perverse ecological effects of industrialisation and rational economic performance measures. Traditional political and scientific institutions were increasingly incapable of providing security and certainty, which in turn, undermined the trust between the public and these institutions which was necessary to restrain lay insecurities in society. The resulting political development instigated a form of so-called subpolitics to redefine how modernity and its institutions shape the way society evolves. For the institution of science this implies the breaking up of the monopoly of expertise that scientists have held. This, then, can contribute to the elimination of reductionist conclusions about how environmental problems should be addressed (Beck 1999; Cohen 1997).

Integrating Technological-Environmental Risk and Development

The main objective in this study is to reconcile the theories of risk society with ecological modernisation in order to construct an appropriate governance framework for synthetic biology. A typology created by Maurie Cohen (1997) shows how both theories of modernity interconnect as processes of social change. The result is an integrated framework of technological-environmental risk and development where the ecologically modern society and the risk society are seen as a potential outcome of pathways that are taken in the current modern society. These pathways differ depending on whether society is seen as either leaning towards a secure environment or towards insecurity. Both, however, are perceived to be one of two possible outcomes when modern society continues to develop.

In Cohen’s typology, modern society is demarcated from pre-modern society with the start of the industrial revolution and the end of feudalism through the social reform that resulted from changes in the way the industrial economy was organised. The beginning of this new era was also marked by new hazards introduced by technologies that were not administered sufficiently. As a consequence, the ambition for material production caused considerable harm to the environment as side effect of cost-effective economic thinking. This changed, however, when values of environmental durability gained more importance as a social objective vis-à-vis the efforts achieved by industry. This marked the beginning of ecological modernisation, where growth remains part of a linear projection that builds on the economic rationales of modernity. In this instance, technology is a central element in the process of arriving at that ecologically-modern society. It is a tool to ensure that ecological responsibilities are embraced by society through a series of environmental reforms. The technologies which are used are hence a strong force for optimism in addressing the challenges put forward by environmental problems. However, these reforms also mean that all institutions, modes of behaviour and policies require structural adaptations so that the integrity of the environment can be maintained. These modifications are essential in order to create an ecologically-modern society that is able to guarantee ‘technological-environmental security’ (Cohen 1997: 111).

Although a society may choose to follow a certain path that fits into the process of ecological modernisation, it is not always presented with the conditions that would lead to such an outcome. According to Cohen (1997), the eco-modernist course can be confronted with an alternative trajectory that would lead to a risk society. This, according to risk society theorists such as Ulrich Beck and Anthony Giddens, is in fact the default pathway when the transition to the ecologically-modern society cannot be accomplished. Instead of the positive trend that ecological modernisation theorists prescribe through the transformative means of technology, the risk society becomes the result of industrial technology that is actually causing environmental hazards. These, in turn, engender insecurities among lay people who do not have the same knowledge about the technologies that are used in comparison with those who create and apply them. In the situation where the technology does not seem to be meet expectations set up by economic projections, insecurities appear to aggravate. Equally so, when institutions and their subsequent attempts for reform do not match the nature of the problems they need to tackle, responding to the ecological crisis will only have a marginal effect on the social system in which policies are formulated. Consequentially, fears lead to insecurity out of the inability of expertise to mitigate the uncertainty surrounding certain technologies. These, then, turn into the main driving forces in dealing with environmental hazards. Now, the focus of industrial and environmental policy becomes one of reducing the impact of industrial practices instead of reforming the practice altogether. Eventually, a risk society can self-correct itself by adopting a reflexive attitude toward the technologies and institutions so that society can have the opportunity the rehabilitate. The acceptance of a decline in trust in them hence turns the continuous anxiety from growing uncertainties into an objective to ensure mechanisms of accountability (Cohen 1997).