Team:UCL/Humans/Soci/2b

Opposing Paradigms in the Face of Environmental Decline

• Introduction
• Conceptual Framework: The Governance Challenges of Synthetic Biology
• Theoretical Framework: Opposing Paradigms in the Face of Environmental Decline
• Methodology
• Chapter 1: Synthetic Biology for Environmental Reform
• Chapter 2: UCL iGEM 2014 in the Risk Society
• Chapter 3: Transcending Multifaceted Borders
• Chapter 4: The Playful Professional and Sustainable Governance
• List of References

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 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