Hybrid regimes of knowledge? Challenges for constructing scientific evidence in the context of the GMO-debate

University of Augsburg, Institut für Soziologie, 86159 Augsburg, Germany.
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (Impact Factor: 2.83). 06/2009; 16(5):508-20. DOI: 10.1007/s11356-009-0164-y
Source: PubMed


Over the last two decades, there has been a remarkable shift of attention to the scientific and political fundamentals of the precautionary principle. The application of this principle has become a main strategy of coping with the different forms and problems related to non-knowledge. Thus, societies are increasingly confronted with the challenging and hitherto unresolved problem of political and technological decision-making under conditions of diverging framings of non-knowledge. At present, there seems to be no generally accepted scientific or institutional approach. This is why the fundamental question of how different scientific actors define and construct evidence is not answered yet. Hence, this paper is based on the consideration that the conflicts in risk policy concerning genetically modified organisms (GMO) depend on the unresolved conflicts about the diverging scientific strategies and structures of evidence-making between the epistemic cultures involved. Thus, this study investigates two questions: (1) do the epistemic strategies of evidence-making differ systematically with the scientific actors involved in the GMO-debate? (2) What consequences emerge considering institutionalized procedures of decision-making?
This article is based on a secondary analysis of findings and perspectives reported in the literature and on the methods of qualitative social empirical research, i.e., interviews with experts. A total number of 34 interviews were conducted to explore the different strategies of handling non-knowledge and constructing evidence. Actors from science, administration, business and NGOs were interviewed. In this way, typical epistemic cultures can be described. An epistemic culture is the constellation of methodological strategies, theoretical assumptions and practical-experimental settings which define in every speciality the ways how we know what we know.
There are two main results. Firstly, it was worked out that the epistemic cultures involved in the GMO-debate use rather distinct strategies to define non-knowledge and to classify evidence. There are three types of constructing evidence, which correspond to different types of epistemic cultures. Secondly, the findings imply that the intensity of the conflicts in risk policy fields like the GMO-debate is due to a lack of knowledge politics. Usually, knowledge politics is restricted to the design of institutional procedures to compile knowledge provided by experts. The institutional setting of risk analysis and risk management is based on the premise of strict separation between knowledge and power. However, inadmissible mixing-up of knowledge and power is observable.
It seems that non-knowledge leads to an epistemic no man's land, and, hence, hybrid regimes of knowledge emerge. These regimes are hybrid with respect to the unclear and not explicitly reflected strategies of evidence-making. By lacking of knowledge politics, this situation opens up 'windows of opportunity' for actors with special interests in risk policy fields like the GMO-debate. Therefore, there is a difference between the visible institutionalized structures of risk policies and the rather invisible hybrid regimes of knowledge. Structure and scope of expertise have to be reflected and new instruments of knowledge politics have to be designed.
Different epistemic cultures can be qualified by describing their particular strategies of evidence-making. To solve the conflicts between these strategies, a meta-expertise is needed. Besides the institutionalized settings of knowledge politics, the underlying hybrid regimes of knowledge have to be identified.
The concept of epistemic cultures and their strategies of evidence-making should be investigated more explicitly with respect to other risk policy fields The analysis of hybrid regimes of knowledge should be deepened by looking at the complex interactions between institutional, discursive and practical rules affecting risk assessment.

  • Source
    • "This is a shift that scientists have begun to acknowledge – that potentially harmful consequences cannot be established reliably by further research and risk assessments because they belong to the domain of ignorance (cf. Böschen, 2009; Hoffmann-Riem and Wynne, 2002; Wehling, 2006). Risk is most widely understood as the probability of a harmful event multiplied by the amount of harm the event is expected to inflict. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Recent debates about the knowledge society have furthered awareness of the limits of knowing and, in turn, have fuelled sociological debates about the persistence and intensification of ignorance. In view of the ubiquity of the notion of ignorance, this paper focuses on Georg Simmel’s insightful observations about Nichtwissen (nonknowledge) as the reverse side of knowledge. The paper seeks to relate the notion of nonknowledge to Simmel’s conceptualization of objective and subjective culture. In Simmel’s view, modern society produces cultural objects in order to satisfy individuals’ inherent drive to become social beings. Ever more nonknowledge can be understood as an outcome of the growing difficulties in absorbing the achievement of objective culture into subjective culture. To illustrate the crucial importance of such a view of the unknown for today’s debates on the knowledge society, the paper uses illustrative examples ranging from the strategic acknowledgement of nonknowledge in personal relationships to public encounters and the right not to know one’s own genetic identity.
    Preview · Article · Dec 2012 · Cultural Sociology
  • Source
    • "Environmental researchers have well recognized the existence of major uncertainties to develop environmental policies for sustainable development (Carpenter et al., 2009) and to produce reliable, valid models and rigorous global indicators (Walpole et al., 2009). Particularly in agriculture, recognition of ignorance is well established, despite controversies (Jasanoff, 2005; Mayer and Stirling, 2004), in policies centred on the approval of new technologies (Böschen, 2009; Haslberger, 2000; Marjolein van Asselt and Vos, 2008). However, it is surprising that incertitude in the macroeconomics assessment of agricultural policies is still not well developed. "

    Full-text · Article · Jan 2011
  • Source · Antonija Trontel
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Excessive exploitation of soil, water reserves and energy sources endanger our ability to produce food and other products that are essential for survival of humans, and irreversibly change the Earth as integral ecosystem. Sustainable development successfully connects determinants of economy, society and environment which correspond to institutional, political, legal and technological systems. Sustainable development is supported by three main factors: sustainable agriculture, improvement of social-economic relationships, and progress in technology. Biological diversity is basis for sustainable agriculture and imply three main categories: genetic diversity, species diversity and ecosystem diversity. Functional diversity is added to these three categories by some authors. Biodiversity provides a source of economic, aesthetic, health and cultural privileges. Global communication and exchange of goods have strong impact on biodiversity. Destruction of natural habitats due to urbanization and expansion of arable areas is just one cause of biodiversity reduction. Imperil of indigenous biodiversity is also result of migration of some species to other habitats as result of human activities as well as introduction of allochthonous species.
    Preview · Article · Jan 2010
Show more