Making worlds: epistemological, ontological and political dimensions of technoscience

Abstract

This paper outlines some of the new epistemological and ontological assumptions of contemporary technoscience thereby reframing the question of an epochal break. Important aspects are the question of a new techno-rationality, but also the constitution of a 'New World Order Inc.', with its new 'politics of life itself', the reconfiguration of categories such as race, class and gender in technoscience, as well as the amalgamation of everyday life, technoscience and culture. Given the difficulties of 'proving' a new episteme (or even epoch), I change perspective by reflecting on the epistemological vantage point from which the interpretation of technoscience as a new episteme or epoch becomes (im)plausibleconfronting traditional approaches of philosophy and history of science and technology assessment (TA) with interventional approaches, such as postcolonial and feminist cultural studies of technoscience.Zusammenfassung Mein Beitrag diskutiert die Frage nach einem epochalen Bruch zwischen der wissenschaftlich-technischen Kultur der Moderne und der Technoscience bzw. einer neuen Technowissenschaftskultur. Um klassische Probleme der Epochendiskussion zu vermeiden, wird die Frage nach der Technoscience mit Hilfe des Foucaultschen Episteme-und Dispositiv-Begriffs neu gerahmt. Wichtige Aspekte der Episteme bzw. des Dispositivs Technoscience werden vorgestellt-wie die Ausbildung einer neuen Techno-Rationalität, die Konstitution einer'New World Order Inc.' (Haraway in Modest_Witness@Second_Millenium.

Plantas luminiscentes y máquinas vivas. Hacia una crítica de la biología sintética

“…Éstos impulsan perspectivas que entienden la «vida y la naturaleza» como un ámbito de riquezas potenciales, incluso ilimitadas, que pueden programarse y producirse mediante procedimientos informáticos: «escribir» el código de la vida. En este texto examinaré la biología sintética en calidad de fenómeno cultural, o para ser más preciso, como un fenómeno de la cultura tecnocientífica que emerge en las sociedades contemporáneas (Weber 2010). Cuando The Guardian preguntó a Craig Venter si su proyecto del llamado Digital Biological Converter, un electrodoméstico portátil que se conectaría a los ordenadores personales para sintetizar proteínas, virus o células vivas tras descargar secuencias de ADN de internet, era una propuesta seria, éste respondió:…”

When does the co-evolution of technology and science overturn into technoscience?

“…Along with this discussion, different concepts of technoscience exist. In her paper, Weber ( 2010b ) has summarised the following different core elements which represent different approaches or at least foci within the concept of technoscience: “…the amalgamation of technologies with everyday life…” (p. 22) “…the implosion of traditional dualisms such as nature/culture, human/machine, subject/object and body/mind through the discourses and practices of contemporary science and technology.” (p. 19) “…the molecularisation of life…” (p. 26) “…the intimate coupling of human and machine, with the blurring of the boundaries between the human and the artificial and between body and mind.” (p. 26) “The emergence of a ‘new world order’ that comes not only with radical epistemological, ontological and socio-material changes but also with enormous socio-technical upheavals and restructuring of society and the symbolic order and fundamental changes in the nature of class, race and gender.” (p. 19) “Technoscience marks ‘a historical break–not with regard to socio-technical restructuring, but mainly with regard to the radical change of values of science and technoscience, respectively. … Technoscience is seen primarily as an entrepreneurial and pragmatic project in which technology assumes the leading role in developing innovative solutions for specific societal problems, as well as new markets.” (p. 21) …”

“…Following the discussion on technoscience of nanotechnology (e.g. Nordmann 2005 ; Fogelberg and Glimell 2003 ; Bensaude-Vincent 2004 ; Weber 2010b ; Kastenhofer 2009 ), I had the impression that the blending of these different approaches leads to confusion within the argumentations. Notions such as pure science, disinterestedness and intervention have different meanings regarding the different analytical frames (philosophy vs. sociology), see subsection on “Purification”.…”

“…life science, robotics) are often directly transferred to other technologies or scientific fields, such as physics, chemistry, or nanotechnology. But different fields have different “epistemic cultures” (Knorr-Cetina), especially concerning aspects of technoscience such as the “molecularisation of life” and the “blurring of the boundaries between the human and the artificial and between body and mind” (Weber 2010b , p. 26, 19); it is questionable whether these aspects could be observed in physics in the same manner as they can in life sciences.…”

From Publics to Practitioners: Invention Power and Open Technoscience

“…This condition is what characterises technoscience (Haraway, 1997, Ihde and Selinger, 2003, Weber, 2010. The fusion of technology, science and everyday life is not just another name for science; this fusion refers to something much wider that the acknowledgment that technology actively shapes basic research and that basic research is increasingly concerned with impact on applications and the everyday.…”