(Techno)epistemic cultures in 21st century life sciences

Should newly emerging fields in the life sciences like systems and synthetic biology be understood in fundamentally different ways than our modern conception of science makes us belief? The coining of terms like technoscience or converging technologies and augmented concerns for material and technical aspects of research hint into such a direction. The proposed habilitation project addresses this question on empirical as well as theoretical grounds. It draws on the concept of epistemic cultures elaborated by Knorr-Cetina (1999) in the classical period of laboratory studies, adding a wider scope to the analysis of its subject matter. Technoepistemic cultures are conceived of as oriented not exclusively towards the production of facts, but also and presumably alternatively towards the creation of artefacts or the design of technical devices. Thereby, the concept builds upon the theoretical positions of the sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK, focussing on the social construction of knowledge) on the one hand and the social construction of technology (SCOT) on the other, but runs counter to their implicit neat separation of science and technology. Within the projects empirical work packages, the parallel existence of different primary orientations that structure day-to-day research practices will be reconstructed from in-depth interviews with scientists and three ethnographic field studies (two in systems biology research facilities, one in biology courses at the University of Vienna). In line with the outlined general research interest, the project will address the following questions in close relation to its empirical cases of the currently emerging fields of systems and synthetic biology: (i) Which concepts can be mobilised to explain the relevance of epistemic communities and cultures for the modern life sciences? (ii) To what extent/in what way do current life sciences exhibit specific epistemic culture(s) and practices and how do these become relevant in various contexts? (iii) To what extent/in what way do 21st century life sciences exhibit a change in their epistemic culture(s) and practices (that is most likely linked to changes in their societal context and role)? (iv) How do we as a society make sense of 21st century life sciences (techno)epistemic culture(s)? Along this research programme, the newly proposed concept of technoepistemic cultures is elaborated in detail based on the empirical examples as well as a comparative overview and analysis of existing concepts that became relevant for the characterisation and understanding of epistemic cultures in the past. Consecutively, the socio-political relevance of a shift in understanding and performing science (from an epistemic towards a technoscientific enterprise) is discussed. Current developments of distinctly new modes of technoscience assessment and technoscience governance (like real-time assessment, anticipatory governance and up-stream engagement) are presented and suggestions for further policy considerations are made.

Summary '(Techno)epistemic cultures in 21st century life sciences' (V-383) How does science change over time? What does it mean when biology - the former natural history - has morphed into life sciences with the beginning of the new millenium? How has the role of biology in society changed? The Elise Richter project '(Techno)epistemic cultures in 21st century life sciences' addressed these questions from multiple perspectives. It ascertains that biology has become a fully fledged technoscience during the past decades and analysis this fundamental shift on the level of research practices, biographical patterns, institutions and innovation regimes. For research practices, a shift from a primary orientation towards understanding and explaining nature to an orientation towards the construction and design - in short: the engineering of living systems and their elements can be detected. For the objects of biological research, a shift from the organismal to the molecular level has become obvious. At the institutional level, generational gaps and organisational reforms contribute to a pattern of change that is rather abrupt and fundamental. Additionally, organisational regimes within academia switched from the "Ordinarienuniversität" of first half of the 20th century to the autonomous, managerial university with strong ties to national and international innovation regimes. Changing modes of scientific communality and changing identity constellations add to the new technoepistemic culture of biology. Such fundamental change does not only have ramifications for science and scientists. The new engineering ambition within biology not only resulted in biology becoming biotechnoscience, it also triggered new responses from society, such as calls for risk regulation or ethical appraisal. It is no more the theoretical innovations put forward by biologists - such as the descent of man put forward by Charles Darwin - that provoke public outcry; rather, it is the intervention in nature and the construction of biological 'artifacts' such as with the genetical intervention in the human germ line or with the construction of human-animal cybrids. Also, the logics of interaction between science and society have changed. Universities are considered as autonomous, but are also subjected to performance indicators, competitive funding and hype cycles. The detailed analysis thus shows that scientific change within biology goes far beyond the mere accumulation of new insights. It even goes far beyond paradigmatic revolutions like those evoked by Darwin's evolutionary theory. Recent changes within biology encompass the levels of practice, identity, communality, institutions, culture and societal significance.