CASES

This study is a case study of how scientists understand and conduct responsibility in relation to their work. I have used two cases as the loci for the investigation of this question. The first case is a document study of how scientists articulate responsible scientific conduct, and the second case is a laboratory study of two laboratories working within the field of synthetic biology. In the next two sections, I will account for why these two cases were chosen and why I look at them as ‘cases’. As my point of departure, I use Abbott’s definition of cases as:

‘[…] fuzzy realities with autonomously defined, complex properties – and […]

as engaged in a perpetual dialogue with their environment, a dialogue of action and constraint that we call plot.’ (Abbott 1992: 65)

I

Based on that definition, I see cases as a defined and delimited field of study, where the properties of the cases can be studied as if they were acting independently of their surroundings. But in reality, these boundaries are constructed (by the researcher), and it is important to notice that the environment also gives meaning to the case. By using the terms ‘fuzzy’ and

‘complex’, Abbott also underlines the importance of a case being big enough to expose contradictions, different layers and different themes, which can be unfolded by the researcher. In the articulation of this study as a ‘case study’ also lies the assumption that the ‘fuzzy reality with autonomously defined, complex properties’ is an example of something that can be generalised beyond the case itself (Abbott 199266; Ragin 1992: 8). I will return to these possibilities for generalisations, based on the findings, in the concluding discussion (10). Here, I will describe my cases.

4.1.1 THE DOCUMENT STUDY

The document study comprises the study of an archive of 263 papers about the responsible conduct of science written between 1960 and 2010 (see chapter 5 for further descriptions of the construction and analysis of the archive). Initially, the document study was intended to be a more ‘traditional’ literature review of the

‘state of the art’ of the pre-supposed field of ‘social responsibility in science’.

But the literature searches soon showed that rather than one or several delimited

‘fields’ detailing this subject, there was a heterogeneous cacophony of voices coming from many disciplines, with each arguing for their conception of

‘Responsible Science’ and how it can be realised.

Therefore, the ‘literature review’ was turned into an analysis of different

‘political rationalities’ that attempt to steer the conduct of science in certain directions; the journal papers are thereby considered data rather than background

and theory. In this dissertation, the document study is considered a ‘case’ on contemporary ideals about responsible conduct in science. The contemporary ideals are located by studying a specific archive (263 journal papers) that was assembled as representations of understandings of responsible conduct in general. Each paper articulates an idealised picture of how scientists should behave and how the institutions of science are supposed to be regulated if we are to ever reach these ideals. The analytical task was to identify these articulations and find patterns (political rationalities) in their argumentations. Based on the sample of texts, four rationalities about the responsible conduct of science in general are presented. The argument for generalising from 263 journal papers to a statement about ‘science’ more broadly is that the archive had representations from a diverse range of disciplines and voices. The analysis is presented as the first analytical chapter of this dissertation (5).

4.1.2 COMPARING DENMARK AND USA

Moving from the document studies to the ethnographic studies, the task formulated in the PhD grant was to make a qualitative study of two research organisations that worked in the fields of advanced biotech in Denmark and the USA.

Besides the very practical aspect of starting with Denmark because it is my home country, Denmark in itself represents an interesting place to conduct studies of ‘Responsible Science’, as it has a rich tradition for science communication that has also been the inspiration for some of the recent ideas about including social values in scientific conduct. As I also described in greater detail in the theory section, Denmark is now putting a stronger focus on organisational communication and inter-organisational competition in the way that science communication is performed. In that way, Denmark is almost

moving in the opposite direction of many other Western countries at the moment (Mejlgaard 2009). The USA is also interesting for several reasons, first and foremost, because they are considered global front-runners in the development of science and science government – a fact already noted by Weber in 1917 (Weber, Owen, and Strong 2004). While the structure of the US scientific system and its relationship to the state, industry and the public has been a source of inspiration for many other countries, public science and the university system is still very much different from the Danish model. The US government has recently developed additional outreach and engagement projects in relation to their strategic stake on novel technologies, but while they are very far in their scientific endeavours and strategic government of science, they are not as experienced in outreach and engagement as Denmark (Jasanoff 2011).

From the beginning, there were two reasons for the comparative aspect of this study. First, studying two laboratories is a way to become more aware of the local, unique traits of each laboratory. It is also a way to make myself ponder over aspects that I may otherwise overlook, because I may take them for granted as institutional aspects of science rather than local aspects. Seeing that things can be otherwise in another laboratory was supposed to make me more sensitive toward my data material (for similar considerations in relation to comparative laboratory studies, see Traweek 2009; Knorr-Cetina 1999). The other idea was that the countries’ respective political cultures in relation to science’s role in society would influence how the scientists think about and conduct ‘Responsible Science’ (as suggested by, for instance, Irwin 2006; Irwin and Horst 2010). As I will discuss in ‘Observations’ (4.2.1), this second idea proved difficult to establish in relation to my material, whereas the former idea about sensitivity was very fruitful in terms of being much more sensitive during the actual observations. It is easier to study an interaction as something special and

noteworthy when it can be compared to another place where things are handled differently.

4.1.3 SYNTHETIC BIOLOGY AND LABORATORIES

The grant proposal also suggested different scientific disciplines such as nanotechnology and synthetic biology as possible empirical focuses for the study. I chose synthetic biology because it is a very new field (even newer than nanotechnology), where a lot of promises for its potential uses are already being made by scientists, potential funders and politicians. At the same time, others advocate caution and consider the discipline controversial because it combines biology and engineering, thereby creating new organic material that nature has never nurtured and which could also have potential unknown side effects for both humans and nature.

Because the field is itself so much in the making, it was my expectation that the scientists working with synthetic biology would have reflected upon the directions of research and the questions they wanted to pursue, as there are still so many uncertainties surrounding the field’s potential. The last reason for choosing this area was the expectation that the controversies surrounding the field since its emergence would have familiarised the informants with themes such as ethics and public scepticism, thereby enabling the scientists to elaborate considerations and give examples from practice. All in all, my initial thoughts were that I would end up with two laboratories, one Danish and one American, and I would compare the way they related to themes of ‘Responsible Science’

and see if I could link their different practices to their different political cultures.

Inspired by Flyvbjerg (Flyvbjerg 1991), the case would then be a comparative best-case study. The different political cultures in Denmark and the USA would together be the point of departure for the comparison, and I would highlight the

differences based on this theoretical premise. It would be a ‘best-case’

methodology because I expected (in both cases) to find organisations where people already relate to demands for ‘Responsible Science’.

The two laboratories where I made the most elaborate field studies¹³,(which I will call Gyro Gearloose and Curious George respectively from now on) find it important to include values and ethical questions in their work – each in their own way. Curious George has worked with GM plants for many years and they have learned the hard way that funding can disappear due to lack of public support (see also the description of the so called ‘GMO crisis’ in 2.1.1). They do not want a situation like the one that occurred around the turn of the millennium to happen again, and they work hard to obtain public support for their work. In the USA, I, helped by my American supervisor, chose a lab working on the development of an advanced diagnostic device that is able to distinguish between a wide range of different diseases. They are also developing new vaccines for, for instance, certain types of cancer. In comparison with the Danish lab, the American lab seemed much more focused on developing readymade technologies, but at that point, I was not sure if that was more a way of branding themselves than an actual ambition. Nor did I at that point regard the different scientific aims as being of great importance, but this perception has changed, as I will demonstrate in the analysis.

13 I did two pilot studies in Denmark before I decided to continue my observations at Curious George. The other lab was also working with synthetic biology. While it was also engaged in different outreach activities, the lab in itself was much smaller and solely focused on one project: to create a synthetic living cell. At Curious George, they were part of many different projects and faced different forms of problems depending on the content of the projects. I was interested in this diversity and the opportunity to interview many different people at different levels in the laboratory.