The co-production of biotechnology and democratization in community science labs

被引:0
|
作者
Santos, Dan [1 ]
机构
[1] Australian Natl Univ, Australian Natl Ctr Publ Awareness Sci, Canberra, Australia
关键词
Biohacking; democratization; community science lab; co-production; biotechnology; BIOHACKING; EMERGENCE; POLITICS; BIOLOGY; LESSONS;
D O I
10.1080/09505431.2025.2457742
中图分类号
G [文化、科学、教育、体育]; C [社会科学总论];
学科分类号
03 ; 0303 ; 04 ;
摘要
Biotechnological knowledge, materials and tools are becoming broadly available and accessible. As a result, biohacking - the conduct of scientific experiments and projects outside of mainstream scientific settings in academia and industry - has become increasingly possible. A global community biology movement aspiring to democratize biotechnology has emerged in the last few years, and community science labs have become particularly important local spaces for biohacking. Community science labs can be analysed as sites of embedded co-production. On the one hand, biotechnological knowledge and innovations are developed through individual and group projects. On the other hand, norms and cultures, invoked and enacted as democratization, also emerge. These co-productionist processes unfold through three sets of practices affecting who can be a scientific actor (participation), what resources they can use (accessibility), and how they can contribute to knowledge production and innovation (autonomy). Two community science labs (BioCurious and Counter Culture Labs), both located in the San Francisco Bay Area, illustrate this process. Both labs share common goals to co-produce more diverse communities and technoscientific projects that engage with biotechnology, with safety standards critical considerations. However, they uphold divergent broader political economic aspirations, leading to norms that are associated with more wide-ranging innovation pathways (BioCurious), or ones that are more narrowly restricted to open source (Counter Culture Labs). Comparisons with community science labs elsewhere, and connections to other forms of democratization, could build on these empirical and conceptual insights.
引用
收藏
页数:26
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Living labs and co-production: university campuses as platforms for sustainability science
    Evans, James
    Jones, Ross
    Karvonen, Andrew
    Millard, Lucy
    Wendler, Jana
    CURRENT OPINION IN ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY, 2015, 16 : 1 - 6
  • [2] Living Labs: A New Tool for Co-production?
    Nesti, Giorgia
    SMART AND SUSTAINABLE PLANNING FOR CITIES AND REGIONS: RESULTS OF SSPCR 2015, 2017, : 267 - 281
  • [3] Innovation labs and co-production in public problem solving
    McGann, Michael
    Wells, Tamas
    Blomkamp, Emma
    PUBLIC MANAGEMENT REVIEW, 2021, 23 (02) : 297 - 316
  • [4] The co-production of knowledge for climate science
    Kimberley Miner
    Leslie Canavera
    Jared Gonet
    Kelly Luis
    Marisol Maddox
    Paul McCarney
    Gwen Bridge
    David Schimel
    James Rattlingleaf
    Nature Climate Change, 2023, 13 : 307 - 308
  • [5] The Co-production of Science, Ethics, and Emotion
    Pickersgill, Martyn
    SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY & HUMAN VALUES, 2012, 37 (06) : 579 - 603
  • [6] The co-production of knowledge for climate science
    Miner, Kimberley
    Canavera, Leslie
    Gonet, Jared
    Luis, Kelly
    Maddox, Marisol
    McCarney, Paul
    Bridge, Gwen
    Schimel, David
    Rattlingleaf, James
    NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE, 2023, 13 (04) : 307 - 308
  • [7] Team Science, Justice, and the Co-Production of Knowledge
    Tebes, Jacob Kraemer
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY PSYCHOLOGY, 2018, 62 (1-2) : 13 - 22
  • [8] Science and Law. Perspectives of Co-production
    Tallacchini, Mariachiara
    RIVISTA DI FILOSOFIA DEL DIRITTO-JOURNAL OF LEGAL PHILOSOPHY, 2012, 1 (02): : 313 - 336
  • [10] Sustainability in regulating biotechnology: A new form of knowledge in regulatory co-production?
    Poort, Lonneke
    Quintavalla, Alberto
    REVIEW OF EUROPEAN COMPARATIVE & INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, 2024, 33 (03) : 485 - 493