Editing Life. How Sociotechnical Vanguards Craft Visions of the Future

Contents

Abstract

1. Editing Life

2. Grounding Genetic Vanguards
2.1. Research Question
2.2. Material
2.3. Methodological Approach

3. Conceptualizing Biotechnological Imaginaries
3.1. Co-Producing Biotechnology
3.2. Sociotechnical Imaginaries in the Making
3.3. Sociotechnical Vanguards and Vanguard Visions

4. Imagining the Human Condition
4.1. The Tools of Imagination
4.2. Narrating the Past
4.3. Comparing the Present
4.4. Enticing the Future

5. Crafting Visions of the Future

6. Bibliography

Abstract

This paper discusses the semantic tools used by technological frontrunners to establish imaginaries in the light of the development of the CRISPR/Cas9 technology. A grounded inspired theory approach is employed to untangle these tools, used in an interview with a leading proponent and researcher in genetic engineering, George Church. The analysis identifies three tools – narration, comparison and enticement – that technological frontrunners utilize to translate their ideas into a convincing vision that has the potential to be incorporated into the collective imagination of sociotechnical futures.

1. Editing Life

The creation of technology is reserved to a very small number of species on this planet, but none owe their success more to their ability to invent than us. For most of history this meant that human ingenuity formed ever more complex tools that allowed us to shape our environment to fit our needs. The last decades however, saw the rise of a technology that might allow us not just to alter our surroundings but change the very core of our being. From the start, these biotechnologies faced a number of ethical and security concerns that unsettled the global community (Hurlbut, 2015). With the advent of the new millennium and the sequencing of the first human genome, biotechnology became increasingly powerful. By 2013 the advent of a new technology called CRISPR/Cas9 opened up a myriad of possibilities that have the potential to alter our genome in a precise, cheap and simple way that was unthinkable before (Pollack, 2014).

Connected with the prospect of immense medical, economic and ecological advances, this new way to edit the genetic makeup of every living being we know of raises difficult questions about ethics and security that have yet to be answered. These answers cannot be found in technology alone as they impact the very core of the human condition and society. Sheela Jasanoff (2015a) points us to the importance of interconnection between science and society: Bringing social thickness and complexity back into the appreciation of technological systems has been a central aim of the field of science and technology studies (STS). […] there can be no machines without humans to make them and powerful institutions to decide which technologies are worth our investment. (p. 2)

Technologies, especially of such potential, are usually embedded in social imaginations of a specific future, connected to beliefs about what is good and what is not (Jasanoff & Kim, 2009). STS is specially equipped to untangle these imaginaries and shine light on deeper meanings of technological change.

Ideas that permeate throughout the collective consciousness do not emerge on their own, they rather are nurtured by individuals or entities that spread their idea and connect their technologies with desirable futures (Hilgartner, 2015). But how does this process work in detail? This paper seeks to identify the tools that are used by the frontrunners of technology to establish a collective idea of a specific beneficial vision. The analysis will be embedded in the theoretical concepts of sociotechnical imaginaries (Jasanoff & Kim, 2009) and sociotechnical vanguards (Hilgartner, 2015) which have proven useful for STS scholars to discuss the entanglements of technology and society in biotechnology. A grounded theory inspired approach will examine an interview with one of the most outspoken and renounced geneticist in order to illuminate the tools that create, justify and consolidate a desirable, sociotechnical vision of biotechnology.

2. Grounding Genetic Vanguards

2.1. Research Question

The strides made in biotechnology today provide the substrate for elaborate sociotechnical imaginaries of future society. To fully understand these imaginaries, a closer look at the genesis of these dreamscapes can help to paint a more detailed picture. Jasanoff (2015b) suggests that an important step in the creation of an imaginary is following “the embedding of ideas into cultures, institutions, and materialities, whereby the merely imagined is converted into the solidity of identities and the durability of routines and things” (p. 323). At this stage vanguards have to make their image durable and steadfast for it to eventually stop being personal or actor-centric vanguard visions (Jasanoff, 2015a). Gene editing technology is currently at this crucial step. To understand the emergence of this new imaginary, this paper tries to answer how sociotechnical vanguards use semantic tools to communicate their vision of genetic engineering in relation to the CRISPR/Cas9 technology.

2.2. Material

In order to make sense of vanguard visions, this paper will analyze material from George Church, a pioneer geneticist and molecular engineer who is at the forefront of both scientific and economic endeavors to push the envelope of biotechnology (Church, 2016). Church is professor of genetics at Harvard Medical School and his work has its roots in the dawn of genomic sequencing and synthetic biology, where he researched at the frontline of scientific endeavors in biotechnology. He is deeply involved with the Crispr/Cas9 technology and was involved in numerous prestigious projects like the Human Genome Project. Church also pulled these insights from the realm of academia into the real world by founding numerous companies and patenting or licensing his work., thereby connecting science and commerce. Adding to this, Church also advocates science in the public, writing popular science books, columns and appearing on television shows giving public lectures. These elements – scientific reputation, economical transfer and his public persona – illuminate his role as a pioneer and up a wide variety of material to study how vanguards create, shape and propose images of futures. Specifically, this paper will focus on an interview George Church gave for Edge.com, a blog where high profile academics contribute content about their work.

2.3. Methodological Approach

This analysis draws on grounded theory (GT) to look into qualitative material form important actors in genetic engineering. More specifically the material will be coded incident to incident with MaxQDA. GT is particularly useful for uncovering structures and modes of communication by gradual identification and incorporation of collections of meaning from data. It is a systematic methodology often used in social sciences and STS to theorize patterns in qualitative interviews (Bryant & Charmaz, 2011). While full-fledged GT analysis is beyond the scope of this project, this background helps to identify the semantic tools used to generate a specific narration of vanguard visions. Incidents will be tagged with preliminary codes in order to help understand the material as a whole. As structures and meanings in the data become more distinct, codings will be revisited, compared and connected with larger concepts and categories (Bryant & Charmaz, 2011). This will be the fundament for uncovering the semantic tools used in the communication of vanguards in genetic engineering.

3. Conceptualizing Biotechnological Imaginaries

3.1. Co-Producing Biotechnology

Theoretical tools help us to frame the contexts we are interested in and co-production is a prominent, simple but powerful perspective of science-technology studies, that enables the circumvention of technological determinism or social constructivism by focusing on the reciprocal production of techno-science and the social order. The vast spectrum of human responses to innovation entangles the production of science and technology with the social. To understand innovation, theoretical frameworks need to embed technological systems in the moral and social soil in which they grow. Sheela Jasanoff (2004) defines this interplay between the natural and the social as “the ways in which we know and represent the world (both nature and society) are inseparable from the ways in which we choose to live in it” (p. 2). Genetics is a good example for this. Genes seem like they are physical objects that are devoid of the social. But the same way a poem is not only made from ink but rather consists of information, genes at their core are bits of information that are indivisibly connected to social dimensions like families, which might have to negotiate their life decisions because they are caring inheritable genetic predispositions. This means, that modern genetic reading and writing technologies are inherently produced by the natural, physical aspects of the technology but also affected by the social context which they inform.

3.2. Sociotechnical Imaginaries in the Making

The idiom of co-production helps us to understand how things fit together, however, to explain how things come to be as they are, the theoretical frame of co-production has to utilize conceptual tools that help us structure our responses to the world (Jasanoff, 2015a). Like hammers and drills they help us to work on data, ordering information to make hidden interrelations visible. One such tool is the concept of sociotechnical imaginaries developed by Jasanoff and Kim (2009), which allows the study of complex entanglements of scientific and technological changes with other dimensions of social life. Jasanoff (2015a), defines sociotechnical imaginaries as collectively held, institutionally stabilized, and publicly performed visions of desirable futures, animated by shared understandings of forms of social life and social order attainable through, and supportive of, advances in science and technology. (p. 4)

Visions of science and technology almost always have images about the social consequences, dangers, benefits and the collective good connected to them. Imagined futures direct or inform investments, policies, and public perception. They are deeply embedded in the research and innovation process. Therefore, sociotechnical imaginaries can help to understand why some ideas are co-produced while others stay dormant. In the realm of genetics, visions of utopian and dystopian futures were always a central theme of the discourse. From controversies about recombinant DNA (Hurlbut, 2015) in the 1980s to the promises of the Human Genome Project to create the “most important, most wondrous map ever produced by humankind” (The White House, 2000), our DNA was the focus of imagined futures on grand scales. Such methodological pointers guide the conceptional tool and unravel the underlying structures and agency that are connected to visions of sociotechnical futures.

The collection of case studies brought together in Dreamscapes of Modernity (Jasanoff & Kim, 2015) makes it apparent that sociotechnical imaginaries go through different stages: origins, embedding, resistance and extension (Jasanoff, 2015b). This paper engages with a subject right between the vital first two stages of its birth, thereby catching an imaginary in the making. The origins of new ideas need daring individuals and groups to think differently from what was previously thought: Ideas matter in the origin stories of imaginaries, whether they begin in the minds of single individuals, in projects of like-minded activists […], in corporate boardrooms […], or among professionals such as bioethicists trained to think together for the common good. (Jasanoff, 2015b, p. 326)

Crispr, as an object of research, sits right between the realms of a collective of professionals (Hurlbut, 2015) and corporate entities (Smith, 2015). The discussions put forth today could be seen as part of the origins of a new sociotechnical imaginary. There the embedding of ideas into cultures, institutions, and materialities is a big part of the discourse. To become full-fledged imaginaries, thoughts must escape the boundaries of their origins and permeate into tangible parts of society that circulate and generate economic or social value such as employment structures, legal instruments and regulatory institutions (Jasanoff, 2015b). Discussions about the ethics and legal ramifications or regulatory frameworks are at the forefront, when parts of the community call for temporary bans on gene-editing technology (Guttinger, 2017). Crispr can be seen as situated right between the origins and embedding of a sociotechnical imaginary. These phases can be used as methodological pointers to guide the conceptional tool and unravel the underlying structures and agency that are connected to visions of sociotechnical futures. The next chapter will outline the notion of sociotechnical vanguards, that can capture professionals and corporate entities on their pursuit to bring an imaginary into the world.

3.3. Sociotechnical Vanguards and Vanguard Visions

These images resonate with a large number of people and shape societal discourse. Nevertheless, these shared visions have to be established over periods of time and do not emerge spontaneously out of the collective consciousness. The competition of which idea gets to be co-produced is tough, often sociotechnical visons get stuck or fail to materialize. Stephen Hilgartner (2015) proposed a fine tuned conceptual tool that focuses the wide-angle lens sociotechnical imaginaries provide on a close-up shot of the dynamic process in which advocates of sociotechnical visions shape, negotiate and interact with visions of techno-scientific futures. He proposes the notion of sociotechnical vanguards: relatively small collectives that formulate and act intentionally to realize particular sociotechnical visions of the future that have yet to be accepted by wider collectives, such as the nation. These vanguards and their individual leaders typically assume a visionary role, performing the identity of one who possesses superior knowledge of emerging technologies and aspires to realize their desirable potential. (Hilgartner, 2015, p. 34)

These leaders are the cavalry that protrudes into the future, driving their vanguard visions of progress and change. This notion helps to get a grip of sociotechnical imaginaries before they are fully embedded in the collectively shared story of society. This is especially helpful in moments of emergence where innovative technologies are on the brink of changing the fabric of societal structure. Biotechnologies in particular have recently seen a number of powerful ideas put forward, that have the potential to scientifically impact the human condition. Coupled with the fact that the public discourse is dominated by few outspoken visionaries and practitioners, the contemporary genetics lends itself to such an approach.

4. Imagining the Human Condition

4.1. The Tools of Imagination

Genes, genomics, gene editing and sequencing can have different inclinations. For the purpose of this paper the meaning of these terms is very much inspired by Rajans (2003) conception of the genomics today, which acknowledges on the current, volatile nature biotechnology and its broad interconnection to corporate, as well as scientific and public entities. Therefore, when talking about these notions, this text refers to an ensemble of contemporary events, technologies, discourses and institutions that spring up around the sequencing and changing of genomes.

For understanding the tools used in the creation of genetic dreamscapes, it is indispensable, to take another close look at Jasanoff’s (2015a) definition of sociotechnical imaginaries, which suggests that audiences must connect and internalize ideas to form real sociotechnical imaginaries that transcend the boundaries of local groups: collectively held, institutionally stabilized, and publicly performed visions of desirable [emphasis added] futures, animated by shared understandings [emphasis added] of forms of social life and social order attainable [emphasis added] through, and supportive of, advances in science and technology. (p. 153)

Vanguards must make their vision desirable, seem attainable and anchor it to shared understandings in order to establish an imaginary. This paper tries to identify tools that technological frontrunners utilize to translate these three elements into their communication. First, relatable visions have to be connected to the past through a continuous historical narrative that grounds the vision in shared understandings. This gives vanguards the possibility to justify their ideas with historical examples or underline the necessity that emerges out of the past. Secondly, c omparing vanguard visions to existing technologies of the present, creates a picture of an attainable future. Pulling ideas from the realm of science fiction into reality is a major task of technological vanguards. By comparing their visions to technologies that exist in the present, they become attainable, by relating the imagination to the physical. Finally, vanguards must paint a picture of an enticing future, that is entangled with a specific notion of ‘the good life’ and answer specific problems that would otherwise remain unresolved. Futures will only spread through collective consciousness when they are related to real issues or prospects. Acknowledged problems have to be countered by solutions connected to the vanguard vision or entirely new beneficial futures have to be opened up through the prospect of new technologies. Narration, comparison and enticement, connected through past present and future, create the trust and credibility needed for vanguards to establish their visions. These semantic tools should be understood as inspired by the notion of intuition pumps (Dennett, 1984), thought experiments which are “cunningly designed to focus the reader's attention on "the important" [emphasis in original] features, and to deflect the reader from bogging down in hard-to-follow details” (p. 12). However, semantic tools, as used in this text, are not philosophical thought constructs but rather specific ways of communicating a connection between society and technology, that allow the audience to form and consolidate an idea about an explicit techno-scientific future. The following section will explore pointers in the outlined material that exemplify the use of these tools.

[...]