Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Society
http://sts.sagepub.com
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
Additional services and information for Science Technology & Society can be found
at:
Subscriptions: http://sts.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
MICHEL CALLON
Michel Callon is Professor, Ecole des Mines, and Director, Centre for Sociology and
Innovation, 62 Boulevard Raspail, Paus 70005, France.
Modern societies thus enter into the age of suspicion because the
political and economic institutions guaranteeing the validity and
legitimacy of science have been found to be in the wrong.
I am not sure that this interpretation is an accurate one. There is no
doubt that relations between specialists and lay people have been
called into question, but what seems more problematic to me is that
the issue is one of trust and of restoring that trust. In this paper, I
would like to show that if indeed there is a crisis, it is that of the sepa-
ration between science and society or, in other words, of the great
divide between specialists and non-specialists. This boundary, patiently
erected over the centuries, exists not only in institutions but also as
models for the actors. And it is this boundary that is wavering. The
great divide is challenged from all sides because it makes the con-
struction of a collective in which technoscience can find its place, dif-
ficult if not impossible.
In an attempt to understand this evolution and the crisis it spawns,
I wish to focus on the diversity of possible modes of participation by
non-specialists in scientific and technological debates. For the sake of
clarity I shall distinguish three models. Each of them should be con-
sidered both as a convenient way of making a confused and complex
reality intelligible, and as a reference that actors use when they reflect
on practical forms of technological democracy. From one model to
the next, what varies is the degree of involvement of lay people in the
formulation and application of the knowledge and know-how on
which decisions are based.
(e.g., on genes) to the most specific (e.g., the art and ways of
The cornerstone of Model 1 is the trust that lay people have in sci-
entists ; that of Model 2 is the question of representativeness. The via-
bilityof Model 3 depends on the difficult conciliation between the
defense of minorities, whose identity depends to a large degree on
the knowledge produced, and the achievement of a common good
which is not carved up by particular interests. As the example of
genetic diseases suggests, technoscience contributes towards this
possibility of conciliation. The recognition of genes explains the
handicap and makes it possible to work on it, while simultaneously
serving as a basis for actions which might eventually be beneficial to
the majority.
Conclusion
fit into Models 2 and 3 and the hybrid forums they organise. All of
these issues imply an active contribution by lay people, either to
enrich, complete and boost scientific knowledge produced in a labo-
ratory, or to participate directly, at least on certain occasions, in its
production. Each of these cases involves the intervention of the par-
ticular publics or concerned groups (for example, the populations
shown by epidemiological surveys to be at-risk) who take action and
who, by participating in knowledge production, struggle to define and
impose their own identity.
This type of approach helps to furnish a satisfactory explanation
for what some consider as the crisis of confidence currently experi-
enced by technoscience. Contrary to what authors such as Beck main-
tain, there is no crisis of confidence in science, but a crisis of the
regimes, in which the participation of lay people is based on trust or
mistrust. These authors see the passage from one regime to another
but make the mistake of analysing it with the categories correspond-
ing to the regimes that disappear. One of the challenges for STS
might be to understand more fully the functioning of Model 3 and to
highlight the conditions of its diffusion, or more precisely of its
transpositions.
REFERENCES
BECK, ULRICH (1992), Risk Society: Towards New Modernity. London: Sage Publica-
tions.
WYNNE, BRIAN (1987), Risk Management and Hazardous Waste: Implementation and
the Dialectics of Credibility. Berlin: Springer.