Virtuous or Vicious?: Agency and Representation in Biotechnology's Virtuous Cycle

Naomi Sunderland Griffith University

Abstract

This article provides a fresh examination of claims that biotechnology and other high profile areas of scientific research and development create a “virtuous cycle” that delivers benefits to society and ecology through an array of consumer products. Specifically, the article investigates who and what has agency in this virtuous cycle and who and what does not. I argue that official discourses on and definitions of biotechnology create strict demarcations not only on who can act in relation to biotechnology research development options, but also on where and at which stages of the virtuous cycle these agents can act. For example, scientists are presented as passive rather than active agents whose influence is limited to the laboratory context despite rhetorical use of their identity and credibility across all contexts of product development and consumption explored. Agency is highly significant in biotechnology and other areas of scientific advance because it determines who or what has moral decision making power regarding the place of new technologies in society. The article concludes with a discussion of the social and ethical impacts of these demarcations of agency in biotechnology's virtuous cycle.

Journal
Journal of Technical Writing and Communication
Published
2009-10-01
DOI
10.2190/tw.39.4.c
CompPile
Search in CompPile ↗
Open Access
OA PDF Green
Topics
Export

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (1)

  1. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication

References (28)

  1. Bailey R. (2001, January 2). Dr. Strangelunch—Or: Why we should learn to stop worrying and love genetically m…
  2. 10.1016/S1369-8486(01)00012-7
  3. The laboratory revolution in medicine
  4. Commonwealth of Australia. (1999). Australian Health and Medical Research Strategic Review The virtuous cycle…
  5. Media studies: Industries, images and Audiences
Show all 28 →
  1. Fraser V. (2001). Enhancement agri-culture: Whose utopia? Whose story? QUT Applied Ethics Seminar Series 2001…
  2. 10.1016/S1369-8486(00)00004-2
  3. The Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science / Revue canadienne d'Economique et de Science politique
  4. 10.1515/9780773564794
  5. Biofirst: NSW biotechnology strategy
  6. Forces of production: A social history of industrial automation
  7. Prakash C. S. (2000). Can genetically engineered crops feed a hungry world? YES—We must tap biotech's potenti…
  8. 10.4135/9781446219461
  9. A national biotechnology strategy for South Africa
  10. Sunderland N. (2004). Biotechnology as media: A critical study of the movement of meanings associated with co…
  11. Towards humane technologies: Biotechnology, new media and ethics
  12. Towards humane technologies: Biotechnology, new media and ethics
  13. Trujillo A. (2002). Mexico speech delivered by CEO and President, Recall Corporation. Available online at: ht…
  14. 10.18356/2e565da3-en
  15. U. S. Council of Governmental Relations. (1999). The Bayh-Dole Act: A guide to the law and implementing regul…
  16. Texts and practices—Readings in critical discourse analysis
  17. Bio21: Capturing the opportunity
  18. Biotechnology strategic development plan for Victoria
  19. Readings in the philosophy of technology
  20. Beyond the republic: Meeting the global challenges to constitutionalism
  21. Sunderland N. (2000, November). How we propagate the everyday: Discourse and social practice in higher educat…
  22. Towards Humane Technologies: Biotechnology, new media and ethics
  23. 10.1080/09687590903160175