Critical perspectives in technology assessment: On the relevance of care for sustainability transformations

Sarah Hackfort; Julia-Lena Reinermann; Daniela  Gottschlich

doi:10.14512/tatup.7180

Authors

Sarah Hackfort Agriculture and Food Policy Group, Thaer Institute for Agricultural and Horticultural Sciences, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin (DE) https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6678-8759 sarah.hackfort@hu-berlin.de
Julia-Lena Reinermann Chair of Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, FernUniversität in Hagen, Hagen; Fraunhofer Institute for Environmental, Safety and Energy Technology, Oberhausen (DE) https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8571-6563 julia.reinermann@fernuni-hagen.de
Daniela Gottschlich Institute for Economy, Hochschule für Gesellschaftsgestaltung, Koblenz (DE) https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5675-8556 daniela.gottschlich@hfgg.de

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.14512/tatup.7180

Keywords:

care, socio-ecological transformations, sustainability, technology

Abstract

In the introduction to the Special topic, we highlight the importance of exploring concepts, approaches, and practices of care in order to give new impetus to technology assessment and to unlock the potential of such approaches for a socio-ecological transformation toward critical-emancipatory sustainability. The introduction also contains a brief description of each article.

References

Albrecht, Steffen; Diekämper, Julia; Marx-Stölting, Lilian; Sauter, Arnold (2017): ‘Green’ genetic engineering and genome editing. Towards a reorientation of science communication. In: TATuP – Journal for Technology Assessment in Theory and Practice 26 (3), pp. 64–69. https://doi.org/10.14512/tatup.26.3.64 DOI: https://doi.org/10.14512/tatup.26.3.64

Anderson, Sheena (2021): Eine intersektional-feministische Perspektive für die Klimabewegung. Zur Anerkennung und Wertschätzung (marginalisierter) Stimmen von Black, Indigenous und Women of Color. In: Femina Politica – Zeitschrift für feministische Politikwissenschaft 30, pp. 64–79. https://doi.org/10.3224/feminapolitica.v30i2.06 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3224/feminapolitica.v30i2.06

Arora, Saurabh; Van Dyck, Barbara (2021): Refusal as radical care? Moving beyond modern industrial agriculture. In: Development 64 (3–4), pp. 252–258. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41301-021-00310-3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41301-021-00310-3

Asveld, Lotte; Ganzevles, Jurgen; Osseweijer, Patricia (2015): Trustworthiness and responsible research and innovation. The case of the bio-economy. In: Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 28 (3), pp. 571–588. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-015-9542-2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-015-9542-2

Boyer, Miriam; Kusche, Franziska; Hackfort, Sarah; Prause, Louisa; Engelbrecht-Bock, Friederike (2023): The making of sustainability. Ideological strategies, the materiality of nature, and biomass use in the bioeconomy. In: Sustainability Science 18 (2), pp. 675–688. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-022-01254-4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-022-01254-4

BfR – Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung (2019): BfR-Verbraucherkonferenz Genome Editing. Available online at https://www.bfr.bund.de/de/verbraucherkonferenz_genome_editing.html, last accessed on 22.01.2025.

CSPO – Consortium for Science, Policy & Outcomes at Arizona State University (2021): Global citizens’ assembly on genome editing. Available online at https://cspo.org/research/gene-editing/genome-citizens-assembly/, last accessed on 22.01.2025.

Curry, Janel (2002): Care theory and ‘caring’ systems of agriculture. In: Agriculture and Human Values 19, pp. 119–131. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016074832696 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016074832696

Eversberg, Dennis; Holz, Jana; Pungas, Lilian (2023): The bioeconomy and its untenable growth promises. Reality checks from research. In: Sustainability Science 18 (2), pp. 569–582. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-022-01237-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-022-01237-5

Felt, Ulrike (2018): Responsible research and innovation. In: Sahra Gibbon, Barbara Prainsack, Stephen Hilgartner and Janelle Lamoreaux (eds.): Routledge handbook of genomics, health and society (2), London: Routledge, pp. 108–116.

Fisher, Berenice; Tronto, Joan (1990): Toward a feminist theory of caring. In: Emily Abel and Margaret Nelson (eds.): Circles of care. Albany, NY: SUNY Press, pp. 36–54.

Garnett, Kathleen (2021): Novelty, ignorance and the unknown. Uncertain science and the frontiers of science doctrine. In: elni Review, pp. 11–24. https://doi.org/10.46850/elni.2021.002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.46850/elni.2021.002

Geiter, Michelle; Gottschlich, Daniela; Hansen, Lina; Ortloff, Laura; Vetter, Andrea (2025): Die Gleichzeitigkeit von Anthropozentrismus und Androzentrismus im Kontext der technikfixierten Bearbeitung der sozial-ökologischen Krise. Wirkungen und Alternativen im Feld der Forschungsförderung. Expertise für den Vierten Gleichstellungsbericht der Bundesregierung. Berlin: n.p.

Gottschlich, Daniela (2017): Kommende Nachhaltigkeit. Nachhaltige Entwicklung aus kritisch-emanzipatorischer Perspektive. Baden-Baden: Nomos. https://doi.org/10.5771/9783845257303 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5771/9783845257303

Gottschlich, Daniela; Bellina, Leonie (2017): Environmental justice and care. Critical emancipatory contributions to sustainability discourse. In: Agriculture and Human Values 34 (4), pp. 941–953. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-016-9761-9

Gottschlich, Daniela et al. (2014): Doing sustainable economy at the crossroads of gender, care and the green economy. Debates – common ground – blind spots. Berlin: LIFE e.V. Available online at https://www.genanet.de/fileadmin/user_upload/dokumente/Care_Gender_Green_Economy/CaGE_Texte_4-2014_engl.pdf, last accessed on 22.01.2025.

Gottschlich, Daniela; Hackfort, Sarah (2022): Care. In: Daniela Gottschlich, Sarah Hackfort, Tobias Schmitt and Uta von Winterfeld (eds.): Handbuch Politische Ökologie. Theorien, Konflikte, Begriffe und Methoden. Bielefeld: transcript, pp. 307–314. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783839456279-027 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783839456279-027

Gottschlich, Daniela; Katz, Christine (2020): Relationalität, Naturgestaltung und Caring. Die Bedeutung feministischer Utopien zur Bearbeitung der sozial-ökologischen Krise. In: Benjamin Görgen and Björn Wendt (eds.): Sozial-ökologische Utopien. Diesseits oder jenseits des Kapitalismus und Wachstumszwangs? Hamburg: VSA, pp. 303–325. Available online at https://www.oekom.de/_uploads_media/files/wendt_utopien_051817.pdf, last accessed on 22.01.2025.

Groves, Christopher (2015): Logic of choice or logic of care? Uncertainty, technological mediation and responsible innovation. In: NanoEthics 9 (3), pp. 321–333. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-015-0238-x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-015-0238-x

Hackfort, Sarah; Saave, Anna (2024): Toward a caring and (re)productive bioeconomy? A feminist analysis of socio-technical innovations and sustainability shortcomings. In: Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy 20 (1), p. 2375808. https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2024.2375808 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2024.2375808

Haraway, Donna (1991): Simians, cyborgs, and women. The reinvention of nature. London: Free Association Books.

Harding, Sandra (1991): Whose science? Whose knowledge? Thinking from women’s lives. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Levin-Keitel, Meike; Mölders, Tanja; Othengrafen, Frank; Ibendorf, Jens (2018): Sustainability transitions and the spatial interface. Developing conceptual perspectives. In: Sustainability 10 (6), p. 1880. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10061880 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su10061880

Martin, Aryn; Myers, Natasha; Viseu, Ana (2015): The politics of care in technoscience. In: Social Studies of Science 45 (5), pp. 625–641. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312715602073 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312715602073

McGreevy, Steven et al. (2022): Sustainable agrifood systems for a post-growth world. In: Nature Sustainability 5 (12), pp. 1011–1017. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-00933-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-00933-5

Participedia (2024): Example case bioeconomy. Available online at https://parti-cipedia.net/case/future-council-biokonomie-nrw-2038, last accessed on 22.01.2025.

Preston, Christopher; Wickson, Fern (2016): Broadening the lens for the governance of emerging technologies. Care ethics and agricultural biotechnology. In: Technology in Society 45, pp. 48–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2016.03.001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2016.03.001

Puig de la Bellacasa, María (2011): Matters of care in technoscience. Assembling neglected things. In: Social Studies of Science 41 (1), pp. 85–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312710380301 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312710380301

Reinermann, Julia; Kamlage, Jan-Hendrik; Vries, Nicole de; Goerke, Ute; Oertel, Britta; Schrey, Silvia (eds.) (2022): Zukünfte nachhaltiger Bioökonomie. Kommunikation und Partizipation in neuen Wirtschaftsformen. Beiträge aus Wissenschaft und Praxis. Bielefeld: transcript. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783839459836 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783839459836

Sauter, Arnold (2005): Grüne Gentechnik? Folgenabschätzung der Agrobiotechnologie. In: Thomas Petermann and Armin Grunwald (eds.): Technikfolgen-Abschätzung für den Deutschen Bundestag. Das TAB – Erfahrungen und Perspektiven wissenschaftlicher Politikberatung. Berlin: edition sigma, pp. 116–146.

Stirling, Andrew; Hayes, Keith; Delborne, Jason (2018): Towards inclusive social appraisal. Risk, participation and democracy in governance of synthetic biology. In: BMC proceedings 12 (Suppl. 8), p. 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12919-018-0111-3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12919-018-0111-3

Thompson, Paul (2020): Food and agricultural biotechnology in ethical perspective. Wiesbaden: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61214-6 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61214-6

Tronto, Joan (1993): Moral boundaries. A political argument for an ethic of care. New York, NY: Routledge.

Whittingham, Jennifer; Wynberg, Rachel (2021): Is the feminist ethics of care framework a useful lens for GM crop risk appraisal in the global south? In: Technology in Society 64, p. 101455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101455 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101455

Wichterich, Christa (2021): Covid-19, Care und die Krise als Chance. Zur Aktualisierung des Konzepts der imperialen Lebensweise. In: PROKLA. Zeitschrift für Kritische Sozialwissenschaft 51 (205), pp. 755–766. https://doi.org/10.32387/prokla.v51i205.1969 DOI: https://doi.org/10.32387/prokla.v51i205.1969