Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Role of Expectations of Science in Shaping Research Policy: A Discursive Analysis of the Creation of Genome Canada

  • Published:
Minerva Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper examines the promise of science and its role in shaping research policy. The promise of science is characterized by expectations of science, which are embedded in promissory discourses that envision futures made possible through advances in promising science. Through a single case study of the origins of Genome Canada, the research was guided by the question: How did expectations of genomics shape the creation of Genome Canada? A conceptualization of discursive power and expectations of genomics storylines provide the theoretical and analytical basis for an in-depth examination of the ideational effects and material impacts on research policy decisions over three years (1997–2000) that culminated in the creation of Genome Canada. Expectations of genomics storylines functioned in a complex interplay of discursive practices and dynamics among diverse policy actors within a genomics discourse-coalition to produce a range of ideational and material impacts. The expectations of genomics storylines produced powerful genomics subject-positions from which policy actors perceived their interests, identities and preferences and gained agency, which led to various material impacts, such as mobilizing support and funding, coordinating activities and transforming Canada’s research policy framework. With the increasing importance of research policy to a range of broader policy priorities underpinned by expectations that science will resolve societal challenges and contribute to socio-economic benefits, this paper sheds light on how complex research policy decisions are made; it further contributes to understanding the role of promissory discourses in shaping those decisions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The archival and documentary source list is provided as online supplementary material.

  2. Each data item was assigned a unique three-part ID number and stored in QSR Nvivo. The first identifying criteria assigned each data item to a source classification (Genome Task Force (TF), government, (GV), media, (MD), third-party (TPD), interview (INT)). The second criteria classified data items by type: reports (R), science policy (STP), genomics/biotechnology (GVGB), meeting minutes (M), internal documents (ID) and correspondence (IC), which were items that were exchanged within the same organization. External documents (ED) and correspondence (EC) were those exchanged between different organizations. The third criteria was a number. For example, GV-ED-14 is a government external document and TF-M-9 is the minutes from a GTF meeting. The ID number is used in this paper for referencing and citing data sources.

  3. Dr. Watson was the inaugural Director of the United States’ Human Genome Program (Cook-Deegan 1994)

  4. The seven technology platforms included genome mapping and sequencing, functional genomics, genotyping, proteomics, bioinformatics, technology development and GE3LS.

  5. Christine Nymark led the drafting of both MCs that sought funding for Genome Canada.

  6. MNE – Multi-national enterprise

References

  • Apreda, Riccardo, Andrea Bonaccorsi, Gualtiero Fantoni, and Donata Gabelloni. 2014. Functions and failures: How to manage technological promises for societal challenges. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 26(4): 369–384.

    Google Scholar 

  • Austin, J.L. 1975. How to do things with words (eds. J. O. Urmson & M. Sbisà). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Birch, Kean. 2016. Emergent imaginaries and fragmented policy frameworks in the Canadian bio-economy. Sustainability 8(10): 1007.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birch, Kean, Les Levidow, and Theo Papaioannou. 2014. Self-fulfilling prophecies of the European knowledge-based bio-economy: The discursive shaping of institutional and policy frameworks in the bio-pharmaceuticals sector. Journal of the Knowledge Economy 5(1): 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bomberg, Elizabeth. 2017. Shale we drill? Discourse dynamics in UK fracking debates. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 19(1): 72–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borup, Mads, Nik Brown, Kornelia Konrad, and Harro Van Lente. 2006. The sociology of expectations in science and technology. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 18(3–4): 285–298.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braun, Dietmar. 1999. Interests or ideas? An overview of ideational concepts in public policy research. In Public policy and political ideas, eds. Dietmar Braun and Andreas Busch, 11–29. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braun, Virginia, and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2): 77–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, Nik. 2005. Shifting tenses: Reconnecting regimes of truth and hope. Configurations 13(3): 331–355.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, Nik, and Sian M. Beynon-Jones. 2012. ‘Reflex regulation’: An anatomy of promissory science governance. Health Risk & Society 14(3): 223–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, Nik, Brian Rappert, and A. Webster (eds.). 2000a. Contested Futures: A sociology of prospective techno-science. Aldershot, England: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, Nik, Brian Rappert, and Andrew Webster. 2000b. Introducing contested futures: From looking into the future to looking at the future. In Contested futures: A sociology of prospective techno-science, eds. Nik Brown, Brian Rappert, and Andrew Webster, 3–20. Aldershot, England: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Budde, Bjӧrn, and Kornelia Konrad. 2019. Tentative governing of fuel cell innovation in a dynamic network of expectations. Research Policy 48(5): 1098–1112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiles, Robert Magneson. 2013. If they come, we will build it: In vitro meat and the discursive struggle over future agrofood expectations. Agriculture and Human Values 30(4): 511–523.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook-Deegan, Robert M. 1994. The gene wars: Science, politics, and the human genome. New York: WW Norton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, Ronnie. 2013. Good intentions: Expectations of benefit from technoscience innovation: Genetic modification and wind energy in New Zealand. Doctoral dissertation, University of Canterbury, Canterbury, New Zealand.

  • Cotton, Matthew, Imogen Rattle, and James Van Alstine. 2014. Shale gas policy in the United Kingdom: An argumentative discourse analysis. Energy Policy 73: 427–438.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J.W. 2013. Qualitative Inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davenport, S., and S. Leitch. 2009. Creating Space for the Successor: The Discourse Strategies of Pro and Anti-GM Factions Regarding the Future of Agriculture in New Zealand. European Planning Studies 17(7): 943–961.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doern, G. Bruce, David Castle, and Peter W.B. Phillips. 2016. Canadian Science, Technology and Innovation Policy: The Innovation Economy and Society Nexus. Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dryzek, John S. 2013. The politics of the earth: Environmental discourses. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, Charlotte. 2008. The Power of Words in International Relations: Birth of an Anti-Whaling Discourse. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feindt, P.H., and A. Oels. 2005. Does discourse matter? Discourse analysis in environmental policy making. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 7(3): 161–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finlayson, Alan. 2004. Political science, political ideas and rhetoric. Economy and Society 33(4): 528–549.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, Frank. 2003. Reframing public policy: Discursive politics and deliberative practices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Genome Canada. 2018. Living Innovation, Genome Canada Annual Report 2017–2018. In Annual Report. Ottawa: Genome Canada. https://www.genomecanada.ca/annualreport/2017-2018/#9.

  • Goujon, Philippe. 2001. From Biotechnology to Genomes: The meaning of the double helix. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groves, Christopher, and Richard Tutton. 2013. Walking the tightrope: Expectations and standards in personal genomics. Biosocieties 8(2): 181–204. https://doi.org/10.1057/biosoc.2013.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hajer, Maarten A. 1995. The politics of environmental discourse: Ecological modernization and the policy process. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hajer, Maarten A., and Wytske Versteeg. 2005. A decade of discourse analysis of environmental politics: Achievements, challenges, perspectives. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 7(3): 175–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanson, Valerie L. 2011. Envisioning Ethical Nanotechnology: The Rhetorical Role of Visions in Postponing Societal and Ethical Implications Research. Science as Culture 20(1): 1–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, Mark. 1998. Editorial: How it looks to me. Research Money 12(9): 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, Evelyn Fox. 2000. The century of the gene. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laffey, M., and J. Weldes. 1997. Beyond Belief: Ideas and Symbolic Technologies in the Studies of International Relations. European Journal of International Relations 3(2): 193–237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lave, Rebecca. 2014. Freedom and constraint: Generative expectations in the US stream restoration field. Geoforum 52: 236–244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lazarevic, David, and Helena Valve. 2017. Narrating expectations for the circular economy: Towards a common and contested European transition. Energy Research & Social Science 31: 60–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levidow, L., K. Birch, and T. Papaionannou. 2012. EU Agri-Innovation Policy: Two Contending Visions of the Bio-Economy. Critical Policy Studies 6(1): 40–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Litfin, K.T. 1994. Ozone Discourses: Sciences and Politics in Global Environmental Cooperation. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Logar, Nathaniel. 2011. Scholarly science policy models and real policy, RSD for SciSIP in US Mission Agencies. Policy Sciences 44(3): 249–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Majone, Giandomenico. 1989. Evidence, argument, and persuasion in the policy process. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, Eliot. 1996. Funding crisis grips genome research. Science 273(5277): 867.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKean, Vanessa. 2013. The role of expectations and visions of the future in the development of target-based environmental policies: The case of the UK Air Quality Strategy. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Sussex.

  • Merҫon, Juliana, Suanne Vetter, Maria Tengӧ, Michelle Cocks, Patricia Balvanera, Juileta Rosell, and Bárbara Ayala-Orozco. 2019. From landscapes to international policy: Contributions of the biocultural paradigm to global sustainability. Global Sustainability 2(e7): 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michael, Mike. 2000. Futures of the Present: From Performativity to Prehension. In Contested futures: A sociology of prospective techno-science, eds. Nik Brown, B. Rappert, and Andrew Webster, 21–40. Aldershot, England: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Logar, Nathaniel. 2007. Federally funded science for user benefit: Policy mechanisms for mission-oriented research. Doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado at Boulder.

  • Nerlich, Brigitte, and Christopher Halliday. 2007. Avian flu: The creation of expectations in the interplay between science and the media. Sociology of Health & Illness 29(1): 46–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9566.2007.00517.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nowotny, Helga. 2014. Engaging with the political imaginaries of science: Near misses and future targets. Public Understanding of Science 23(1): 16–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nymark, Christine. 2001. A Model for Governance in the 21st Century: Creating Genome Canada. Ottawa: Industry Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pal, Leslie. 2000. Past Imperfect, Future Tense. In How Ottawa Spends 2000–2001: Past Imperfect, Future Tense, ed. Leslie Pal, 1–32. Ottawa: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pal, Leslie. 2005. Case Study Method and Policy Analysis. In Thinking Like a Policy Analyst, ed. Iris Geva-May, 227–257. New York: Palgrave-Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palmer, J. 2010. Stopping the Unstoppable? A Discursive Institutionalist Analysis of Renewable Transport Fuel Policy. Environment & Planning C: Government and Policy 28: 992–1010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Penders, Bart, and Joanna Goven. 2010. Nutrigenomics and the stewardship of scientific promises. Biotechnology Journal 5(9): 909–912.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petersen, Alan, and Ivan Krisjansen. 2015. Assembling ‘the bioeconomy’: Exploiting the power of the promissory life sciences. Journal of Sociology 51(1): 28–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, Peter. 2010. Genomics and public policy: Wealth for Canadians. The Integrated Assessment Journal 10(1): 7–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbloom, Daniel. 2018. Framing low-carbon pathways: A discursive analysis of contending storylines surrounding the phase-out of coal-fired power in Ontario. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 27: 129–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarewitz, Daniel. 2016. Saving science. The New Atlantis 49: 4–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarewitz, Daniel, Guillermo Foladori, Noela Invernizzi, and Michele S. Garfinkel. 2004. Science policy in its social context. Philosophy Today 48(Supplement): 67–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarewitz, Daniel, and Roger A. Pielke Jr. 2007. The neglected heart of science policy: Reconciling supply of and demand for science. Environmental Science & Policy 10(1): 5–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, Sara E., and Trisha Greenhalgh. 2008. Best research—For what? Best health—For whom? A critical exploration of primary care research using discourse analysis. Social Science & Medicine 66(12): 2506–2519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.02.014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, Lloyd, and Leroy Hood. 1987. Mapping and sequencing the human genome: How to proceed. Nature Biotechnology 5(9): 933.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, Adrian, and Florian Kern. 2009. The transitions storyline in Dutch environmental policy. Environmental Politics 18(1): 78–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, Deborah A. 2012. Policy Paradox: The art of political decision making, 3rd ed. New York: WW Norton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyfield, David. 2012. A Cultural Political Economy of Research and Innovation in an Age of Crisis. Minerva 50(2): 149–167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-012-9201-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Lente, Harro. 1993. Promising technology: The dynamics of expectations in technological developments. Doctoral Dissertation, Universiteit Twente, Twente, The Netherlands.

  • van Lente, Harro, and Arie Rip. 1998. The Rise of Membrane Technology from Rhetorics to Social Reality. Social Studies of Science 28(2): 221–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vignola-Gagné, Etienne. 2014. Argumentative practices in science technology and innovation policy: The case of clinician-scientists and translational research. Science and Public Policy 41: 94–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, James D. 1990. The human genome project: past, present, and future. Science 248(4951): 44–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westerfield, Monte. 1997. Canada seeks to revive genome project. Science 277(5324): 303.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Creso Sá, Kean Birch and the anonymous reviewers for valuable feedback on earlier drafts of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Guelph, 50 Stone Road. E., Guelph, ON, N1G 2W1, Canada

    Margaret A. Lemay

Authors
  1. Margaret A. Lemay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Margaret A. Lemay.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 18 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lemay, M.A. The Role of Expectations of Science in Shaping Research Policy: A Discursive Analysis of the Creation of Genome Canada. Minerva 58, 235–260 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-020-09395-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-020-09395-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation