Dr Javier Lezaun: List of publications

While research on marine carbon dioxide removal (mCDR) expands apace, significant unknowns persist regarding the risks and benefits of individual mCDR options. This paper analyses the assumptions and expectations that animate expert understandings of mCDR, with a focus on issues that are central to the responsible governance of this emerging field of climate action. Drawing upon interviews with experts involved in mCDR research projects both academic and entrepreneurial, we highlight four thematic tensions that orient their thinking but are often unstated or left implicit in scientific and technical assessments: (1) the relevance of ‘naturalness’ as a criterion of evaluation for mCDR approaches; (2) the perceived need to accelerate research and development activities via alternative paradigms of evidence-building; (3) a framing of mCDR as a form of waste management that will, in turn, generate new (and currently poorly understood) forms of environmental pollutants; and (4) a commitment to inclusive governance mixed with difficulty in identifying specific stakeholders or constituencies in mCDR interventions. Although expert consensus on these four issues is unlikely, we suggest ways of ensuring that consideration of these themes enriches debate on the responsible development of novel mCDR capabilities.

Ocean alkalinity enhancement (OAE) is being considered as a way of achieving large-scale removals of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Research on the risks and benefits of different OAE approaches is expanding apace, but it remains difficult to anticipate and appraise the potential impacts to human communities that OAE might generate. These impacts, however, will be critical to evaluating the viability of specific OAE projects. This paper draws on the authors' involvement in interdisciplinary assessment of OAE (1) to identify the factors that currently limit characterization of potential social impacts and (2) to propose ways of reconfiguring OAE research to better consider these.

<h4>Background</h4>Malaria disproportionately affects low-income households in rural communities where poor housing is common. Despite evidence that well-constructed and mosquito-proofed houses can reduce malaria risk, housing improvement is rarely included in malaria control toolboxes. This study assessed the need, magnitude, and opportunities for housing improvement to control malaria in rural Tanzania.<h4>Methods</h4>A mixed-methods study was conducted in 19 villages across four district councils in southern Tanzania. A structured survey was administered to 1292 community members to assess need, perceptions, and opportunities for housing improvement for malaria control. Direct observations of 802 houses and surrounding environments were done to identify the actual needs and opportunities, and to validate the survey findings. A market survey was done to assess availability and cost of resources and services necessary for mosquito-proofing homes. Focus group discussions were conducted with key stakeholders to explore insights on the potential and challenges of housing improvement as a malaria intervention.<h4>Results</h4>Compared to other methods for malaria control, housing improvement was among the best understood and most preferred by community members. Of the 735 survey respondents who needed housing improvements, a majority needed window screening (91.1%), repairs of holes in walls (79.4%), door covers (41.6%), closing of eave spaces (31.2%) and better roofs (19.0%). Community members invested significant efforts to improve their own homes against malaria and other dangers, but these efforts were often slow and delayed due to high costs and limited household incomes. Study participants suggested several mechanisms of support to improve their homes, including government loans and subsidies.<h4>Conclusion</h4>Addressing the need for housing improvement is a critical component of malaria control efforts in southern Tanzania. In this study, a majority of the community members surveyed needed modest modifications and had plans to work on those modifications. Without additional support, their efforts were however generally slow; households would take years to sufficiently mosquito-proof their houses. It is, therefore, crucial to bring together the key players across sectors to reduce barriers in malaria-proofing housing in endemic settings. These may include government subsidies or partnerships with businesses to make housing improvement more accessible and affordable to residents.

In early 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic revealed a faceless, non-adversarial threat that endangered Israelis and Palestinians with the same ferocity. However, the capacities of the health systems to address it were not equal, with Israel more equipped for the outbreak with infrastructure, resources, manpower and later, vaccines. The pandemic demonstrated the life-saving benefits of cooperation and the self-defeating harms brought by non-cooperation. These trends are explored here by an international team of public health and environmental scholars, including those from different sides of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. This article explores the importance of recognizing the Israeli and Palestinian jurisdictions as a single epidemiological unit, and illustrates how doing so is a pragmatic positioning that can serve self-interest. We demonstrate how despite political shocks precipitating non-cooperation, there has been a recurrent tendency towards limited cooperation. The paper concludes with lessons over the need for reframing public health as a potential bridge, the need for structural changes creating sustainable platforms for accelerated transboundary cooperation to enable the steady management of current and future public and environmental health crises regardless of dynamic political crises, and the importance of civil society and international organizations in forging collaboration in advance of governmental engagement.

Following publication of the original article [1], it was brought to our attention that the article had published with an incorrect Funding declaration. The declaration has been corrected in the published article and may be seen below: “This work was supported by the Consortium for Advanced Research Training in Africa (CARTA), awarded to MFF. CARTA is jointly led by the African Population and Health Research Center and the University of the Witwatersrand and funded by the Carnegie Corporation of New York (Grant No—G- 19-57145), Sida (Grant No: 54100113), Uppsala Monitoring Centre and the DELTAS Africa Initiative (Grant No: 107768/Z/15/Z). The DELTAS Africa Initiative is an independent funding scheme of the African Academy of Sciences (AAS)’s Alliance for Accelerating Excellence in Science in Africa (AESA) and supported by the New Partnership for Africa’s Development Planning and Coordinating Agency (NEPAD Agency) with funding from the Wellcome Trust (UK) and the UK government. The statements made and views expressed are solely the responsibility of the Fellow. This work was also supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (Grant Number: OPP1177156), Howard Hughes Medical Institute (Grant Number: OPP1099295) and by Application of Novel Transgenic technology & Inherited Symbionts to Vector Control (ANTI-VeC) (Grant Number: AVPP0027/1), all awarded to Ifakara Health Institute.” The authors apologize for any inconvenience caused.

<h4>Background</h4>Different forms of mosquito modifications are being considered as potential high-impact and low-cost tools for future malaria control in Africa. Although still under evaluation, the eventual success of these technologies will require high-level public acceptance. Understanding prevailing community perceptions of mosquito modification is, therefore, crucial for effective design and implementation of these interventions. This study investigated community perceptions regarding genetically-modified mosquitoes (GMMs) and their potential for malaria control in Tanzanian villages where no research or campaign for such technologies has yet been undertaken.<h4>Methods</h4>A mixed-methods design was used, involving: (i) focus group discussions (FGD) with community leaders to get insights on how they frame and would respond to GMMs, and (ii) structured questionnaires administered to 490 community members to assess awareness, perceptions and support for GMMs for malaria control. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the findings and thematic content analysis was used to identify key concepts and interpret the findings.<h4>Results</h4>Nearly all survey respondents were unaware of mosquito modification technologies for malaria control (94.3%), and reported no knowledge of their specific characteristics (97.3%). However, community leaders participating in FGDs offered a set of distinctive interpretive frames to conceptualize interventions relying on GMMs for malaria control. The participants commonly referenced their experiences of cross-breeding for selecting preferred traits in domestic plants and animals. Preferred GMMs attributes included the expected reductions in insecticide use and human labour. Population suppression approaches, requiring as few releases as possible, were favoured. Common concerns included whether the GMMs would look or behave differently than wild mosquitoes, and how the technology would be integrated into current malaria control policies. The participants emphasised the importance and the challenge of educating and engaging communities during the technology development.<h4>Conclusions</h4>Understanding how communities perceive and interpret novel technologies is crucial to the design and effective implementation of new vector control programmes. This study offers vital clues on how communities with no prior experience of modified mosquitoes might conceptualize or respond to such technologies when deployed in the context of malaria control programmes. Drawing upon existing interpretive frames and locally-resonant analogies when deploying such technologies may provide a basis for more durable public support in the future.

There is increasing concern globally about the enormity of the threats posed by antimicrobial resistance (AMR) to human, animal, plant and environmental health. A proliferation of international, national and institutional reports on the problems posed by AMR and the need for antibiotic stewardship have galvanised attention on the global stage. However, the AMR community increasingly laments a lack of action, often identified as an 'implementation gap'. At a policy level, the design of internationally salient solutions that are able to address AMR's interconnected biological and social (historical, political, economic and cultural) dimensions is not straightforward. This multidisciplinary paper responds by asking two basic questions: (A) Is a universal approach to AMR policy and antibiotic stewardship possible? (B) If yes, what hallmarks characterise 'good' antibiotic policy? Our multistage analysis revealed four central challenges facing current international antibiotic policy: metrics, prioritisation, implementation and inequality. In response to this diagnosis, we propose three hallmarks that can support robust international antibiotic policy. Emerging hallmarks for good antibiotic policies are: Structural, Equitable and Tracked. We describe these hallmarks and propose their consideration should aid the design and evaluation of international antibiotic policies with maximal benefit at both local and international scales.

BackgroundMalaria control in Tanzania currently relies primarily on long-lasting insecticidal nets and indoor residual spraying, alongside effective case management and behaviour change communication. This study explored opinions of key stakeholders on the national progress towards malaria elimination, the potential of currently available vector control interventions in helping achieve elimination by 2030, and the need for alternative interventions that could be used to supplement malaria elimination efforts in Tanzania.MethodsIn this exploratory qualitative study, Focus group discussions were held with policy-makers, regulators, research scientists and community members. Malaria control interventions discussed were: (a) improved housing, (b) larval source management, (c) mass drug administration (MDA) with ivermectin to reduce vector densities, (d) release of modified mosquitoes, including genetically modified or irradiated mosquitoes, (e) targeted spraying of mosquito swarms, and (f) spatial repellents.ResultsLarval source management and spatial repellents were widely supported across all stakeholder groups, while insecticide-spraying of mosquito swarms was the least preferred. Support for MDA with ivermectin was high among policy makers, regulators and research scientists, but encountered opposition among community members, who instead expressed strong support for programmes to improve housing for poor people in high transmission areas. Policy makers, however, challenged the idea of government-supported housing improvement due to its perceived high costs. Techniques of mosquito modification, specifically those involving gene drives, were viewed positively by community members, policy makers and regulators, but encountered a high degree of scepticism among scientists. Overall, policy-makers, regulators and community members trusted scientists to provide appropriate advice for decision-making.ConclusionStakeholder opinions regarding alternative malaria interventions were divergent except for larval source management and spatial repellents, for which there was universal support. MDA with ivermectin, housing improvement and modified mosquitoes were also widely supported, though each faced concerns from at least one stakeholder group. While policy-makers, regulators and community members all noted their reliance on scientists to make informed decisions, their reasoning on the benefits and disadvantages of specific interventions included factors beyond technical efficiency. This study suggests the need to encourage and strengthen dialogue between research scientists, policy makers, regulators and communities regarding new interventions.

Uncertainty was a defining feature of the Brazilian Zika crisis of 2015–2016. The cluster of cases of neonatal microcephaly detected in the country's northeast in the second half of 2015, and the possibility that a new virus transmitted by Aedes mosquitoes was responsible for this new syndrome, created a deep sense of shock and confusion in Brazil and around the world. When in February 2016 the WHO declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC), it noted that it did so on the basis of what was not known about the virus and its pathogenic potential. To better understand the role that non-knowledge played in the unfolding of the Brazilian Zika crisis we differentiate between three different kinds of uncertainty: global health uncertainty, public health uncertainty, and clinical uncertainty. While these three forms of uncertainty were difficult to disentangle in the early weeks of the crisis, very soon each one began to trace a distinct trajectory. Global health uncertainty centered on the question of the causative link between Zika virus infection and congenital malformations, and was declared resolved by the time the PHEIC was lifted in November 2016. Public health and clinical uncertainty, in contrast, persisted over a longer period of time and did, in some important ways, become entrenched. This taxonomy of uncertainties allows us to explore the systematic nonproduction of knowledge in times of medical emergency, and suggests structural limitations in the framework of “emergency research” that global health institutions have developed to deal with unexpected threats.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0222669.].

Recent attempts to conduct experiments in climate ‘geoengineering’ have demonstrated the deeply controversial nature of this field of scientific research. Social scientists have begun to explore public perceptions of geoengineering, and have documented a significant degree of concern over the effective governance of research and experimentation in this area. Yet, public perception on what constitutes a legitimate geoengineering experiment and how it should be governed remains under-researched. In this article we report on a series of experimental deliberative workshops with members of the public designed to elicit and explicate diverse understandings of geoengineering experiments and their governance. In contrast to previous methods of invited public deliberation, which privilege egalitarian-consensual models of discourse and decision-making, we test a novel approach that places majoritarian, individualistic, and consensual forms of public deliberation on an equal footing. Our study suggests that the perceived controllability of experimental interventions is central to public views on their acceptability, but that controllability is itself a complex, multifaceted quality, drawing together a set of heterogeneous concerns about the purpose and repercussions of scientific work. The citizens who participated in our workshops employed four criteria to adjudicate the acceptability of geoengineering experiments: (1) the degree of containment; (2) the uncertainty surrounding experimental outcomes; (3) the reversibility of impacts; and (4) the scientific purity of the enterprise. We theorize that the public legitimacy of geoengineering experiments depends on variable, context-specific combinations of these criteria, and that technical determinations of the proper ‘scale’ or ‘location’ for geoengineering research will be poor predictors of the sorts of public concerns that will be triggered by further experimentation in this area.

What sort of reality is produced and conveyed to the business trainee through the set of pedagogical techniques that characterize the experiential business curriculum, and how does immersion in this particular kind of reality configure the business self? This essay discusses some of the rhetorical and theatrical contrivances that are used to generate artificial business situations in which the student can experience a moment of decision and test his quality as a leader. These training formulas, we argue, rely on the therapeutic hope of dramaturgical self-realization, but often degenerate into a form of regressive fetishism in which the fantasy of existential resolve and serious decision-making can be playfully and safely enacted. Surrealism and its demise provide an angle from which the peculiar fragility of these operations can be understood: what the experiential business curriculum provides, in this interpretation, amounts to a sort of subrealist shield, a protective dilution of the challenges that await in the world at large. When the element of the ethical pledge is added to this compendium of techniques, the result is a self-referential (and essentially indulgent) form of spiritual exercise solely oriented to the auto-elevation of the business self.

This chapter discusses the emerging body of work in STS that explores the experimental dimension of public participation in contemporary societies. This work moves beyond the original focus of STS on the role of experimentation in the sciences to consider the proliferation of experimental formats in the arts, social movements, economic organization, and public life. The chapter outlines several strands of scholarship that, through the study of experiments, have developed a materialist, situational and performative understanding of the making of publics in technological societies. At the heart of this scholarship lies a formative ambiguity: the fact that experiments in participation operate as both an object of inquiry and a device that actors including researchers themselves can deploy for the creation of new collectives. After reviewing how a focus on experimental situations was instrumental to the emergence of STS as a distinctive mode of inquiry, the chapter elaborates three recent themes from the literature: object-centered engagement, inventive methods, and prototyping. The chapter concludes by arguing that experiments in participation represent a crucial nexus of theory and practice in contemporary science, technology and society, one that allows the field to expand its repertoire of political tools and participate in wider experimental cultures.

In a short period of time, climate ‘geoengineering’ has been added to the list of technoscientific issues subject to deliberative public engagement. Here, we analyse this rapid trajectory of publicization and explore the particular manner in which the possibility of intentionally altering the Earth’s climate system to curb global warming has been incorporated into the field of ‘public engagement with science’. We describe the initial framing of geoengineering as a singular object of debate and subsequent attempts to ‘unframe’ the issue by placing it within broader discursive fields. The tension implicit in these processes of structured debate – how to turn geoengineering into a workable object of deliberation without implying a commitment to its reality as a policy option – raises significant questions about the role of ‘public engagement with science’ scholars and methods in facilitating public debate on speculative technological futures.

The development of the One World, One Health agenda coincides in time with the appearance of a different model for the management of human-animal relations: the genetic manipulation of animal species in order to curtail their ability as carriers of human pathogens. In this paper we examine two examples of this emergent transgenic approach to disease control: the development of transgenic chickens incapable of shedding avian flu viruses, and the creation of transgenic mosquitoes refractory to dengue or malaria infection. Our analysis elaborates three distinctions between the One World, One Health agenda and its transgenic counterpoint. The first concerns the conceptualization of outbreaks and the forms of surveillance that support disease control efforts. The second addresses the nature of the interspecies interface, and the relative role of humans and animals in preventing pathogen transmission. The third axis of comparison considers the proprietary dimensions of transgenic animals and their implications for the assumed public health ethos of One Health programs. We argue that the fundamental difference between these two approaches to infectious disease control can be summarized as one between strategies of containment and strategies of competition. While One World, One Health programs seek to establish an equilibrium in the human-animal interface in order to contain the circulation of pathogens across species, transgenic strategies deliberately trigger a new ecological dynamic by introducing novel animal varieties designed to out-compete pathogen-carrying hosts and vectors. In other words, while One World, One Health policies focus on introducing measures of inter-species containment, transgenic approaches derive their prophylactic benefit from provoking new cycles of intra-species competition between GM animals and their wild-type counterparts. The coexistence of these divergent health protection strategies, we suggest, helps to elucidate enduring tensions and concerns about how humans should relate to, appraise, and intervene on animals and their habitats.

In the last decade, the organization of pharmaceutical research on neglected tropical diseases has undergone transformative change. In a context of perceived "market failure," the development of new medicines is increasingly handled by public-private partnerships. This shift toward hybrid organizational models depends on a particular form of exchange: the sharing of proprietary assets in general and of intellectual property rights in particular. This article explores the paradoxical role of private property in this new configuration of global health research and development. Rather than a tool to block potential competitors, proprietary assets function as a lever to attract others into risky collaborative ventures; instead of demarcating public and private domains, the sharing of property rights is used to increase the porosity of that boundary. This reimagination of the value of property is connected to the peculiar timescape of global health drug development, a promissory orientation to the future that takes its clearest form in the centrality of "virtual" business models and the proliferation of strategies of deferral. Drawing on the anthropological literature on inalienable possessions, we reconsider property's traditional exclusionary role and discuss the possibility that the new pharmaceutical "commons" proclaimed by contemporary global health partnerships might be the precursor of future enclosures.

There is in science and technology studies a perceptible new interest in matters of 'ontology'. Until recently, the term 'ontology' had been sparingly used in the field. Now it appears to have acquired a new theoretical significance and lies at the centre of many programmes of empirical investigation. The special issue to which this essay is a contribution gathers a series of enquiries into the ontological and reflects, collectively, on the value of the analytical and methodological sensibilities that underpin this new approach to the make-up of the world. To what extent and in what sense can we speak of a 'turn to ontology' in science and technology studies? What should we make of, and with, this renewed interest in matters of ontology? This essay offers some preliminary responses to these questions. First, we examine claims of a shift from epistemology to ontology and explore in particular the implications of the notion of 'enactment'. This leads to a consideration of the normative implications of approaches that bring 'ontological politics' to centre stage. We then illustrate and pursue these questions by using an example - the case of the 'wrong bin bag'. We conclude with a tentative assessment of the prospects for ontologically sensitive science and technology studies. © The Author(s) 2013.

In 1967, the Esso Petroleum Company and the UK National Union of seamen (NUs) agreed on a new personnel policy for the company’s oil tankers. In addition to the typical concessions in collective bargaining agreements of this kind (seamen on Esso ships would see an increase in their salaries, and in the number of leave days), the deal contained a less familiar item: the oil company and the union agreed to introduce “integrated crews” on some of the company’s tankers. Casual employment at sea would be progressively eliminated, crews would be more permanently attached to ships, and an effort would be made to lessen the traditional divisions of rank and function that made merchant ships floating monuments to social hierarchy and spatial segregation.

On the morning of 12 July 1999, Jose C., then thirty-three years old, suddenly fainted when he was about to take a shower. After days of close monitoring in the hospital, during which he showed no sign of consciousness, the doctors concluded that he had suffered a stroke that had left him in a persistent vegetative state. The medical team informed Jose’s wife and family that, given the extensive physiological and neurological damage the stroke had caused, it was highly unlikely he would survive longer than two months. Over the weeks that followed this devastating diagnosis, Jose’s wife, Maria, identified a barely noticeable pattern in the movement of his righthand index finger. She alerted the medical team, but the doctors dismissed the idea that the movement could be a sign of conscious brain activity, attributing it instead to the sort of spasmodic muscle contraction typical of patients in vegetative states. Four months after the initial stroke, however, and as the result of Maria’s dogged insistence, the medical team acceded to perform additional tests to discard the possibility of conscious action. To their surprise, the results showed that despite the damage the stroke had caused to Jose’s nervous system he remained fully aware and conscious, capable of hearing, understanding, reasoning and commanding the movement of his right-hand index finger. The medical team reversed its initial assessment and diagnosed him with Locked-in Syndrome. Locked-in Syndrome (hereafter LIS), also known as coma vigilante, is a rare neurological disorder normally caused by infarct, haemorrhage, or trauma leading to a brainstem lesion. It entails complete paralysis of nearly all the voluntary muscles of the body, except for vertical eye movement. Outwardly LIS patients resemble those in vegetative states, but there is a crucial difference: LIS patients remain fully aware and conscious, with their intellective capabilities intact. Hence the name of the disorder: the individual is locked inside his body, unable to express his consciousness and translate his thoughts and intentions into words or actions.1.

How is the law bound to the material world? This article examines the production of reference materials, artefacts that incarnate legally relevant measurements and serve as a transitional object for the law in its approximation to the stuff of the world. The argument, an opening for an ethnographic investigation into the life of legal materials, is based on a study of the work conducted at the Institute for Reference Materials and Measurements (IRMM), an agency that, for over fifty years, has fabricated official versions of the objects and substances mentioned in European law. © 2012 The Author. Journal of Law and Society © 2012 Cardiff University Law School.

From the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to Hurricane Katrina, from the Darfur tragedy to the Minnesota bridge collapse, ours is an "age of catastrophe." In this era, catastrophic events seem to have a revelatory quality: they offer powerful reminders of the fragility of our social and institutional architectures, making painfully evident vulnerabilities in our social organization that were otherwise invisible. By disrupting the operation of fundamental mechanisms and infrastructures of our social order, they lay bare the conditions that make our sense of normalcy possible. Copyright © 2009 by University of Massachusetts Press. All rights reserved.

In the 1970s a group of social scientists attempted to create a new, more democratic form of work organization aboard the Norwegian merchant ship Balao. To do so they redesigned the physical structure of the ship to facilitate the emergence of a participatory shipboard community. This paper revisits the journeys of Balao as an example of the potential and limits of experimental democracies. It describes the processes of social miniaturization implemented in the organization of Balao's work processes, the particular ergonomics of democracy that resulted from the new model layout and the vexing question of the project's landfall: its limited impact as a 'demonstration experiment' for a more democratic organization of production. © 2011 Copyright Taylor and Francis Group, LLC.

From 9/11 to Katrina, from Darfur to the Minnesota bridge collapse, ours is an "age of catastrophe." In this era, catastrophic events seem to have a revelatory quality: they offer powerful reminders of the fragility of our social and institutional architectures, making painfully evident vulnerabilities in our social organization that were otherwise invisible. By disrupting the operation of fundamental mechanisms and infrastructures of the social order, they lay bare the conditions that make our sense of normalcy possible. At a time when societies are directing an unprecedented level of resources and ingenuity to anticipating and mitigating catastrophic events, Catastrophe: Law, Politics, and the Humanitarian Impulse examines the tests that catastrophe poses to politics and humanitarianism as well as to the law. It explores legal, political, and humanitarian responses during times when the sudden, discontinuous, and disastrous event has become, perhaps paradoxically, a structural component of our political imagination. It asks whether law, politics, and humanitarianism live up to the tests posed by disaster, and the role all of them play in creating a more resilient world. Taken together the essays in this book ask us to see through and beyond the myths that surround catastrophe and our responses to it. They ask us to rethink our understanding of catastrophe and to imagine new legal, political, and humanitarian responses. In addition to the editors, contributors include Thomas Birkland, Michele Landis Dauber, Kim Fortun, Edward Rackley, Peter Redfield, Peter H. Schuck, and Susan Sterett. Copyright © 2009 by University of Massachusetts Press. All rights reserved.

On the seventh day of the trial of The State of Tennessee vs. John Thomas Scopes, William Jennings Bryan was cross-examined by Clarence Darrow. What ensued was one of the most famous exchanges in American legal history, and a constant referent in the struggle between religious Fundamentalists and defenders of academic freedom and natural evolution. Many saw in Darrow's interrogation of Bryan a moment of revelation, a dramatic instantiation of the irreducible conflict between 'ancient religion' and 'modern reason'. This paper returns to the transcript of the trial to examine what form of incommensurability was produced in the course of that celebrated examination. Contrary to the conventional interpretation of the Scopes trial as a moment of mutual untranslatability between irreconcilable positions, an analysis of the conversational structure of the exchange suggests a surprisingly robust and productive dialogue. It reveals a form of difference sustained by a shared grammar of mutual accountability. © The Author(s) 2010.

Experiments play a crucial role in contemporary policy-making, yet their political and epistemological dimensions have been neglected in studies of regulatory practice. This article offers an initial examination of the uses of experiments in regulation. It analyses two examples: the partial release of genetically modified organisms in the UK Farm-Scale Evaluations, and the unleashing of option contracts in the Chicago Board of Options Exchange. We analyze both cases in terms of the dialectic they institute between the 'experimental gap' created to observe these regulatory objects under controlled conditions, and the need to 'project' the experimental evidence onto the world at large. In our two examples, experiments fail to produce a final consensus or definitive certainty, but serve to translate conflicts into amenable forms of uncertainty. Regulatory experiments should thus be seen as tests on the governability of new objects, and should be open to further scrutiny by interested parties. © Beech Tree Publishing 2006.