Dr Javier Lezaun: List of publications

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.

© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. 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.

© 2014 The Author(s). Published by Taylor & Francis. In March 2014 a group of early career researchers and academics from São Paulo state and from the UK met at the University of Campinas to participate in a workshop on ‘Responsible Innovation and the Governance of Socially Controversial Technologies’. In this Perspective we describe key reflections and observations from the workshop discussions, paying particular attention to the discourse of responsible innovation from a cross-cultural perspective. We describe a number of important tensions, paradoxes and opportunities that emerged over the three days of the workshop.

© 2013 Taylor & Francis. In a series of groundbreaking studies conducted in the late 1930s at the Iowa Child Welfare Research Station, the émigré German psychologist Kurt Lewin and his graduate student Ronald Lippitt transformed the relationship between social-scientific experimentation and political design. In the controlled, confined space of the laboratory they were able to produce, they claimed, distinct political ‘climates’. Authoritarian, laissez-faire and, most precarious and precious of all, democratic ‘atmospheres’ were the observable effect of subjecting small groups of children to different styles of ‘leadership’ under artificial conditions of work-play. In this essay, we reconstruct the practical set-up that allowed Lewin and Lippitt to render political forms observable and manipulable under experimental conditions. We will analyze the physical configuration and material furnishings of the experimental setting, as well as the self-affected practices of ‘leadership’ that the experimenters deployed in their attempts to change the political valence of groups. The discovery of a set of technical procedures for the realization of localized but tangible forms of democratic life was a startling and welcome discovery in the bleak years of totalitarian ascendancy. We conclude by revisiting the significance of these experiments for our understanding of how the social sciences can generate spaces and situations of political experimentation.

The post-World War II period gave rise to a large number of social-scientific techniques for investigating and intervening in social reality. A particular group of these, exemplified here by the experiments of Moreno, Lewin, Bion, Milgram and Zimbardo, worked by establishing suggestive micro-realities in which participants were exposed to, or experimented with, selected 'social problems'. We investigate the nature of these techniques - being simultaneously highly artificial and disturbingly realistic - and propose the notion of 'provocative containment' to understand their operation and effects. We point to five ingredients of their characteristic mode of operation - expressionism, incitement, trauma, distillation and technology - and argue that they do not serve to represent a simplified version of social reality, but rather to 'realize' particular forms of social life intrinsic to the medium of provocative containment. © 2013 Copyright Taylor and Francis Group, LLC.

Few places bear as much historical and scientific significance as the breeding ground, the accumulation of stagnant water where disease-carrying insects lay their eggs. Since the turn of the twentieth century, when mosquitoes of the Anopheles genus were identified as the vector of malaria transmission, these aquatic habitats have been a key object of epidemiological research and public health intervention against the disease. Yet the breeding ground can be incorporated into a number of different topologies, each implying a different spatialization of malaria and a distinct imagination of what kind of mosquito control is 'doable'. A contemporary example of malaria control in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, illuminates an essential tension between what we characterize as territorial and bionomic approaches to the breeding ground-that is, between control strategies premised on treating all mosquito habitats within a given region, and those that prioritize certain sites on the basis of their position within ecological networks. Each topology localizes the breeding ground by reference to a distinct set of relations, and thus advances an idiosyncratic understanding of what sort of research is worthwhile conducting and what kinds of intervention are sustainable. The multiple ways in which the breeding ground can become an object of research and action clarifies the role of topology as an infra-logic of public health, and makes explicit the politics implicit in efforts to bring different orders of the local to scale. © 2013 Copyright Ann H. Kelly & Javier Lezaun.

In a series of groundbreaking studies conducted in the late 1930s at the Iowa Child Welfare Research Station, the émigré German psychologist Kurt Lewin and his graduate student Ronald Lippitt transformed the relationship between social-scientific experimentation and political design. In the controlled, confined space of the laboratory they were able to produce, they claimed, distinct political 'climates'. Authoritarian, laissez-faire and, most precarious and precious of all, democratic 'atmospheres' were the observable effect of subjecting small groups of children to different styles of 'leadership' under artificial conditions of work-play. In this essay, we reconstruct the practical set-up that allowed Lewin and Lippitt to render political forms observable and manipulable under experimental conditions. We will analyze the physical configuration and material furnishings of the experimental setting, as well as the self-affected practices of 'leadership' that the experimenters deployed in their attempts to change the political valence of groups. The discovery of a set of technical procedures for the realization of localized but tangible forms of democratic life was a startling and welcome discovery in the bleak years of totalitarian ascendancy. We conclude by revisiting the significance of these experiments for our understanding of how the social sciences can generate spaces and situations of political experimentation. © 2013 © 2013 Taylor & Francis.

Functional foods and foods derived from genetically modified organisms represent two forms of intervention in the design of foodstuffs that have given rise to distinct political and regulatory dynamics. In Europe, regulatory agencies have tried, unsuccessfully, to affix a definitive legal meaning to these categories of food artificiality. This incomplete process of legal disambiguation has gone hand in hand with the delegation of the responsibility for overseeing new products to consumers, who are asked to continuously consider and assess the qualities of foods when making their choices in the marketplace. In the case of genetically modified foods, we have witnessed strategies of avoidance premised on the consideration of genetic modification as a blemish on the conventional character of foodstuffs. Functional foods, on the other hand, are increasingly mobilized in practices of naturalistic enhancement. What both examples have in common is the open-ended character of their respective regulatory regimes, and the continuous prodding of consumers to involve themselves more intensely in the weighing of their food choices. The result is a particular mode of market activism that we describe as restless consumption. © 2012 Copyright Process Press.

The post-World War II period gave rise to a large number of social-scientific techniques for investigating and intervening in social reality. A particular group of these, exemplified here by the experiments of Moreno, Lewin, Bion, Milgram and Zimbardo, worked by establishing suggestive micro-realities in which participants were exposed to, or experimented with, selected 'social problems'. We investigate the nature of these techniques - being simultaneously highly artificial and disturbingly realistic - and propose the notion of 'provocative containment' to understand their operation and effects. We point to five ingredients of their characteristic mode of operation - expressionism, incitement, trauma, distillation and technology - and argue that they do not serve to represent a simplified version of social reality, but rather to 'realize' particular forms of social life intrinsic to the medium of provocative containment. © 2012 Copyright Taylor and Francis Group, LLC.

This introduction provides an overview of material- or device-centred approaches to the study of public participation, and articulates the theoretical contributions of the four papers that make up this special section. Set against the background of post-Foucauldian perspectives on the material dimensions of citizenship and engagement - perspectives that treat matter as a tacit, constituting force in the organization of collectives and are predominantly concerned with the fabrication of political subjects - we outline an approach that considers material engagement as a distinct mode of performing the public. The question, then, is how objects, devices, settings and materials acquire explicit political capacities, and how they serve to enact material participation as a specific public form. We discuss the connections between social studies of material participation and political theory, and define the contours of an empiricist approach to material publics, one that takes as its central cue that the values and criteria particular to these publics emerge as part of the process of their organization. Finally, we discuss four themes that connect the papers in this special section, namely their focus on (1) mundane technologies, (2) experimental devices and settings for material participation, (3) the dynamic of effort and comfort, and (4) the modes of containment and proliferation that characterize material publics. © 2011 Copyright Taylor and Francis Group, LLC.

Over the last decade the flying patterns and foraging behavior of bees have become a matter of public policy in the European Union. Determined to establish a system where transgenic crops can 'coexist' with conventional and organic farming, the EU has begun to erect a system of demarcations and separations designed to minimize the extent of 'gene flow' from genetically modified plants. As the European landscape is regimented through the introduction of isolation distances and buffer zones, bees and other pollinating insects have become vectors of 'genetic pollution', disrupting the project of cohabitation and purification devised by European authorities. Drawing on the work of Michel Serres on parasitism, this paper traces the emergence of bees as an object of regulatory scrutiny and as an interruptor of the 'coexistence' project. Along with bees, however, another uninvited guest arrived unexpectedly on the scene: the beekeeper, who came to see his traditional relationship to bees, crops, and consumers at risk. The figure of the parasite connects the two essential dynamics described in this paper: an escalation of research and the intensification of political attributes. © 2011 Pion Ltd and its Licensors.

Law and bioethics have traditionally expressed an elective affinity. Bioethics has often spoken "in the language of the law," or at least in a pidgin that the law can easily understand, and bioethicists have conceptualized their principles and arguments in ways that make them amenable to legal translation. However, there has always been a tradition of bioethical reflection, what I describe as "self-contained bioethics," that is deeply suspicious of its own readability to legal forms of interpretation; a tradition for which proximity to the law and a consideration of the actual circumstances of legal action compromises the purity of ethical inquiry. The article examines the work of President Bush's Council on Bioethics on human cloning as an example of this type of bioethical inquiry. In its 2002 report " Human Cloning and Human Dignity: An Ethical Inquiry " the Council professed to keep specific legal and policy options at arm's length to better explore the ethical significance of the issues at stake without being "skewed" by considerations of practical expediency. The article compares the form of bioethical advice produced by the Council with the opinion on human cloning that its predecessor, the National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC), issued in 1997. In NBAC's report the discussion of the paths of legal action was thoroughly and explicitly integrated into the moral analysis. Ultimately, the President's Council resorted to the law, understood as an instrument of absolute prohibition, to translate its purified moral argument into social reality in the form of a ban or a moratorium. Yet, by not using legal considerations to focus and refine its bioethical inquiry, and instead resorting to the law merely as a tool of proscription, the Council guarantees that its advice remains as controversial in the short term as ineffective in the long run. © 2008 Association for the Study of Law, Culture and the Humanities.

The new centrality of "the public" to the governance of science and technology has been accompanied by a widespread use of public consultation mechanisms designed to elicit from citizens relevant opinions on technoscientific matters. This paper explores the configuration of legitimate constituencies in two such exercises: the UK "GM Nation?" public debate on food biotechnology, and a Swedish "Transparency Forum" on the risks of mobile telephones. We consider the apparently paradoxical combination in these two examples of a tendency to produce static images of the public with a high valuation of mobility - of citizens and their opinions - as the key outcome of deliberation. We discuss the organizers' careful delineation of a distinction between "stakeholders" and the "general public," and their aversion to any sort of "eventfulness" in public deliberations. Finally, we introduce the classical notion of the "idiot" - the individual who minds exclusively his or her own private affairs - and argue for the need to develop a new vocabulary to evaluate the politics of "listening to the public." © SAGE Publications.