18.3 Frames and omparators 385argumentation is deemed legitimate. Without such an understanding, a debate is
dysfunctional, and potential participants are unable to have a discussion in the
first place [54, 55]. They do need to identify a common frame, under which the
debate can be held [56].
The choice of a dominant frame does not determine the fate of a debate. But
it has implications for the selection of relevant expertise, of the kind of stake-
holders to be invited, of the type of measures to be taken, etc. For example, the
debate about green biotechnology in Europe was mostly held under a risk frame,
that is, arguments about risk for human health and the environment were
deemed more relevant than economic equity or ethical concerns. Consequently,
scientists were asked about the probability of risks, and prior risk assessment
was made mandatory. In the stem cell debate, an ethics frame prevailed, and
arguments over the sanctity of embryonic life were considered more important
than health risks. The expertise taken on board in the negotiations included
those of ethicists and clergymen, and measures included a ban on some forms of
research. Yet another frame different from risk and ethics is the economic frame,
emphasizing the opportunities for future benefits, growth, and opportunities
for the economy.
In principle, other frames might be conceivable. However empirically, in tech-
nology debates they are most frequent: media analyses of technology controver-
sies revealed “basic frames” that are not fundamentally different ones [57].
For an upstream debate on emerging technologies such as SB, dominant frames
do not readily emerge from the issue itself, as this issue still is vague in its pro-
perties and consequences. Analogies to other technologies having left a mark in
the publics’ imagination come in handy here. The frames of the past debate on
the older comparator technology influence those developing in the debate over
the new technology. In practice, frames are often “copied” from a comparator
debate and “pasted” into the new one: dominant arguments and the choice of
issues relevant in the debate over the older technology serve as a blueprint for
debating the implications of the new technology [56]. We might as well call it a
“recombinant debate.”
Many observers have expressed the assumption that SB would follow the same
development as GE in the 1980s and 1990s, hence the word creation GE 2.0. SB,
however, as a true interdisciplinary and converging technology has been linked
not only to biotechnology but also to nanotechnology and information technol-
ogy (IT) [56, 58]. Each comparator conveys different aspects, expectations,
hopes, and fears; and the dominant debates are held under partly or entirely dif-
ferent frames, respectively. Each comparator entails a unique way to understand
and interpret the technology at stake. For biotechnology, the comparator stands
for “technology as conflict”; in the case of nanotechnology, it is “technology as
progress”; and for IT it is “technology as gadget.” The terms “conflict,” “progress,”
and “gadget” are used here only to catch the main meaning of the frame in single
term (see Figure 18.2). Thus, “If a comparator becomes dominant, i.e. obvious to
many experts, stakeholders and members of the public it might influence the
course of a debate ‘out there’ through suggesting one or more dominant frames.
They will reflect the encompassing nature of the debate through their implicit
conceptualization of the public: ‘technology as conflict’ goes along with the