In past technology controversies, aspects such as risk or ethics have played a major role, apart from economic arguments. Public debates on agricultural biotechnology or biomedicine differed in the dominant aspect they addressed, respectively. This article specifies such aspects as discursive frames being tacit agreements over what is relevant and which arguments count. It investigates the role of frames in past debates and the relation between frames and issues relevant for technology governance such as policy advice, public participation and the political legitimation of decisions. For a newly emerging technology such as synthetic biology, the framing of a debate to come is often expected to follow patterns known from previous debates, and to influence governance in a foreseeable way. However, new frames might emerge that could change both the debate on and the governance of emerging technologies.

This report is embedded in the larger research project ‘Towards a Holistic Conception of Life? Epistemic Presumptions and Socio-Cultural Implications of Systems Biology’, conducted jointly by the Institute of Technology Assessment at the Austrian Academy of Sciences and the Research Centre for Biotechnology, Society, and the Environment (FSP BIOGUM) at the University of Hamburg. It gives a first overview of the state of establishment and institutionalisation of systems biology in Austria in 2011. It is based upon a methodical investigation of scientists, institutions, research projects, university courses and publications making use of the term ‘systems biology’ in this national context and puts an emphasis on the completeness and reproducibility of the reported results. The most relevant institutions are enlisted along three categories and shortly characterised. Overall, the state of establishment of systems biology is much less advanced than in Germany, the United Kingdom or Switzerland. It takes place on a smaller scale and is driven by a more cautious attitude. Also, it takes place in a more diverse and fragmented mode. Only a few, small institutes carry the label in their name and systems biology is (at least as a label) almost absent in university curricula. The rightful attribution or meaning of the label ‘systems biology’ is not questioned at this point; rather, different configurations of doing systems biology are addressed tentatively by co-authorship analyses, discipline-based categorisations, historical timelines and geographical analyses. Moreover, general problems relating to such an early onwards assessment of the state of a new scientific field are discussed in the introduction.

Editorial

Die Systembiologie zielt darauf ab, biologische Prozesse und Organismen in ihrer Gesamtheit zu verstehen. Theoretisch und forschungspraktisch werden entsprechende Ansätze seit knapp zwei Jahrzehnten verfolgt. Als Weiterführung der Genomforschung haben sie bereits viele Bereiche der biomedizinischen Forschung durchdrungen. Allerdings ist bisher wenig über die weiterreichende Bedeutung systemorientierter Ansätze für die modernen Lebenswissenschaften bekannt. Auch ihre normativen, sozialen und rechtlichen Implikationen sind weitgehend unerforscht. Dieser Artikel beschreibt Hintergrund, Ziele und Forschungsstrategie eines binationalen Verbundprojekts, das die Systembiologie in Deutschland und Österreich aus Perspektive der Wissenschafts- und Technikforschung empirisch untersucht. Partner sind der Forschungsschwerpunkt Biotechnik, Gesellschaft und Umwelt (BIOGUM) der Universität Hamburg und das Institut für Technikfolgen-Abschätzung (ITA) der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien.