Chronische Vergiftung und die Krise regulatorischer Modelle. Chemische Mutagene in der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), 1963–1973. Die Regulierung und Prävention von Gefahren gehört zu den Hauptmerkmalen des modernen Staates. Die Vorstellungen und Konzepte von Gefahr haben sich allerdings über die Zeit verändert. Die Genealogie dieser Veränderungen zeigt, dass die Geschichte gesellschaftlicher Veränderung und die Geschichte des Wissens eng verbunden sind. In den 1970er Jahren hat eine tiefgreifende gesellschaftliche Transformation in den westlichen Industrieländern begonnen. Der vorliegende Artikel geht davon aus, dass diese (...) Entwicklung auch mit grundlegenden epistemischen Rekonfigurationen verbunden war und dass dabei die Genealogie des Risikos eine besondere Rolle gespielt hat. Diese These wird am Beispiel der Beratungspolitik der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) untersucht. Seit Anfang der 1960er Jahre beschäftigten sich die vom DFG Senat eingerichteten und auf Regulierung ausgerichteten Expertengremien (Senatskommissionen) mit der gesundheitlichen Bedrohung, die von Umweltstoffen wie Pestiziden ausgeht. Eine besondere Bedeutung kam der Senatskommission für Mutagenitätsfragen zu, da ihre Arbeit in der Gründung eines DFG‐eigenen Forschungsinstituts, des Zentrallaboratoriums für Mutagenitätsprüfung (ZLM), mündete. Die Arbeit des ZLM zeigt, dass die Erforschung und Testung mutagener Stoffe die expertenbasierte Beratungsspolitik der Mutagenitätskommission in eine Krise führten, deren Muster an die Konstellation der “Risikogesellschaft” erinnert. Es wird gezeigt, dass die hier (neu) austarierte Beziehung zwischen Wissenschaft und Politik/Öffentlichkeit besser im Rahmen einer politischen Epistemologie beschrieben wird.Low Dose Intoxication and a Crisis of Regulatory Models. Chemical Mutagens in the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), 1963–1973. Regulation and the prevention of danger are among the main characteristics of the modern state. However, the idea and the conceptualization of what danger is have changed over time. The genealogy of these changes shows that the history of social change and the history of knowledge are well connected. The 1970s marked the start of a social transformation of Western industrialized societies. This article proposes that this transformation was connected with basic epistemic reconfigurations and that the genealogy of risk played a significant role. This thesis is explored through the example of DFG advisory politics. Beginning in the 1960s, the DFG expert commissions that had been established to make policy and regulation recommendations began to focus more and more on the health effects of environmental pollution. The Commission for Questions of Mutagenicity played a particularly interesting role because its recommendations resulted in the foundation of a research institution run by the DFG, the Central Laboratory for Mutagenicity Testing (CML). The challenges faced by the CML in mutagenic research and testing effected a crisis of the expert‐based advisory politics of the Mutagenicity Commission and a fundamental shift in the way scientific (regulatory) knowledge was perceived and valued politically. The pattern of this crisis calls to mind the constellation of the “risk society”, but as will be shown, the (re)balancing of science and politics/society presented here is more adequately understood within the framework of political epistemology. (shrink)

Hexa-Sabbath. Foreign Matter and Vital Substances, Experts and the Critical Consumer in the FRG during the 1950s and 1960sIn the late Fifties and early Sixties the regulation of food additives represented a remarkable turning point in German consumer politics, establishing a debate about decision making and policy advice, altering the discourse of purity and contamination, and inaugurating a new political actor, the organized critical consumer. The amendment of the Food Law in December 1958 functioned as a negotiation process between representatives (...) of science, industry and the state, which was institutionalized in the Senate Commissions of the German Research Foundation. While these Commissions for preservatives, foreign matter and colorants worked behind closed doors, a public discourse about the “toxic condition” of modern life and the negative role of the pharmaceutical and chemical industry gained strength.The debate about the admission of hexamethylenetetramine (hexa) took part at a crucial moment. Hexa was used as a preservative in the fish industry. But its anti microbial effectiveness was caused by the decomposition of hexa to formaldehyde. Despite the commission’s verdict against hexa, the lobbying activities of the industry granted it a reprieve. In the media, the case of hexa was seen as a touchstone for the capacity of negotiated decision making and the ability of rational scientists to resist the demands of industry. Finally, in 1963 it was the new political actor of the organized critical consumer, heir and successor to the housewife federations as well as to “purists” advocating life reform, who, supported by the media, enforced the prohibition of hexa as a preservative. (shrink)

A common account sees the human genome sequencing project of the 1990s as a “natural outgrowth” of the deciphering of the double helical structure of DNA in the 1950s. The essay aims to complicate this neat narrative by putting the spotlight on the field of human chromosome research that flourished at the same time as molecular biology. It suggests that we need to consider both endeavors – the human cytogeneticists who collected samples and looked down the microscope and the molecular (...) biologists who probed the molecular mechanisms of gene function – to understand the rise of the human genome sequencing project and the current genomic practices. In particular, it proposes that what has often been described as the “molecularization” of cytogenetics could equally well be viewed as the turn of molecular biologists to human and medical genetics – a field long occupied by cytogeneticists. These considerations also have implications for the archives that are constructed for future historians and policy makers. (shrink)

Concerning the Crisis of the West German Politics of Limit Values in the 1970s: The Transformation of Cancer at the Workplace from a Toxicological into a Socioeconomic Problem. The paper tackles the changes that occurred in the political culture and the episteme of risk in the Federal Republic of Germany in the 1970s. The objects of observation are limit values for hazardous industrial materials, especially for carcinogens. At the forefront of the production of such values in Germany was the German (...) Research Society's Senate Commission for the Examination of Hazardous Industrial Materials. Limit values bring economy, politics, and science together and they mediate different interests. This makes limit values an ideal object of study to bring together changes in different parts of society. In 1972, a new category of limit values for carcinogenic substances is introduced, the so called „Technische Richtkonzentration”︁ (TRK). This category of values does not assume that complete safety can be reached, as do limit values for hazardous industrial materials, so called “Maximale Arbeitsplatzkonzentrationen” (MAK). This means an important rupture in toxicological thinking. Until the 1970s, Paracelsus' dictum about dosage and poison still served as starting point for toxicologists. The innovation of TRK marks an important rupture in the episteme of regulating dangerous matters. Whereas until the 1970s there existed, at least as an ideal, the myth of “no risk” or “zero tolerance” even in the case of carcinogens, since the beginning of the 1970s, certainty is no more guaranteed by epistemically, but by socially robust knowledge. This also means the return of the risk society at the beginning of the 1970s, whereby cancer at the workplace becomes – in the view of the regulatory bodies – out of a medical problem a socioeconomic illness. The paper argues that these changes are connected to a general feeling of disorientation. (shrink)

Why was the road to EMBL 'more difficult than anticipated', as Francois Jacob put it? The standard account, advanced by scientists, is that it was because molecular biology did not require big, complex and expensive equipment like high-energy physics. European governments therefore lacked the incentive to pool their efforts and to build together a supranational laboratory 'modeled on CERN'. This account is one-sided. It overlooks the fact that many scientists themselves were less than enthusiastic about building a European molecular biology (...) laboratory in the early 1960s. Taking John Kendrew and Conrad Waddington as representative of two different and opposing views on how best to promote molecular biology in Europe at this time, I argue that a supranational laboratory project could only come to fruition once the field had been entrenched in national institutional niches (or after determined efforts to do so had failed). Until that time, the usual fear that a European laboratory would drain essential human and financial resources away from incipient or planned programmes in universities and national research centres dominated the horizons of most molecular biologists in Europe. Hence their preference to first establish EMBO to coordinate existing activities and only later to set up a supranational laboratory. (shrink)

A common account sees the human genome sequencing project of the 1990s as a “natural outgrowth” of the deciphering of the double helical structure of DNA in the 1950s. The essay aims to complicate this neat narrative by putting the spotlight on the field of human chromosome research that flourished at the same time as molecular biology. It suggests that we need to consider both endeavors – the human cytogeneticists who collected samples and looked down the microscope and the molecular (...) biologists who probed the molecular mechanisms of gene function – to understand the rise of the human genome sequencing project and the current genomic practices. In particular, it proposes that what has often been described as the “molecularization” of cytogenetics could equally well be viewed as the turn of molecular biologists to human and medical genetics – a field long occupied by cytogeneticists. These considerations also have implications for the archives that are constructed for future historians and policy makers. (shrink)