But it also presents unprecedented dangers, which many believe threaten the survival of humanity and the planet. New science, from artificial intelligence to genomic manipulation, creates unique opportunities to make the world a better place.
Never have the scope and limits of scientific freedom been more important or more under attack. Focusing on the Northern European context, our volume interrogates emerging policies and discourses as well as the lived experiences of bureaucratization from the perspective of individuals who find themselves the very objects of bureaucracies. This allows us to show that the mobility of specific segments of the world’s population continues to be seen as a threat and a risk that has to be governed and controlled. Second, we investigate refugees’ encounters with these bureaucratic structures and consider how these encounters shape hopes for building a new life after displacement. First, we scrutinize the construction of the 2015 crisis as a response to the large influx of refugees, paying particular attention to the disciplinary discourses and bureaucratic structures that are associated with it. Thus, the book contributes to debates on the governance of non-citizens and the meaning of displacement, mobility and seeking asylum by providing interdisciplinary analyses of a largely overlooked region of the world, with two specific aims. Placed in a wider Northern European context – and illustrated by those chapters that also discuss refugee experiences in Norway and the UK – the Danish, Swedish and German cases are the largest case studies of this edited volume. Given the significant similarities and differences between the welfare states of Northern Europe and their reactions to the perceived 'refugee crisis' of 2015, the book focuses primarily on the three main cases of Denmark, Sweden and Germany. In using Britain as a case, this opens up further insights into the international/global circulations of liberal empire and its relationship to violence. In doing this, the book re-theorises how we think of the connection between liberal government, race, family, borders and empire.
Drawing on historical investigations, the book investigates the continuity of colonial rule in numerous areas of contemporary government – family visa regimes, the policing of sham marriages, counterterror strategies, deprivation of citizenship, policing tactics, integration policy. Not only was family central to the making of colonial racism but claims to family continue to remake, shore up but also hide the organisation of racialised violence in liberal states. Building upon postcolonial, decolonial and black feminist theory, the investigation centres on how colonial bordering is remade in contemporary Britain through appeals to protect, sustain and make family life. The book explores the connected history between contemporary border regimes and the policing of family with the role of borders under European and British empires. In other words, a new social contract is needed, in which scientists obtain freedom but are accountable to and in active dialogue with society.īordering intimacy is a study of how borders and dominant forms of intimacy, such as family, are central to the governance of postcolonial states such as Britain.
This freedom, however, needs to be balanced by social trust and scientific responsibility. This guarantees freedom of science, which is also protected by the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. To reconcile precaution and evidence-based policy, the authors argue that it is precautionary to not prohibit any scientific research unless there is empirical evidence that costs and damages outweigh benefits. The problem lies in how it is manipulated for reasons of political advocacy. The chapter argues that there is nothing inherently anti-evidence in the precautionary principle adopted by the European Union. To support this claim, the authors discuss the European Union and its position on precaution. Although they are often pitched one against the other, evidence-based policy and precaution are compatible, at least in the field of freedom of scientific research.
0 kommentar(er)
