Public Scientific-Technological Controversies in Latin America (2005-2020)
Analysis of their Main Characteristics and Approaches
Keywords:
controversies, Latin America, environmental conflictsAbstract
This article synthesizes the main results of an analysis aimed at mapping case studies of controversies from an STS approach in Latin America between 2005 and 2020. To this end, a survey of case studies and a qualitative analysis aimed at identifying the main themes and characteristics of the controversies, as well as the theoretical-methodological approaches present in their analysis, were carried out. A variety of definitions of “controversy” and theoretical approaches were identified, among which constructivist approaches predominate. Based on the study of the features of the controversies analyzed, a classification into four types is proposed: environment, environment and health, health, and others (mainly debates on management, regulation and scientific-technological policies). The analysis highlights a predominance of debates related to the environmental impacts of certain technical-productive undertakings, in many cases arising from the Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) prepared by the companies behind them. Finally, some challenges and possible ways to address them are presented, based on the theoretical proposals of frameworks such as socio-political epistemology and deliberative approaches.
Downloads
References
Arancibia, F. (2013). Challenging the bioeconomy: The dynamics of collective action in Argentina. Technology in Society, 35(2), 79–92.
Barandiaran, J. (2015). Chile’s Environmental Assessments: Contested Knowledge in an Emerging Democracy. Science as Culture, 24(3), 251–275.
Callon, M. & Latour, B. (1981). Unscrewing the big Leviathans: how actors macro-structure reality and how sociologists help them to do so. En K. Knorr-Cetina & A. Cicourel (Eds.), Advances in Social Theory and Methodology: Toward an Integration of Micro-and Macro-Sociologies (277–303). Boston: Routledge.
Callon, M., Lascoumes, P., & Barthe, Y. (2009). Acting in an uncertain world. An essay on technical democracy. Cambdrige & Londres: The MIT Press.
De Filippo, D. (2014). Visibilidad internacional del campo CTS en Latinoamérica a través de su producción científica. En P. Kreimer, H. Vessuri, L. Velho & A. Arellano (Eds.), Perspectivas latinoamericanas en el estudio social de la ciencia, la tecnología y la sociedad (113-136). México: Siglo XXI.
Delborne, J. A. (2011). Constructing audiences in scientific controversy. Social Epistemology, 25(1), 67–95.
Engelhardt, H. T. & Caplan, A. L. (1987). Patterns of controversy and closure: the interplay of knowledge, values and political forces. En H. T. Engelhardt & A. L. Caplan (Eds.), Scientific controversies. Case studies in the resolution and closure of disputes in science and technology (1–23). Nueva York: Cambridge University Press.
Enrriquez, A. D. (2019). Acciones y consecuencias de la explotación del litio en Jujuy. Un estudio desde la ecofilosofía. Tecnología y Sociedad, (8), 59-76.
Espinoza, G. & Alzina, V. (2001) Revisión de la Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental en Países de América Latina y el Caribe. Metodología, Resultados y Tendencias. Santiago: Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo & Centro de Estudios para el Desarrollo.
Fiorino, D. J. (1990). Citizen participation and environmental risk: A survey of institutional mechanisms. Science, Technology & Human Values, 15(2), 226-243.
Fuller, S. (1993) Philosophy, rethoric and the end of knowledge. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Fuller, S. (2003) La ciencia de la ciudadanía: más allá de la necesidad de expertos. Isegoría, 28, 33-53.
Funtowicz, S. O. & Ravetz, J. R. (1993). Science for the Post-Normal Age. Futures, 25(7), 739–755.
Garmendia, A., Salvador, A., Crespo, C. & Garmendia, L. (2005). Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental. Madrid: Pearson Educación, S.A.
Gaskell, G., Einsiedel, E., Priest, S., Eyck, T., Allum, N. & Torgersen, H. (2001). Troubled waters: the Atlantic divide on biotechnology policy. En G. Gaskell & M. Bauer (Eds.), Biotechnology 1996-2000: The years of controversy (96-115). Londres: Science Museum.
Gudynas, E. (2014). Conflictos y extractivismos: conceptos, contenidos y dinamicas. DECURSOS, Revista en Ciencias Sociales, 27, 79–115.
Invernizzi, N., Davyt, A., Kreimer, P. & Rodríguez Medina, L. (2022). STS between centers and peripheries: how transnational are leading STS journals? Engaging Science, Technology and Society, 8(3), 31–62.
Iribarne, P, Trimble, M. & Lázaro, M. (2023) Análisis causal estratificado (CLA) como herramienta para el trabajo inter y transdisciplinario: contribuciones y desafíos de su aplicación en Montevideo, Uruguay. Revista Iberoamericana de Ciencia, Tecnología y Sociedad -CTS, 18(53), 87-116. DOI: https://doi.org/10.52712/issn.1850-0013-385.
Jay, S., Jones, C., Slinn, P. & Wood, C. (2007) Environmental impact assessment: Retrospect and prospect. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 27(4), 287-300.
Latour, B. (1988). The Pasteurization of France. Cambridge, Massachusetts & Londres: Harvard University Press.
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lázaro, M. (2009). Herritarren parte-hartzea zientzia eta teknologian: kontsentsu biltzarrak eta zientziaren demokratizazioa. Jakin, 171, 17-30.
Lázaro, M., Trimble, M., Umpiérrez, A., Vasquez A. & Pereira, G. (2013). Juicios Ciudadanos en Uruguay: dos experiencias de participación pública deliberativa en ciencia y tecnología. Montevideo: PNUD.
Lázaro, M., Bortagaray, I. & Sthuldreher, A. (2018). Imaginando el futuro en Tacuarembó: Diálogo Ciudadano sobre Desarrollo. Colección “Documentos de Trabajo” Nº3, Instituto de Desarrollo Sostenible, Innovación e Inclusión Social (IDIIS), Universidad de la República – Sede Tacuarembó. Canelones: Psicolibros.
Lázaro, M., Iribarne, P., Adalyiza, P., Rumeau, D. & López Echagüe, C. (2021a). Análisis participativo del problema de los residuos en Montevideo: aplicación del Análisis Causal Estratificado. Revista Iberoamericana de Ciencia, Tecnología y Sociedad -CTS, 16(46), 167-197. Recuperado de: https://ojs.revistacts.net/index.php/CTS/article/view/217.
Lázaro, M., Bortagaray I., Trimble, M. & Zurbriggen, C. (2021b). Citizen deliberation in the context of Uruguay's first National Water Plan. Water Policy, 23, 487-502.
López Echagüe, C. (2017). El caso del Proyecto Aratirí de minería a cielo abierto en Uruguay: análisis de una controversia científico-tecnológica. Revista Iberoamericana de Ciencia, Tecnología y Sociedad -CTS, 12(36), 107-137. Recuperado de: https://ojs.revistacts.net/index.php/CTS/article/view/38.
Lorenzi, B. R. & de Andrade, T. H. N. (2019). O etanol de segunda geração no Brasil. Políticas e redes sociotécnicas. Revista Brasileira de Ciencias Sociais, 34(100), 1-19.
Lozano, M. (2007). El síndrome de Rashomon o la comunicación de la ciencia y la tecnología en situaciones de conflicto. Redes, 13(26), 235-260.
Mansbridge, J. (2015). A Minimalist Definition of Deliberation. En P. Heller & V. Rao (Eds.), Deliberation and Development: Rethinking the Role of Voice and Collective Action in Unequal Societies (27-49). Washington: World Bank Group.
Markle, G. E., & Petersen, J. C. (1981). Controversies in Science and Technology. A Protocol for Comparative Research. Science, Technology & Human Values, 6(1), 25-30.
Martin, B. R., Nightingale, P. & Yegros-Yegros, A. (2011). Science and technology studies: exploring the knowledge base. Research Policy, 41(7), 1182–1204.
Massa-Sánchez, P., Arcos, R., & Maldonado, D. (2018). Large-Scale Mining and Social Conflicts: Analysis of Southern Ecuador. Problemas del desarrollo, 49(194), 119-141.
Mazur, A. (1981). The Dynamics of Technical Controversy. Washington: Communications Press Inc.
Merlinsky, G., Toledo López, V., Schmidt, M., Fernández Bouzo, S., Tobías, M., Langbehn, L., Pereira, P. & Capalbo, T. (2018). Defender lo común: qué podemos aprender de los conflictos ambientales. Buenos Aires: Instituto de Investigaciones Gino Germani.
Moscheni, M. (2019). La minería y el desarrollo insostenible. El estudio de caso en San Juan, Argentina. Problemas del desarrollo, 50(196), 113-138.
Nelkin, D. (1987). Controversies and the authority of science. En H. T. Engelhardt & A. L. Caplan (Eds.), Scientific Controversies: Case Studies in the Resolution and Closure of Disputes in Science and Technology (283–294). Washington: Communications Press Inc.
OCMAL (2019). Conflictos Mineros En América Latina: Extracción, Saqueo Y Agresión. Recuperado de: http://www.conflictosmineros.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/informe-final.pdf.
Ostrom, E. (2009). A General Framework for Analyzing Sustainability of Social-Ecological Systems. Science, 325(5939), 419-422.
Piaz, A. (2015). Acciones de Resistencia a La Tecnología Nuclear En La Argentina: Mapeando El Terreno. REDES, 21(41), 111-140.
Piaz, A. (2020). Nuclear Power Controversies in Mexico. PAAKAT: Revista de Tecnología y Sociedad, 10(18), 1-20.
Shrader-Frechette, K. (1985). Science policy, ethics, and economic methodology: some problems of technology assessment and environmental-impact analysis. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Company.
Torgersen, H. & Hampel, J. (2012). Calling controversy: assessing synthetic biology’s conflict potential. Public Understanding of Science, 21(2), 134-148.
Vara, A. M. (2007). Sí a la vida, no a las papeleras: en torno a una controversia ambiental inédita en América Latina. REDES, 13(25), 15-49.
Venturini, T. (2010). Diving in magma: How to explore controversies with actor-network theory. Public Understanding of Science, 19(3), 258-273.
Yrivarren, J. (2015). La esperanza técnica: ruido, silencio y proliferación de textos técnicos en una controversia ambiental. Revista Iberoamericana de Ciencia, Tecnología y Sociedad -CTS, 10(30), 81-112. DOI: https://doi.org/10.52712/issn.1850-0013-496.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 CC Attribution 4.0
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
All CTS's issues and academic articles are under a CC-BY license.
Since 2007, CTS has provided open and free access to all its contents, including the complete archive of its quarterly edition and the different products presented in its electronic platform. This decision is based on the belief that offering free access to published materials helps to build a greater and better exchange of knowledge.
In turn, for the quarterly edition, CTS allows institutional and thematic repositories, as well as personal web pages, to self-archive articles in their post-print or editorial version, immediately after the publication of the final version of each issue and under the condition that a link to the original source will be incorporated into the self-archive.
