Hurlbut J Benjamin
Arizona State University, USA.
Big Data Soc. 2017 Dec 8;4(2):2053951717742417. doi: 10.1177/2053951717742417. eCollection 2017 Dec.
This paper examines political norms and relationships associated with governance of pandemic risk. Through a pair of linked controversies over scientific access to H5N1 flu virus and genomic data, it examining the duties, obligations, and allocations of authority articulated around the imperative for globally free-flowing information and around the corollary imperative for a science that is set free to produce such information. It argues that scientific regimes are laying claim to a kind of sovereignty, particularly in moments where scientific experts call into question the legitimacy of claims grounded in national sovereignty, by positioning the norms of scientific practice, including a commitment to unfettered access to scientific information and to the authority of science to declare what needs to be known, as essential to global governance. Scientific authority occupies a constitutional position insofar as it figures centrally in the repertoire of imaginaries that shape how a global community is imagined: what binds that community together and what shared political commitments, norms, and subjection to delegated authority are seen as necessary for it to be rightly governed.
本文探讨了与大流行风险治理相关的政治规范和关系。通过围绕获取H5N1流感病毒和基因组数据的科学途径展开的一系列相关争议,研究了围绕全球信息自由流动的必要性以及为产生此类信息而自由开展科学研究的必然要求所阐明的职责、义务和权力分配。文章认为,科学制度正在主张一种主权,特别是在科学专家质疑基于国家主权的主张的合法性的时刻,通过将科学实践的规范,包括对不受限制地获取科学信息以及科学宣布需要知晓之事的权威的承诺,定位为全球治理的核心要素。科学权威占据着宪法地位,因为它在塑造全球共同体想象方式的想象集合中处于核心地位:将该共同体凝聚在一起的因素,以及被视为其得到正确治理所必需的共同政治承诺、规范和对委托权力的服从。