Seite - 91 - in Critical Issues in Science, Technology and Society Studies - Conference Proceedings of the 17th STS Conference Graz 2018

who looks specifically for the topics or exchanges. In this sense, the historical concept of the large public sphere (Habermas 1990) is an outdated one. Instead we prefer to speak of a structural change of the public sphere: it has been divided into a multitude of communities in which issues are negotiated or suppressed (Reckwitz 2017). So if communication does not affect one public, then it is crucial to build discourse spaces that can create something like "chance acquaintance": initial contacts with these topics that, in the best case scenario, generate interest and create entry into discussing. And this is something that could also become the task of the MfN. To understand a museum as a place of debate, as a political place, it is necessary – according to our thesis – not only to hold debates, but also create experiences with the course and momentum of debates in order to make them fruitful and transfer the knowledge about important ingredients for these debates. By evaluating all the formats we are performing, we gain a deeper insight into the visitors’ attitudes underlying beliefs and intuitions. And these value judgments often feed on completely different sources than the logical rational arguments. In short interviews we ask the participants about their approaches (have you already dealt with the questions discussed here before today's event?), their perception (what do you associate with the topic?), the consequences of the format (stimulating to discuss it? Suggestions for other formats?) and their demographic data (age? gender? highest level of education?). We try to produce novel and more diverse forms of objects and knowledge for all participants (Balmer et al. 2015, 8). Debate structure None of the questions related to genome editing is a genuine subject of the natural science but belongs to the field of morality. Nature pointed out recently, that current debates are characterized by an awareness for interdisciplinary approaches. But they added,– nevertheless: It takes place more as accumulation than as dialogue (Jasanoff and Hurlbut 2018). In addition to the question of disciplinarity, however, the debate is also characterized by the fact that the questions linked to the development of these techniques are so practically interwoven in everyday life that it is essential to discuss them beyond scientific access. For engaging in norms (e.g., “what to do?”) and values (e.g., “how to live?”) a holistic approach is necessary – across various disciplines and together with various non-scientific stakeholders. The public should not only be included because there is a common moral problem, for example whether one should be allowed to invent life, but also because a potential usage would reach deep into everyday life of almost every human being and poses questions of good life and wellbeing. This means in the classical sense “eudemonia”. In this sense we can distinguish a moral argument from ethical deliberation. Looking at the negotiations regarding genome editing, it is obvious that the creation of new spaces of deliberation and calls for public participation in political decision-making processes of new technologies have become widespread in recent years. Despite a repeated request for public engagement on this topic, the claim for seeking an open dialog on regulatory questions has not been complied with so far. In a final statement, representatives of the leading academies from the US, the United Kingdom, and China concluded that it would be irresponsible to continue clinical research and the development of germline editing unless and until “there is broad societal consensus about the appropriateness of the proposed application” (NASEM 2015). In Europe scientific and political bodies called for public 91