Seite - 173 - in Critical Issues in Science, Technology and Society Studies - Conference Proceedings of the 17th STS Conference Graz 2018

explore an instantiation of legal autopoiesis, particularly the ways in which certain non-legal discourses are deemed capable of reproduction within the legal sub-system, whilst others are disqualified. Thus, autopoietic theory may shed light on the nature of the relations between the filtering processes and the epistemic authority of competing legal and scientific discourses. In conducting such an analysis, the focus of inquiry must converge on the structures and processes that govern interactions between law and the discourses of the scientific sub-system (of which forensic science is a part). Autopoiesis and Forensic Science The Streamlined Forensic Reporting scheme provides an opportunity to explore an instantiation of legal autopoiesis, particularly the ways in which certain non-legal discourses are deemed capable of reproduction within the legal sub-system, whilst others are disqualified. Thus, autopoietic theory may shed light on the nature of the relations between the filtering processes and the epistemic authority of competing discourses. The objectives of Streamlined Forensic Reporting, as stated by the Ministry of Justice, refer to the need to move beyond a ‘so-called system which operates in silos’ towards an effective multi- agency partnership. This impulse to reconcile the truth claims of agents from competing disciplines, each grounded in its own epistemological traditions, resonates with the autopoietic theoretical perspective. In order to better understand the ways in which distinctive discursive outcomes may be attributable to the unique features of Streamlined Reporting, it is necessary to discuss the role of meaning and power in autopoietic theory. However, prior to any attempt to apply autopoietic theory to the production of interdisciplinary forensic-scientific communications, it is first necessary to address the fundamental question of whether the forensic-scientific field can be said to constitute a discrete sub-system in its own right. This may only be possible if the semantic artefacts produced by the forensic-scientific field are incapable of reproduction by other fields. It is posited that such semantic artefacts are capable of reproduction within the larger scientific field. It is questionable to what extent the forensic-scientific field can be said to be capable of autopoiesis insofar as it does not apply its own norms, and is not operationally enclosed by a specific binary encoding. Therefore, it may be concluded that forensic science should be treated as constituting a body of communications within a greater ‘scientific’ subsystem. This body of communications interpenetrates the legal sub-system as the result of a process of structural coupling.1 This is but one example of a variety of processes that bind law to diverse social discourses. Alternative outcomes are possible, dependent on the interaction of elements and system processes (emergence, interference and interpenetration). However, the ‘transformational grammar’ of the interaction between the legal and forensic-scientific sub- systems, is best understood as structural coupling, which provides the best macro-theoretical explanation of the way in which the process governs the creation of legal-scientific truth claims. In order to better understand the ways in which distinctive discursive outcomes may be attributable to the structural coupling process, it is first necessary to discuss the role of meaning and power in autopoietic theory. 1 It may be argued that Mercer’s hybrid-set is, in reality, an example of structural coupling between law and science. 173