Page - 97 - in Critical Issues in Science, Technology and Society Studies - Conference Proceedings of the 17th STS Conference Graz 2018

access and beyond “technical” models of expertise (Moore 2010). Up to a certain extent, this may result from the technologies, it is therefore necessary to focus on their practical dimensions in everyday life. Additionally, gene drives serve as an example about localaziation/self-efficacy in the word. This location in the world depends on a perception of nature (Birnbacher 2006). And this in turn depends fundamentally on the questions of good life. As a first step, we must make these references visible, take them seriously. The call for publicity is a call for participation. This can only succeed if places are created and procedures are established in where the motives, attitudes and background convictions can be articulated and are taken seriously. We strongly believe that we need places for mutual learning. To invent and establish these places and procedures is one thing, to listen to and argue about what is being discussed there is another. Only when members from the public as well as political, and scientific areas come together the struggle for sovereignty of interpretation of what science should and may do is opened and eventually becomes a democratic discussion. Central to this is the concept of “chance acquaintance”. If we assume that we live in a society of singularities (Reckwitz 2017), we cannot assume that a public will focus on a universalistic moral question, but that questions of good living which each individual then thinks further for himself. “chance acquaintance” can only succeed if they are thought of as open, participative situations, beyond universalist moral questions, but also beyond one-dimensional scientific communication. Museums are not exclusive places where this can happen. But they can be one of the many places we need. References Acatech. 2017. Innovationspotenziale der Biotechnologie (acatech IMPULS). München: Herbert Utz Verlag. Balmer, Andrew S, Jane Calvert, Claire Marris, Susan Molyneux-Hodgson, Emma Frow, Matthew Kearnes, Kate Bulpin, Pablo Schyfter, Adrian Mackenzie, and Paul Martin. 2015. "Taking Roles in Interdisciplinary Collaborations: Reflections on Working in Post-ELSI Spaces in the UK Synthetic Biology Community." Science & Technology Studies no. 28:3-25. Bandelli, Andrea, and Elly A. Konijn. 2015. "Public Participation and Scientific Citizenship in the Science Museum in London: Visitors’ Perceptions of the Museum as a Broker." Visitor Studies no. 18 (2):131-149. doi: 10.1080/10645578.2015.1079089. Birnbacher, Dieter. 2006. Natürlichkeit. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung. 2017. Durchführung von Fokusgruppen zur Wahrnehmung des Genome Editings (CRISPR/Cas9). Berlin: Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung. Deutscher Ethikrat. 2017. Keimbahneingriffe am menschlichen Embryo. Deutscher Ethikrat fordert globalen politischen Diskurs und internationale Regulierung. Berlin. Diekämper, Julia et al. in prep. "Involving society: Evaluation of different formats for genome editing in a natural history museum." Gaskell, George, Sally Stares, Agnes Allansdottir, Nick Allum, Paula Castro, Yilmaz Esmer, Claude Fischler, Jonathan Jackson, Nicole Kronberger, Jürgen Hampel, Niels Mejlgaard, Alex Quintanilha, Andu Rammer, Gemma Revuelta, Paul Stoneman, Helge Torgersen, and Wolfgang Wagner. 2010. Europeans and Biotechnology in 2010. Winds of change? : European Commission. Habermas, Jürgen, ed. 1990. Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit. Untersuchungen zu einer Kategorie 97