Past experiences with the regulation of technological innovations have shown that societal resistance can substantially jeopardize their development. Not only perceived risks trigger resistance but also concerns over social, political, economical or ethical issues. While public acceptance is an ‘internal’ boundary of technology governance, regulation mostly focuses on ‘external’ boundaries constituted, e.g, by international treaties. In some cases, like agricultural biotechnology, such regulation was insufficient to solve technology conflicts. Appropriate models of science and technology governance therefore need to navigate between multiple, often conflicting concerns and demands. Regarding internal boundaries, a variety of methods for governing technologies have emerged; prominent examples are the ‘Danish model’ and the ‘Ethical Council’ model. Our contribution will investigate which of these models might become more important in the future. Based on elite interviews in Austria, Denmark and Germany, perception of past and preferences for future forms of governance will be discussed and contrasted with the results from the recent Eurobarometer survey on biotechnology. We will show that members of political, scientific, and other elites differ substantially from the general public in favoring one approach over the over. The empirical material gives an opportunity to reflect on central tenets of the argumentative turn in policy and planning as well as on the role of the analyst investigating technology conflicts. By framing the problems to be assessed with a novel and often under-determined technology, analysts acquire a role in technology implementation.
