Abstract The biotechnological revolution presents states and governments with a set of challenges that they have difficulty meeting. Part of the problem is associated with common perceptions of the speed, volume and the radical uncertainty of the new developments. Globalisation is also implicated, especially in relation to the development of the knowledge economy and the role of multinational actors. This in turn contributes to the apparent decline in the confidence of the public that national governments will be effective in addressing mounting concern about the dangers inherent in new techniques and products. Under these circumstances, ‘normal’ governance begins to look more like ‘failure’ governance. This article asks whether the effects of the biotechnological revolution on governance can adequately be explained by the critique of imperialism proposed by Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, and whether the state is in danger of becoming implicated in sponsorship of modernist schemes to improve the human condition of the kind analysed by James E Scott. Biotechnology does appear to have imperial qualities, while there are strong reasons for states to see biotechnology as a feasible and desirable set of developments. For some critics of biotechnology, like Francis Fukuyama, this is a lethal combination, and the powers of the state should be used to stop biotechnological development. Others, by contrast and more pragmatically, propose a check on what the state will support by the application of precautionary principles. The article concludes that the association between the biotechnology empire and the state, combined with the inescapable duty of the state to be the risk manager of last resort, alerts us to the complexities of uncertainty at the same time as it renders a merely restrictive precautionary approach impracticable.

中文翻译：

---

不确定状态：管理生物技术帝国

摘要 生物技术革命给国家和政府带来了一系列他们难以应对的挑战。部分问题与对新发展的速度、数量和根本不确定性的普遍看法有关。全球化也有牵连，尤其是在知识经济的发展和跨国行为者的作用方面。这反过来又导致公众信心明显下降，即国家政府将有效解决对新技术和产品固有危险的日益增长的担忧。在这种情况下，“正常”治理开始看起来更像是“失败”治理。本文询问生物技术革命对治理的影响是否可以用迈克尔·哈特和安东尼奥·内格里提出的对帝国主义的批评来充分解释，以及国家是否有卷入赞助现代主义计划以改善人类状况的危险。 James E Scott 分析的那种。生物技术似乎确实具有帝国品质，而各国有充分的理由将生物技术视为一种可行且可取的发展。对于弗朗西斯·福山（Francis Fukuyama）等一些生物技术批评家来说，这是一个致命的组合，应该利用国家权力来阻止生物技术的发展。相比之下，其他人则更务实地建议检查国家将通过应用预防原则支持什么。