Articulating the public world of scientific practice: A PROTEE-mediated redescription of a GM tree field-trial Ruth McNally, Ari Pappinen, Helena Valve. Background Aims From 2004-2006 we used PROTEE in a collective Experiment involving a scientific research Project that included the first field trial of genetically modified (GM) trees in Finland. PROTEE is an actor-network theory-informed approach to the management of radical innovation projects. Funded by the European Commission, it was developed by a consortium of industrial and academic partners, led by Bruno Latour, through experimentation with, and 'lessons' learnt from, projects in the transport sector (Duret et al. 2000; McNally and Woolgar 1999; McNally and Sondermann 1999; Laredo 1999; McNally 2005). The Project’s aims were both scientific: to develop a methodological approach to evaluate potential risks of GM trees; and social: to restore popular confidence in biotechnological applications by undertaking research which addressed acute political questions concerning the environmental risks of GMOs (Weissenberg et al. 2001) Scientific research projects always embody public dimensions; they represent, refer to and perform explicit and implicit imaginations of the public world and its needs (Wynne 2005). The Project’s proposal coincided with the formation of an anti-GMO coalition in Finland. This opposition politicised gene technology and thus gave the Project its apparent policy- relevance. Our key aim was to find out whether, with the help of PROTEE, we could organize interactions which would elicit articulations (Latour 2004) of this Project network, including its imagined publics. The field trial itself, as the institutionally sanctioned method of risk assessment of GMOs, was also pivotal in securing the funding. Key Findings Discussion Through successive PROTEE ‘dialogues’ the Project was able to significantly re-describe itself in ways which broadened from the purely technical to the identification of new significant actors, in particular actors from the social realm. The trajectory of Project was in many respects typical of the majority of publicly-funded research projects. Like most projects, in order to obtain funds, it claimed in its proposal that it would produce policy-relevant, socially -useful knowledge. It received all its funding and has published articles and reports. However, with regard to public debate and policy-making, the Project has disappeared almost without trace. This is not a weakness of this particular project; it is simply the fate of most research projects. What makes this project different, however, is that it has been part of a collective experiment with PROTEE. During the PROTEE process of articulation, the field trial turned from an abstract 'obligatory passage point' (Callon 1986) into a potentially disenfranchising object or actor. It seems that obtaining the funds to do science requires mobilisation of social expectations, but the construction and execution of 'doable' problems (Fujimura 1987 ) alienates the activity from the differences that matter societally. Funding research projects that promise to serve policy needs is not enough. It remains too risky for most scientists, even those who want to make a difference, to articulate the reasons why their projects do not deliver. PROTEE may have a role in mediating change in the prevailing order. However, change may occur through furtive erosions than big steps (Law 2002). Two key actors on the Project’s critical path could not be enrolled into the Project. The first was the GM trees, who refused to become genetically stable within the time frame of the field trial. The other was the anti-GM lobby who regarded the field trial itself as a biohazard and were unwilling to listen to the Project. Thus the field-trial alienated the Project from both key constituencies. Contact Details: R, McNally: Cesagen Lancaster University; A. Pappinen: Dept of Forestry, University of Joenssu; H. Valve : Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE), Helsinki.