“Scientific imaginaries of publics” is used to analyze Taiwan Biobank's scientific governance practices and the ethical-legal-social controversy that peaked between 2005 and 2010. We argue that Taiwan Biobank, as an example of absent publics and a model of expert scientism governance, could not reflect civic epistemologies because it had no institutional mechanisms for including multiple publics. Social scientists and NGOs have become public representatives challenging Biobank problems. Initially, scientists regarded dissenters as anti-science and irrational, resulting in the neglect of diverse values underlying public challenges, and in restrictions on innovative governance practices. Since Taiwan Biobank lacked an “upstream public engagement” mechanism, actors used the media to voice opinions without resolving conflicts. The Human Biobank Management Act was passed in 2010 as a solution, but the overemphasis on formative regulatory procedures limited the development of more flexible and reflexive governance approaches by Taiwan Biobank.

Keywords: gene, biobank, public participation, governance, controversy