We examine the claim that self-governance by scientists is a desirable and effective approach to managing the issues associated with research on climate engineering technologies, a claim that has developed considerable traction within the scientific community. By analyzing the example of recombinant DNA (rDNA) technology governance in the US during the 1970s as a purported-ly successful case of self-governance that has been cited by proponents of self-governance for climate engineering, we assess whether the case of climate engineering is sufficiently similar to this for it to follow the same approach. We find that the dominant narrative of climate engineer-ing, which defines and interprets risks and other relevant issues and provides the context from which governance emerges, differs starkly from the dominant narrative that gave meaning to rDNA technology during its foundational period. While the dominant narrative on rDNA tech-nology focused narrowly on technical risks, that on climate engineering includes not only tech-nical risks, but also social, political, and ethical issues. We conclude that, in order to be function-al and legitimate, governance must take into account this broad perception of what constitutes the relevant issues and risks in the context of climate engineering, and can accordingly not pur-sue the same narrow self-governance approach that was pursued in the case of rDNA technology.
