Controversy study is still in its nascent stage, even while there are no shortages of engaged, extended argumentation. Election seasons are rife with episodic disagreements that erupt across news cycles, each a ripple in a larger ideological exchange. In democratic politics, controversy plays a crucial role in peaceful transference of power. Sometimes its configurations change and become much more deadly, as domestic disputes change, and rush outwards with international consequences. Thus, with scope of vast weather systems and disturbances, macro-disputes swirl and eddy across globe. As important as electoral debates and politics may be, controversies of science and technology supercede localizing disagreements by bringing into contention vulnerabilities of culture to its own tenuous interface with world and by opening up new horizons of conceptual and material change. On negative side, science and technology controversies generally alert society and its institutions to loss of degrees of freedom in maintaining a sustainable culture. On positive side, they open up promises of overcoming nature's limits or offsetting technology's bi-products in short and long term. Since science cannot escape its openness to probabilities and since technologies are inherently risky, contemporary controversies gather into themselves tensions between approach and avoidance, fear and hope, risk and security. Indeed, as projects of modernity multiply and spread over space and time, domain of controversy itself widens, and with these epistemic, cultural, social, technical and political phenomena practices of communicative reasoning are ever more greatly challenged. Today, there is no doubt that controversies about scientific and science-related questions are becoming increasingly frequent and consequential upon policymaking as well as general public consciousness, writes Thomas Brante, who concludes that the sheer quantity of science-based controversies in modern society makes them interesting phenomena per se (188). In fact, area of science and technology is so very rich in controversy that one is tempted to resist Gerald Markle and James Petersen, Ronald Gier and others who establish protocols and modes of analysis. Instead, let us not theorize spaces of contention, but leave field of controversy study open, and not a little unorganized-without decisive categories, unreduced to predictive processes (initiation, development, resolution, and revision), and free from genre constraints. It indeed may be case that each science/ technology controversy is itself a singularity, drawing into vortex of disagreement procedural methods, substantive claims, intersubjectively shared assumptions, personal and political risk configurations, legal authorizations, social presumptions, and institutional prerogatives. Our studies should resist reduction of controversy to an epiphenomenon, an intrusion of ethnocentrism, a problem with identifiable patterns and predictable strategies of advocacy, with each instance awaiting proper resolution; rather let us hold that controversies persist as an ineradicable feature of all exchange. If all controversies are singularities, then what can be learned from a given controversy about aspects of tenuous hold of human projects of communication itself, in this case from inquiry into natural world? The generative power of science and technology controversies may be appraised as a contest between modernity and traditional culture. The conflicts between community and society, between lifeworld and systems-world, engender over and over again story of fall from enthrallment to disenchantment. For nineteenth century, for instance, guarantee of progress allowed society to write off stunning waste created by industrialization as a step toward progress; yet, in efficient slaughter of first world war and technologically abetted savagery of second, equation between self-correcting prospects of scientized excess and price of progress in war-making threw promise into disrepute. …