Click the star to add/remove an item to/from your individual schedule.
You need to be logged in to avail of this functionality.
Log in
- Convenors:
-
Giuseppe Pellegrini
(Università di Trento)
Christophe Voineau (IRIDIS COnseil Concertation)
Send message to Convenors
- Theme:
- Sociotechnical innovation
- Location:
- C. Humanisticum AB 2.08
- Sessions:
- Wednesday 17 September, -
Time zone: Europe/Warsaw
Short Abstract:
Participation, decisions, dialogue, science, technological
Long Abstract:
In recent years there has been an increased interest to different forms of dialogue and participation around emerging technologies. The attention and concern they have elicited is due primarily to the fact that many techno-scientific innovations raise broad issues that touch on the ethical, social, economic and political spheres, attracting public interest by virtue of their potential implications for the environment, health and life. So the political significance of such issues is clearly decisive: who is to decide, and how, on these applications? Is it possible to make decisions that fully assess the possible costs and benefits of using the innovations concerned? Who can be held accountable for any adverse repercussions?
This track aims to discuss how the turn towards two-way public dialogue in the field of science and technology has affected practices of innovation. The focus is on dialogue procedures, which aim primarily to contribute to deliberation and learning among participants, i.e. citizens, civil society organizations as well as scientists. Such events have been described as producing change in the relation of science and society. However, the quality of these discussion events is at stake in terms of strategies, processes and results. We would like to collect both theoretical contributions and research papers which address for example case studies in public participation, the role of different stakeholders in exploiting discussion arenas and the implications for socio technological innovation.
The papers will be presented in the order shown in one session
Accepted papers:
Session 1 Wednesday 17 September, 2014, -Franc Mali (University of Ljubljana)
Paper long abstract:
In today's national R&D and innovation policies in many European countries, one main challenge is the question of how to define them in the context of demand towards the increasingly participatory and inclusive democratic governance of complex matters of the new emerging technologies. Traditional decisionist models (it is assumed that the exclusive responsibility should be in the hands of politicans) as well as technocratic models (it is assumed that policy decisions should be taken by experts and supported mainly or solely by bureaucrats) are now widely seen as obsolete approaches. There is need to establish new forms of cooperation and communication, in which ordinary citizens and a wide variety of stakeholders Will participate by creation of common technological strategies and models of technological governance. This demand is put foreward especially in the case of synthetic biology. Synthetic biology does represent a new technology for which is characteristic the following ambiguity: to radically change or not to change its policy regimes? Namely, in its case, there are exchanging two discourses, i.e. »everything is new« and »everthing is the same«. How to deal with this dilemmas in small states which are armed with limited formal mechanisms for coordinating the interests of different social actors? The results of empirical research performed in the beginning of 2014 (interviews, quantitative data analysis) will be used to highlight this issue in Slovenia as a case of small state.
Céline Parotte (University of Liège)
Paper long abstract:
In this paper, based on two case studies in Belgium and France, I aim at comparing the different participatory patterns for high level and/or long live radioactive wastes (LLRW & HLRW) since the « participatory turn » in the 80's. Public and stakeholders' participation and engagement today are considered as essential in the formulation of an effective and legitimate policy (European Directive 2011/70/EURATOM). Along this "participatory turn" in nuclear waste management, ANDRA and ONDRAF (National Radioactive Waste Management Agencies) developed new organizational practices. Concrete examples are local siting partnerships and citizens' conference to increase openness to social/ethical aspects as well as to early integrate stakeholders and the public in the decision-making processes. In this paper, guiding research questions are: (1) How were these innovative participatory patterns like in the cases of LLRW and HLRW; (2) which results did they lead to?; (3) how did national Agencies assess the quality of public/stakeholders participation and, lastly, (4) how did they make use of such exercises in their communication and management strategies? Based on official document analysis, semi-structured interviews with the Boards of Directors and some employees and participatory observation, I rely on an analytical framework widely used in the governance of socio-technical innovations to analyze those previous questions in terms of "opening up" and "closing down" strategies of technological appraisal (Stirling 2008).
Giuseppe Pellegrini (Università di Trento)
Paper long abstract:
Over the past ten years, food has become one of the topics of greatest interest to public health. The rise of phenomena such as obesity, cardiovascular diseases and diabetes have placed at the center of governments' attention the need to consider appropriate forms of promotion of health and safety in daily life.
In order to improve a mutual learning between industry, researchers and civil society in the earliest stages of research processes directed towards developing innovative approaches (technical and social), a group of 18 partner of 13 European countries have developed the three years "Inprofood" project funded by the European Union. Within the project three series of European Scenario Workshops (EASW) with different types of stakeholders has been carried out in 2012 and 2013.
The EASW is a method of participation that combine different relevant stakeholder groups which might be strongly affected by health related food safety issues and/or which could add valuable new perspectives, but which have not been sufficiently integrated into participatory discussions on food and health. One main question that this research needs to tackle is the role that innovations in foods and new research technologies could play in counter-acting the alarming rise of food-related health problems. The second one regards the efficacy of such participative methods in the field of innovation.
Anna Wolters (Maastricht University (UM)) Onno van Schayck (Maastricht University) Klasien Horstman (Maastricht University)
Paper long abstract:
In the research of innovative drugs, the participatory role of most stakeholders is usually limited to enabling the 'technical' development and testing. Potential users, for instance, do enter 'the lab' but dominantly in their capacity of silent research subjects, whereas health policymakers are mainly implied as research funders or regulators. In fact, the connection between experimental phase and societal usage is typically restricted to positive outcome percentages of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on which medicine agencies base their approval. As a result, implementation of the innovative drug frequently parallels frustration in users, health professionals, and policymakers. How to avoid this disappointment?
As embedded qualitative researchers in a Dutch RCT for nicotine vaccination to quit smoking, we have designed an empirical ethical study in which human activities, social processes, and norms and values are put center stage. Between 2009 and 2013, we have collected material on what research participants and other important stakeholders in the experimental health strategy expect, experience, and value. Fieldwork at the clinical trial location and more than seventy in-depth interviews have resulted in a thick description of nicotine vaccination from the standpoint of the people involved, while our analysis of the scientific debate in journals and international expert meetings suggests that the normative agenda of nicotine vaccination is incomplete. These findings have nourished an evaluative framework that all stakeholders, including developers, may use to bridge the science-society gap. It is to stimulate a two-way dialogue and offers ethical guidance in research and policy decisions around nicotine vaccination.