This paper aims to clarify the political nature of parliamentary technology assessment (PTA) by reflecting on PTA's relationship with democratic policy making. This issue is raised in a political climate that is regularly portrayed as a 'post-truth era' and influenced by the rise of radical right populism. Democratic policy making is described in terms of problem structuring that depends on powering, scientific puzzling, participation and deliberation. Regulative democratic ideals, like political equality, truth, citizen participation, and ideal communication, are identified that drive these processes. These concepts are used to clarify the political nature of PTA in two ways. First the kind of political support for PTA within countries where PTA is or was institutionalized is explored. A typology of seven levels of political support to PTA is discerned. These degrees of support depend on whether PTA is performed by MPs or by TA experts, and to what extent MPs allow PTA to play a role in the scientific puzzling process and/or organize participation-cum-deliberation processes. To further clarify the political nature of PTA, three political attitudes towards the regulative democratic ideals are distinguished: affirmative, indifferent, and adverse. It is shown that processes of powering, scientific puzzling and participation-cum-deliberation can be used in ways that are guided by regulative democratic ideals (affirmative), ignore those ideals (indifferent) or undermine them (adverse). In political contexts in which indifferent or adverse attitudes prevail political support for PTA of any kind is very unlikely. It is argued that PTA can strengthen democratic policy making, when it fully acknowledges the political nature, and strengths and weaknesses of both scientific puzzling and participation-cum-deliberation. In this way PTA can connect to democratic forms of populism, and is well-positioned to counteract anti-scientism, anti-intellectualism, and anti-democratic forms of populism.
Timely public engagement in science presents a broad challenge. It includes more than research into the ethical, legal and social dimensions of science and state-initiated citizen's participation. Introducing a public perspective on science while safeguarding its public value involves a diverse set of actors: natural scientists and engineers, technology assessment institutes, policy makers, social scientists, citizens, interest organisations, artists, and last, but not least, politicians.
In politics many things depend on how an issue is framed from different points of view, including science and technology, society and public engagement. This threefold-framing of converging technologies has shaped the political and public debate on the topic. What are the lessons for the role of public participation in the field of converging technologies?
Genomics is a relatively new field of research in which governments and companies will be investing significant sums over coming years. The specific application of genomics in research pertaining to agriculture, food processing and food consumption we name food genomics. To review social and moral aspects that are or will be involved in food genomics research, the Rathenau Institute last year (2002) set up the project Towards a Social Agenda in Food Genomics (Naar een Maatschappelijke Agenda van Voedingsgenomics). Within this project a study was done on the current state of affairs of food genomics research in the Netherlands and five social scientific essays were written about possible social impacts of food genomics. Besides these research activities, an expert meeting and a working conference were organised. Based on the research and debate activities in the Rathenau project, this article suggests a provisional framework for further consideration and discussion of the social aspects of food genomics
In the last decade we have entered the era of remote controlled military technology. The excitement about this new technology should not mask the ethical questions that it raises. A fundamental ethical question is who may be held responsible for civilian deaths. In this paper we will discuss the role of the human operator or so-called 'cubicle warrior', who remotely controls the military robots behind visual interfaces. We will argue that the socio-technical system conditions the cubicle warrior to dehumanize the enemy. As a result the cubicle warrior is morally disengaged from his destructive and lethal actions. This challenges what he should know to make responsible decisions (the so-called knowledge condition). Nowadays and in the near future, three factors will influence and may increase the moral disengagement even further due to the decrease of locus of control orientation: (1) photo shopping the war; (2) the moralization of technology; (3) the speed of decision-making. As a result, cubicle warriors cannot be held reasonably responsible anymore for the decisions they make.
This article describes the Rathenau Institute's long-term programmatic effort to study the societal meaning of nanotechnology and stimulate political and public debate about it. Three (interconnected) strands within the Dutch debate on nanotechnology since 2003 are distinguished. First, discussions about the safety of nanoparticles for the environment and human beings. Secondly, discussions on broader social and ethical issues related to nanotechnologies. To what extent does the Dutch debate pay attention to such broader issues? Thirdly, we will look at the debate in the Netherlands on whether and how to engage a broader set of people into the societal debate on nanotechnology.
In een paar jaar tijd is energie bovenaan de internationale politieke agenda komen te staan. Er lijkt sprake te zijn van een 'nieuwe' energieproblematiek met als belangrijkste thema's klimaatverandering en voorzieningszekerheid. In deze bijdrage gaan wij op zoek naar de uitdagingen waarvoor het Nederlandse energiebeleid zich gesteld ziet. Dat doen we door de hedendaagse energieproblematiek te vergelijken met die uit de jaren zeventig en tachtig.
The debate on nanotechnology within the Dutch community is of recent time, the last two years seeing it take off slowly but steadily. In this complex arena the Rathenau Institute has played a central role, collecting data, collating thinking, building up arguments, and organising interactive activities such as workshops, focus groups, meetings and newsletters. These all led to the first major public meeting on nanotechnology entitled "Small technology - Big consequences" held on 13 October 2004, and organised in collaboration with the parliamentary Theme Commission on Technology Policy. Nanotechnology in the Netherlands is receiving political attention. This article reviews various activities of the Rathenau Institute in the field of nanotechnology and highlights their results. It also seeks to give the reader insight into the (inter)national context in which the question of nanotechnology is being debated and the factors influencing current views on the subject.
This article introduces an inclusive way of modelling (Parliamentary) Technology Assessment, (P)TA as developed in the European PACITA project. It incorporates interdependencies between and diversity among existing and potential (P)TA practices in a more inclusive and fine-grained way than existing literature does. We model (P)TA as a mediating function between the spheres of parliament, government, science and technology, and society. We suggest that this mediation takes place through a set of interaction mechanisms that include institutional, organizational and project dimensions. In this way, we distinguish among 15 potential interaction models for (P)TA. Our more inclusive way of modelling may be used to map and discuss fruitful evolutionary pathways for (P)TA in countries and regions where (P)TA already exists or where the ambassadorship for (P)TA is about to take off. In the conclusion, we reflect on the relevance of our modelling for the discourse on and practice of responsible innovation.
A living cell with synthetic DNA is already a reality. Smart implants and stem cells are on their way to the clinic. Scientists also work on other cutting edge technologies, from robots that can act like humans to building supercomputers resembling the human brain. In many ways, technology and biology are increasingly intertwined. What is the impact of these developments and our vision of the ideal future of Europe? Can the EU foster innovation in these fields while at the same time managing social and ethical concerns in our society? These and other questions were addressed during the conference "Making Perfect Life", hosted by STOA on the 10th of November 2010 in the European Parliament in Brussels. To inform and stimulate further political debate in the European Parliament, the STOA "Making Perfect Life" team has now prepared a final report, highlighting the governance challenges arsing from a number of specific developments in four fields of 21st century bio-engineering: the rise of whole genome sequencing, the market introduction of neurodevices, the growing possibilities to capture psychological and physiological states of users by information technology, and the needs for standardisation in synthetic biology.
Room for climate debate: perspectives on the interaction between climate politics, science and the media The present study offers a picture of the complex interaction between climate politics, science and the media. During the 1970s and 1980s, politics and the sciences focused increasingly on the climate problem, at the time known as the greenhouse effect. Due to a lack of sufficient scientific evidence and absence of international policies, the Netherlands pursued a 'no regrets' climate policy. Measures such as energy savings, which were already justified in other policy domains, were sharpened. This all changed in the period between 1987 and 1994. Since then, the precautionary principle and the scientific consensus approach of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have determined how the political arena deals with scientific uncertainties in the field of climate change. The precautionary principle entails that in order to intervene to limit an environmental risk no full scientific knowledge of that risk is needed – clear scientific indications suffice. To create a clear scientific knowledge base for the development and legitimation of an international climate policy, the UN established the IPCC in 1988. This made political actions at an international level dependent on the scientific consensus within the IPCC. The first IPCC report from 1990 indicated that it is likely that continued emissions of anthropogenic greenhouse gases would lead to global warming. On the basis of this knowledge the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change was signed in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. The second (1995), third (2001) and fourth (2007) IPCC reports showed a growing scientific evidence: instead of 'likely', the IPCC now considers 'very likely' that not intervening will cause 'threats of serious or irreversible damage'. The interaction model between politics and science that was set up in domestic and international political arenas to deal with scientific uncertainties is also known as the linear or technocratic model. Its underlying assumption is that more scientific research will lead to more reliable knowledge and less uncertainty, and that that knowledge will then form a basis for political consensus and decision-making. One could say that, for the Netherlands, the linear model has worked for a long time, in the sense that it has provided a long-term and broad political consensus about climate policy. This approach has hindered a full-blown political climate debate and has politicised climate science. Analysis of parliamentary debates over the last twenty years show that IPCC reports are continuously used to keep the political debate within bounds. Questions are repeatedly asked in the Dutch Parliament about scientific information and scientific uncertainties surrounding the climate issue. These questions come from the entire political spectrum. The government consistently answers that scientific uncertainties do exist, but that policies are based on the IPCC reports and the precautionary principle. Because the political arena has given the IPCC reports such a central role, the political conflict about climate change and the underlying ideological contradictions have penetrated deep into the field of climate science. In other words, political influence nowadays can be achieved most effectively via climate science. With the IPCC reports in hand, proponents of the climate debate claim a preferential position in the debate. Opponents try to reopen the political debate by magnifying uncertainties and imperfections in climate science. In the post-Climategate discussion and the unearthing of faults in the fourth IPCC report the linear model has been harshly attacked, yet also strongly defended and upheld. Especially the PVV (Party for Room for climate debate: perspectives on the interaction between climate 8 politics,science and the media Freedom) has dismissed the IPCC as an activity driven by left-wing political activity. The government side defended the linear model. To clean up the blemished blazon of the IPCC – that is, to restore the linear interaction model between climate politics and science – national and international political bodies ordered an independent evaluation of its procedures and practices. Given the intense criticism, repairing the technocratic model by evaluating the IPCC is a logical and good step to take. A good picture of the status of climate science is in fact an important precondition for prudent domestic and international climate policies. Still, more is needed. The basic weakness of the linear model is that it underexposes the scientific as well as the political dissent. Both the scientific and the political climate debate need more space and attention for diversity and uncertainty in knowledge and views. To this end, it is necessary to make climate science less political. This can be accomplished by offering room for dissent within climate science and communicating about it with policymakers. An excessive dependence of science and policy should also be prevented. The political climate debate would benefit from clarification of the political values and visions that are at play in climate change. The climate debate could be expanded by paying attention to socially attractive development perspectives rather than doomsday scenarios only. The growing focus on climate adaptation also has the power to highlight and expand the political climate debate. Climate change in the media The written and edited press gives the Dutch public comprehensive and balanced information about climate change and the societal and political debate surrounding it. The Dutch media pay attention to the political and scientific debates. News coverage about climate science can be called nuanced. The attention for the political process focuses mainly on the international debate that unfolds primarily around the UN climate summits. News coverage about the Dutch political debate on climate change remains far behind.
In dit essay schetsen wij de samenhang tussen de ogenschijnlijk zeer diverse technische ontwikkelingen en maatschappelijke trends rond mensverbetering. Centraal staan vier gevalstudies van actuele mensverbeteringspraktijken: concentratieverbeteraars, Deep Brain Stimulation, gendoping en pre-implantatie diagnostiek. Wat zijn de gemeenschappelijke kenmerken van deze uiteenlopende cases en welke vraagstukken blijven onderbelicht in de regulering daarvan? Vanuit een breed perspectief, met aandacht voor de historische en culturele achtergronden en de technische beloften van mensverbetering, articuleren we tot slot vijf thema's voor verder maatschappelijk onderzoek en publieke discussie.
Met deze bundel sluit het Rathenau Instituut aan bij de oproep van de HLEG. De auteurs van Leven als bouwpakket verkennen op komende ethische vragen in vier uiteenlopende gebieden: breinmachine interactie, ambient intelligence en persuasive technology, moleculaire geneeskunde en synthetische biologie, en pogen het 'nieuwe' te duiden in de uitdagingen waar NBIC-convergentie ons voor stelt. Uit alle essays blijkt dat NBIC-convergentie ons begrip van fundamentele onderscheidingen als mens of machine, levend of dood, natuurlijk of kunstmatig, ziek of gezond, doet verschuiven. En met deze verschuivingen komen nieuwe ethische vraagstukken op de politieke en publieke agenda te staan.
This paper focuses on the debate on shale gas in the Netherlands. In the political decision-making process relating to shale gas, the national government has highlighted the importance of clarifying the opportunities and risks related to shale gas extraction, and the question of whether this is properly regulated. This has given rise to a study commissioned by the Ministry of Economic Affairs aimed at investigating whether shale gas can be safely extracted in the Netherlands. (In the remainder of this paper this study will be referred to as the so-called 'risk and safety' study). The Rathenau Instituut found that the focus of the 'risk and safety' study was out of sync with the political and public debate about shale gas extraction in the Netherlands. For example, a media analysis showed that, besides safety risks and environmental risks, the debate also focused on how the role of shale gas extraction worldwide affects the Netherlands, as well as on local support (Waes, 2013). Also various members of parliament stressed the need for a broader debate, including the national usefulness and necessity of shale gas extraction, and the location-specific aspects relating to this issue.
Nanotechnology has provided a new window of opportunity to reframe state-science-society relationships. In particular the notion of upstream public engagement has been put forward. But while public engagement is seen as indispensable in the governance of science and technology (S&T) there still is a need to reflect on why, how, for who and by whom public engagement has to be organised. This paper describes a wide range of activities that were organised in the Netherlands to bring a public perspective into the development of nanotechnology. Our study shows that in order to better understand the complexities of the governance of science and technology, a new research perspective is needed. By reflecting on the relationship between informing and engaging, on the interaction between engagement processes within the societal, scientific and political sphere, and on organisational and institutional constraints, we present an outline of such a new research perspective. As well, we identify key themes for comparative research in governance of S&T within different countries.
