How do participants get involved? It goes without saying that the topic as such is an old one. This collection of essays explores the relations between science and politics with the instruments of the social studies of science, thereby providing new insights into their re-alignment under a new regime of governance. These are but a few indicators of the uneasy relationship between science and politics — the increasing need for reliable knowledge in virtually all policy fields notwithstanding. But up to now the commission has acted in accordance with the day-to-day political agenda, to the extent that reactions to political inquiries have been central to its work. In other words: an ethics commission does not function like a philosophical seminar, where participants discuss fundamental ethical considerations and the sustainability of different theoretical approaches such as utilitarianism, deontological positions, etc. Hilgartner, Corne ll University, Ithaca, U. What does disagreement among the 19 experts entail for the substantiation and justification of the decision about whether or not stem cell research should be allowed? Unintended consequences and the potential dangers resulting from the liberalisation of research using human embryos are emphasised.
The expansion of what is taken to be expert knowledge beyond the boundaries of academically established disciplines is also reflected in the range of institutions and institutional bases of individual experts. Therefore it is valuable if it supports decisions that are the outcome of compromised interests, but it also entails the risk to de-legitimate past or future decisions. Needless to say playing out one theoretical approach against another is of little use to. In addition, the medical relevance and currently increasing importance of adult stem cells is emphasised and so the commission welcomes the decision of the Council of Ministers of the European Union to prioritise funding for research on adult stem cells. We would like to elaborate on a few changes only: One important characteristic of the new alignment between science and politics is the proliferation of expertise. The quarrel between experts and counter-experts becomes part of the enlightenment of modernity about itself.
However, this does not lead to an intermingling of codes or subsystems, respectively. The literature on the science — politics nexus of the 1960s makes it clear that the overriding concern of the time was the problem of technocracy. Yet, how can participatory instruments be transferred from the local level to the national or the European level? In contrast to Weber, who demands the indispensable sovereignty of politics as opposed to the inescapable process of bureaucratisation, Helmut Schelsky sees the nature and task of politics in the functionality of technology. Political theory, especially theory of democracy is concerned with shifting sources of legitimacy. Conflicts among experts not only express the limits of the traditional-modern way of dealing with new uncertainties; they also provide a way of coping with such uncertainties.
This objectivist reading of risk as an attribute of technology has been criticised by Luhmann 1991 and other authors who also refer to a constructivist epistemology Japp 1996, Tacke 2000. The features of the new alignment between science and politics thus described highlight the dilemma of scientific advice in mass democratic societies. We began this essay by stating that reopening the case of scientific advice to politics means to find novel solutions to the dark side of expertise: technocracy. This collection of essays explores the relations between science and politics with the instruments of the social studies of science, thereby providing new insights into their re-alignment under a new régime of governance. For science uncertainty and pluralism become characteristics of quality, especially concerning its role as a legitimising resource for politics. The example of the Columbia shuttle catastrophe is a case in point, exploring the ambiguities contained in expertise and responsibility. In this capacity, they have to synthesize their respective knowledge and stakes according to the Common Good Maasen and Kaiser, forthcoming; Jasanoff, this volume.
Today, therefore, it is important for political decision-makers to make the public accept on the basis of the formal granting of certain expectations concerning the process of the shaping of opinion that it is possible to decide and decisions must be taken. Four of these action lines related to specific aspects of mobilizing and interacting with experts: the development of an inventory; use of participatory procedures; broadening the expert base; and improving risk governance. The upshot of our argument is that technocracy will not simply disappear, exactly because scientific expertise is operating in an increasingly politicized environment. And last but not least: can we consider ethical recommendations to be a form of scientific policy advice at all? In contrast to this stance, we hold that, however the problem is phrased, a fundamental difference between scientific knowledge and political decision-making remains. On the continent, scholars such as Richta in Chechoslovakia, Schelsky in Germany Schelsky 1965 as well as a vigorous school in France e. In short, politics in a sense relies on dissent.
In this view, neo-liberal societies fundamentally rely on techniques of governmentality. Its name indicates its purpose — to be an advisory body for political decision-makers. From this perspective, an ethical argument supported by a majority does not imply a superior cognitive quality; rather, it shows a lucky convergence of societal dispositions and philosophical reflections. In addition to this, however, procedures designed to gain external accountability are emerging. Studien zur Ökonomisierung des Sozialen, Frankfurt a.
Given that values should enrich, not replace evidence that is to support decision-making under uncertainty, how should collaborative analyses proceed in order to secure both, deliberation and sound science? They now counsel governments in the art of new public management. This renewed interest in a persistent theme is initiated by the call for a democratization of expertise that has become the order of the day in the legitimation of research funding. First, all approaches draw attention to the multitude of ways in which the institutions, procedures and discourses involved are arranged in such a way as not to sacrifice one goal for another, i. It deals with the problems that emerge in the advisory process, asking how and why knowledge is introduced and how it relates to the political objectives of the principal. Studien zur Ökonomisierung des Sozialen, Frankfurt a.
The members of the Austrian commission were appointed by Chancellor Schüssel, and the most important criterion of appointment was — according to the official statement — their specialised knowledge Bundeskanzleramt 2001. These examples may suffice to point out that, in essence, the expertise sought by decision-makers is not limited to established fields of academic research but reaches beyond its confines into areas of very practical knowledge. While for the most part being in favor of such instruments, they still identify problems and questions that call for further improvements: Many authors agree that public participation in technical decision-making is able to short-circuit many of the chronic problems in policy-making, including lack of public trust in technical work, lack of empowerment of citizens, and access to reliable data. However, the pressure of legitimation did not only pertain to the process of appointment and the lack of representation of important social groups, but to the general question of how to institutionalise political advice in the form of expert commissions. Research agendas for evaluating and improving public-participation exercises have only just been proposed Rowe and Frewer 2004. The anti-nuclear and environmental movements are the most pertinent examples.
In some of the most sensitive regulatory policies such as risk management, efficient and effective decision-making may rule out extensive consultation, public participation, and democratic audits of expertise in order to secure a competitive advantage. The first part two and a half pages long presents a text that was unanimously agreed upon. This reorientation does not only apply to scientific experts but to other members of a participatory setting as well. Put in different terms, the issue is how to accommodate social robustness of knowledge with its epistemic quality, how to bring the legitimacy of knowledge and the experts who represent it in line with its adequacy or epistemic quality. Once before, namely during the 1960s, there had already been an intense discussion about science and politics.