Full Text (PDF) - Science and Public Policy

Science and Public Policy Advance Access published April 21, 2014 Science and Public Policy (2014) pp. 1–15

doi:10.1093/scipol/scu020

A next wave of Technology Assessment? Barriers and opportunities for establishing TA in seven European countries Leonhard Hennen1,* and Linda Nierling2 1

Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Postfach 3640, D-76021 Karlsruhe, Germany 2 Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Postfach 3640, D-76021 Karlsruhe, Germany *Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]. This paper explores socio-political opportunities for and barriers to introducing technology assessment (TA) as a support for science and technology (S&T) policy-making in seven European countries, most of which lack any significant TA activities or institutions. The comparative analysis is based on interviews and workshops with relevant S&T actors in the countries explored as well as an analysis of documents. The study clearly shows that any attempt to promote and establish TA has to take account of the situations in the countries explored, which differ in many respects from the situation in the 1980s and 1990s when a first wave of TA institutionalisation took place at national parliaments in Europe. Elements of ‘civic epistemologies’ such as a lively public debate on S&T policies are missing in some of the countries explored and S&T policy-making is busy modernising the R&D system in order to keep up with global competition. Keywords: technology assessment; research policy; civic epistemologies.

Introduction Technology Assessment (TA) as a means of policy advice in matters of science and technology (S&T) policy-making has been introduced in many Western industrialised countries starting from the late 1960s. With its scientific origins in systems analysis, planning and forecasting, the field of TA has since developed further with regard to both conceptual approaches and research methods. A central and persistent feature that is connected to its founding idea is its orientation towards practical problems of policy-making (Decker and Ladikas 2004). In particular, national parliaments have always been regarded as the main addressee and client of TA. As the parliament is seen as the main representation of the public in policymaking, it has to be transparent and inclusive of societal values in debates on new technologies and their impact on society. However, parliaments were initially lacking

appropriate access to the scientific expertise that was needed to deal with most advanced S&T developments. Although by the 1960s governmental administration in ministries had already built up large departments with scientifically trained staff involved in setting up S&T programmes, parliaments (the bodies for controlling government on behalf of society) were in need of support for keeping track of new developments in S&T. Thus, TA has always been regarded as a concept to be applied (not exclusively but mainly) by the legislative bodies of governments in their attempts to control the executive’s power in fostering S&T developments. From its beginning at the US Congress, TA has always been tied to two impulses that have driven its development (Guston and Bimber 2000). One is oriented towards expert analysis, while the other focuses on public deliberation. Accordingly, two models of TA have been pursued throughout its history: a policy analysis model and a

ß The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: [email protected]

2 of 15

.

L. Hennen and L. Nierling

public deliberation model. The policy analysis model was predominant when the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) was established by the US Congress in 1972. Congress intended to provide for a broad knowledge base for its own deliberations and decisions by creating an institution that should be able to inform legislators on any new developments in S&T and should function as an ‘early warning’ facility with regard to possible problems and needs for political intervention.1 The policy deliberation impulse was highly important for the foundation of a series of TA institutes related to national parliaments in the 1980s and 1990s in Europe. Consequently, this ‘second wave of TA’ (Rip 2012) has been connected with a focus by TA on the involvement of stakeholders and the wider public in TA processes. Parliamentary TA in Europe took up the heritage of the OTA but differs in many respects from it, organisationally as well as with regard to methodologies and mission (Vig and Paschen 2000b; Hennen and Ladikas 2009; Enzing et al. 2012). Despite having been established in numerous European countries for quite some time now, there are still many European countries (especially in the south of Europe and in Central and Eastern Europe) where the concept of TA is not well established or is even unknown in academia or in S&T policy-making. It is the purpose of the EU-funded project Parliaments and Civil Society in Technology Assessment (PACITA) to explore the opportunity structures and barriers for strengthening the concept of TA in national political contexts in European countries where TA infrastructures are not established so far—be it at national parliaments or elsewhere in policy-making and society.2 This paper presents results and insights from an exploration carried out in seven European countries (Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Ireland, Lithuania, Portugal and Belgium/Wallonia). The investigation aimed to shed some light on the current needs as well as existing institutional preconditions for introducing TA as a concept in the national processes of policy-making in the field of S&T. Thus, the rationale behind the selection of countries was mainly to cover the ‘white spots’ in the European TA landscape. This led to a focus on Central and Eastern European countries where TA is not yet established, neither in policy-making nor in research. To some extent, the south of Europe can be regarded as a ‘no TA region’, with Portugal being an interesting case since there has been some debate on TA in that parliament. Ireland and Wallonia represent Western European countries characterised by ongoing reform and modernisation processes, with Ireland having no tradition of applying the concept of TA, whereas Wallonia (as a region) was of particular interest since there has been a debate on parliamentary TA for many years, but with no results so far. The national explorations were conducted from February 2012 to March 2013 and focused on national

political and institutional contexts, existing capacities (actors, organisations and networks), demands and interests in TA-related activities as well as on barriers and opportunities in national/regional contexts.3 Research methods comprised document analysis (i.e. national research plans and TA-related studies), interviews as well as discussion rounds with relevant stakeholders in the countries explored. In total, around ten interviews with experts from governmental authorities (including parliament), industry, science, media and civil society organisations (CSOs), each lasting 60–90 minutes, as well as two national workshops were conducted per country. The national explorations were guided by a common framework that had been developed on the basis of the TA literature. The framework included aspects to be covered in the description of the national opportunity structures for TA such as: TA-related research and policy advice (e.g. risk assessment, (bio)ethics and S&T studies), S&T governance structures and public debate about S&T issues, as well as national R&D infrastructures. The common framework also included guidelines for the selection of relevant partners for interviews. Nevertheless, it was up to the national partners to narrow down the circle of experts and stakeholders to be involved in workshops and interviews according to their local knowledge of the socio-political landscape and relevant opinion leaders from public administration, academia and civil society. Thus, the exploration was organised according to the standards of qualitative case study research (Huws and Dahlmann 2007). However, it was not done in a detached analytical, ‘classical scientific’ mode, but by means that were meant to intervene directly in the existing S&T policy-making landscape, introducing networking activities with regard to the future establishment of a national TA community and TA capacities for policy advice. The approach can be compared to ‘action research’ (Brydon-Miller et al. 2003) by concurrently investigating the potentials for TA and informing actors through questions and discussions. The first interest of the exploration was a practical one (inducing debate on TA), not a scientific one. The practical aspirations of the project were successful to some extent, as in the countries explored relevant actors could be involved in discussions on the concept of TA and its possible practical implications for the national policy-making landscape. The lessons learnt about the barriers and opportunity structures for establishing TA, which are the focus of the present paper, are meant to inform further activities to support and foster the emerging initiatives, such as setting up TA pilot studies and introducing them in national debates and policy-making. The cross-national comparison given in this paper is mainly drawn from the findings of the national country reports.4 The country studies were conducted by national authors supported by partners from established European TA institutions. They are listed in Hennen and Nierling (2012). The analysis has been supported by the evaluation

A next wave of Technology Assessment of three TA experts who commented on the national developments in their field of expertise.5 The point of reference for any analysis of opportunities for and barriers to new initiatives to incorporate TA as a support for S&T policy-making, or for a possible ‘next wave’ of TA, is without doubt the historical situation in the 1970s and 1980s which led to the establishment of TA in the USA and Europe. Therefore it is necessary to briefly outline our view on the opportunity structures prevalent at that time before presenting the results of our exploratory study. Notwithstanding existing peculiarities in the different TA countries, we consider the following features to have been relevant, in one way or another, for the establishment of participatory TA in the 1970s and 1980s: . First, there was a highly developed and differentiated

R&D system with a strong and visible commitment from the governments to develop and fund national R&D performance in order to improve or foster the international competitiveness of the national economies. S&T was clearly regarded as a decisive factor in social development which, in the best interests of society, has to be taken care of by government. This—among other developments—was reflected in the setting up of specific structures in governmental administration (research ministries), growing public funding for R&D as well as by the increasing relevance of R&D issues in parliamentary standing committees. . Second, there was a strong (compared to the implicit consensus on S&T in the 1950s and 1960s) and articulated critical public interest in S&T issues. Apart from a more generalised criticism of ‘industrialisation’ or ‘consumerism’, citizens’ initiatives on every political level (from the local to the national) were demanding to have a say in planning decisions and R&D politics as these were regarded as interfering with the citizens’ rights. This was certainly a reason for the relevance of the issue of public participation in TA right from the inception of TA in the USA and even more later on in Europe (Hennen 2013). . Third, problem-oriented research and self-reflective science gained importance in the academic sector, first in systems analysis and in environmental politics, later in risk assessment, in social sciences and in the ethics of S&T (environmental ethics and bioethics). The term ‘sustainable development’ served as a focus for interdisciplinary problem-oriented research. With these activities there has been a visible and growing fraction of the academic sector advocating TA-like ‘hybrid science’ and policy-oriented research. . Fourth, an effect of these factors was a strong and explicit demand by policy-makers for support from the best available scientific knowledge as well as for methods to take up or deal with public concerns. In some countries this manifested itself mainly in demands for a particular support of the national parliaments

.

3 of 15

with the best available, non-partisan scientific advice. In other countries demands for stimulating a lively (and well-informed) public debate and a better connection of parliament and government to ongoing public debates prevailed. This resulted in different forms of institutionalisation of TA bodies in, at, or in relation to, parliaments and governments (Ganzevles and van Est 2012; Vig and Paschen 2000b). Our comparison of different national settings of TA partly draws on previous analyses of national TA practices, especially with regard to their different forms of institutionalisation (Delvenne 2011; Enzing et al. 2012; Ganzevles and van Est 2012; Hennen and Ladikas 2009; Vig and Paschen 2000b). In contrast to these analyses, the exploratory processes presented in this paper have a very practical intent, for instance, initiating TA with a special focus on parliaments in the countries of Southern and Western Europe, as well as in new (Central and Eastern) member states. In other words, our study focused on the potential for implementing TA in new national contexts. We will now present a comparative analysis of the situation in the seven countries. We consider that the following aspects of the current field of S&T policy-making are decisive for any consideration of the adaptation of TA as a concept in the national policy setting: the current R&D landscape and the national R&D performance (see Section 2.1); ongoing activities of ‘modernising’ R&D structures as well as R&D governance (see Section 2.2); apparent problems and deficits in R&D governance (see Section 2.3); the level and central features of political and public debate on S&T (see Section 2.4); existing structures of TA-related research or policy advice (see Section 2.5); and finally, an overview of the main options and recommendations for integrating TA into national policymaking (see Section 2.6). Based on these exploratory findings we will draw some general conclusions on the actual historical boundary conditions and opportunities for a ‘new wave’ of institutionalisation of TA (see Section 3).

2. Cross-European comparative analysis 2.1 R&D structures and R&D performance In today’s globalised world it goes without saying that the R&D performance of a country is decisive for its standing in a global economy and for social welfare. ‘Modernisation’, ‘building up a knowledge economy’, ‘increasing the innovative capacities of R&D systems’ etc. are nowadays on the agenda in all countries as a reaction to the importance of R&D for economic development and the growing global competition. For most of the countries involved in our study, the development and modernisation of national R&D capacities is within the focus of R&D policy-making. Many of them, however, are pursuing science, technology and innovation policies in a

4 of 15

.

L. Hennen and L. Nierling

particularly difficult situation of transforming of R&D structures as well as R&D governance. As some basic economic data (see Table 1) reveals, most of the countries involved (except for Ireland and Belgium– the latter standing for Wallonia here) are lagging behind the EU27 (all 27 current members of the EU) average development in terms of their gross domestic product (GDP). And, partly due to their relatively weak economic performance, their expenditures and investments in R&D are (in some cases significantly) below the average expenditures of the EU27 in terms of gross expenditure on R&D (GERD), GDP and government budget appropriations or outlays for R&D (GBAORD). For the Central and Eastern European countries this is undoubtedly due to the fact that their economic modernisation is a disappointingly slow and conflicting process, involving political and social tensions. (See Roland (2002) for an analysis of structural and procedural problems of the transition process in Central and Eastern Europe.) Both Portugal and Ireland are in a process of restructuring their economy from one dominated by agricultural structures to a modern knowledge-based economy (with Ireland having been extremely successful in this respect during the last two decades). Belgium is the only country that can be regarded as being in a position of the average Central and Western capitalist economies, especially the region of Wallonia which is undergoing a shift from traditional industrial structures (mining and steel) to a S&T-based economy. The weakness of R&D infrastructures in some of these countries is revealed by the dominant share of public R&D expenditures (at a relatively low level) compared to private R&D investments. This applies to the former socialist countries. Additionally, R&D structures in post-communist countries have been subject to serious cuts that led to a reduction of research capacities in the national Academies of Sciences and a reduction of research units in general (Pokorny et al. 2012: 64). At the same time the

Table 1.

transformation of public research capacities into private companies, or the introduction of economic management principles in some cases, led to a reduction in research capacities in order to reduce costs. However, it is also clear from Table 1 that some of the countries, such as the Czech Republic and Hungary, have already achieved considerable progress in increasing their share of private R&D expenditures. In many respects, the Western European countries involved in our exploratory study share the economic situation of the Eastern and Central European countries, albeit for historically different reasons, and are investing significantly in fostering their competitiveness by building up a knowledge-based economy by developing their R&D capacities. In the last decade, Portugal had one of the highest growth rates of investment in R&D of the EU member states, which dropped down, however, due to the financial crisis in recent years (Almeida 2012: 227). Investments in research clusters in advanced R&D areas are an integral part of Wallonia’s efforts to recover from the serious decline of old industrial structures (mining and steel) (Delvenne et al. 2012: 261f.). Ireland, despite having completely different historical conditions, also shares the experience of lagging behind in terms of R&D performance and took the initiative to catch up with globalisation by investing in R&D. The first governmental R&D strategy in Ireland was published as recently as 1996. But R&D has rapidly gained importance since then. As they were in a complex and expensive process of restructuring, the financial crisis hit these countries hard (European Commission 2013). The high burden on public budgets led to a decrease in R&D expenditures.

2.2 Modernisation of the R&D system: Reform strategies, ‘economy first’ Building up the economy sets the main frame for R&D policy-making. All the countries explored have set up

Core economic and R&D data for seven European countries

EU27 Belgium Bulgaria Czech Republic Hungary Ireland Lithuania Portugal

Population in 2011 (millions)

Year of EU entry

Democratic system since

GDP per capita in 2011 (Euro)

GERD/GDP 2010 (%)

Private R&D 2011 (%)

Public R&D 2010 (%)

GBAORD 2010 (Euro)

18.61 (total 503,7) 11.0 7.5 10.5 10.0 4.5 3.24 10.64

– 1952 2007 2004 2004 1973 2004 1986

– 1830/1980 (regions) 1989 1989 1989 1937 1990 1974

25,100 33,600 4,800 14,700 10,100 34,900 9,500 16,100

2.0 1.99 0.6 1.56 1.16 1.79 0.79 1.59

61.53 66.3 50.0 62.0 59.9 68.13 29.22 45.5

37.51 32.7 48.9 37.4 38.4 31.9 70.93 44.13

3,275 2,153 96 873 467 934* 47 1,763

Source: ERAWATCH accessed 1 April 2014 and Eurostat (2010). * Data for 2007.

A next wave of Technology Assessment national innovation strategies or action plans to modernise the R&D system, attract private investments and improve competitiveness. The key targets listed in governmental R&D programmes and strategies in all the countries explored can also be read as a list of the typical deficiencies of R&D government, infrastructures and strategies in the respective countries, such as the key targets mentioned in the Bulgarian president’s strategic document ‘Bulgaria 2020: National Priorities in Education and Science’ see Kozarev 2012: 32. The targets addressed comprise: prioritisation of young scientists, the internationalisation of Bulgarian research, improvement of R&D competitiveness, stimulation of cross-sectoral partnerships and development of R&D infrastructures (Kozarev 2012: 32). Areas that are targeted by governmental innovation and R&D funds usually comprise advanced fields of research such as: nanotechnology, biotechnology, information and communications technologies (ICT), renewable energy and others. With the problems induced by the financial crisis, the pressure on R&D to contribute to economic growth continues to grow. In Ireland, for instance, the reorganisation of the R&D government system now aims at a streamlined and focused programme of funding of research and development that is aligned with the objectives of enterprise policy (O’Reilly and Adam 2012: 149). The need for ‘commercialising research and supporting start-ups’ (O’Reilly and Adam 2012: 149) is part of the focus of R&D policy. In line with these strategic goals there are new modes and objectives for R&D funding and government. Funding schemes have shifted to more project-based funding rather than institutional funding. Public–private partnerships are favoured, technology transfer from academia to industry is fostered. Generally, the focus is on applied research at the cost of basic research. The R&D funding is meant to be part of the economic strategies such as support for small and medium-sized enterprises and preventing brain drain by creating jobs for qualified scientists. Lithuania may serve as an example for a comprehensive reform of the science system in Eastern and Central European countries. The backbone of the Lithuanian R&D system is formed by 14 universities and five large technological centres: the so-called science valleys that are dedicated to research areas such as biotechnology and ICT. Two ministries supervise and administer 12 national research programmes and funds (for biotechnology, new materials, nanotechnology etc.). The activities are supported by an agency which is active in monitoring the system and the research performance and gives scientific advice to the government. Three further agencies are responsible for implementing funding schemes. The national Academy of Sciences is the advisory body to the government with the mission to improve the general public’s understanding of science. Publicly funded CSOs, such as the Knowledge Economy Forum, have the task of improving the interchange and cooperation of stakeholders in

.

5 of 15

order to foster a knowledge economy (Leichteris and Stumbryte 2012: 185ff.). The system thus includes elements of strategic thinking, quality control, evaluation and monitoring. The result of reform initiatives is often a complex system of funding and evaluation schemes and administrative authorities and bodies. Ireland’s increasing efforts at developing the national R&D structures (since the 1990s) have been accompanied by the building of a system of public agencies and institutes which not only administer new competitive funding schemes but also support politicians by supplying expertise in strategic planning, evaluation and innovation policies. These include a Cabinet Subcommittee on S&T, a Chief Scientific Advisor, an Advisory Council for Science, Technology and Innovation and an Office of Science and Technology and Innovation within the Department of Jobs, Enterprises and Innovation. In most of the countries explored, a set of institutions exists, which give advice to the political sphere (policy-makers and government) on a regular basis, be it specialised expert committees attached to ministries or specific funding programmes or national science policy councils. National R&D councils mainly represent Academies of Sciences, industry, universities, public administration and the non-profit sector. They have been established to coordinate reform strategies and to advise the government. In the case of the Czech Republic, the Council for Research, Development and Innovation has almost taken over the role played by a ministry and is more or less designed to centralise the system of R&D and even to take over micromanagement tasks (Pokorny et al. 2012: 69). While research councils mainly represent academia, industry and public administration, they can be regarded as an element of academic self-administration and expert policy advice. As far as industry is ocncerned, this measure is also intended to establish closer relations between public and private research bodies in order to improve innovation performance. Such expert advice is mainly addressed to the government and rarely to the national parliament. It is apparent that all these institutions give strategic advice with regard to the future development of research and innovation strategies, which is motivated by national efforts to improve the competitiveness of the national economy (‘economy first’). This is highlighted not only in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Lithuania, but also in Ireland and Wallonia. Compared to these activities, policy advice with regard to future (controversial) technological or scientific development is of minor relevance. This accords with the fact that foresight methods are frequently applied by governmental agencies to assess the economic strategic planning (for instance, the recently published ‘National Research Infrastructure Survey and Roadmap’ in Hungary),6 whereas TA as a means of policy advice is almost unknown in many countries.

6 of 15

.

L. Hennen and L. Nierling

2.3 Problems and deficits of R&D governance in the transition process The country studies reveal a plethora of activities to modernise R&D structures as well as the R&D governance system. The problem is often not a lack of institutional reforms and governance agencies but rather a lack of functionality and efficacy. Interviews and workshops revealed scepticism with regard to the effectiveness of newly established systems and strategies by actors from academia, policy-making as well as industry and civil society. The most important problems are discussed below. As in the case of Hungary (Mosoni Fried et al. 2012: 108) we often find complaints about a ‘fragmented structure of RDI policy-making’ in the interviews. Science policy—mainly taking care of higher education and university research—is administered by the science and/or education ministry, whereas (often newly established) innovation and technology development policies are administered by ministries for economy and development. As was noted in interviews and workshops, complaints about the lack of cooperation between both tracks of R&D policy-making are widespread. In many Eastern European countries the largest share of R&D funding (reported in official statistics) still goes mainly into higher education and less into research. Typically, a country like Lithuania is high in the international ranking for the percentage of young people in tertiary education, but at the same time does not have appropriate jobs to offer them in public and private research activities. Even if countries are successfully increasing the share of private investment in R&D—as is reported for Portugal—an interface between private and public research may be missing and the development of the public science system fails to significantly support innovation strategies (Almeida 2012: 229). In most cases the split of competences implies that an R&D-based innovation strategy or an R&D-based strategy of economic development is simply added to the existing system of public R&D as a new strand of policymaking. The lack of coordination between strategies to improve tertiary education on the one hand and applied research and cooperation between private and public research units on the other, is aggravated by difficulties in shifting from a centralised R&D system with public research institutes to a more diverse system with a higher level of investment in private research. The Czech reform on research, development and innovation was partly successful but received serious criticism from universities and the Academy of Sciences, who regarded the new system as being directed against the established academic system: not allowing its further development but instead mainly supporting private research activities. Further, the criticism was made that the reform was aiming at direct economic benefit rather than promoting science as such (Pokorny et al. 2012: 66). In Central and Eastern European countries the Academies

of Sciences, which were the leading and often only research institution in communist regimes, obviously still play a crucial role in the R&D reform process. On the one hand, the academies in Bulgaria or Hungary still form the main infrastructure for public research in certain disciplines. On the other hand, they are struggling with hierarchical traditions and are undergoing a process of change by including more competitive elements for research funding. Some of the criticism expressed in workshops and interviews against the reforms in Central and Eastern European countries is most probably rooted in conflicts between the new governmentally implemented structures and the old academic system. In general, the effectiveness of strategies seems to be compromised by discontinuity and a ack of focus mainly due to quickly changing political agendas driven by political tactics and by quickly shifting political power. Discontinuity in setting up reforms is explicitly reported as being a main weakness of R&D policies for Hungary, Bulgaria and Lithuania, due to shifting parliamentary majorities or a general lack of coordinating strategies and oversight. Thus, innovation strategies are often perceived as ‘activism’ since they apparently result in constant reorganisation of strategic planning and advice structures. For example, each government in Hungary initiated a reorganisation of the policy-making and advice structure in R&D at least once in their four-year term (Mosoni Fried et al. 2012: 113). The National Innovation Fund in Bulgaria (part of the country’s innovation strategy) only functioned in the period 2005–08. After that the funding activities stopped and new calls were not been announced until late 2012 (Kozarev 2012: 31). A lack of transparency in decision-making processes, and thus of public trust in and legitimacy of policymaking, is reported in all countries. A strong need to improve the current situation of national policy advice is expressed in the Bulgarian and Portuguese reports with regard to the legitimacy and transparency of political decisions as well as setting up missing communication channels between science, politics and the public. In many countries like Bulgaria, S&T expertise is typically provided internally by governmental staff at the respective ministries. On rare occasions external expertise is asked for on an ad hoc basis and even in these cases the process remains opaque to the wider public (Kozarev 2012: 42). Although a number of institutions often provide policy advice (e.g. a formal advisory body of the government or other national councils) and although an occasional demand for scientific advice from the political sphere exists (e.g. the government or parliamentary commissions), there seems to be no institutionalised or ‘routinised’ ways for constant policy advice, as reported for Portugal for instance. Communication channels between scientists and policy-makers and other potential knowledge providers are not clearly defined. Rather, they depend on the decisions

A next wave of Technology Assessment of policy-makers to ask for advice and thus are characterised as: . . . fragile and dependent on the continuous will of interacting between specific stakeholders. (Almeida 2012: 235)

Even if processes are formally transparent, for instance the relevant documents for decisions are publicly available and consultation with experts is organised, many interview partners said there was a lack of accountability. It appears that administrations act without taking the arguments and conclusions found in consultations (be they expert or public) into account. A certain level of distrust in governmental performance on the part of academic or other experts appears to be significant in many of the countries explored. In Central and Eastern European countries this may be related to a great extent to the conflicting character of the ongoing and long-lasting political transition period from a non-democratic system to a democratic one (Roland 2002). In Ireland, the reported lack of transparency and public involvement in R&D policy-making may be rooted in a lack of cooperative traditions and the remaining authoritarian political culture clashing with the country’s rather new and fast emergence as an R&D economy. Thus, apparently, the highly developed Irish system of advisory bodies and agencies did not open up to the wider public or stakeholders and remained a closed deliberative circle of the executive branches of government and related expert communities. 2.4 Public debate on S&T Complaints about a low level of political as well as public debate on S&T issues are widespread in interviews and workshops. Generally, a ‘systematic integration’ of S&T issues in a societal discourse including all relevant groups (politicians, scientists and society) seems to be missing. Factors very well-known from Western democracies, such as long-term S&T issues versus short-term political agendas, may have an even stronger influence in countries where democratic structures and culture are still in transition. For example, for Bulgaria the country study attests to ‘short-term thinking’ on the part of the policy-makers as a reason for a lack of political debate on S&T issues (Kozarev 2012: 37). Other factors mentioned are clearly connected to the communist heritage in Eastern and Central European countries such as a ‘lack of a debate culture and debate traditions’ (Kozarev 2012: 37) (Bulgaria), or a general scepticism with regard to public debate rooted in the national political culture (Lithuania). Platforms for controversial debate on S&T issues (also in the parliament, see Section 2.6) are missing and the lack of transparency in decision-making structures—mentioned above—clearly leads to a restriction of debate to a closed circle of experts. The conditions for public debate on S&T are more favourable in Ireland and Wallonia. In Ireland, the interest of politicians in citizen participation has grown

.

7 of 15

remarkably in recent years (O’Reilly and Adam 2012: 159) due to current technological conflicts at the local and regional level. In the ongoing political discussion about setting up a TA institution in Wallonia, public involvement is a central topic for those policy-makers who are involved. Wallonia already has experience with broad participation exercises: on brain research (2007), on nuclear waste management (2009–10) and on political reforms (2011–12). These initiatives have been considered to be successful and follow-ups are planned for the future (Delvenne et al. 2012: 266). It adds to the notion of a lack of public debate that public interest in S&T issues is reported to be low. The latter notion is sometimes coupled with a well-known prejudice against laypeople who are regarded by policymakers as being ‘emotional and incompetent’ (Mosoni Fried et al. 2012: 126). The notion of a relatively low interest in S&T is supported by survey data from the TNS Opinion & Social (2010: 10). According to this survey, an average rate of 20% of European citizens is not interested at all in recent scientific and technological developments. Regarding the countries under review here, most of them are close to or even exceed this rate of disinterest. Only in Hungary is a remarkably higher share of citizens interested in S&T issues. Additionally, according to the data, the citizens of the countries analysed here are less interested in S&T issues than the average European: they less often read articles on science in newspapers, magazines or on the internet, only Belgium being far above the European average (TNS Opinion & Social 2005: 23). Moreover, for a broad majority of the respondents from all countries analysed here, the involvement of experts (scientists, engineers and politicians) is regarded as the most appropriate way to take political decisions in S&T. The reported ‘lack of debate’ is to some extent modified by the fact that the country studies outline a broad range of contested S&T issues such as: genetically modified organisms (GMOs), energy policy, waste management and food safety. GMOs raised the most controversial and lively debates, which also implied public resistance in some countries. But specific implications of technologies like ICTs or ethical concerns in controversial fields like assisted reproduction were also debated within national contexts. Furthermore, locally or regionally embedded large-scale technological projects like a dam or an oil pipeline were the subject of national debate. Although S&T policy-making is mainly regarded as a field for experts while the public is often perceived to ‘passively’ (Pokorny et al. 2012: 72) rely on political decisions taken, S&T issues obviously bear a potential for public mobilisation in controversial cases. National debates on GMOs in Hungary included street protests, finally leading to an open and controversial public debate which—to the surprise of all participants—ended in a national refusal of GMOs. The search for a nuclear

8 of 15

.

L. Hennen and L. Nierling

waste disposal site in the Czech Republic exemplifies that, despite an often attested lack of public awareness of S&T issues, public reactions can be lively when it comes to direct, local effects of S&T policy-making. Protests at the local level in communities to be selected as waste disposal sites led to the setting up of a ‘Working Group for Dialogue About the Deep Geological Repository’ by the responsible authority with representatives of the authority, representatives of municipalities considered as locations for the depository, environmental non-governmental organisations, members of parliament and scientific experts. With regard to the development of citizen participation, it should be noted that there are different historical contexts in Western Europe as opposed to the post-communist countries, as can be read from the Irish and the Hungarian report, respectively. Ireland has a ‘Western tradition’ of social movements especially with respect to a ‘popular eco-movement’ (O’Reilly and Adam 2012: 155) against nuclear power plants becoming active in the late 1970s. In recent years it became apparent that the environmental activism of the local population was still alive and it became visible in initiatives against plans for shale gas exploitation (fracking) in Ireland. These initiatives are very strong on the local level and even tend to radicalise their activities when they ‘remain unheard in the wider national debate’ (O’Reilly and Adam 2012: 158). In contrast to this Western European history of the environmental movement, in Hungary, exemplifying the situation in post-communist countries, the development of civil initiatives for environmental protection started in the mid1980s with the decline of the soviet regime. The peak of these social movements was at the end of the 1990s. Today these groups are still active to some extent, especially in fields of waste management (nuclear, hazardous waste, municipal waste), but with relatively low visibility at the national level of policy-making. Comparative studies on political and social participation with regard to political transparency and responsiveness reveal that there is still a lack of public engagement in post-communist countries compared to Western European countries. So far, citizens from Central and Eastern Europe have been hesitant about using their rights to political participation. With the exception of the Czech Republic, attendance at protest activities also occurs less frequently. Political exertion of influence is mostly done via voter participation. According to recent European data (Gabriel and Vo¨lkl 2008: 283ff.), the level of participation is highest in Belgium followed by Ireland, whereas Portugal, Hungary and the Czech Republic have the lowest levels of social and political participation.7 The Irish, Portuguese and Hungarian country studies report on politically driven attempts to raise the interest in science by specific ‘public understanding of science’ approaches. In Ireland, the number of public programmes aiming at a popularisation of science has been increasing in recent years. In recent years there have also been political

attempts in Portugal to communicate science to society. The parliament has supported a campaign for the popularisation of science launched by the national science foundation, which included publicly funded media coverage of recent scientific discoveries aiming at strengthening the communication of science to society (Almeida 2012: 233). The national agency ‘Ciencia Viva’ (transl. Live Science) organises together with the Committee for Education, Science and Culture the ‘Cafe´ Ciencia’ in the parliament, where politicians discuss with scientists and stakeholders on various topics. It appears that, as far as government initiatives on science and the public are concerned, approaches guided by the so-called ‘deficit model’ of public understanding of science are dominant. The public is regarded as not being sufficiently knowledgeable on scientific issues. In this respect the central problem is apparently less a perceived need to educate the public in order to deal with public criticism on S&T issues, but rather to deal with the public disinterest in S&T that might interfere with support for governmental innovation strategies. 2.5 Problem-oriented research, TA and policy advice It is obvious that the scientific landscape in all post-communist countries in our sample is still very much influenced by the prominent role of the national Academies of Sciences. Although none of the academies is currently active in the field of TA, at least in the Czech Republic and in Hungary there are traditions of problem-oriented and interdisciplinary research, as well as of applying methodologies also relevant for TA (e.g. foresight, future scenarios and indicators for sustainable development) at the national academies and universities. Since 1998 Hungary has had a strong foresight tradition (Mosoni Fried et al. 2012: 116) and the work of the academy also seems to be focused on current topics in the Hungarian context such as: waste management, food safety, climate change or the red sludge catastrophe in 2010. In the Czech Republic, there was already more concrete experience with TA and TA-like activities such as: the participation of the Czech Academy of Sciences in EU-funded projects on TA concepts and methodologies, the establishment of the Czech Council on Health Technology Assessment at the Ministry of Health, as well as the Czech participation in various European foresight activities. In Lithuania and Bulgaria the science academies currently seem to have a less influential role and also less experience with interdisciplinary and problem-oriented research. In Lithuania, the roles of the Academy of Sciences and of the research council seem to be more formal. Policy advice is provided to the parliament as well as to ministries. However, for the academy it is more important to take up the mission to promote science and scientific literacy in the wider public (Leichteris and Stumbryte 2012: 195). Although experts

A next wave of Technology Assessment from the academy commented critically on the current foresight strategy in Lithuania and supported the need for science-based policy advice in general, the Lithuanian academic institutions seem to be ‘passive’ with regard to S&T topics of national relevance (Leichteris and Stumbryte 2012: 195). In Bulgaria, the Academy of Sciences currently faces major internal restructuring combined with severe problems in scientific knowledge production which led to the low public reputation of scientists and also an erosion of trust in scientific institutions in recent years (Kozarev 2012: 43). In contrast to the Central and Eastern European countries, there are quite a few scientists active in TAlike approaches in Ireland and Wallonia such as: problem-oriented applied research in the fields of science in society, S&T studies, or environmental studies, including a set of PhD programmes as well as a range of research institutes working in this field. Similar to this, and of particular interest here, is the Portuguese case, since the most active institutions in fields related to TA are academic ones: there is an international PhD programme running in the field of social sciences and technologies focusing specifically on TA and there are two TA-related stakeholder networks (GREAT,8 Bioscience) which seem to imply a strong academic focus on TA in Portugal (Almeida 2012: 235f.; Moniz and Grunwald 2009). In contrast to Bulgaria and Portugal, where improved organisational procedures are requested, or to the Czech Republic, Hungary and Lithuania where policy advice mainly aims at strategic planning of science, technology and innovation, policy advice dedicated to the assessment of certain (controversial) technologies is established in Ireland and Wallonia. In the Walloon region, a wide range of governmental advisory bodies is active with regard to S&T in different fields for ‘technology guidance’ or in the field of environmental assessment. However, the level of cooperation between the different entities appears to be quite low and their focus quite specialised. For Ireland it is reported that since the mid2000s S&T policies have increasingly been questioned, which also implies an increased interest in ‘strategic intelligence tools’ including TA and foresight (especially in a ministerial statement on nanotechnology in 2005, see O’Reilly and Adam 2012: 160). More recently the wish for public involvement was renewed during public upheavals due to the protests against shale gas exploitation in 2012. In this context, policy-makers explicitly stated their demands and started initiatives to enforce public involvement in policy-making in order to learn about the motivation of local protests and citizens’ demands, and be: . . . better informed when making decisions on issues related to science and technology. (O’Reilly and Adam 2012: 160)

The deficit in terms of societal involvement in R&D policymaking is aptly reflected in the fact that the role of parliaments in R&D policy-making is reported to be quite low in

.

9 of 15

all the countries explored. There is no doubt that there are formal structures (standing committees) for parliamentary debate and decision-making in R&D matters. Formally, of course, parliaments are involved in R&D policy-making by adopting laws or also by supervising public authorities. However, in most of the countries, the focus of parliamentary committees in charge of R&D policy-making is often mainly on higher education and not R&D and its related economic and social relevance and impact. Parliaments are also reported not to have the resources to feed their debates with the necessary knowledge on R&D issues. In most cases parliamentary committees only occasionally organise hearings to improve the knowledge base for debates. Connected with the weak role of the parliaments is apparently also a lack of permanent structures at the interface between science, society and policy-making, as reported for Portugal (Almeida 2012: 230). Thus R&D policies are mainly discussed and decided on without general publicity and sufficient transparency to motivate intervention beyond the closed circles of experts from academia and governmental administration. It is difficult to draw conclusions from the country studies regarding the reasons for the low involvement of parliaments. Explanations given in interviews such as MPs lacking a personal background in S&T appear to be inadequate. Instead, we might take into account the fact that the low level of public engagement in R&D issues and a widespread political consensus of R&D being a guarantee for the countries’ economic development excludes interest in a thorough deliberation on risks and benefits that might trigger parliamentary debates. Other causes related to the political culture and the particularities of the political system may also apply. This might be illustrated by Ireland: the Irish voting system favours MPs focusing on the problems of their constituencies which—as far as no local interests are affected—apparently leads to leaving R&D policy to executive and academic expert communities (O’Reilly and Adam 2012: 150).

2.6 Policy options and national recommendations for a TA infrastructure For the Central and Eastern European countries involved in the study it can be stated that the concept of TA is (was?) widely unknown so far—with a few exceptions such as the Czech Republic, where there have been TAlike activities at the Academy of Sciences and the Technology Centre. It was a central feature of our exploration to first make the relevant actors aware of the idea behind the concept of TA and its practical workings as a tool of policy advice in order to encourage them to reflect and discuss the possible relevance of the concept in their national academic and policy-making setting as a second step. This was done with quite some success at the national workshops organised as part of the exploratory research.

10 of 15

.

L. Hennen and L. Nierling

Despite sharing some of the problems of developing a strong R&D system with Central and Eastern European countries, Ireland has a relatively developed system of S&T policy-making and innovation policies. Here TA was perceived as something that already exists in terms of strategic planning and evaluation of policy measures. However, there is a felt need to open up existing structures of knowledge-based policy-making to stakeholder groups and an attentive general public. So far, existing TA-like activities and structures have not been connected to the European TA community. The R&D system of Portugal also shares structural problems with those of other countries as well as weak or inconsistent structures for democratic S&T policymaking. However, there is a small but lively network of academic TA researchers and despite (or probably exactly due to) the rather weak role of the parliament in S&T policy-making there have already been initiatives from the parliament to explore the need and options for adapting TA as a parliamentary institution. Wallonia is an exception as it already has a history of TA debate in its political system. There have been several initiatives to set up TA capacities related to the government and the parliament. Just at the very moment when the research activities started, the decision to set up a TA institute was taken officially. Parliament and government are mentioned as the main addressees, but there is a lively political debate on the polity a TA institute should address: the Walloon region or the Wallonia–Brussels Federation (Delvenne et al. 2012). When it comes to policy options, especially with regard to the further development of a TA infrastructure, the country studies propose different paths which are categorised in Sections. 2.6.1 Supporters of the parliament (Ireland, Portugal and Wallonia). In Wallonia, Ireland and Portugal, members of parliament or parliamentary committees expressed their interest in TA, thus the parliament was selected as main addressee for TA activities in these countries. The process is furthest advanced in Wallonia with a parliamentary decree for TA since 2008. Ireland and Portugal are at the beginning of such a process, as both parliaments have expressed an interest in TA. In both countries, the parliaments have a rather weak political role. Whereas, in Ireland TA is regarded as a possibility to strengthen the role of parliament (O’Reilly and Adam 2012: 162), in Portugal the advantages of a TA unit at the parliament is seen as a possibility to support the country’s ‘political, social and economic’ development (Almeida 2012: 237). In all three countries the country studies advise the use of the existing institutions for future TA activities in order to draw on national academic expertise in S&T. Furthermore, a special interest is expressed to include participatory

aspects in a future TA unit, either to create the first, or to improve national experience with methods of participation, or to include relevant stakeholders and the public in political decision-making in S&T in the future. 2.6.2 The innovative explorers (Bulgaria and Lithuania). The national recommendations developed for Bulgaria and Lithuania present a new model for a national TA landscape: the network model. In both countries, there was very little prior experience with TA or TA-like activities. However, during the research activities TA was identified as ‘an unrecognised need’ (Leichteris and Stumbryte 2012: 200) by some of the relevant decisionmakers. It is seen that the main function of such a network model is to raise awareness of S&T topics in society and by the decision-makers in relevant political fields. Both countries consider it helpful to start with a pilot project (as was also the case in the starting phase of some of the European TA institutions established in the 1980s and 1990s, cf. Ganzevlees and van Est 2012) in order to ‘prove’ the national relevance and to increase the understanding of the concept of TA and its ‘products’. During the process of exploration, the country studies in Bulgaria and Lithuania identified possible windows of opportunity for TA in the current system with regard to a new national innovation strategy (Bulgaria) or with regard to funding options from the European structural fund (Lithuania). However, the lack of academic traditions in the field of interdisciplinary problem-oriented research, connected with a current lack of trained personnel in both countries, is problematic. 2.6.3 The institutional traditionalists (Czech Republic and Hungary). The Czech Republic and Hungary make up a third group. In both countries the Academies of Sciences are decisive players in the field of S&T policy. Furthermore, the national academies in both countries have been in contact with TA or TA-like activities (especially foresight and S&T studies). Both evaluate the ‘system barriers’ (Pokorny et al. 2012: 80) in the current political context as being quite strong and are thus pessimistic about the establishment of a TA unit in the future. Barriers to be dealt with include: a lack of options for national funding of TA in the current situation, a lack of trained personnel, but also a general lack of interest from the decision-making sector in S&T as well as the public. The best chances, if any, to build up a TA institution are for TA to be integrated into already existing institutions which act at the governmental level with responsibilities for the monitoring and evaluation of S&T. Thus, here the specific function of TA would be to support the development of national agendas and strategies for research and technology development. In Hungary, the Academy of Sciences (with its large number of members) appears to be the only public institution that has the infrastructure

A next wave of Technology Assessment and skills to investigate policy alternatives related to scientific issues in various strategic areas.

3. Conclusions: A new ‘TA habitat’? The country studies explored national settings and opportunity structures for TA in countries with their own history and cultural identity which shape the political system, political debate and political institutions to a considerable extent. Some of these aspects have been subject to research in the field of comparative political sciences (Gabriel 2008; Welzel and Inglehart 2011). Within the field of S&T studies, and more specifically TA, the importance of national contexts and cultural settings has also been reflected and highlighted (Jasanoff 2005; Delvenne 2011; Sanz-Mene´ndez and Cruz-Castro 2005; Vig and Paschen 2000a). TA—independent of which impulse is dominant in practice, the ‘policy analysis approach’ or the ‘deliberative approach’ (see Section 1)—must be understood as a reaction to the failure of a ‘technocratic’ concept of the relationship between science and politics dominant in the 1950s and 1960s which relied on scientific knowledge as a safe and sufficient ground for ‘rational’ policy-making. Thus TA, as it were, has always been linked to what has been called a ‘post positivistic’ (Heretier 1993) conceptualisation of policy-making, taking into account the inborn uncertainty and under-determined character of scientific knowledge with regard to complex practical (political) problems as well as the indispensable need to take into account different (and often conflicting) values, normative claims and expectations held by societal groups. TA was, and is, holding to a notion which nowadays is dominant in most conceptualisations of the relationship between science and politics (Functowicz and Ravetz 1992; Nowotny et al. 2001; MASIS Group 2009). The transparency of the TA process and openness towards the public, involving a broad scope of interests and values have been essential features of the TA concept right from its start (Paschen and Petermann 1991; Guston and Bimber 2000: 5). Given TA’s link with informing decision-making as a public process, the concept of ‘civic epistemologies’ as developed by Jasanoff (2005) can be particularly instructive when analysing barriers and opportunities for introducing new S&T governance concepts and institutional arrangements in national policy-making systems and policy-making cultures. Jasanoff briefly defines the term as follows: Civic epistemology refers to the institutionalised practices by which members of a given society test and deploy knowledge claims used as a basis for making collective choices. (Jasanoff 2005: 255)

Based on empirical research in the field of biotechnology, she compares different knowledge regimes in the USA, UK and Germany and analyses:

.

11 of 15

. . . culturally specific, historically and politically grounded, public knowledge-ways. (Jasanoff 2005: 249)

Her analytical proposal represents a sophisticated tool to picture different national approaches to the diffusion of public knowledge into the political sphere. Even if our exploration could by no means reach Jasanoff’s depth of comparison, her analysis points at important questions which should be addressed when thinking about the development of TA in different national contexts and for which our country studies have at least provided some food for thought: How are technological conflicts constructed on a national level? How are technologies debated, embedded and accepted in specific national contexts? What are national characteristics of the contribution of scientific knowledge to political decisions? What are nationspecific drivers for technological development, what are barriers? What is the specific national interplay between the state, the scientific system and the public with regard to technology? With a look at the insights from the country studies, it might then well be asked to what extent ‘civic epistemologies’ are at all developed in some of the countries explored, since according to Jasanoff (2005: 258): . . . the concept [of civic epistemology] has meaning only if we conceive of public life, in part, as a proving ground for competing knowledge claims and as a theatre of establishing the credibility of state action. In technology-intensive societies, the construction of governmental credibility necessarily encompasses the public production of scientific knowledge.

Features of civic epistemologies mentioned by Jasanoff (2005: 259) are, among others: ‘styles of public knowledge making’ (How are knowledge claims made public? Who is involved in assessing claims?) or ‘public accountability’ (How do policy-makers find ways to persuade publics that policies and their knowledge claims are right? How are policy-makers held publicly accountable? How is trust and credibility established?). It might well be concluded that such features of public knowledge production are absent to a certain extent in the countries explored in our study. As much as S&T policy-making issues are not on the public agenda as a ‘collective choice’, perhaps we can only speak of rudimentary forms of civic epistemologies. And as far as TA structures, institutions and processes must be understood as being elements of civic epistemologies, we could ask whether central aspects of the ‘TA habitat’ are simply missing. The further exploration of the question what the societal features of the ‘TA habitat’ actually are and to what extent these are developed in a particular national context must be regarded as a desideratum for further research on the role and function of TA in public knowledge production. The restricted depth and scope of our analysis does not allow for definite answers in this respect.

12 of 15

.

L. Hennen and L. Nierling

Nevertheless our country studies give quite clear indications that the context for TA initiatives (not to speak of processes of institutionalisation) in the countries explored is in many respects different from the conditions that dominated when the first wave of TA institutionalisation took off (see Section 1). Taking account of this will be decisive for the further development of the understanding of TA as a means of public knowledge production as well as for any initiatives to promote the concept in new environments. In most of the countries explored the concern is not about the further development of a strong R&D system, but is about building new structures or a fundamental reorganisation of the existing structures in R&D. Especially in Eastern and Central European countries it is still seen as a challenge to abandon the heritage of a hierarchical and centralised, bureaucratic system of R&D and develop towards a more diverse, market-like and self-governing system. It is much about setting up new funding structures (competitive funding instead of institutional funding) and new agencies for funding, promoting and evaluating S&T. The R&D landscape is in transition (for other reasons also in Ireland and Portugal) and it is less about ‘protecting’ societal needs and values against the dynamics of S&T, but about instigating dynamics and exploring innovation paths to keep up with globalisation pressures and generate economic growth. The social impact of S&T comes into perspective less in terms of environmental or health risks and ethical issues but in terms of supporting societal welfare. Thus, TA is expected to provide support with strategic thinking on robust R&D structures, options for innovation policies and evaluation of existing structures and practices. It is not by accident that whereas TA often is not very well-known in the countries explored, ‘foresight activities’ have been widely promoted in some of them. Furthermore, government plays a central role (ministries for education, economy and science) in restructuring processes with setting up evaluations and funding programmes and related agencies as drivers of the process. Apparently, however, there is no open public discourse on the role of R&D structures for societal development. The process is mainly restricted to the administration and experts. S&T in related parliamentary committees is often primarily dealt with in terms of scientific education and development of universities: innovation policy as well as shaping and regulating the context of implementation is of marginal parliamentary relevance. With the exception of Wallonia and Portugal, parliaments are not active in taking up TA as a means to strengthen their own role and are often also not regarded by TA-interested actors as appropriate places for TA activities. Often a lack of democratic structures in S&T policies is perceived, as well as a lack of communication and cooperation among relevant actors (academia, government, parliament and CSOs). TA then comes into perspective as a means of

unbiased information of discourses (like knowledgebased policy-making or responsible innovation) or a platform to establish a democratic (public) S&T discourse (independent of reflections on its institutional setting). At least for the Eastern and Central European countries, a vibrant and well-connected scientific community active in problem-oriented research or reflective S&T research is not visible. On the one hand there are only a few actors and organisations, which often appear to be isolated even in the academic sphere. A connection with politics, for instance via advisory bodies or the public uptake of results, is not visible. Thus important TA entrepreneurs are apparently missing in those countries. On the other hand, we see that the academic sector complains about not being sufficiently involved in S&T policy-making (especially in ongoing restructuring of the R&D sector). ‘Knowledge-based policy-making’ is often regarded as a promising concept to support more ‘rational’ policymaking, however, it is sometimes accompanied by ‘technocratic’ connotations. Nevertheless, they can also be coupled with a demand for more transparent, publicly accountable processes of decision-making and might thus serve as door openers for TA. Other than in the 1970s and 1980s in Western European countries, S&T is far less an issue of lively public discourse and activism by CSOs. Whereas the present relatively low public engagement in S&T debates in Western Europe comes with an established system of professional and public authority bodies dealing with risk assessment and ethical issues, such structures are missing in the countries explored here (with the exception of Wallonia). For those examples of public controversies reported in the country studies, it is on the one hand often stated that they are characterised by a lack of platforms for constructive interchange of actors including CSOs and laypeople and TA is expected to play a role in this respect. On the other hand ‘the public’ often comes into focus with complaints about a lack of interest in, and knowledge about, S&T issues. As much as this might be in line with a well-known attitude of scientific elites and the prevalence of the so-called ‘deficit model’ of public understanding of science, this might also indicate a specific problem connected with a lack of trust in democratic structures and with a distance to the political process that goes beyond the usual disenchantment with politics. In all the countries explored there is, to various degrees, a lack of tradition in public debates on S&T as well as a relative lack of structural channels or platforms for public debate (including media and CSOs). Thus ‘stimulating public debate’ as a mission of TA may gain particular importance here. This would probably also include aspects of public understanding of science activities, while it may also be more interactive and open-ended. It is also important to relate this TA mission to the current activities of expert communities and public authorities in building up R&D structures and instigating innovation policies. Thus, debates may be

A next wave of Technology Assessment needed about what ‘socially sound’ innovation would actually mean in the national context and what the actual role or relevance of S&T can be for the development of economy and society. On the practical political implications of these features of a—so to speak—new ‘TA habitat in the making’, we see the following challenges in terms of practical expectations that TA has to react to: . Ongoing, often not well-coordinated activities of govern-

.

.

.

.

ments to build up or restructure the R&D system: In this respect TA is often explicitly expected to contribute to strategic planning of the R&D landscape and the evaluation of R&D capacities. Innovation policies to improve competitiveness in the context of globalisation and crisis (‘economy first’): TA would have to position itself with respect to these activities by providing support for identifying socially sound and robust country-specific innovation pathways (‘constructive TA’) and contribute to lower costs of trial-and-error learning. Poorly developed democratic and transparent decisionmaking structures: TA could find a role here as an independent and unbiased player able to induce communication on ‘democratic’ structures in S&T policy among relevant actors. The challenge of ‘involving the public’: In this respect the motives of democratising policy-making are often merged with ‘paternalistic’ motives of ‘educating the public’ (media and laypeople). The latter nevertheless may indicate a real problem of broad public unawareness regarding the democratic relevance of S&T politics and the extent to which TA’s mission of ‘stimulating public debate’ can adapt to that problem (without becoming ‘persuasive’) needs to be clarified. Untransparent decision-making, lack of trust in democratic structures, lack of competences and bounded rationalities of relevant actors, lack of strategic longterm thinking: All this results in an explicit demand for ‘knowledge-based policy-making’ in the context of which the (not very well-known) concept of TA is welcome as a means to underpin decisions with best available knowledge in an unbiased manner. Specific ideas about how to institutionally build it into the existing system are, however, missing and it might well be that in terms of institutional solutions none of the models so far realised in Europe might be appropriate.

In general, TA has to be responsive to the given policy context and the expectations and demands expressed in the countries explored. In this regard it might also be important for future activities to take account of the fact that TA can be supportive (and organised) on different levels of R&D policy-making activities. The explorative endeavour of the research activities presented here focused on the ‘macro level’ of national bodies and authorities of policymaking. Supporting activities could also aim at the ‘meso level’ of regional or local bodies or on the ‘micro level’ of

.

13 of 15

R&D strategies, be it in industrial companies or individual research institutions. By initiating TA activities on different levels a ‘distributed structure’ of TA could be supported that might be more appropriate for some of the countries explored than immediately setting up a powerful TA organisation at the national level of policymaking. However, ‘being responsive’ to national expectations should not imply giving up a certain (normative) core of TA as a concept. TA—as was argued by Arie Rip at the comparative project workshop held in Karlsruhe in November 2012—may be in danger of becoming an ‘empty signifier’ when responding to any demand for ‘rational’ decision-making and planning expressed by policy-making bodies and authorities. TA as a concept implies the role of a critical observer of R&D policymaking activities, which necessarily asks for some institutional independence in order to provide space for reflection beyond short-sighted political agendas and openness to a broad spectrum of perspectives being applied in assessment processes.

Notes 1. For a history of OTA and an analysis of the reasons for its closure in 1996 after a major change from a democratic to a republican majority in Congress (cf. Herdman and Jensen 1997; Hill 1997). 2. PACITA (Parliaments and Civil Society in Technology Assessment, FP7, 2011–15) is a fouryear research and action plan, funded by the European Commission’s Framework Programme 7, under Theme SiS-2010-1.0.1 Mobilisation and Mutual Learning Actions. The overall objective of PACITA is to empower European member states and associated countries with an interest in TA to make informed decisions about institutionalising, organising and performing parliamentary TA. At the same time, PACITA is meant to stimulate reflectivity in regions and countries with established TA organisations. 3. For reasons of language convenience it will only be referred to the ‘national’ context and ‘countries’. For the Walloon case, the correct wording ‘regional’ and ‘region’ will be implied by the above-mentioned in the following. 4. According to the qualitative research design the national exploration presented in the following is based on the opinions stated in interviews with relevant national stakeholders, who were selected, analysed and interpreted by the national organisations who were partners in the PACITA project. Thus, the findings from the country studies presented here are drawn from the evaluation of the national situation by selected national actors. Regarding the authorship of

14 of 15

5.

6. 7. 8.

.

L. Hennen and L. Nierling

the country studies, it is important to note that the studies represent the perspective of different organisational contexts ranging from Academies of Sciences (Czech Republic and Hungary) to research centres at universities (Ireland, Portugal and Wallonia) to nongovernmental organisations (Bulgaria and Lithuania). The evaluation of the different national settings is thus given from a specific organisational perspective. Therefore, this paper does not claim to fully reflect the respective national debates as well as all newly evolving initiatives. The three experts were: Prof. Arie Rip (the Netherlands) for the field of TA, Prof. Thomas Saretzki (Germany) for the field of political science and Prof. Martin Potu˚cˇek (Czech Republic) for the field of public and social policy who commented during the international workshop ‘Expanding the TA landscape’ held 15–16 November 2012, at Karlsruhe, Germany) on the topic of the national developments. See accessed 1 April 2014. No information was available for Bulgaria and Lithuania from this source. GREAT is a national network on TA with members from the fields of academia, the economy and public institutions as well as hospitals (see accessed 1 April 2014).

References Almeida, M. (2012) ‘Explorative country study: Portugal’. In: Hennen, L. and Nierling, L. (eds) Expanding the TA Landscape. Country Studies, pp. 221–54, PACITA Project, Deliverable 4.1, European Commission. Brussels: European Commission. Brydon-Miller, M., Greenwood, D. and Maguire, P. (2003) ‘Why action research’, Action Research, 1: 9–28. Decker, M. and Ladikas, M. (eds) (2004) Bridges Between Science, Society and Policy. Technology Assessment – Methods and Impacts. Berlin: Springer. Delvenne, P. (2011) Science, technologie et innovation sur le chemin de la re´flexivite´. Enjeux et dynamiques du Technology Assessment parlementaire. Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium: Academia L’Harmattan. ——, Rosskamp, B. and Fallon, C. (2012) ‘Explorative region study: Wallonia, Belgium’. In: Hennen, L. and Nierling, L. (eds) Expanding the TA Landscape. Country Studies, pp. 255–86, PACITA Project, Deliverable 4.1, European Commission. Brussels: European Commission. European Commission. (2013) European Economic Forecast – Autumn 2013, European Economy 7/2013. DirectorateGeneral for Economic and Financial Affairs, European Commission. Brussels: European Commission. Eurostat. (2010) Science, Technology and Innovation in Europe, Statistical Books. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Enzing, C., Deuten, J., Rijnders-Nagle, M. and van Til, J. (2012) Technology Across Borders. Exploring Perspectives for

Pan-European Parliamentary Technology Assessment. Brussels: European Parliament. Funtowiz, S. and Ravetz, J. R. (1992) ‘Three types of risk assessment and the emergence of post normal science’. In: Krimsky, S. and Golding, D. (eds) Social Theories of Risk, pp. 252–74. Westport, CT: Praeger. Gabriel, O. W. (2008) ‘Politische Einstellungen und politische Kultur’. In: Gabriel, O. W. and Kropp, S. (eds) Die EUStaaten im Vergleich. Strukturen, Prozesse, Politikinhalte, pp. 181–214. Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag. —— and Vo¨lkl, K. (2008) ‘Politische und soziale Partizipation’. In: Gabriel, O. W. and Kropp, S. (eds) Die EU-Staaten im Vergleich. Strukturen, Prozesse, Politikinhalte, pp. 269–98. Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag. Ganzevles, J. and van Est, R. (eds) (2012) TA Practices in Europe. Deliverable 2.2. PACITA Project, European Commission. Brussels: European Commission. Guston, D. H. and Bimber, B. (2000) Technology Assessment for the New Century. New Brunswick, NJ: School of Planning and Public Policy, Rutgers University. Hennen, L. (2013) ‘Parliamentary Technology Assessment in Europe and the role of public participation’. In: O’Doherty, K. and Einsiedel, E. (eds) Public Engagement and Emerging Technologies, pp. 27–44. Vancouver, BC, Canada: UBC Press. —— and Ladikas, M. (2009) ‘Embedding society in European science and technology policy advice’. In: Ladikas, M. (ed.) Embedding Society in Science and Technology Policy. European and Chinese Perspectives, pp. 39–64. Brussels: European Commission. —— and Nierling, L. (eds) (2012) Expanding the TA Landscape. Country Studies, PACITA Project, Deliverable 4.1, European Commission. Brussels: European Commission accessed 1 April 2014. Herdman, R. C. and Jensen, J. J. (1997) ‘The OTA story: The agency perspective’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 54: 131–43. He´retier, A. (1993) ‘Policy-Analyse. Elemente der Kritik und der Neuorientierung’, Politische Perspektiven Vierteljahresschrift, 24: 9–38. Hill, Ch. T. (1997) ‘The Congressional Office of Technology Assessment. A retrospective and prospects for the post-OTA world’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 54: 191–8. Huws, U. and Dahlmann, S. (2007) Quality Standards for Case Studies in the European Foundation. Dublin: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. Jasanoff, S. (2005) Designs on Nature. Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Kozarev, V. (2012) ‘Explorative country study: Bulgaria’. In: Hennen, L. and Nierling, L. (eds) Expanding the TA Landscape. Country Studies, pp. 30–62, PACITA Project, Deliverable 4.1, European Commission. Brussels: European Commission. Leichteris, E. and Stumbryte, G. (2012) ‘Explorative country study: Lithuania’. In: Hennen, L. and Nierling, L. (eds) Expanding the TA Landscape. Country Studies, pp. 184–220, PACITA Project, Deliverable 4.1, European Commission. Brussels: European Commission. MASIS Group. (2009) Challenging Futures of Science in Society – Emerging Trends and Cutting-edge Issues. Brussels: European Commission. Moniz, A.B. and Grunwald, A. (2009) ‘Recent experiences and emerging cooperation schemes on TA and education.

A next wave of Technology Assessment An insight into cases in Portugal and Germany’, Technikfolgenabscha¨tzung – Theorie und Praxis, 18(3): 17–24. Mosoni Fried, J., Zsigmond, A. and Palinko, E. (2012) ‘Explorative country study: Hungary’. In: Hennen, L. and Nierling, L. (eds) Expanding the TA Landscape. Country Studies, pp. 104–43, PACITA Project, Deliverable 4.1, European Commission. Brussels: European Commission. Nowotny, H., Scott, P. and Gibbons, M. (2001) Rethinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. O’Reilly, P. and Adam, F. (2012) ‘Explorative country study: Ireland’. In: Hennen, L. and Nierling, L. (eds) Expanding the TA Landscape. Country Studies, pp. 144–83, PACITA Project, Deliverable 4.1, European Commission. Brussels: European Commission. Paschen, H. and Petermann, Th. (1991) ‘TechnikfolgenAbscha¨tzung. Ein strategisches Rahmenkonzept fu¨r die Analyse und Bewertung von Techniken’. In: Petermann, Th. (ed.) Technikfolgenabscha¨tzung als Politikberatung, pp. 9–42. Frankfurt, Germany: Campus. Pokorny, O., Hebakova, L. and Michalek, T. (2012) ‘Explorative country study: Czech Republic’. In: Hennen, L. and Nierling, L. (eds) Expanding the TA Landscape. Country Studies, pp. 63–103, PACITA Project, Deliverable 4.1, European Commission. Brussels: European Commission. Rip, A. (2012) ‘Futures of technology assessment’. In: Decker, M., Grunwald, A. and Knapp, M. (eds) Der Systemblick auf Innovation. Technikfolgenabscha¨tzung in der Technikgestaltung, pp. 29–39. Berlin: edition sigma.

.

15 of 15

Roland, G. (2002) ‘The political economy of transition’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16: 29–50. Sanz-Mene´ndez, L. and Cruz-Castro, L. (2005) ‘Explaining the science and technology policies of regional governments’, Regional Studies, 39: 939–54. TNS Opinion & Social. (2005) Special Eurobarometer 224 / Wave 63.1. Europeans, Science and Technology, Survey requested by the Directorate General Research and coordinated by the Directorate General Press and Communication, European Commission. Brussels: European Commission. ——. (2010) Special Eurobarometer 340 / Wave 73.1. Science and Technology, Survey requested by the Research Directorate-General and coordinated by the Directorate General for Communication, European Commission: Brussels: European Commission. Vig, N. J. (2000) ‘Conclusions. The European Parliamentary Technology Assessment experience’. In: Vig, N. J. and Paschen, H. (eds) Parliaments and Technology. The Development of Technology Assessment in Europe, pp. 365–84. New York: State University of New York Press. —— and Paschen, H. (2000a) ‘Introduction: Technology assessment in comparative perspective’. In: Vig, N. J. and Paschen, H. (eds) Parliaments and Technology. The Development of Technology Assessment in Europe, pp. 3–35. New York: State University of New York Press. —— and —— (2000b) Parliaments and Technology. The Development of Technology Assessment in Europe. New York: State University of New York Press. Welzel, C. and Inglehart, R. (2011) ‘Political culture’. In: Caramani, D. (ed.) Comparative Politics, pp. 311–30. Oxford, UK: OUP.