Interfaces Between Science & Society-Collecting Experiences For Good Practice

INTERFACES BETWEEN SCIENCE & SOCIETY
Collecting Experiences for Good Practice
EDITED BY
Angela Guimares Pereira
Merc Agera Cabo
Silvio Funtowicz
BOOK OF ABSTRACTS
International Worksop - Milano 27 - 28 November 2003

http://alba.jrc.it/interfaces
UJ
"$
LO
00
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
JOINT RESEARCH CENTRE
UJ
International Workshop
I n t e r f a c e s b e t w e e n Science & Society
Collecting experiences for g o o d practice
M i l a n o , 2 7 - 2 8 November
2003
BDDKDF ABSTRACTS
Edited By
Merc Agera Cab
Silvia Funtowicz
Knowledge Assessment Methodologies
THE MISSION OF THE JRC

The mission of the JRC is to provide customer-driven scientific and technical support for the conception,
development, implementation and monitoring of EU policies, As a service of the European Commission,
the JRC functions as a reference centre of science and technology for the Union. Close to the policymaking processes, it serves the common interest of the Member States, while being independent of special
interests, whether private or national.
^
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
I
LEGAL NOTICE
Neither the European Commission nor any person
acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which might
be made of the following information.
EUR 20854EN
European Communities, 2003
Printed in Italy
JOINT RESEARCH CENTRE
INTERFACES BETWEEN SCIENCE & S OCIETY

COLLECTING EXPERIENCES FOR G O O D PRACTICE
In recent years science has come down from its academic ivory tower, and is now managed as a producer of intellectual property
in a marketplace of corporate customers. There is another transformation, where science related to public policy has been brought
into the forum of debate among concerned citizens. The first development has led to the industrialisation of the research enterprise.
The second has led to the engagement of the public in the assessment of the relevant knowledge and the governance of its production.
It is now appreciated that in a fully democratic society, science must submit to public scrutiny and participation in the appropriate
ways. The task of this conference will be to explore the implications of this new extension of democracy. The variety of interfaces
between science and society will be e x p l o r e d , so that guidance on best practice in each area can be achieved.
In every a r e a , the workshop will be encouraged to a rounded view of the issues. Thus, while reviewing positive accomplishments
and prospects for further progress, the discussion should include difficulties, disadvantages and dangers of such developments. In
this way the workshop should contribute to enrichment and deepening of our understanding of these important new trends in the
social relations of science.
THEMES COyERED^BY THE W O R K S H O P

Processes
COMMUNICATING A M O N G PLURAL PERS PECTIVES : Exploring the communication of different kinds of information
among participants with different backgrounds and perspectives.
M A N A G I N G UNCERTAINTY, COMPLEXITY A N D VALUE-COMMITMENTS : Exploring the management of these
qualitative aspects of information among the diverse perspectives. Implementation of precautionary principles.
KNOWLEDGE AS S ES S MENT: Integrating the different methods and criteria of assessment of information among the
diverse perspectives.
Context
TRANSPARENCY, OPENNES S A N D PARTICIPATION IN S CIENCE POLICY PROCES S ES : Developments in the principles
and conduct of governance, especially regulatory agencies, enabling broader participation, at both national and EU levels.
COMMUNITY BAS ED RES EARCH: Reviewing relevant worldwide experience on community based research, e.g.
science shops, including their societal and policy impacts. Exploring how these can be useful in the context of new EC initiatives
such as science & society interfaces; science & governance; risk and governance; etc.
EMERGING S TYLES OF GOVERNANCE A N D NEW ICT: Exploring how the new Information and Communication
Technologies can become a convivial medium of social learning and governance of scientific issues in the EU context. ("e2
governance" = electronic and extended).
TABLE DF CONTENTS
Plenary Sessions
Science & Society Interfaces: Process
Jerry Ravetz
Page 3
Evaluating Experiments in the 'New' Governance of Science and Technology: some Reflections on Theory and Practice
Jacquie Burgess
Page 5
Quicksandy Knowledge Bases. The Need for Guidance for dealing with Uncertainty, Assumptions and Value
Commitments in Environmental Assessment
Jeroen P. van der Sluijs
Page 8
W h y Knowledge Assessment?
Silvio Funtowicz
Page 10
Transparency, Openness and Participation in Science Policy Processes

Maria Eduarda Gonalves
Page 12
Linking Science, Policy and Local Governance: Moving beyond 'Talk the Talk' through Community-Based Research
Jennifer Bellamy
Page 14
Governance and Information and Communication Technologies in 201 0

Antnio S. Cmara
Page 16
A Forward Look into the "Knowledge Society" and its Implications for Public Policies
Paraskevas Caracostas
Page 17
Breakout Sessions
Science, Sustainable Development and other Knowledges
Articulating Alternative Knowledge Systems for Sustainable Development: the Scientific Challenge
Gilberto Gallopn
Knowledge Hybridization. Science and Local Knowledges in the Search for Sustainable Development
Hebe Vessuri
Page 2 7
Systems of Knowledge for the Conservation of the M a y a Rainforest (Mexico and Guatemala)
David Manuel Navarrete
Whose VISTA and W h y : Identifying Beneficiaries and Evaluating their Perceptions of Land Use Change in European
Traditional Agricultural Landscapes
Jacqueline de Chazal & Sandra Lavorel
Snails, Sex and Science: Communicating Values, Facts and Interests between Scientists and Stakeholders
Page 27
The Tributyltin (TBT) story 1 8 7 0 - 2 0 0 0 : W h e n Small was Sexually Powerful

David Gee
Maritime Shipping and the Environment. The Potential of Science and Scientists to Assist in Policy Planning for the
Environment and in Raising Public Awareness
Cafo C. ten Hallers-Tjabbes
Long-term: Thinking, Monitoring, Communicating and Cooperating
Sofia Guedes Vaz
Risk Management and Food Safety, Learning from the Nitrofen Case
Lucilla Gregoretti & Johannes Kern
Uncertainty, Assumptions, and Value Commitments in the Knowledge Base of Complex Environmental Problems
Page
33
Towards Multi Dimensional Uncertainty Assessment

By Jeroen Van Der Sluijs
Decision-Making under Uncertainty: Is there any other Kind?
Naomi Oreskes
Knowledge and Values in Transdisciplinary Research
Barbara Regeer
Creating Ears for Inclusive Policy

Institutional Divide: Are They Ready To Listen To Citizenry?
Looking at Policy Making from the Scientists Perspective: the Case of Air Pollution Research and Policy
Frank Raes
Page 39
Gender Approach to Environmental Governance

Merc Agera Cabo
Influencing Policy Making through Reflexivity: a Feasible Challenge for Science AND Public Participation?
Matthieu Graye
Principles of Transparency: The Institutionalisation of Public Engagement at the European Food Safety Agency
Javier Le za un & Robert Doubleday
The Post-Normal Times: Broadening the Cultural Context for Public Dialogue on Science and Policy
Sylvia S. Tognetti
Institutional Arrangements and Public Participation: a Laboratory of Local Governance
Francesco Mazzeo Rinaldi
Science Communication: Hierarchies or Partnerships?
Page 51

Bruna De Marchi
Communication: the G a p between Information and Scientific Knowledge. Role of the Associations
Nicole Alby
Informing to Educate. Can the M e d i a Help to Enable Women to Safeguard their Health Themselves?
Gianna Milano
W h y Partnership with Users?
Gabriella Salvini Porro
Science for Governance: the Implications of the Complexity Revolution

lhe Crash of Reductionism against the Complexity of Reality
Mario Giampietro
For Simple Systems W e Can Use Models, but Complex Systems Must Have Narrative
Tim Allen
Multiple Scale Integrated Analysis of Societal Metabolism (MSIASM): Examples of Applications
Jesus Ramos Martin
Page 59
Rethinking the Concept of Sound Science in the G M O Arena?

Anne Ingeborg Myhr
The Pros and Cons of Messy Governance
Page 65
The Uncertainty and Complexity of M a n a g i n g Uncertainty and Complexity

Roger Strand
How Extended Peer Communities Can Handle Subtlety and Complexity in the Assessment of Scientific Materials
Jerry Ravetz
The Norcat Project: M a n a g i n g Uncertainty, Complexity and Landscape values in a Norwegian village
Silvia Caellas i Bolt
Participation Under Uncertainty
Moses A. Boudourides
Technology, Foresight and People
Page 71
A Concept of Participatory Technological Envisioning

Bruce Beck
A Strategic and Practical Approach to Sustainable Development of Cities
Peter Head
Civil Infrastructure as if People Really Matter
Sarah Hunt
New Perspectives on Conservation of our Cultural Heritage at Risk
Sc/ra Menoni
Participatory Technology Assessment Processes: Reflections on Theory and Practice
Page 77
Participatory Technology Assessment Processes: Reflections on Theory and Practice

Jacquie Burgess
Issues and Challenges of Participatory Technology Assessment
Luigi Pel Tizzoni
Participatory Environmental Risk A p p r a i s a l in the UK - Practitioner Perspectives on Effective Practice in the A r e a of Radioactive Waste
Management
Jason Chilvers
Sharing Experiences of Participation within Scottish Environmental Policy Networks
Kirsty Sherlock and Caspian Richards
Public Information and Discourses of Decision-Making in G M O Field Trials in Italy. Beyond the Legal Procedure: Citizens,
Scientists and Administrators during a Local Public Debate
Elena Collavin
Science and Society in Place-based Communities: Uncomfortable Partners
Page 85
Are Community-Based Research and Science Compatible?

David Waltner Toews
The Interface of Science and Society in Community-Based Research
Ligia
Noronha
Control, Careful Use and Coping: on the Relationship between Management, Science and Place-Based Communities
Dean Bavington
Governance and New Information and Communication Technologies: an O p e n View
Page 89
Governance and New Information and Communication: Learning from New Generation Gaming
Antonio Cmara
Governance and New Information and Communication Technologies - Reaching the Citizens
Josep Blat
Governance and New Information and Communication Technologies - Learning from the Citizens
Cristina Gouveia
Science/Policy Interfaces for Environmental Governance
Participatory Interfaces between Science and Policy for Environmental Governance

Sybille van den Hove
The European Platform for Biodiversity Research Strategy: Lessons and O p e n Questions from a Science-Policy Interface
Martin Sharman
Page 93
Time Scales, Uncertainty and Jargon: the Case of Science and Agri-Environmental Policies
Juliette Young
Toothless Paper Tigers Digest Slower. Discussing Lessons from a Process-Oriented Science-Policy Interface
Tom Bauler
How the Sociology of Sciences could Help the Improvement of Science-Society Interfaces?
Pierre Deceun'mck
Patents at the Interface among Science, Society and the Law
Page 701
Biotech Patents: A Case for Co-production between Science and the Law
Mariachiara Tallacchini & Amedeo Santosuosso
Instances of Biopiracy
Joan Martinez Alier
Life Patening: Towards an Alternative or a Reform?
Emmanuela Gambini & Andrea Lusignani
Deliberating on Patents
Sara Casati
Science Shops as Interfaces between Science & Society
Page 7 07
Science Shops as University-Society Interfaces An introduction

Henk A. J. Mulder
Improving the Interaction between N G O s and Universities through Science Shops
Michael Sgaard Jrgensen
The First Science Shop in Romania
Laura Pricope
Non-University Based Science Shops in Germany
Norbert Steinhaus & Anke Valentin
Building Knowledge Partnerships? Social and Technological Conditions of Conviviality
Page 1 13
Domination and Reciprocity: Characterising the (Existential, Social, Economic and Technological) Conditions for Dialogue and Conviviality
Martin
O'Connor
VIVIANE, the Virtual Visit to my Environment: the Case of Agriculture

Jean-Marc Douguet
VGAS - a Convivial Exploration of Energy, Lifestyles and Climate
Tiago Pedrosa, Angela Guimares Pereira, Ricardo Andrade, Nuno Cardoso, Edmundo Nobre, Pedro Pedrosa
Evaluating/Valuing: Local Potentials as "Urban Catalyst" Strategy
Maria Cerreta
Portals for Knowledge Management
Denisa Neagu
Knowledge Assessment and the Science/Policy Interface
Page 7 27
Knowledge Society Divides... Knowledge Assessment Bridges

Ren Von Schomberg
The Social and Political Control of Knowledge in M o d e r n Societies
Nico Stehr
Experts, Jurors and Judges: M a n a g i n g the Science/Society Interface in Court
Ruth McNally
Are Science and Technology Councils an A p p r o p r i a t e W a y of Providing Advice to the Policy Making Process?
Katy Whitelegg
Improving Science - Society Relationships through Foresight Exercises in Europe
Vassilios Laopodis
Exhibitions
The Territory and the Local Space in the Processes of Change Towards New Environmental Mentalities. Contributions from the
Analysis the Citizens' Participative Local Experiences
M Angels Ali, Silvia Mateu, Laia Peir
Page 131
Tools to Inform Debates, Dialogues & Deliberations

ARTLab
Page 7 3 2
New M e d i a Technology Projects at Universitt Pompeu Fabra

Josep Blat
Page 133
An Example of Communication Processes To Mitigate Risk In An Urban A r e a Exposed To A Hazardous Chemical Facility
Simona Caragliano, Scira Menoni
Page 134
W a t e r at 3 6 0 Degrees
P. Ciceri, E. Tibaldi, J. Somerville, P. Cozens
Page 135
Supporting Collaborative Learning in Regional Natural Park Planning: the Case of Gravina in Puglia
Adele Celino, Grazia Concilio
Page 136
Participatory Processes and Educational Pilot Projects: a Case-Study Concerning Plant Genetics and Biotechnology
M . Alexandra Abreu Lima, Lia Vasconcelos
Page 7 3 7
Visualisation of Land Use Change in the State of North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany

Anke Valentin
Page 138
Virtual G a r d e n
YDreams
Page 139
Tangitable - People Simulating Pollutant Transport

YDreams
Page 140
KEYNDTE SPEECHES
Science & Society Interfaces: Process
Jerry Ravetz
This conference is a landmark in the evolution of science. Although it

is not celebrating or evaluating any particular discoveries or inventions,
it reflects on, and hence consolidates, a radical change in the social
practice of science. Now, as never before, the place of science in a
democratic society is a topic of discussion and debate. This d e b a t e has
two complementary aspects, that are the major themes of this workshop.
W e have already devoted ourselves to analysing the context of science;
now it is the turn of the processes by which that science is produced.
As I said, the two aspects are complementary, and not easily separated
in practice. Between them they amount to a heresy, one against the
received view of science that had been hegemonic for many generations.
This was, that science is beyond criticism on either epistemic or ethical
grounds. The foundations of that faith were that the results of scientific
enquiry a r e f r e e both from error and from subjectivity. As G a l i l e o
proclaimed, the results of natural science are true and necessary, and
human judgement has nothing to d o with them.
This is not the place to describe the unravelling of that faith. Suffice it
to say that uncertainty has been stalking theoretical science for nearly
a century; and that the power of science to produce evil as well as
g o o d has been patent since the bomb at Hiroshima. Now that science
is so l a r g e , so p o w e r f u l , a n d so important f o r production and for
governance, it needs an extended scrutiny, both external and internal,
if it is to do its job well. W e live in the post-normal a g e for science.
Communicating Among Plural Perspectives
This is a natural link between the two complementary aspects of
contemporary science that form the theme of our workshop. For we
find that whenever science is involved in a policy process, there is a
plurality of perspectives in play. The policy issue and hence the relevant
scientific problem will be differently perceived by the various concerned
Research Methods Consultants, London, UK.

j e r r y _ r a v e t z @ p o p 3 . lineone.net
interests; evidence will be evaluated differently; uncertainties managed

differently; and conclusions and recommendations assessed differently.
This is totally different from the sort of science that has been taught
in all the schools and purveyed to the public through popularisation.
There, the ruling implicit assumption is that every scientific question is
w e l l - f o r m e d , and that it has just one and only one correct answer. To
speak of a plurality of perspectives in relation to science might seem
quite nonsensical. To expect a rational d e b a t e among them would be
totally unrealistic.
Yet it happens. The process is not without difficulty; and an important
task for this workshop is to recognise those inherent difficulties and to
embark on the task of defining g o o d practice in overcoming them.
The problem of communicating among different perspectives is also
recognised in the practice of natural science itself. Ever since Kuhn
a d v a n c e d the notion of ' p a r a d i g m ' , philosophers recognised that
knowledge is organised in discrete frameworks. When there is a genuine
d e b a t e in science, it can involve those frameworks, which a r e little
universes of explicit facts and implicit methodological and axiological
assumptions. After much d e b a t e , it came to be realised that there is
no machine for perfect translation; but that nonetheless a fruitful
dialogue can take place.
This communication process should not be seen as an extra cost of

dialogue on policy-related science. Rather, it is an opportunity for a
learning experience by all participants, including those with an apparently
superior technical knowledge. For it is f a r from a simple process of
'popularising' or 'simplifying' arcane scientific concepts for the less
fortunate inexpert members. W h i l e that is going on, those whose
awareness is less confined within a scientific p a r a d i g m have much to
teach the experts about the qualitative aspects of their quantitative
information.
M a n a g i n g Uncertainty, C o m p l e x i t y a n d
There we find active d e b a t e over claims to knowledge, a d e b a t e that

is sometimes quite impassioned, and sometimes even involved with issues
of power and property. There is a d e e p difference between that case
and this, which provides a key to the p r o b l m a t i q u e of this present
workshop. At the research front, the only interests who a r e competent
to join the d e b a t e a r e those whose special expertise makes them
f a m i l i a r with the arguments, techniques and special pitfalls of the
particular f i e l d of enquiry involved. There is necessarily a restricted
peer community for the quality assessment of the new products of
scientific research.
Value-Commitments
These qualitative aspects are understood through the three headings

of this theme. Uncertainty and value-commitments should be familiar
now, through the NUSAP tradition that is now being carried f o r w a r d
a t Utrecht a n d RIVM. But ' c o m p l e x i t y ' needs some e x p l a i n i n g .
First, the policy issues in which science is involved, are inevitably and
essentially complex. This does not mean 'complicated', having many
components and many relations among them. Rather, 'complex' refers
to properties of a system and its sub-systems. The defining p r o p e r t y
for us that a complex system is one where there is no privileged point
of view. The differences in spatial and temporal grids, as well as in
function and purpose, among the various hierarchical levels, prevent
the existence of a unique 'solution' to the problem of characterising
such a system. A simpler e x a m p l e of this same p r o p e r t y is a design
p r o b l e m , where some aspects of the situation a r e necessarily suboptimised for the sake of others, but there is no rigidly defining criterion
for which aspects are favoured.
It is less commonly understood that the scientific knowledge is itself
complex in this same sense. For it comes to be through a variety of
techno-social processes of production and evaluation, with judgements
of a d e q u a c y and value being made at every stage. This aspect of
knowledge is conveyed in the Pedigree category of the NUSAP scheme.
The Dutch work in that tradition is, I believe, creating the circumstances
in which these issues will be c a p a b l e of disciplined discussion and
management.
Knowledge Assessment
Although these considerations are being discussed here in the context
of policy-relevant science, the processes are in fact not so very different
from what happens at the research front of any active field of science.
W h e n we come to science d e p l o y e d in the policy process, it is very

different. Here an external critique becomes relevant and possible.
There is a variety of grounds for such a critique. First, particular results
can be simply irrelevant. The local conditions involved in the policy issue
may be totally different from those of the study that p r o v i d e d the
d a t a . O r there may be too much variability in the f i e l d , or even too
much uncertainty about what is out there. Results based on the artificially
pure and stable conditions of a controlled scientific experiment may
be of very limited relevance to the complexities of a real situation. It
is possible that the structure of the research may itself embody valueassumptions that are p a r t of the issue in d e b a t e . Even a statistical test
may be too selective, excluding 'false-positive' results rigorously, and
thereby becoming insufficiently sensitive, missing possible evidence of
harm. Such considerations, and others, are not beyond the competence
of critics whose technical knowledge is more general, but whose critical
a w a r e n e s s is w e l l d e v e l o p e d . In t h a t w a y , t h e r e is a f r u i t f u l
c o m p l e m e n t a r i t y b e t w e e n the t w o sorts of p e r s p e c t i v e .
If we enrich the original concept of Post-Normal Science to interpret
'systems uncertainties' to include the subtlety and particularity of local
situations, along with the commitments of people affected by particular
policies, then the scheme can provide insight for all these areas where
this workshop is endeavouring to advance g o o d practice.
Evaluating Experiments In The 'New' Governance Of S cience And Technology: S ome

Reflections On Theory And Practice
Jacquie Burgess
Context
There is widespread recognition that the emergence of 'new' strategies
for the governance of science and technology reflects the failure of
established risk assessment techniques to deal effectively with intractable
uncertainties and to accommodate the full range of public concerns. In
contrast to traditional policy-making based on mixtures of hierarchical
and market-led strategies, the new governance is based on ideas of
'communicative partnership' between different interests who have (or
may have) a stake in the issue. In common with other public policy
areas, decision-makers in science and technology are attempting to
capture a much wider range of knowledge and values than hitherto.
The last ten years or so has seen intense experimentation and r a p i d
innovation in the design and implementation of participatory appraisal
processes in many different parts of the world. Following the first flush
of enthusiasm, it is evident that many issues remain unresolved. For
e x a m p l e , what a r e a p p r o p r i a t e relationships between specialists,
stakeholders and citizens in complex technology assessments? Is it
possible genuinely to integrate quantitative and qualitative appraisal
methodologies and, if so, how would such hybrid findings be communicated
to policy-makers? Is the drive for consensus actually p r e f e r a b l e to
finding common ground or, more riskily, encouraging exploration of
dissent b e t w e e n parties? W i t h o u t more convincing evidence that
participation has made any difference whatsoever to the outcome of
political or commercial decisions, why should stakeholders and members
of the w i d e r p u b l i c b o t h e r to turn up f o r f u t u r e exercises?
Evaluation: the 'forgotten element' of participatory processes
A body of shared 'good practice' within and between different countries
is growing, much supported by the EU in programmes such as Europta
and ULYSSES but the evaluative criteria upon which such judgements
are made are often implicit rather than explicit; emerging from anecdotal
! D e p a r t m e n t of G e o g r a p h y , University
C o l l e g e London, UK.
.burgess@geog.ucl.ac.uk
evidence rather than more formal judgement. This rather ill-disciplined

approach to 'evidence of effective - is compounded by the different,
overlapping goals of the actors and institutions in participatory processes.
For e x a m p l e , sponsoring agencies may well be seeking utilitarian
outcomes such as 'educating' the public into accepting a new technology,
building 'trust' so that contentious decisions are acceptable to a majority
a n d , in difficult situations, 'sedating' public opposition by offering a
consultative process.
Practitioners and process experts, including a growing number of social
scientists now engaged in action research alongside policy-makers are
more likely to embrace substantive outcomes in terms of a better
articulation of the conflicting knowledges and divergent values which
underpin different perspectives on a problem and agreement to a
course of action which, if not fully a g r e e d by all the parties, is at least
recognised as having been achieved through a f a i r process. And for
theoreticians, there are normative principles underpinning different
models of relationship between the state, the market and civil society.
Deliberative and inclusive decision-making processes may perhaps
demonstrate the extent to which political powerlessness, social and
economic inequalities, and environmental injustices can be redressed.
In the presentation, I shall argue that much more attention needs be
given to the evaluation of participatory processes in decision-making.
Here is small body of literature which seeks to address questions of

evaluation. Some evaluative criteria a r e being d e r i v e d from first
principles; others are emerging from consensus between practitioners
based on firsthand experience. Participants are also now being asked
to evaluate their own experiences in engagement processes. But what
is required is a much more thorough-going a p p r o a c h to evaluation
which complements each stage of a process from the initial analysis of
the decision-situation and the selection of a methodology which is fitfor-purpose, through to the immediate outputs and longer term outcomes.
Some consensus is emerging around a core set of evaluative 'principles'
or criteria and I will discuss these more fully in the presentation:
inclusiveness allied to questions of representativeness; transparency;
open-ness; mutual respect; social learning; efficiency; efficacy;
and legitimacy. I will d r a w on our current research conducted under
the sponsorship of the medical research charity, the Wellcome Trust to
suggest how an explicit commitment to evaluation at each stage of the
research process, using the criteria above, influenced what we d i d ,
how we did it, and what effects it had.
The Deliberative Mapping
project
Deliberative Mapping is an innovative participatory technology assessment

methodology based on individual and group multi-criteria appraisals.
It sits alongside citizens' juries and consensus conferences in its aims
of promoting debate between experts, stakeholders and citizens from
a wide range of social groups. DM differs from juries and conferences
in that it facilitates quantitative and qualitative a p p r a i s a l , based in
both individual and group-based deliberations (see for a copy of the
final project r e p o r t ) . Both specialists a n d citizens completed the
appraisal process determining the relative performance of options
to close the ' g a p ' between the number of patients requiring kidney
transplant and the number of donors currently available - providing
a unique opportunity for comparative assessment of criteria selection
and option performance. All options are characterised by scientific and
technical uncertainties a n d / o r raise social, economic, cultural or ethical
difficulties. In this context, there is a particular value in approaches to
public engagement, which provide for effective integration and mutual
learning b e t w e e n d i f f e r e n t specialists, stakeholders a n d citizen
perspectives.
The criteria outlined above were used to design the Deliberative Mapping
process, guide its implementation, and assess its outputs and outcomes.
In the presentation, I will reflect critically on the lessons learned by the
research team, augmented by comments from the different participants
in the process; specialists who attended a project dissemination workshop

in June 2 0 0 3 ; a n d t w o e x t e r n a l assessors f o r t h e p r o j e c t .
In summary, the d e l i b e r a t i v e m a p p i n g a p p r o a c h does combine
inclusiveness and openness to divergent perspectives, specificity and
robustness in its policy implications, transparency and auditability for
third parties, and efficiency and added value for sponsoring policy
institutions. However, there are also important constraints and limitations
to be acknowledged. One key issue that arises in any appraisal process
whether d e l i b e r a t i v e or analytic concerns the d e g r e e to which
outcomes may be subject to invisible contingencies. The DM process
was designed both to minimise and provide a check on such factors.
However, this does not preclude the possibility that certain aspects of
the findings may be artefacts of the process. For instance, there is some
evidence that inter-personal encounters between specialists and citizens
at a Joint Workshop may have affected appraisals for certain options.
If a specialist was felt to be friendly, open and a p p r o a c h a b l e , some
of the citizens responded more positively to 'their' option in subsequent
discussion.
It also seems that the process of weighting of criteria for option appraisal
may actually be conducted by specialists in a rather different fashion
than is assumed in the theoretical f r a m e w o r k for decision analysis.
Reflecting other PTA research findings, there are also questions around
strategic behaviour in the assessment of the options a factor addressed
by the high auditability of the M C M procedure. Finally, although it
may be seen as efficient in relation to the a d d e d value of the outputs,
Deliberative Mapping is quite complex, time consuming and expensive.
It needs strong project management and high quality facilitation. This
places significant demands on sponsors, practitioners and participants
alike. Such investments of time, e f f o r t and resources are not possible
or a p p r o p r i a t e in every context and should not be undertaken lightly.
Our experience with Deliberative Mapping indicates that it is indeed
possible to take citizens and specialists through a very demanding and
complex process of option appraisal to arrive at a set of robust results
that may assist strategic transplantation policy decisions. The evaluative
criteria provided a theoretical framework within which our experiment
could be designed and assessed. Specific assumptions (and aspirations)
a b o u t the ' p r o p e r conduct' of institutions, policy-makers, sponsors,
practitioners and participants in PTA processes are e m b e d d e d in these
criteria. The Deliberative M a p p i n g project suggests that, for certain
actors, expectations of ' p r o p e r conduct' do indeed call that conduct
forth. So, for example, individual members of the public, do take on
the role of citizens concerned to articulate 'public reasons' in their
deliberations. If institutions and stakeholder interests are seen to be

behaving strategically in their own self interest in processes, and if
policy-makers continue merely to p a y lip-service to the outcomes, it is
uncertain that participatory science and technology assessment will be
able to maintain any claim to democratic legitimacy.
Quicksandy Knowledge Bases. The N e e d For Guidance For Dealing W i t h Uncertainty,

Assumptions And Value Commitments In Environmental Assessment
Jeroen P. van der S luijs
The k n o w l e d g e base a v a i l a b l e f o r decision-making on ( g l o b a l )

environmental problems is characterised by imperfect understanding
of the complex systems involved, assumption ladenness of the models
used to assess these systems, value-ladenness of many of these
assumptions, a n d scientific a n d societal controversies. For many
contemporary environmental issues, decisions will need to be m a d e
before conclusive scientific evidence is available while at the same time
the potential error costs of wrong decisions can be huge. The combination
of this societal context of k n o w l e d g e production and use and the
epistemologica! limitations of the assessment models used, implies an
urgent need for fully-fledged management of uncertainty and extended
peer review of underlying assumptions.
Since the eighties of the twentieth century computer models a r e
increasingly being used in complex environmental assessments: they
enable analysts to simulate reality and run several scenarios, thereby
i n t e g r a t i n g k n o w l e d g e f r o m d i f f e r e n t disciplines. The assumption
ladenness of the models themselves, the use of models a n d the
transparency of models have been criticised over the years. The building
of environmental assessment models inevitably involves subjective choices
and value-laden assumptions. Lack of transparency with r e g a r d to
these assumptions and uncertainties may lead to scandals and loss of
trust in the scientific basis for policies. A historic example is the scandal
of the MASA energy scenarios in the eighties: In a critical review of the
models used for these scenarios Keepin and Wynne (1 984) demonstrated
convincing evidence of 'informal guesswork' and a lack of peer review
and quality control, 'raising questions about political bias in scientific
analysis', l e a d i n g to a crisis within the institute. M o r e recently the
Netherlands National Institute for Public H ealth and the Environment
encountered a similar scandal: In 1 9 9 9 a senior statistician of RIVM
Hans de Kwaadsteniet, publicly accused the institute of lies and deceit
with studies based on the virtual reality of poorly v a l i d a t e d computer
models that were hardly based on measurements. This led to vehement
! C o p e r n i c u s Institute f o r S u s t a i n a b l e D e v e l o p m e n t a n d
. I n n o v a t i o n , Utrecht University. The N e t h e r l a n d s
j.p.vandersluijs@chem.uu.nl
societal d e b a t e about the use of models in environmental assessment

studies and the robustness of RIVM's environmental numbers, with prime
time media coverage over a period of several months and questions
in parliament.
The controversy ultimately gave rise to the development of a state of
the art Guidance for Uncertainty Assessment and Communication with
inputs from an international multidisciplinary team of uncertainty experts.
The g u i d a n c e o f f e r s assistance to employees of the N e t h e r l a n d s
Environmental Assessment A g e n c y ( R I V M / M N P ) in m a p p i n g a n d
communicating uncertainties in environmental assessments. It aims to
support dealing with uncertainties in a b r o a d sense (that is, b r o a d e r
than only a p p l y i n g r e a d y - m a d e tools for uncertainty analysis a n d
communication), for in all parts of environmental assessments choices
a r e m a d e which have a bearing on the w a y uncertainties a r e d e a l t
with. In the Guidance special attention is p a i d to the following phases
of environmental assessments:
problem f r a m i n g ;
involvement of stakeholders;
selection of indicators;
appraisal of knowledge base;
mapping and assessment of relevant uncertainties;
reporting of uncertainty information.
The core of the guidance is set up as a checklist that can be used by

competent practitioners as a (self) elicitation instrument or by project
managers as a guiding instrument in problem framing and project
design. The checklist builds further on the Checklist for Quality Assistance
in Environmental Modelling developed by Risbey et al., (2001 ) but is
w i d e r in its a p p l i c a b i l i t y by covering the b r o a d e r practices of
e n v i r o n m e n t a l assessment as p e r f o r m e d w i t h i n t h e R I V M .
The checklist helps i d e n t i f y i n g potential pitfalls in the process of
uncertainty management, related to each of the phases listed above.
It facilitates a diagnosis of uncertainties for the case at hand in view
of its societal context, function of the assessment, and the specific
natures, types and characteristics of the uncertainties and value loadings
involved. On the basis of that diagnosis step, the guidance structures
the generation of a prioritised list of the uncertainty types and sources
that need particular attention for the case at hand. The guidance also
contains a tool catalogue, describing for each tool its main purpose
and use, sorts and locations of uncertainty addressed, required resources,
strengths and limitations, guidance on its application, typical pitfalls,
and references to handbooks, user-guides, web resources, example
studies, experts and the like. The guidance then assists in matching the
specific characteristics of the case to the specific uncertainty assessment
methods available in the toolbox to address different types of uncertainty.
A directed effort to analyse and communicate uncertainty is usually
made in the last two phases mentioned. However, the choices and
judgements that a r e made in the other four parts a r e also of high
importance for ascertaining the most relevant uncertainties and for
communicating about them. The Guidance is intended to stimulate
reflection on choices, which are made in different parts of environmental
assessments. This can lead to more conscious, more transparent and
better-documented choices and as we would argue a better way
of dealing with uncertainties.
Similar to a patient information leaflet alerting the patient to risks and
unsuitable uses of a medicine, the guidance and its uncertainty assessment
tools enable the delivery of policy-relevant quantitative information
together with the essential warnings on its limitations and pitfalls. It
thereby promotes the responsible and effective use of the information
in policy processes.
W h y Knowledge Assessment?
Silvio Funtowicz
! Silvio Funtowicz, E C - J R C / I P S C - K A M , Italy.

, silvio.funtowicz@jrc.it
I
In most spheres of industrial and institutional activity, the formalization

of quality-assurance has become the norm. In academic science however,
along with cultural pursuits like the arts, the methods a r e still largely
informal. Science has been almost unique in having self-assessment
performed by practitioners rather than by external 'critics'. To what
extent and in what ways this must change, to keep pace with science's
e x p a n d i n g role in public life, is becoming an urgent question in the
governance of science.
As long as science remained mainly academic, problems of quality
w e r e assumed to be resolved by the very nature of the scientific
endeavour. The informal systems of checking by peers seemed a rational
response to the problem, rather than a culturally contingent mechanism
characteristic of a particular epoch.
Scientific facts were b e l i e v e d to be discovered by some i n f a l l i b l e
Method, and scientists were themselves viewed as being endowed with
certain superior moral qualities that protected them f r o m o r d i n a r y
human frailties. This latter could be e x p l a i n e d in sociological terms,
as in the 'four norms' of scientific practice e x p o u n d e d by Robert K.
M e r t o n in 1 9 4 2 , or philosophically, as in the committed attempts at
self-refutation supposed by Karl Popper to be normal scientific practice.
W i t h the onset of the industrialization of science after W o r l d W a r II,
the self-conscious study of science as a social activity, including the
methods of quality-assurance, became inevitable. G r o w t h in size,
c a p i t a l investment, scale, and social d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n within science,
created divisions between managers and research workers, as well as
between researchers and teachers in universities. A Gemeinschaft
(community) of scholars could no longer realistically be assumed.
Derek de Solla Price noticed in the early 60's that at the leading British
science reference library, only a minority of journals was ever requested.
The contents of the others could be inferred to have no interest, and

hence to be of very low scientific quality. This phenomenon is a reminder
that quality is a relational attribute. 'Fitness for purpose' depends on
whose purposes are dominant; not always perhaps those of a community
devoted to the advancement of learning, but possibly those scientists
working under constraints of 'publish or perish'.
This analysis provides a background for the current interest in trust as
an essential element of practice in science, in society and in their
interactions. The broader society has provided resources to the esoteric
activities of science because it trusts the scientific community to make
g o o d use of them. There has always been an undercurrent of distrust,
based on evidence either of pointless research or of malign applications.
Now that science is so deeply involved in technology and related policy
problems that crucially affect public health and welfare, the traditional
trust can no longer be assumed. It would a p p e a r to be necessary for
the principles and practices of accountability to be extended from the
institutions of political governance (as by representative democracy)
to those institutions, which g o v e r n science a n d its a p p l i c a t i o n s .
Q u a l i t y control in research science has become more difficult as the
relatively inflexible technical requirements of the t r a d i t i o n a l printing
process have been r e l a x e d .
There is no longer well-defined 'gateway' to publication through the

institutions that control reproduction of, and hence access to documents.
First through inexpensive photocopying and now through the Internet,
it has become easy for anyone to distribute scientific wares to an
unrestricted audience. In addition, the presence of the global media
tends to bypass the traditional processes of evaluation, which were
conducted personally among colleagues. Isolated scientific results
become media events. All those with an interest in the r e p o r t , as
consumers, politicians, regulators and the stock markets, become potential
stakeholders in the evaluation of the result. Thus science arguably has
become accountable to a drastically extended peer community in the
quality-assurance process. As we saw above, the criteria of quality
a p p l i e d by these heterogeneous actors need not be identical to those
of 'public knowledge' generated within tightly knit scientific networks.
W e have presupposed that science refers primarily to traditional basic
research. But among contemporary forms of scientific practice, curiositydriven research with no regard for applications has been increasingly
marginalized. A diversification has occurred, so that quality-assurance
must also be consider in such areas as mission-oriented and issue-driven
research, forensic science and the provision of scientific advice for
policy.
In addition, the products themselves and the media through which they
are diffused are increasingly diversified. For example, patents are
now a common outcome of a research process, and this form of intellectual
property is radically different from traditional published papers. Also,
results are reported in unpublished consultancy advice, gray literature
or kept confidential within institutions or even totally sealed under
lawyer-client confidentiality and legal settlement agreements. W i t h
traditional peer-review as the norm, the challenges of quality assurance
for these new products and processes a r e nearly unrecognizable.
A parallel diversification is now occurring in the types of knowledgeproduction that are accepted as legitimate. The democratization of
knowledge now extends beyond the juries who assess the quality of
technical evidence in courts, to include those who master previously
esoteric aspects of their predicament (e.g. illness, contamination, pollution,
oppression, discrimination, exploitation) through special-interest groups
or the Internet. In addition, claims of specialized or local knowledge
are present in even more diverse contexts, as among indigenous peoples,
and in systems of complementary or traditional medicine. These claims
are commanding increasing commercial and political support among
various publics, as well as gaining explicit recognition in numerous
international treaty regimes. As a result, a new conception of knowledge

appears to be emerging, based on a new disciplined awareness of
complexity, in which a plurality of legitimate perspectives is taken for
granted. Modern science, with its characteristic methodology and social
location, is part of this enriched whole. The criteria and tasks of quality
assurance now must explicitly involve additional values and interests,
even extending to ontological commitments of groups other than scientists.
This new configuration has been termed post-normal science and is the
basis of a new c o n c e p t i o n of k n o w l e d g e assessment.
Quality assurance can thus be seen as a core commitment of postnormal science, replacing truth as science's ultimate regulative principle.
Defined in terms of uncertainties and decision-stakes, quality assurance
encompasses public interest, citizen, and vernacular sciences. In a
period of domination by globalised corporate science, this e f f o r t to
make scientists accountable to interested groups presents a coherent
conceptual alternative for the survival of the 'public knowledge' tradition
of science. Collgial peer review is thereby transformed into review
by an "extended peer community".
Transparency, Openness And Participation In Science Policy Processes

Maria Eduarda Gonalves
I ISCTE - Instituto Superior d e Cincias d o T r a b a l h o

. e d a Empresa, U n i v e r s i d a d e d e Lisboa, P o r t u g a l .
. megoncal@netcabo.pt
At present, science finds itself, so to say, at a crossroad. On the one

hand, science is g r e a t l y respected as a source of information and
wealth, and as the provider of solutions for technical as well as social
problems. On the other h a n d , it is losing its aura of neutrality and
objectivity, and is perceived as a factor contributing to the "risk society".
knowledge necessary for public as well as private decision-making in

ways that guarantee its scientific soundness and democratic legitimacy.
To what extent is science-based decision-making responding to current
claims for new governance modes based on transparency, openness
and participation?
Governments a n d the European Union give high p r i o r i t y to the

encouragement of research and development, and innovation. This goal
has even been politically strengthened by the d e c l a r a t i o n of the
European Summit, in 2 0 0 0 , of Europe's ambition to become the most
competitive and dynamic w o r l d knowledge-based economy. However,
this design is proclaimed at a time when r a p i d and profound changes
p e r v a d e the social context of science and technology. These include
the g r o w i n g public awareness of risks d e r i v e d from industrial and
technological progress, together with an increasing high value assigned
to the environment and public health; changing attitudes towards science
and technology; and claims for more active participation by the public
in science-based decision making.
The initiatives launched recently by the EU, within the framework of its
science and technology policy, to address social resistance to technological
change provide a starting point for discussing new forms of governance
of science and innovation. In recent documents of the European Commission,
in particular the communication on 'Science, society and citizens in
Europe', and the first Science and Society action plan, while stressing
the need to stimulate and support popularisation of science activities,
the EC concedes that a two-way dialogue between science and society
is required 'where each listens as much as talks'. Science and Society. Action
Plan, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Commission, 2002.
The i m p o r t a n c e to p r o m o t e public d i a l o g u e a n d to " d e m o c r a t i s e
expertise" is acknowledged, whereby other sources of information and
knowledge such as ethical, e x p e r i e n t i a l , economic are considered as
relevant for decision-making.
As a consequence, European governments begun to realise that political

choices involving science n e e d w i d e s p r e a d social consultations.
Enlightenment concepts of science are giving way to new, more pluralist
approaches that demand not only the exercise of scientific expertise,
but also negotiation of the end results of its use.
In this connection, political theory elaborated the concept of governance
as distinct from the traditional concept of government. While government
involves formal institutions of a legislative, executive or judicial nature,
governance is in the hands of informal regulation mechanisms, consisting
of public institutions, i n d i v i d u a l s , c o m p a n i e s , n o n - g o v e r n m e n t a l
organisations and other groups in civil society, with co-operation and
co-ordination at various levels.
Hence a central question now is how to produce the information and
In p a r a l l e l , the institutions and procedures of risk regulation are being

reformed with a view to guarantee three main objectives:
the institutional independence from vested interests of e x p e r t risk

assessors and policy-makers; transparency of institutional processes;
and the representative and deliberative character of the procedures
to be a d o p t e d , which should involve explicit engagement of a broader
range of stakeholders.
One illustration of these developments is the adoption by the European
Parliament and the Council of Regulation (EC) No 1 7 8 / 2 0 0 2 of 28
January 2 0 0 2 laying down the general principles and requirements of
food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying
down procedures in matters of f o o d safety. An additional illustration
is offered by Directive 2001 / l 8/EC of 1 2 March 2001 on the deliberate
release into the environment of genetically m o d i f i e d organisms.
Regulation n 1 7 8 / 2 0 0 2 stipulates that in order to achieve the general
objective of a high level of protection of human health and life, f o o d
law shall be based on risk analysis and that risk assessment shall rely
on a v a i l a b l e scientific evidence and undertaken in an independent,
objective and transparent manner. Provisions are included on public
consultation and information in the process of p r e p a r i n g , evaluating
and revising food law. The functions of the recently created Food Safety
Authority are to provide scientific advice and scientific and technical
support to the Community, to monitor risks, and communicate them to
the public. Independence, transparency, confidentiality and communication
are laid down as basic principles of the FSA.
In turn, Directive 2 0 0 1 / 1 8/EC states that persons submitting a notification
for a d e l i b e r a t e release of G M O for market or other purposes are
obliged to carry out a prior environmental impact assessment. Public
consultation of the public and of interested groups is provided for as
part of the authorising procedure.
It comes out that food and environmental risk associated with industrial
production and t r a d e is being tackled by mechanisms and procedures
placed at the back-end of the innovation process, that is to say, once
the decision has been taken to develop a technology, or to place a
product into the market. The accent has been put on public control of
the products and their impacts on public health or the environment, and
the use of scientific advice by the regulatory system; rather than on
investment decisions, research and development choices, or the way
s c i e n t i f i c e x p e r t i s e is used a t t h e e n t r e p r e n e u r i a l l e v e l .
However, given the critical social climate surrounding the production
and uses of scientific and technological knowledge, one should recognise
that "the context of implication must be addressed, as well as the
context of application", and that "scientific knowledge must be not only
reliable but also socially robust" (Nowotny, Scott and Gibbons, 2 0 0 1 ,

240). W h a t is meant is that the consequences of knowledge and
innovation processes imply "consulting other knowledge producers and
users, and also wider social constituencies about the implications of
particular projects, in order to gather a diversity of perspectives". In
terms of science policy, one can draw from this suggestion the corollary
that there should be a deliberate strategy of scientific institutions to
identify and articulate the context of implication of their research
projects or activities. It has been admitted that doubts and disputes
arise in society especially where d e b a t e on those topics is couched
solely in terms health or environmental impacts, for example, excluding
other arguments such as e t h i c a l , consumer or economic ones.
Accordingly, a change is required in the culture of public as well as
private institutions that would lead to greater openness and dialogue
going beyond public education and market research to become a
"normal and integral process" of science-based decision-making.
Reference
Nowotny, Helga, Peter Scott and Michael Gibbons (2001 ), Re-thinking
Science. Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty, Cambridge,
Polity.
Linking Science, Policy And Local Governance: Moving Beyond 'Talk The Talk' Through
Community-based Research
Jennifer Bellamy
Creating institutions and practices to meet the challenge of sustainable

development and to be f l e x i b l e enough to be a d a p t i v e to change is
a r g u a b l y one of the more important challenges confronting society.
There is a long history of criticism however that many existing institutional
arrangements are set up to meet the needs of particular government
agencies or resource managers, rather than being d e v e l o p e d as
adaptive management frameworks for sustainable development. They
also often entrench inequities. Deficiencies often highlighted include:
o
A mismatch of the jurisdictions of political decision-making,
benefits, cost bearing and implementation;
o
Highly formalised and adversarial modes of decision-making;
o
Subordination of the public interest to a special interest;
o
Lack of c o o r d i n a t i o n across jurisdictions a n d ' s i l o - b a s e d '
approaches;
o
Poor r e l a t i o n s h i p s a m o n g l e v e l s o f
government;
o
Poor institutional structures within jurisdictions l e a d i n g to
'institutional inertia' with the f r a g m e n t a t i o n of responsibilities a n d
decision-making across multiple bodies;
o
Piecemeal approaches to problems that are often systemically
wrong; and
o
Unrealistic assumptions of predictability and a failure to use
science effectively.
In response to this criticism, new models of governance that devolve
decision-making to more collaborative governance frameworks a r e
emerging. While these innovations incorporate elements of best practice
in regional development and environmental governance, the rhetoric
behind these emerging governance systems is distinctively different in
several areas relating to:
o
Empowerment and legitimacy through meaningful and inclusive
participation of all those who a r e likely to be responsible for, or to
experience impacts from, decisions and actions;
o
Collaborative or consensual decision-making;
! CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, Brisbane, Australia.

, jenny.bellamy@csiro.au
o
Enhanced g e o g r a p h i c a l a n d inter a n d i n t r a - g o v e r n m e n t a l
coordination and cooperation;
o
A more holistic and integrated science that crosses traditional
knowledge boundaries;
o
Learning through a d a p t i v e management; and
o
Equity and fairness of process.
These emerging collaborative partnership approaches reflect the fact
that sustainable solutions rely on implementation frameworks that a r e
supported by long-term democratic authority, social cohesion, legitimacy
and accountability.
In the last decade, there has been a vast amount of 'talking' about the
merits of such collaborative frameworks for sustainable development.
But w h a t is the r e a l i t y ? Experience shows the d e v e l o p m e n t of
collaborative partnerships is often complex, dynamic and evolutionary
and not always successful. Although communities have developed plans
and strategies, there has been a disappointing lack of action arising
from all this 'talk'. Importantly, 'walking the walk' through implementing
actions arising from all the planning and strategising to change the
w a y we use and m a n a g e our resources, has proven difficult for the
individuals, institutions and communities involved.
Attributes of not only the existing governance arrangements but also
scientific cultures are major contributors to this failure..
As such, there is growing recognition of the need for new technical

solutions and community investment to achieve sustainable development.
This requires change in the institution and culture of science to one that
supports a more holistic and integrated science process, the creation
of a more civic science and the rethinking of the role of scientific
a d v o c a c y in the policy process. In particular, new c o l l a b o r a t i v e
governance models demand more participatory and discursive research
designs that:
o Promote democratic deliberation about the problems that civic
society a n d not only 'technical e x p e r t s ' see as i m p o r t a n t ;
o Give g r e a t e r status and respect to 'grass roots' or societal
knowledge;
o Foster d e l i b e r a t i o n a b o u t values, priorities and actions;
o Embrace new forms of knowledge and multiple sources of
information;
o Stimulate local innovation and emphasise principles and processes
r a t h e r than recipes a n d t e c h n o l o g i c a l p r e s c r i p t i o n s ; a n d
o Supports c o l l a b o r a t i v e learning and a d a p t i v e institutions.
Innovations through more deliberative and discursive approaches based
on collaborative partnerships between key stakeholders in government,
industry and community and adaptive learning approaches that support
the constant improvement in the knowledge base of all these stakeholders
offer an important new framework for dealing with the vast heterogeneity
of interests and social values in our society. In addition, they have the
potential for building local governance capacity to d e a l with the
complex, dynamic, interdependent and evolving sustainability issues of
our time; issues where the time horizons are long, where decisions are
complex, where the risks are high, uncertainty great and responsibilities
are fragmented across institutions and communities.
This p a p e r draws on recent experiences in collaborative research
partnerships for regional sustainable development to identify some key
challenges and opportunities for linking science, policy and local
governance through community-based research. These innovations are
engaging both public and private sector players and filling gaps
particularly where no one agency or body has jurisdiction. Importantly,
they provide a framework to move beyond "talking the talk" to "walking
the walk" through commitment to real implementation of management
actions in a strategic manner that shows potential for moving towards
more sustainable and equitable resource use and management outcomes.
Governance and Information and Communication Technologies in 2 0 1 0
Antnio S. C m a r a
Governance, at the European Union level, implies processes to set rules

and policies that ultimately affect the citizens of the member states.
Rapid advances in information and communication technologies a r e
having two major consequences on such processes: they are based on
internal information infrastructures; and the general public now demands
t h a t t h e y b e c o m e e x t e r n a l l y a v a i l a b l e on t h e I n t e r n e t .
By 201 0, the fourth generation of mobile communications will enable
personal multimedia communication using a 1 0 0 M b p s infrastructure
(the third generation is expected to offer 2 Mbps). Tele-presence will
become common. Processing speeds will enable realistic renderings of
virtual worlds. A network of wireless sensors (both remote and local)
will f e e d information infrastructures on topics such as security, traffic
and environment. Radio tags will replace bar codes to facilitate the
tracking of objects from Euro bills to vehicles.
The development of fourth generation infrastructures, wireless sensor
networks, and a radio tags based economy are huge challenges. There
a r e certainly dangers such as the creation of a European Big Brother.
But economic,environmental a n d security arguments will p r e v a i l .
Following these assumptions, one can anticipate the design of a system
supporting EU governance in 201 0 (let us call it EU1 0). EU1 0 may be
the first system to successfully bring together symbolic and real worlds.
The symbolic world will be a scientific, technological, legal and financial
knowledge base f e d by existing information acquisition systems (such
as those a l r e a d y existing and the sensor networks to be d e p l o y e d ) .
The real w o r l d will be represented by a virtual representation of the
EU that may reach a 5 0 cm resolution per pixel (Virtual EU). The Virtual
EU will be an interface to the k n o w l e d g e - b a s e d system: by pointing
to a place all relevant knowledge about that place will be retrieved.
The Virtual EU may be also used to visualize simulations at local,
I N e w University o f Lisbon, Lisbon, P o r t u g a l

, asc@mail.fct.unl.pt
regional, national and trans-national levels.

EU10 will support European Union internal work processes. It will also
be used for communication with EU citizens.
The system will be available for multiple platforms: extra-large screens
in decision theatres; d i g i t a l television sets; personal computers; and
mobile devices. The first t w o platforms will be increasingly used for
virtual meetings across Europe. By using the Virtual EU as an interface,
chatting and instant translation facilities such meetings will extend
principles already common in massive multiplayer games. Having grown
up playing such games, EU citizens will certainly a d o p t EU 1 0 in 201 0.
A Forward Look Into The "Knowledge Society" And Its Implications For Public Policies
Paraskevas Caracostas
"Information Society", "Knowledge Society", Cognitive Society", "New

Economy "...These notions which are included in the speeches of politicians,
journalists, spokesmen of enterprises and used by many institutions
(some of these notions have been around for thirty years and others
for about a decade) try to express the changes which occur in our
societies. Behind them, lies the fascination f o r i n f o r m a t i o n a n d
communication technologies (ICT) which have been developed over the
last thirty years and are expected to lead us to a new "information
society".
Beyond this technological determinism, which seems to ignore the
necessary co-evolution of techniques and of processes of social and
institutional change, the bursting of the ICT b u b b l e two years a g o
showed that the "new economy", marked by endless growth, turned out
to be a lure or rather a specific economic f e a t u r e of the American
economy.
More significantly, perhaps, the Enron case showed that the dream of
a society, in which information is p r o d u c e d and circulated in an
increasingly transparent and rapid way, crashed itself to pieces on the
wall of the crisis of financial capitalism. If the financial markets, known
for the transparency of the information on which they rely, becomes
opaque, if one no longer knows what the financial information publicly
p r o v i d e d actually means (despite- or rather owing to - auditors,
regulatory agency, etc), which t y p e of information can we then rely
upon? The information produced and diffused by the media at large?
By companies? by NGOs? By Governments? By Universities and Research
centres? In societies where various kinds and often contradictory
information are produced and diffused, where the Internet amplifies
the phenomenon by its "Webzines", how can one find his/her way if
over-information and over-communication actually results in an information
over-kill?
I Science a n d Technology Foresight, D i r e c t o r a t e K

, " K n o w l e d g e Economy a n d S o c i e t y " , D G RTD . EC, Paraskevas-Dimit.Caracostas@cec.eu.int
Does the concept of a "knowledge society" make a difference in the

context of intellectual confusion regarding the notions cited above?
Moreover, does it say something on how our societies will change?
If this involves a reduction to an empirical concept, demonstrating the
importance of a knowledge economy at the heart of our societies
(illustrated by indicators such R&D/GDP expenditure; number of research
workers in proportion of the working force, etc), the limits of this concept
should immediately be pointed out. Indeed, it is not because the share
of the knowledge economy (measured by traditional indicators) grows
in our economies (or some of them), that our societies are truly driven
by the imperative of knowledge. It may well be, for example, that the
imperative of profit making, the driver of the contemporary capitalist
societies, requires an h y p e r - c o m p e t i t i o n d r i v e n by a c c e l e r a t e d
differentiation and innovation, and thereby explaining the growing
importance of the sub-sector of the knowledge economy. The underlying
political-economic discourse shows the mismatch between the needs for
knowledge and competencies of companies and the knowledge supply
provided by universities and public research institutions. It testifies the
dominant and utilitarian design of the knowledge economy: in order
to renew itself advanced capitalist economies need to become "cognitive".
But there is p e r h a p s another w a y of a p p r o a c h i n g the concept of

"knowledge society": rather than only seeking in vain the signs of its
advent from a taking into account of the development of its economic
component and its often unrelated indicators (a pinch of R&D expenditure,
ICT expenditure, training expenditure, the proportion of "services",
etc.), this involves evaluating the prospective scope of it and to see
what would occur if we w e r e located in the " u t o p i a " of a society
centered on the production, the distribution, the sharing and use of
knowledge.
W h a t would be the characteristics of such a t y p e of society? W h a t
would be its relations to other contemporary notions and visions of how
our societies are changing?
The knowledge society could be a t y p e of society centered on the
production, acquisition and the dissemination of knowledge, learning,
in production, consumption, the social relations and citizen activity; this
t y p e succeeding the rural society, the urban-industrial society and the
u r b a n - t e r t i a r y society; a society where over more and more of its
components are involved in learning activities, its productive basis being
based on a b r o a d knowledge production sector.
W h a t would be the implications for public policies?
After the hypothesis of the emergence, at the end of the 1 990s, of a
third phase in the periodisation of the history of research and innovation
policies which coupled societal objectives with implementation approaches
focused on innovation in the broad sense after the phases articulating
the goal of national defence and the stress laid on fundamental research
(1 9 5 0 - 1 975) and the aim of industrial competitiveness and a focus on
key-technologies (1 975-1995) -, one can wonder about the consequences,
for public policies in a broader sense, of a society in which knowledge
is produced and is consumed in a decentralised w a y and where this
c o - p r o d u c t i o n - c o n s u m p t i o n c o n s t i t u t e s t h e d o m i n a n t sector.
The presentation and the accompanying p a p e r will attempt to address
these questions.
BREAKDUT S ES S IONS
_
-anise
session organiser
V Qt " " " ^ *
keynote speaker of the session

young researcher
Discussant-
other contributors to the session
Science, Sustainable Development and other Knowledges
Drganis
y
USS
Gilberto Gallopn
CEPAL, Chile. ggallopin@eclac.cl
Hebe Vessuri
Instituto Venezolano de Investigacin Cientfica, Venezuela.

hvessuri@supercable.net. ve
David Manuel Navarrete
Universidad Autnoma de Barcelona, Spain.

David.Manuel@campus.uab.es
Jacqueline de Chazal & Sandra Lavorel
CNRS, Universit Joseph Fourier, Grenoble, France.

acqueline.dechazal@ujf-grenoble.fr
Organiser
Articulating alternative k n o w l e d g e systems for sustainable development: the scientific challenge
By Gilberto Gallopn
Reaching a useful and usable understanding of the sustainability, dynamics, vulnerabilities, and resilience of the coupled socio-ecological systems
involved in sustainability issues will require a strong push to advance focused scientific research, including building up classical disciplinary
k n o w l e d g e from the natural and the social sciences, and an even stronger development of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research.
But the challenge goes beyond scientific knowledge itself; many discussions and consultations on the role and nature of S&T for sustainable
development emphasized the importance of incorporating knowledge generated endogenously in particular places and contexts of the w o r l d ,
including empirical knowledge, knowledge incorporated into technologies, into cultural traditions, etc.
Science for sustainable development creates historic opportunities to use inputs from other forms of knowledge, by exploring the practical, political
and epistemologica! value of t r a d i t i o n a l / l o c a l / e m p i r i c a l / i n d i g e n o u s knowledge; the incorporation of "lay experts" in the processes of public
decision-making and the research agenda makes good sense in terms of using the expertise that is available, even when it is found in unexpected
places.
W e lack, however, a comprehensive framework regarding the multiplicity of local knowledges that could be used as inputs for scientific research
and have thus f a r remained largely unknown to research systems as potential sources of innovation. The key knowledge generated by the lay
expert is often contextual, partial and localized, and has not been easy to translate or integrate into a more scientifically manageable conceptual
framework.
The participation of other social actors, in addition to S&T professionals, at the different phases of the scientific and technological research
process and in r e l a t e d decision-making, can be crucial for a number of reasons (ECLAC 2 0 0 2 ) : Ethical. The right of the sectors a f f e c t e d to
participate in decisions that have a bearing on their wellbeing (such as the installation of a nuclear or chemical plant in their area) is undeniable.
Political. It is essential to guarantee society's control over research and development outputs, particularly those that have an impact on health
and the environment. Pragmatic. In certain cases (e.g. new agricultural technologies, new health treatments), it can be especially important to
encourage the social groups who are the intended beneficiaries to have a sense of ownership over the scientific and technological knowledge.
For this it may be essential to engage these groups at the R&D phases in order to incorporate their interests and perceptions into the process.
Epistemologica!. The complex nature of the sustainable development problmatique, in which biogeophysical and social processes usually overlap,
often makes it necessary to consider the different perceptions and objectives of the social actors involved. Also, it is increasingly clear that it is
important to combine empirical knowledge built up by traditional farmers, other cultures and ethnic groups, with modern scientific and technical
knowledge (the constructive combination of diverse types of relevant knowledge).
The need to include other knowledges and perspectives in the S&T enterprise poses important methodological challenges to S&T for sustainable
development, as it requires the a d o p t i o n of criteria of truth and quality that are b r o a d e r than those accepted t o d a y by the S&T community,
y e t n o t less s o l i d a n d r i g o r o u s ( o t h e r w i s e , t h e r e l e v a n c e a n d c r e d i b i l i t y o f S&T c o u l d b e g r a v e l y
damaged).
To what degree, in which situations, what t y p e and in what form alternative knowledges will need to be incorporated into S&T for sustainable
development are open questions that need to be addressed.
Knowledge hybridization. Science and local knowledges in the search for sustainable development
By Hebe Vessuri
Sustainable development is possible and there are growing voices and initiatives addressed to building roads towards it. Science has been called
upon to transform itself in its core commitments so as to make it more conducive to foster sustainable development. Social scientists d i f f e r markedly
in their beliefs, especially on issues that touch on policy-which virtually all the questions surrounding development do. Science f o r sustainable
development is one of those controversial issues. For sociological analysis it is not a question of simply a d d i n g one more f i e l d of a p p l i c a t i o n
for science. Rather, it takes the shine off the conventional understanding of science, and explores it in terms of its epistemology, its ontology its
politics and the belief system in which it is e m b e d d e d .
In this p a p e r I d e a l with the p r o b l e m of the quality of knowledge, knowledge robustness in t o d a y ' s risk society. Science faces new challenges
t h a t f o r c e it t o t a k e into account other k n o w l e d g e systems a n d in so d o i n g revise its o w n s t a n d a r d s of e f f i c i e n c y a n d e f f i c a c y .
One point I raise is that the fruits of scientific research are nourished by many roots, including the earlier work of other scientists. The imagination
of scientists often draws also on another, quite different, "extra-scientific" t y p e of source. Such hints point to paths that historical scholarship on
science have e x p l o r e d reluctantly -tracing cultural/epistemic roots that may have helped shape scientific ideas in the first place. So far, there
have been comparatively few such investigations that encompass the wider, intellectual-cultural directions. The full understanding of any particular
scientific advance requires attention to both content and context. But the meaning of 'context' is much broader than what is conventionally accepted
in sociology of science, involving eventually other knowledges as well. All along its history, developments in Western or f o r m a l science have
created opportunities for inputs from indigenous, traditional, local, or alternative knowledges. Understanding of indigenous knowledge has been
relatively easy whenever it could be reduced to ' d a t a ' that was recorded and put into scientific language. In so doing the recognition and thus
t h e m e m o r y o f such c o n t r i b u t i o n a n d t h e b l e n d i n g p r o c e s s b y w h i c h it o c c u r r e d h a v e b e e n s y s t e m a t i c a l l y o b l i t e r a t e d .
A second point refers to the question of heterogeneity when the basic tenets of the science k n o w l e d g e system conflict or d i v e r g e m a r k e d l y
relatively to other knowledge systems in the confrontation with a given reality, and it is no longer possible for science to simply assimilate parts
of them, while there may be effective consequences from one or the other. Then Western science is challenged to deal with those other knowledge
as being well grounded on experience and recognize heterogeneity, a d d i n g to it by including further (?) (instead of 'other') ways of knowledge
production. Local (or indigenous) knowledge, in turn, is challenged to address its cognitive quality instead of seeking shelter in the cultural reserves
where a p p e a l i n g to political correctness corners it. The ensuing negotiation process may l e a d to recognition of profound differences between
knowledge systems, which is a l r e a d y an important step in realizing the possibility of mutual learning. The increasing hybridization and hybridity
of knowledge for sustainable development that can be envisaged would be an outcome of the interaction taking place in increasing fields of
science.
Yung
Systems of knowledge for the conservation of the M a y a Rainforest (Mexico and Guatemala)
By David Manuel
Navarrete
During the last decades, several conservation initiatives have come together in the M a y a Rainforest. These initiatives a r e f r a m e d according to
diverse systems of knowledge which have been produced in the North and e x p o r t e d to the South in a desperately attempt to save the remaining
tropical ecosystems. I classify these systems of k n o w l e d g e according to three categories: (1) N o r m a t i v e , (2) Pluralistic, a n d (3) C o l l a b o r a t i v e .
The criteria for this classification are based on: (a) the scientific disciplines involved in the initiative, (b) how ecological integrity is d e f i n e d and
c o n c e p t u a l i z e d , (c) the roles of science and society in the production of k n o w l e d g e a n d the i m p l e m e n t a t i o n of conservation initiatives.
The normative-based systems of knowledge include ethics, laws, conservation biology, and systems thinking;
ecological integrity is defined as an objective measurable concept. Science is the only legitimate knowledge production system, and management
and laws enforcement are the preferred means for implementing conservation. The Pluralistic-based systems of knowledge combine social sciences,
conservation ecology, and complex systems synthesis. Ecological integrity needs to be negotiated among stakeholders through formal process
of participation in which scientific narratives a r e the main input. These narratives may incorporate scientific knowledge produced locally or
traditionally. The collaborative-based systems of knowledge include natural, social sciences, and humanities, but also non-scientific systems of
knowledge. Here, different cultures and individual's experiences have equal legitimacy in the production of knowledge. However, collaborative
learning is needed to produce collective knowledge, which is useful for ecological integrity.
The three categories are used for assessing and interpreting conservation strategies in the M a y a Rainforest. The creation of Natural Parks, areas
of strict protection within biosphere reserves, and regional schemes for enhancing ecological connectivity belong to the normative category. The
pluralistic c a t e g o r y includes initiatives in which the participation of stakeholders in the management of the forest is emphasized. For instance,
the establishment of community-based forestry concessions in the multiple use zone of the M a y a Biosphere Reserve. Collaborative initiatives
include those cases in which conservation is initiated and designed by local people according to their endogenously produced knowledge, but
in collaboration with scientific knowledge.
The conservation outcomes of each strategy d e p e n d on their structural coupling with local and g l o b a l socio-ecological and cultural contexts.
The initiatives themselves relate to each other either as competing, or complementary strategies. They also interact with other frameworks of
knowledge that generate non-conservation strategies. For example, strategies of economic growth based on neoclassical economics (e.g. Plan
Puebla-Panama), or strategies of political/cultural emancipation based on M a y a cosmologies (e.g. Zapatista movement). The interactions and
accommodations among the diverse knowledge systems behind those strategies are discussed and assessed in terms of their conservation outcomes.
Preliminary findings suggest that conservation strategies will fail in the long term in the M a y a rainforest unless they complement each other, and
p a y f u r t h e r a t t e n t i o n to t h e u n e q u a l d i s t r i b u t i o n of p o w e r a n d resources b o t h a t the n a t i o n a l a n d the i n t e r n a t i o n a l levels.
D iscussant
Whose VISTA and w h y : identifying beneficiaries and evaluating their perceptions of land use change in European Traditional Agricultural
Landscapes
By Jacqueline de Chaza! & Sandra Lavarei
The VISTA project (Vulnerability of Ecosystem Services to Land Use Change in Traditional Agricultural Landscapes) aims to identify beneficiaries
(stakeholders) and their associated 'ecosystem services', as well as evaluate their perceptions of prospective land use changes in 'traditional'
agro-pastoral landscapes of less productive regions of Europe. These landscapes are undergoing major land use change as a result of recent
r a p i d technological, economic and social changes. An overall reduction in agricultural land through 'abandonment' a n d / o r changes in intensity
and t y p e of use have transformed landscapes from mosaics of a range of land use intensities to mosaics where large a b a n d o n e d areas are
contrasted with foci of intensive use. The project uses Plant Functional Traits (PFTs) to describe prospective ecosystem change over the next 100
years, under four of the IPCC SRES climate change scenarios. This is achieved using field studies, landscape modelling, and agent based modelling.
The study uses 1 1 sites across Europe including France, United Kingdom, Germany, Sweden, Portugal, Greece, Norway, Czech Republic and
Israel.
VISTA builds on the 'vulnerability' concept (e.g. Kasperson et al. 2 0 0 1 ; McCarthy et al. 2 0 0 1 ) where vulnerability is understood as being a
function of 'exposure', 'sensitivity' and ' a d a p t i v e capacity'. Exposure and a d a p t i v e capacity are represented in terms of prospective changes
in land use under the four scenarios, using agent based modelling. Sensitivity is represented by changes in selected ecosystem services as a
response to the scenarios, using PFTs as measures of ecosystem change. W e introduce an additional concept, 'acceptability' to represent identified
beneficiaries' judgements about changes in selected ecosystem services under the four scenarios.
W e define vulnerability as the comparison of the collective d e g r e e of acceptability of change in the full set of ecosystem services, as a response
to exposure, by all beneficiaries.
A combination of 'guided conversations' with residents and non-residents of the study sites (e.g. farmers, hunters, national p a r k managers, tourists,
hikers, skiers, restaurant owners, hotel staff, artists) together with a questionnaire a r e being used to identify beneficiaries and their respective
'ecosystem services'. The emphasis is on trying to articulate the range of ways p e o p l e value the landscape. This articulation is both in terms of
what landscape components p e o p l e focus on a n d how they value these components. W h o might represent a ' b e n e f i c i a r y ' a n d w h a t might
represent an 'ecosystem service' is open for novel discovery.
The use of participative group meetings and workshops to evaluate 'acceptability' under the four scenarios by beneficiaries a r e planned. How
the ecological information will be presented, and the form these meetings will take is still to be finalised. Initial ideas a r e to use a combination
of maps, virtual aerial photographs and possibly artists' impressions showing changes in identified 'ecosystem services', in the language of local
beneficiaries. Forms this information might take a r e land use (e.g. forestry, agriculture, conservation parks), management goals (e.g. livestock
rearing, skiing, hiking) or landscape elements (e.g. mountains, forests, wildflowers). Some further ideas on this planned a p p r o a c h will be presented.
Snails, Sex And Science: Communicating Values, Facts And Interests Between Scientists
And Stakeholders
Managing Uncertainty, Complexity And Value Commitments
David G e e
European Environmental Agency, Denmark. david.gee@eea.eu.int
ynte
Cato ten Hallers-Tjabbes
Netherlands Institute for Sea Research, and CaTO Marine Ecosystems,

The Netherlands, cato@nioz.nl
aung
Sofia Guedes Vaz
Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Portugal and University of East Anglia,

UK. sofiagvaz@hotmail.com
Lucilla Gregoretti
Universit' Degli Studi Di Milano, Italy, Il 4366@libero.it
Johannes Kern
Kern & Uttenweiler. Gmbh International Consultancy for Organic

Farming, Meckesheim, Germany, kernu@t-online.de
Discussant
anis
The Tributyltin (TBT) story 1 8 7 0 - 2 0 0 0 : When Small w a s Sexually Powerful
By David Gee
TBT is "the best example of endocrine disruption in invertebrates that is causally linked to an environmental pollutant" Vos et al (2000). However,
despite the early warnings about imposex in marine snails in the early 1 970s it took three decades before a global ban on TBT in marine paints
was a g r e e d , with effect from 2 0 0 8 : and organotin additives are still used in consumer products. The story of TBT has provided several scientific
surprises, such as its ability to d a m a g e the health of wildlife at parts per trillion concentrations and the importance of the marine micro-layer
for accumulating TBT. This period also saw the replacement of the assimilation p a r a d i g m by the precautionary principle within the policy making
bodies on marine pollution. This meant that it was important to overturn conventional wisdoms within the scientific, policymaking and stakeholder
circles v i a c l e a r , consistent
a n d p e r s i s t e n t c o m m u n i c a t i o n o f t h e results of s c i e n t i f i c r e s e a r c h on TBT to non-scientists.
This workshop will review the history of the TBT story (David Gee) and of the efforts made to communicate across the cultural differences within
the EU and across to Asian countries in order to win the political support for the global TBT ban and its implementation (Cato ten Hallers-Tjabbes,
2 0 0 2 ) . The importance of long term monitoring for the generation of the early warnings on TBT, and other issues, will be illustrated, (Sofia Vaz).
Key questions to be addressed will be:
1 ) How can scientists best engage in the two w a y communication of their research results to policymakers and the public without compromising
their independence?
2) W h a t is the a p p r o p r i a t e balance between generating false negatives and false positives in the environmental & health sciences so as to
deliver optimum overall welfare, whilst recognising the different goals of g o o d science and sound public policymaking?
3) How can short term political and economic interests be overcome by longer term societal interests in order to promote both more long term
monitoring and "speedier" action on e a r l y warnings, under democratic political institutions?
References
C a t o C ten Hallers-Tjabbes ( 2 0 0 2 ) . "Science Communication and Precautionary Policy: A marine case study", in Environmental Science and
Preventive Public Policy" Ed. Joel Tinkner, Island Press, Washington 2 0 0 2 .
Vos et al (2000). "Health effects of endocrine disrupting substances on wildlife, with special reference to the European situation", Critical Reviews
in Toxicology, Vol 3 0 , No 1, p71 -1 3 3 . Cited in "Tributyltin(TBT) antifoulants: a tale of ships, snails and imposex", eh in "Late lessons from Early
warnings: the Precautionary Principle 1 8 9 6 - 2 0 0 0 " , EEA 2 0 0 1 .
Maritime shipping and the environment. The potential of science and scientists to assist in policy planning for the environment and in
raising public awareness
By Cato C. ten Hallers-Tjabbes
Science has often p l a y e d a major role in political decision processes, although much of the communication between scientists and policy makers
has been limited to the scientists passing on scientific findings, leaving interpretation and judgement on relevance to policy processes for decision
makers to decide.
Between 1991 and 2 0 0 1 we e x p l o r e d how, in a precautionary framework, scientists can step beyond their mode of perceiving the world and
become more effective in bringing their science f o r w a r d to policy makers and interested public whilst taking into account the intrinsic logistics
of policy processes. W e d i d so on a specific ship-related environmental problem with the intent to assist in rendering environmental policies more
effective and mplementable. This d e c a d e of science-policy interaction is now underlying our efforts to use what we learned in a wider context
and in view of precautionary policy processes.
By focusing on a specific marine environmental case study, we went from the first scientific signals of environmental harm in the target environment
to a g l o b a l decision process that has since resulted in a m a n d a t o r y instrument f o r implementing a n d enforcing control regulations.
While
concern
had
been
present
for
many
years,
science
acted
as
rationale
for
stimulating
decision
processes.
Whilst our science acted as a guidance for policy decisions the characteristics and requirements of the relevant decision process in its turn pointed
the way to further relevant investigations, the findings of which then o f f e r e d strategic support to the g l o b a l decision process and its potential
to be implemented.
The case study, the impact of tributyltin (TBT, an antifouling agent) from offshore shipping in the marine environment went through a target policy
process, the world wide decision trajectory within the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and its Marine Environment Protection Committee
(MEPC). The policy process has since resulted in the IMO Antifouling Convention (October 2 0 0 1 )
The independent scientists who initiated and maintained the process communicated their scientific approaches and findings in a fashion appropriate
to the global decision processes for this issue, whilst being mindful of the context. They participated in the d e b a t e with policy makers and the
public and stimulated mutual understanding between scientists and policy makers.
W e will exemplify why we choose this approach, what we d i d , how we did it and why and how the different steps have been fruitful in helping
the process along. W e then will explain how we embarked to employ our concepts in another marine environmental issue, invasions form alien
organisms from ballast water from ships. The decision-making trajectory for this issue within IMO is similar to that for antifouling, although the
environmental problem is essentially different and f a r more complex. In the policy-science interface common denominators and new challenges
emerged.
Long-term: thinking, monitoring, communicating and cooperating

By Sofia Guedes Vaz
W e live in a short-term society, period and culture. It is politically correct to talk about long term, but in the end, it does not fit in our mind frame,
and especially not in the political frame. Only within the science frame it does not only make sense, but is often a fundamental dimension of it.
But because it makes sense scientifically, it is even so obvious for example to do a long term monitoring of an environmental potential problem,
that it does not cross our minds that it wont make sense in other dimensions. And consequentially that it is not enough for doing it. It has to make
sense in all spheres, the scientific, the social, the economic, the political and even the individual. It is a challenge, requiring hard thinking and
long term thinking to get to a compromise of different time scales within these different worlds. And then again, long term monitoring is neither
enough. In these new times of participation and dmocratisation of science, other attributes must be worked out properly, namely communicating
and cooperating. Which then again also need to be considered in an a p p r o p r i a t e d time scale.
The TBT case study provides a fairly g o o d example of the advantages of good understanding on how to overcome some problems of potential
conflicting worlds.
The main point of discussion would be what does the scientific world wins (and looses) in opening itself, in democratising itself. Because, looking
back, long term monitoring, as obvious as it might be, has been seldom properly performed, especially on the environmental field. W i l l longterm communication and long-term cooperation improve solving the different needs of different worlds? Can our minds shift into long-term
thinking?
Risk management and food safety, learning from the Nitrofen case
By Lucilla Gregoretti & Johannes Kern
Regulation 1 7 8 / 2 0 0 2 / C E of the European Parliament and of the Council establishes the EFSA (European Food Safety Authority). The authority
shall provide scientific advice and scientific and technical support for the Community's legislation and policies in all the fields that have a direct
or indirect impact on f o o d and f e e d safety. It shall provide independent information on all matters within these fields and communicate on risks
(art.22). The Authority is supported by eight scientific Panels composed by high level and independent scientific experts (art.28). To enable it
to perform its task the Authority shall be the recipient of any message f o r w a r d e d via the r a p i d alert system (art.35). The RASFF (Rapid Alert
System for Food and Feed) is o p e r a t e d by the European Commission to r a p i d l y inform Member States about problems or risks concerning f o o d
which does not meet f o o d safety requirements or which is improperly labelled to pose a risk to consumers. It exists since 1 9 7 8 . The legal basis
u n d e r w h i c h it o p e r a t e s is D i r e c t i v e o f t h e C o u n c i l 9 2 / 5 9 / C E E in its a r t . 8 a n d R e g u l a t i o n 1 7 8 / 2 0 0 2 / C E in its a r t . 3 5 .
The system was established to guarantee communication between Member States, the Commission, and the RASFF service. The Commission works
in deep collaboration with the Member States by the w a y of the Scientific Committee and the Scientific Panels. There is a flow of communication
at the institutional level within the European Union, but there is still a lack of immediately understandable communication directed to the public.
The transmission of information regarding a risk starts with an information by the Member State. Then the RASFF service assesses the information
and divides it following different risk categories in Alert, News or Information. Then the notification is transmitted via Circa, E-mail to the Member
State that gives an eventual f e e d b a c k to the RASFF. The Commission is publishing every week a resume of all the notifications of the week on
the SANCO site. The weak point is that the public and even professional public is not informed of what the notifications means in terms of risk.
The public knows the risk mostly by what media shows. M e d i a a r e not involved in institutional communication systems on f o o d emergency and
not take in the correct account of the Precautionary Principle. The Precautionary Principle is a powerful instrument for risk management but is
susceptible in his essence to manipulation. The application of the Precautionary Principle and the communication of its application may drive to
an enormous manipulation on policy consensus. To manipulate consensus in a multifactorial context always means to create confusion and to lower
the threshold of risk acceptability. That may finally result in the idea that the Precautionary Principle application may have devasting consequences
like refraining technological development, refrain trading, inhibit economic growth and at the end amplify the exposure of the people to a higher
risk level (Morris, 2 0 0 2 ) .
The Nitrofen Scandal, during which the RASFF was used excessively by the German authorities (49 notifications), teached us how public investments
and political goals could be negatively affected by running suboptimal f o o d - and f e e d safety networks in the EU. It was an unpleasant example
about communication problems, regulatory deficiencies, and monitoring deficiencies in the network related to f o o d - and f e e d safety in Organic
Farming (DG SANCO, 2 0 0 2 , 1999). It demonstrated also deficiencies in the communication about the Precautionary Principle to the European
Citizens and especially to the consumers of organic products.
The Precautionary Principle should be a p p l i e d in the case of f o o d safety. The risk identification and assessment is of fundamental importance
for risk treatment. In the phase of risk identification and subsequent risk treatment, the Precautionary Principle should be employed taking in
consideration that the focus of the whole process is to guarantee public health.
1 ) D G SANCO, Inspection Report 8 6 8 6 / 2 0 0 2 in Germany - Nitrofen
2) D G SANCO, MR Final 1101 / 9 9 , Report on a mission carried out in Germany from 11 to 1 5 October 1 9 9 9 in the f i e l d of application of
Council Regulation (EEC) 2 0 9 2 / 9 1 on organic farming in Germany
3) Direttiva del Consiglio 9 2 / 5 9 / C E E del 2 9 giugno 1 9 9 2 sulla sicurezza generale dei prodotti GUCE L 2 2 8 1 1.8.1 9 9 2
4) Morris J. "The relationship between risk analysis and the precautionary principle" Toxicology 1 8 1 - 1 8 2 : 1 2 7 - 3 0 2 0 0 2 . ( C O M 2 0 0 0 / 4 3 8
Final)
5) Regolamento (EC) N 1 7 8 / 2 0 0 2 del Parlamento Europeo e del Consiglio del 28 Gennaio 2 0 0 2 che stabilisce i principi generali dellalegislazione
sugli alimenti, costituendo l'autorit europea della Sicurezza Alimentare a stabilendo procedure in materia di sicurezza alimentare GUCE L31
1.2.2000
6) Kommission schlgt neue Lebens- und Futtermittel-kontrollen vor mit mehr Biss, DN: I P / 0 3 / 1 8 2 ; Brssel, 5. Februar 2 0 0 3
Uncertainty, Assumptions, And Value Commitments In The Knowledge Base O f Complex

Environmental Problems
Managing Uncertainty, Complexity And Value Commitments
Organiser
Keynote
Yaun
Jeroen Van Der Sluijs
Copernicus Institute, Utrecht University, The Netherlands.

j.p.vandersluijs@chem.uu.nl
Naomi Oreskes
Department of H istory and Program in Science Studies, University of

California, San Diego, USA. noreskes@ucsd.edu
Barbara Regeer
Institute for Innovation and Transdisciplinary Research, Faculty of

Earth and life sciences, Free University Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
barbara.regeer@falw.vu.nl
Towards multi dimensional uncertainty assessment

By Jeroen Van Der Sluijs
The knowledge base a v a i l a b l e for decision-making on sustainability issues is characterised by imperfect understanding of the complex systems
involved, assumption ladenness of the models used to assess these systems, value-ladenness of assumptions, and scientific and societal controversies.
Decisions will need to be made before conclusive scientific evidence is available, while at the same time the potential costs of wrong decisions
can be huge. The combination of this societal context of knowledge production and use and the epistemologica! limitations of the assessment
models used, implies an urgent need for f u l l y - f l e d g e d management of uncertainty and extended peer review of underlying assumptions.
The interdisciplinary nature of science for sustainability poses additional requirements with r e g a r d to the systematic analysis, documentation
and communication of uncertainty, in order to remedy the well known problem that when quantitative information is produced in one disciplinary
context and used in another, important caveats tend to be i g n o r e d , uncertainties compressed and numbers used at face value (c.f W y n n e ; Van
der Sluijs et al.).
In recent years, an increasing body of conceptual and theoretical work in the f i e l d of uncertainty management has been accomplished. Key
insights from the f i e l d include:
Uncertainty is p a r t l y socially constructed and its assessment always involves subjective judgement;
M o r e research does not necessarily reduce uncertainty, it o f t e n reveals unforeseen complexities a n d i r r e d u c i b l e u n c e r t a i n t y ;
High quality low uncertainty;
Uncertainty is a multi-dimensional concept involving quantitative (technical: inexactness) and qualitative (methodological: unreliability,
epistemologica!: ignorance and societal: limited social robustness) dimensions and it can manifest itself at different locations (context, indicator
choice, model structure, parameters and d a t a ) ;
In problems that a r e characterized by high systems uncertainties, knowledge gaps, and high decision stakes, qualitative dimensions of
uncertainty may well dominate the quantitative dimensions;
All models used in environmental assessment are assumption l a d e n ; many of these assumptions are value-laden and assumptions remain
largely hidden to the users of model results. There is an urgent need for e x t e n d e d peer review of model assumptions and for diagnostic tools
that e n a b l e a critical a p p r a i s a l of the knowledge base and its assumptions and that promote critical self-awareness for those who produce,
use and a r e a f f e c t e d by policy-relevant knowledge of their engagement with that knowledge.
Most of present d a y uncertainty methodologies and practices focus on quantitative uncertainty in model parameters and input d a t a
only. Methods to address qualitative dimensions of uncertainty a r e absent or in its early stage of development. Uncertainty in model structure,
model assumptions, and model context is largely i g n o r e d .
It is now widely held by scientists and policy makers that uncertainty management is essential. But there is little appreciation for the fact that
there are many different dimensions of uncertainty, and there is a lack of understanding about their different characteristics and relative
importance. Well-established methods exist to address quantitative dimensions of uncertainty, but tools for systematic assessment of the qualitative
dimensions and for identification and review of critical assumptions and value ladenness, are in its e a r l y stage of development.
The session will review state of the art of multi-disciplinary, multi-dimensional practice of uncertainty assessment. It will identify the major challenges
and barriers to be overcome in order to arrive at fully f l e d g e d uncertainty management. Such a system should enable providers and users of
knowledge on sustainability issues to be clear and transparent about the various uncertainties, critical assumptions and strengths and weaknesses
of the underlying knowledge base and will provide guidance for better communication about uncertainties and valueadenness. In doing so it
will promote criticism of the knowledge base for precautionary policy making by clients and users of all sorts, both e x p e r t and lay, and will
thereby support extended peer-review processes.
eynete
Decision-making under uncertainty: Is there any other kind?
By Naomi Oreskes
At the interface of science and public policy, it has become increasingly fashionable to talk about the dilemma of decision-making under
uncertainty.E But is there any other kind of decision-making?E All decisions are choices with at least partially uncertain outcomes.E Depending
on the potential outcomes, it may be reasonable to attempt to obtain more information before making a choice, or it may be reasonable to
attempt to make a choice before (or while) obtaining more information.E However, the idea that science could provide the basis for a definitive
policy choice is based on a misapprehension of the nature of both the scientific process and the knowledge it produces: the former never achieves
complete consensus and the latter never achieves complete certainty.E Perhaps a better way to think about the question is to develop a more
refined taxonomy of the science involved in public policy. A preliminary effort toward that end would distinguish at least the following categories:
1 ) science that is widely contested by parties within the scientific community; 2) science that is generally accepted within the scientific community,
with rare dissenters; 3) science that is contested by parties outside the scientific community, and 4) science that is generally acknowledged as
empirically or theoretically incomplete.
Yung
Knowledge and Values in Transdisciplinary Research
By Barbara Regeer
Increasingly, it is recognized that a sustainable society cannot be realised with straight-forward measures, laws, scientific or technological
innovations. More fundamental changes are required, recognizing the complex and interwoven nature of various societal subsystems. A mode-ll
society is emerging (Nowotny, 2001) with accompanying modes of knowledge production for problem solving and new modes of government.
In a diverse, fragmented society in which no sovereign actor exists, influencing strategies become increasingly complex and ambiguous. This
requires fundamental changes in both problem definition and the approach to problem solving by all relevant actors; notably local and central
government, corporations, NGOs and scientists.
New strategies are being explored, such as transdisciplinary research, in which social and natural scientists work together with social partners
to create new solutions, and interactive policy making in which policy makers actively involve citizens and NGOs to co-create and implement
solutions. Interactive policy making aims to include the interests of all relevant stakeholders and participative research (eg. extended peer-review
processes) aims to involve all relevant expertise, including experience-based expertise. In practice however it is hard to distinguish between
interests and expertise, between representation and participation, between stakeholders and experts. In this paper a theoretical distinction
between interests and expertise will be developed. Moreover, it will be argued that in order to raise the quality of complex problem solving
processes, methods need to be developed and implemented that go beyond representation of interests, by valuing expertise and creative
problem solving in stead.
In this presentation the case of Real Prosperity will be analysed. Originating from the main Dutch NGOs (environment, unions, care, international
development, nature, etc.) Real Prosperity is a growing network of people from government, corporations and NGOs who jointly develop solutions
to a sustainable society. Real Prosperity may be described as a systemic instrument for sustainable innovations, containing components of interface
management, by connecting people, organisations and initiatives in order to share knowledge, inspire each other and form new coalitions. The
aim of Real Prosperity is to influence the social climate, in which decisions and trade-offs are made at all levels, in favour of sustainable
development.
The strategy used is t w o f o l d : (1 ) to connect personal values to social issues around propserity and sustainability, and (2) to connect p e o p l e ,
organisations and initiatives in a growing network. The Real Prosperity method may thus be called a value-based network strategy. The transition
from a t o p - d o w n campaign by interest groups in 2 0 0 0 (Real Prosperity!) to a bottom-up network of all parties in 2 0 0 3 (real prosperity?) will
be described, with a specific focus on conditions and tools for value articulation and their effects on knowledge development and problem solving.
Creating Ears for Inclusive Policy
Knowledge Assessment
SEP
Dung
cussant
EC - JRC - IPSC, Italy, angela.pereira@rc.it
Frank Raes
EC - JRC - IES, Italy, frank.raes@jrc.it
Merc Agera Cabo
EC - JRC - IPSC, Italy, merce.aguera-cabo@jrc.it
Matthieu Craye
EC - JRC - IPSC, Italy, matthieu.craye@jrc.it
Javier Lezaun & Robert Doubleday
Department of Geography, University College London, UK.

jll81@cornell.edu
Sylvia S. Tognetti
Independent Consultant. USA. sst@sylviatognetti.org
Francesco Mazzeo Rinaldi
Universit di Catania, Department of Sociology,

taly. fmazzeo@unict.it
Institutional Divide: Are They Ready To Listen To Citizenry?

By Angela Guimare s Pe re ira
Inclusive policy making, extending decision making processes, accountability and related terminology have become common today. This implies,
on one h a n d , organised forms of d i a l o g u e across the society a n d , on the other h a n d , a c a p a c i t y of response from the relevant institutions in
o r d e r to accommodate the outcomes of such inclusionary processes. I deally, those outcomes should be incorporated into policy and decision
making activities. Twenty years w e r e required to evolve from the first legislation provisions to inform the public to the actual involvement of
citizens in extended governance processes (De Marchi et al. 2 0 0 1 ). I n the European Union legislation there has been a conceptual re-definition,
and consequent change in regulation, about the nature of such involvement from the right to be informed, to the right to participate. Yet, we
still (and often) see practices (perhaps to accommodate particular agendas and interests) that do not correspond to the intended governance
objectives.
There has been in the recent years, much work devoted to the exploration of the conditions for an effective participation. Efforts have concentrated
on the interfaces between knowledge communication and mediation (for instance, the development of TI DDDs, see Corral Quintana et. A l , 2 0 0 2 ) ,
on the a p p r o p r i a t e ways for establishing dialogues, on the formats of outcomes, etc. Now the issue is no longer the creation of the space, platform
or f o r a , but to assess whether the outcomes of such endeavours a r e effectively i n c o r p o r a t e d in the policy and decision making processes.
The creation of interfaces to incorporate the outcomes of the involvement of citizens or societal actors is an essential step to attain e x t e n d e d
processes. Contexts for the co-production of knowledge have to be organised and are strongly dependent on institutional arrangements. Creating
ears f o r p o l i c y m a k i n g r e q u i r e s a p p r o p r i a t e institutional a r r a n g e m e n t s t o ensure t h a t the processes a r e inclusive a n d l e g i t i m a t e .
The extension of policy dialogues relates directly to the setting of agendas, the creation (organisation) of a p p r o p r i a t e spaces and the willingness
to promote knowledge partnerships. W h a t is the shape of institutional frameworks encouraging such partnerships is yet another subject of further
research.
Points of discussion
o Organising a participatory process is not only the organisation of the venue or the recruitment of participants; it is also to ensure
that the institutions will use the outcomes; this is not only about the format of the outcome but also about the structure that is able to accommodate
inputs other than expert. W h a t challenges are there for the institutions (timings, competences, etc.)?
o I nvolvement as it is viewed t o d a y is not a legitimacy exercise; so at which stage of the processes should involvement start? W h a t
articulation efforts are needed?
O W h o sets the legitimacy for those that are involved?
o I nstitutions a r e used to d e a l with e x p e r t knowledge, there a r e protocols for that. The assessment of that knowledge follows known
procedures of peer review (usually)... But who assesses the quality of non-experts? A r e institutions dealing with that at all?
o Ultimately, a r e institutions really interested in this form of extended democracy? O r is this just a (sham) w a y out for trust crisis?
o And actually what a r e the dangers of the whole thing become a sham if "ears" are not created...?
References
De Marchi . Funtowicz, S. Guimares Pereira, A. ( 2 0 0 1 a ) From the Right to Be I nformed to the Right to Participate: Responding to the Evolution
of the European Legislation with I CT. Inte rnational Journal of Environme nt and Pollution, 1 5(1 ), 1 - 2 1 .
Corral Quintana, S. Funtowicz, S. & Guimares Pereira, A. ( 2 0 0 2 a ) . GOUVERNe: New trends in decision support for groundwater governance
issues. I n Proceedings of Policie s and Tools for Sustainable Wate r Manage me nt in the EU. Venice, 21 - 2 3 November 2 0 0 2 .
Looking at policy making from the scientists perspective: the case of air pollution research a n d policy
By Frank Raes
W e will briefly sketch a history of the relationship between scientific research a n d the development of European policies to a b a t e transboundary
air pollution (acid rain, photochemical smog, ozone). From this an analysis is m a d e of the lansdscape of European atmospheric research. W e
conclude that this landscape is very compartimentalised, which hampers an effective communication b e t w e e n research, policymakers a n d the
public in general. This analysis has l e a d to the definition of the FP6 N e t w o r k of Eccellence ACCENT, which has been a p p r o v e d . ACCENT will
work againstcompartimentalization establishing concrete means of communications among the scientists and b e t w e e n scientists a n d "the ouside
w o r l d " . So f a r the ACCENT plans for increasing communication have been d e v e l o p e d by the scientists with very little interaction with policy makers
and the public. Some reasons for this will be discussed.
'aung
Gender Approach To Environmental Governance: Resolving Questions
By Merc Agera Cabo
G e n d e r a p p r o a c h consists in looking for gender differences and inequities produced in all spheres of society, from personal and social relations
to institutions of government and knowledge. A specific insight of gender studies into the environment has been d e v e l o p e d by stressing that there
exist gender differences respect to the environment, that have to be with specifics values, interests and perspectives, a n d that those differences
have been traditionally i g n o r e d by culture, science, politics and environmental management.
From this perspective a g e n d e r a p p r o a c h into environmental governance has to d e a l with the analyses of a g e n e r a l ignorance of g e n d e r e d
specificities of p e o p l e e v e r y d a y life a n d , particularly, of women's unequal conditions in society, scientific and political institutions that come into
d e b a t e in a p a r t i c i p a t o r y democracy context.
Processes of p a r t i c i p a t i o n seam to o f f e r g r e a t challenges for introducing women's perspectives into the public d e b a t e , a n d for d e v e l o p i n g a
gender a p p r o a c h into environmental management. However, some of the experiences of participation a l r e a d y implemented, seam also to o f f e r
some d i f f i c u l t i e s a n d b a r r i e r s . To e x p l o r e those c o n t r a d i c t i o n s I w i l l c e n t r e in t h e case o f d e v e l o p m e n t o f Local A g e n d a 2 1 .
A study of W E D O and ICLEI conduced in 1 9 9 6 evaluated how gender a p p r o a c h had been considered in the implementation of LA21 in diverse
countries, and exposed that from 2.500 municipalities considered, only a 5 3 % had reported that they include an attention to "women's participation"
( W E D O ) . Later, in 2 0 0 1 , the results of another survey conduced by ICLEI, points out that in Europe, where 5 . 2 9 2 processes of LA21 have been
accounted, one of social groups more commonly excluded is women's groups (also ethnic minorities a n d syndicates). The survey also accounts
that from an inquiry answered by 1 2 7 local authorities all over Europe women's issues is only considered by 1 2 of LA21 processes as a priority
issue from 2 6 issues discussed this is the t h i r d less c o n s i d e r e d - , a n d 1 0 d e c l a r e t h a t women's issue is a n a c t i v i t y u n d e r w a y (ICLEI).
Despite those results a r e quite significant a b o u t the attention to g e n d e r ' s e q u a l representation a n d the lack of a g e n d e r a p p r o a c h in LA21
processes, however they aren't a b l e to g o into d e t a i l with quality information that allow to consider not only how many processes introduce a
gender a p p r o a c h but also how is considered. For this, I will centre in shortly evaluating how this perspective has been involved as issue of d e b a t e
in the case of A 2 1 CAT. Although this is a particular case which actually I don't p r e t e n d to e x t r a p o l a t e to other process of LA21 -, I think it is
an interesting experience for determining the difficulties of introducing a perspective with a low tradition in the field of environmental management.
If we consider information produced by A21CAT for informing and conducing the complete participation process which includes consultant to
experts, and involvement of organised civil society and individual citizens-, we can observe that gender a p p r o a c h has been considered not as
a transversal perspective to diverse themes of the sustainable d e b a t e , but as a close and independent issue, and this, I think, is a determinant
limitation for empowering this a p p r o a c h .
The A21CAT presents seven themes of discussion, each of which d e a l i n g with a w i d e issue such as energy, mobility and territory, strategic
resources, etc. and that will to cover diversity of themes that have to be with sustainability in the Catalan territory. Gender approach is integrated
in one of those themes, " W e l f a r e a n d Human Development", considering equity aspects in relation to women and w o r k , women and social
representation, and women and family responsibilities.
In contrast, a gender a p p r o a c h to LA21 would consist in analysing and o f f e r i n g information on the "environment" considering it more close to
local and personal experiences, therefore presenting a different value system, and changing the power position of interests on the environment.
In this context it would explore environmental problems regarding to the experience of everyday life and the private sphere. In addition, it would
centre on standing up women's gender roles and experiences. W h a t this vision means can't be systematised in a list of aspects, however it can
be observed specific gender studies and the proposals of women's organisations. In this sense some contributions have been done in urbanism
and planning of the city standing up, for example, different types of life styles and offering proposals in relation to mobility and city timetables'
organisation; special attention has also been put to social consequences of health impacts of environmental problems, and the perception of
women as traditional responsible of healthcare; other approaches have centred on the management of the private sphere informal work- and
have d e a l t with aspects such as use of resources, consumption, or prevention in waste production; etc.
The g l o b a l results provided by ICLEI and W E D O surveys, and the specific case of A21CAT, allow us to explore the hypothetical causes that could
explain the difficulties of gender a p p r o a c h to be considered in participation processes of L A 2 1 .
1 - The first one is a general lack of awareness of the public men and women- about gender specificities in relation to the environment. Effectively,
for instance, gender studies on environmental mobilisations have also noticed that women are specially e n g a g e d in local mobilisations, and that
even their interests and values a r e many times g e n d e r e d they aren't explicitly conscious of it. Consequently, women aren't also a w a r e about
how environmental management and decision-making can affect their e v e r y - d a y life, or how can they contribute by bringing their own voice,
exposing "problems" of private space into the public debate. This situation, I consider, can't be interpreted separately from the traditional inequity
between genders in the context of the public sphere.
2- The second reason we could consider is the lack of information and knowledge resources in relation to a gender approach to the environment.
There is a general lack of gender d i s a g g r e g a t e d d a t a , gender indicators in relation to the environment are missing, and there is little information
produced for informing public on the gender and environment subject.
3- At the third place, we must take into account that even gender studies are every time more common in the context of social sciences, their
approach isn't a l r e a d y well-known in the context of environmental theorisation. Also technicians who design and mediate the participation process
normally lack of a gender formation.
4 - The fourth reason, also proposed by the Women's A g e n d a , is "a lack of - or only formal- interests and political will among local authorities
and a lack of desire to change the balance in current power relations" (WEDO). This hypothetical reason make us think that the difficulty of
actual structures and resources for developing a gender a p p r o a c h in environmental process of participation, is not only depending on attending
t o i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s e s o r t o t e c h n i c a l f o r m a t i o n , b u t t h a t it is a l s o s t r o n g l y d e p e n d i n g on a p o l i t i c a l s u p p o r t .
Arriving at this point, I would like to formulate some questions, r e g a r d i n g the gender a p p r o a c h challenges and difficulties in order to enter
into multi-approach context of p a r t i c i p a t i o n , but also considering it as a case in many aspects contrastable to the situation of " o t h e r " "nonhegemonic" perspectives on the environment a n d society. Questions that will to a f f r o n t contradictions of political standpoint on p a r t i c i p a t i o n
processes that would aim to involve perspectives from " d i f f e r e n c e " :
W h y involving traditionally excluded perspectives...
W h y should be interesting/important/useful for political institutions to empower what we identify as " e x c l u d e d " perspectives on
environmental problematic and sustainable development (and moreover, to "discuss" with them)?
Should we only consider perspectives on the environment and sustainability a l r e a d y organised and with a public support?
Traditional excluded perspectives on the environment and on sustainable development, can p r o v a b l y conduce to some conflict with
hegemonic perspectives, is this desirable scenery for policy and decision-making spheres?
W h a t about power relations...
Can we speak about the involvement of traditionally excluded perspectives without considering inequalities in power relations? (And
moreover historical and cultural processes of exclusion?)
If we maintain current positions in power relations, what is lost when t r a d i t i o n a l excluded perspectives with d i f f e r e n t p o w e r positionsnegotiate or arrive to a consensus main objective of a participation process-?
Contradictions on p a r t i c i p a t i o n . . .
If we consider t r a d i t i o n a l contexts of policy making, weren't critics from "outside" the institutional system also contributing in modelling
by opposition- the hegemonic model?
And finally, isn't the tendency of participatory democracy a model ideologically rooted? If we answer yes, what a r e consequences when
governments from different positions of the political spectrum a r e all d e a l i n g with the same aim, that is, to d o "participation"?
References
ICLEI, h t t p : / / w w w . i c l e i . o r g
W E D O , W o m e n ' s Action
Agenda
for
a Healthy
and
Peaceful
Planet
2002-2015,
http://www.wedo.org/ehealth/cover.htm
Influencing policy making through reflexivity: a feasible challenge for science A N D public participation?
By Matthieu Craye
How knowledge be it ' e x p e r t ' or ' l a y ' finds its w a y through the decision making process is increasingly recognised as a complex question in
itself. Some two decades of 'science and technology studies' research m a d e us a b a n d o n the i d e a of r a t i o n a l , linear, 'sound science'-based
decision making. O r is this too 'optimist' a view by a 'science studies' scholar? A n d is such insight not limited to the inner circle of 'science studies'
researchers?
Recent e m p i r i c a l r e s e a r c h t e l l s us t h e l i n e a r m o d e l is p e r h a p s out o f f a s h i o n , but not y e t o u t o f m i n d in t o d a y ' s w o r l d .
At the same time, newer concepts and practices in the sphere of enhanced deliberation and communicative rationality have difficulty to establish
themselves as v a l u a b l e alternatives. Do they deliver useful information a n d k n o w l e d g e ? How can they effectively influence policy making ?
In this contribution, this question is addressed along five themes :

the
the
the
the
the
duality of institutional change ;

interaction between research initiatives rooted in 'models of society' and real socio-political processes ;
tension between representative democracy and qualitative argumentation ;
'quest for reflexivity' as a pragmatist p a r a d i g m ;
appreciation of uncertainty and doubt as resources for political d e b a t e .
Deve/opment
How to deal with the duality of institutional change ?
M a n y recent policy texts witness the decline of the conviction that science on its own can p l a y the role of arbiter in politically sensitive issues.
A g a i n and a g a i n , 'participation' and 'better governance' a r e f o r w a r d e d - sometimes in a mere politically correct move - as the answer to the
crisis of our decision making processes and authorities.
However, with the rhetoric of 'science based decision making' f a d i n g , the conviction itself that this is/was the right model is not gone. The linearity,
yet the simplicity, of this 'direct' model is still a p p e a l i n g and it still wanders in many people's minds.
This poses a problem for proponents of a deliberative approach, who want to introduce innovative practices : new initiatives have to be e m b e d d e d
within existing structures and interaction patterns. Existing f o r m a l a n d informal rules and roles 'talk back' every time an initiative is taken to
change them. This places a burden on this tentative to establish another t y p e of discussion and dialogue.
The risk exists that old patterns a r e just r e p e a t e d within new f o r a . And that 'this other kind of knowledge', which we w a n t e d to be surfaced
through deliberative practices, is not a c k n o w l e d g e d as such. How can w e d e a l with this typical f e a t u r e of changing times: the co-existence of
d i f f e r e n t arrangements? Shouldn't our activities explicitly d e a l with institutional change, stating it is as much about the roles and the rules as
about the content?
'Have
we
ever
been
modern?'
On
the
relation
between
researchers'
thinking
in
models/heuristics
and
real
practices.
But not only the model, institutionalised in existing practices, 'talks back'. The fact remains, in Latours words, that 'we have never been modern'.
Although the linear, rationalist model was the prevailing one in people's minds, real policy making has never fully reflected this ideal reductionist,
'rational' decision making. It has always been complex and 'messy'.
Our new initiatives, aiming at enhanced participation and at appreciating other forms of knowledge, 'lay' and 'local', a r e also rooted within a
model. The model of 'communicative rationality' and of democratic deliberation as basis for decision making. But democratic policymaking is
not only about the 'best' knowledge and the quality of argumentation. It is also about the g a m e of power, serving interests and maintaining
the majority of the votes.
Do we take this into account when judging the effectiveness of our 'new instruments'? How can we deal with the interaction between the products
of our 'model thinking' and real processes 'out there'? O r do we think we can replace the direct link science-policy - that never existed - by the
direct link d e l i b e r a t i o n - p o l i c y ? Shouldn't we a b a n d o n this i d e a of a direct input to p o l i c y m a k i n g , be it f r o m science or from an organised
deliberation?
Covering the current science-society-policy
interface with a 'veil of ignorance':
why would a contemporary
democracy need an organised input from
science and civil society?

H o w e v e r this is c e r t a i n l y not a p l e a to c o m p l e t e l y r e l a t i v i s e a n y c o n t r i b u t i o n c o m i n g f r o m scientists, s t a k e h o l d e r s a n d citizens.
Facing the question how we can provide ears to policymakers, we can first tackle the issue why they would and should listen to scientists, stakeholders
and citizens. In o r d e r to d o this, we could start f r o m an experiment-in-thought : what would contemporary democratic policy making look like
without any input from science or f r o m public p a r t i c i p a t i o n ? W o u l d n ' t we b e f a r a w a y from a situation w h e r e , as H. A r e n d t states, the pure
political p o w e r is the p o w e r of the better argument? W o u l d n ' t pure 'electoralist' strategies p r e v a i l , or v e r y specific interests, or ' p o l i t i c a l
b a r g a i n i n g ' ? How can our i n i t i a t i v e s b e c o r r e c t i v e t o this situation? U n d e r w h a t c o n d i t i o n s c a n t h e y b e e f f e c t i v e l y c o r r e c t i v e ?
The true challenge would then b e to counterbalance not to r e p l a c e - such situation by letting the ' b e t t e r argument' p l a y a more prominent
role in policy making. But how d o w e judge what is the 'better' argument?
Reflexivity
as a pragmatist
paradigm
In most general terms, such corrective action would have to face the tension between a non-reflexive position, i.e. a 'uni-dimensional' consideration
of a particular interest, of the majority thinking, of one particular objective (f.i. techno-scientific innovation for industry competitiveness) a n d a
r e f l e x i v e o n e , i.e. a n a w a r e n e s s o f t h e c o m p l e x i t y , t h e m u l t i - d i m e n s i o n a l i t y t h a t puts a t risk v e s t e d b e l i e f s a n d i n t e r e s t s .
Increased r e f l e x i v i t y enhances the ' s p a c e of n e g o t i a t i o n ' by o p e n i n g up a n d c r i t i c a l l y q u e s t i o n i n g l o n g - h e l d positions
In this w a y it's an answer to a 'practical' need observed in current decision making contexts, to which science a n d public p a r t i c i p a t i o n each in
its own w a y can contribute. However, can w e consider reflexivity as a g o a l as such; or is it inevitably only a by-product of processes pursuing
other, more direct, goals?
And what about the normative content of this concept 'reflexivity'? How is it related to the idea(ls) of 'participation' and 'deliberative democracy?
Society's reflexivity benefits from the chances everyone has to express his opinion and from the promotion of everyone's c a p a c i t y to judge. This
fits within a ' l a t e - m o d e r n ' form of democracy. But doesn't it put at risk as much the position of stakeholders a n d citizens a n d their ideas a n d
values - as the authority of experts and policy makers?
In praise of uncertainty and doubf...:
how io promote
society's reflexivity
Pursuing reflexivity as an objective still leaves o p e n the question how reflexivity can best be a t t a i n e d .
In procedural terms, it means considering and experimenting new roles and rules. In matters of content, it means considering the legitimacy of
plural sources of knowledge and positions.
Practically, there should b e specific 'templates' for discussion when experts, stakeholders and citizens a r e invited to d e b a t e issues as a support
to policymaking. Templates that offer the best possible guarantee for critical self-reflection and qualified thought in society through a complementary
input of experts and citizens.
As to the input from science, isn't the best w a y to proceed the goals of institutional change and acknowledgement of complexity in mind to
radically focus on uncertainty? Discussions of p e d i g r e e of k n o w l e d g e o f f e r chances to a p p r e c i a t e the context of k n o w l e d g e a n d to g o to the
sources of controversy: the assumptions and the framings used.
As to the input of citizens : wouldn't it be an a d e q u a t e strategy to focus on 'doubts' : bringing doubts a b o u t 'the g o o d l i f e ' explicitly into the
o p e n b y l e t t i n g p e o p l e e x p r e s s t h e m s e l v e s in t h e i r ' o w n l a n g u a g e ' a n d i n v e s t i g a t i n g t h e s o u r c e s o f t h e s e d o u b t s .
Reconsidering convictions and positions would also need platforms where both forms of 'knowledge' as well as the typical policy maker's insights
- can be commonly discussed to make their mutual linkages clearer.
Discussant
Principles of Transparency: The institutionalisation of public engagement at the European Food Safety Agency
By Javier Lezaun & Robert Doubleday
This p a p e r contributes to debates about stakeholder and public engagement in areas of scientific and technological governance by exploring
the normative implications of different modes of public engagement using the establishment of the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) as an
example.E Food safety scares can be interpreted as constitutional crises when they force the creation of new institutional arrangements to d e a l
with the technical and political implications of regulatory breakdowns. These institutional arrangements often r e d r a w the space of governmental
intervention, modify the role of scientific expertise in policy-making, and challenge previous views of public participation or consultation. The
EFSA is an e x a m p l e of such an institutional innovation. The aim of this p a p e r is to a n a l y z e its inception and the kinds of public p a r t i c i p a t i o n
t h a t its i n s t i t u t i o n a l d e s i g n e n a b l e s , as a case study in t h e p o l i t i c s o f w i d e r c o n s t i t u t i o n a l c h a n g e s in the E u r o p e a n Union.
The a p p r o a c h this p a p e r views the relations between the EFSA and its publics in terms of an emerging European constitution. W e use the term
constitution not only to refer to formal legal principles, but also the bottom up construction of ordering processes. W e borrow this understanding
of the constitution of contemporary society from Sheila Jasanoff who has recently a r g u e d for the consideration of "norms that a r e e m b o d i e d in
technological standards and practices, hardened into material instruments and artifacts, entrenched within professional discourses, and legitimated
through public policy." The EFSA provides a telling site for studying the emergence of tacit norms for ordering relations among citizens, consumers,
science and the institutions of government.
The EFSA has been set up in the context both of continuing controversy over f o o d safety in Europe and debates over the legitimacy of European
institutions as reflected in the European Governance W h i t e Paper. In this light the EFSA's "principle of transparency" warrants particular attention.
In the EC proposal for the EFSA this principle is introduced as: "This proposal establishes a framework for the greater involvement of stakeholders
at all stages in the development of f o o d law and establishes the mechanisms necessary to increase consumer confidence in f o o d law." (Page
1 3) This p a p e r follows the practices a d o p t e d by the EFSA in relation to the principle of transparency in order to discuss more generally the
emergence of new relations between European publics and institutions.
Much has been written about the emergence of the new consumer-citizen in the European Union, an actor whose right to know and to choose
the ability to perform an informed choice in the marketplace seems to serve as legitimating ground for a multitude of new regulatory and legal
developments in the EU, particularly in the a r e a of f o o d governance. Our g o a l in this p a p e r is to move beyond a general description of this
new constituency, and p r o b e the specific materialisation of these rights and representational claims in a new and relevant institution. The EFSA
is intended to become a stable focal point for public scrutiny and scientific expertise in r e g a r d to f o o d policy and as such it embodies a certain
u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f a w e l l - o r d e r e d p o l i t y , as f a r as the r o l e of g o v e r n m e n t , science, i n d u s t r y a n d the p u b l i c a r e c o n c e r n e d .
Through an analysis of the development of the EFSA up to the present d a y , this p a p e r addresses a series of questions concerning the extent
and character of the emergence of new consumer-citizen rights vis a vis f o o d governance.
W h o gets t o p a r t i c i p a t e ? W h a t sort of r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of the consuming p u b l i c does the EFSA enact in its institutional design?
W h a t elements of the governance of f o o d safety a r e o p e n e d up? Does the EFSA aim to innovate on the traditional boundaries between risk
assessment, risk management, and risk communication? Is the notion of precaution e m b e d d e d into its practical activities, as envisioned by its
proponents.
W h a t is the relationship between citizen and consumer rights? W h a t is the role of private industry in guaranteeing and enabling consumer-citizen
rights, and how does the industry understand itself in relation to the EFSA and the changed regulatory landscape. I n addressing these questions,
this p a p e r attends to the ways in which new rights of a European consumer-citizen emerge f r o m the institutional practices a n d architecture of
the EFSA. The p a p e r contributes to scholarly work which analyses the constitutional implications of such e v e r y d a y institutional realities as the
mechanisms for evaluating e x p e r t advice, for including stakeholder and w i d e r public perspective, or new forms of auditing and controlling the
f o o d chain.
The Post-Normal Times: broadening the c ultural c ontext for public dialogue on sc ienc e and polic y
By Sylvia S. Togne tti
Soundbites work because of a pre-existing base of common k n o w l e d g e and myths f o r which they serve as an con. Also, because of common
metaphors and mutual reinforcement d r a w n from other areas of knowledge. This can easily l e a d to "ignorance of ignorance" or blind spots in
the f a c e of new kinds of complex problems that f a l l outside established conceptual f r a m e w o r k s , a n d which a r e often the result of unintended
a n d unanticipated consequences of past decisions. I n the absence of such icons and mutual reinforcement, effective public d i a l o g u e r e g a r d i n g
new kinds of complex problems will require a long-term communication strategy. Objectives of such a strategy would be to create a space for
discourse that can facilitate the generation of new common icons and metaphors, that can contribute to the development of a social context that
is receptive to different ways of thinking and of framing problems. This can in turn, provide reinforcement n e e d e d by decision-makers for taking
different approaches.
The Post-Normal Times (www.postnormaltimes.net) is a pilot-phase soon to be online n e w s p a p e r being d e v e l o p e d to improve the q u a l i t y of
participation of those outside the scientific community, in science-based policy decisions. This is to be done by a d o p t i n g a news (vs. academic)
style of r e p o r t i n g , a central focus of which would b e on justifications p r o v i d e d for controversial high-stakes decisions that p e r t a i n to complex
problems in which there is inherent uncertainty, stories missed by normal news sources for failure to fit into established conceptual frameworks,
and emergent phenomena that d e f y categorization. However, given that problems are increasingly a consequence of human beliefs and behaviour
that cannot be reduced to a simple scientific exercise, the PNT will also cover post-normal aspects of culture and politics that a r e the context of
science, and will seek active p a r t i c i p a t i o n and contributions from individuals, known or emergent, in cultural and political as well as in scientific
arenas. This is not unlike c o v e r a g e of cultural features in r e g u l a r newspapers. Special themes preliminarily i d e n t i f i e d f o r c o v e r a g e include:
Dmythification of science used to support specific and selected policy decisions. Science often plays the role of debunking myths.
However, the legitimacy of decisions informed by science often rests on myths of certainty. C l a r i f y i n g various forms of uncertainty is critical
to m a n a g i n g public e x p e c t a t i o n s a n d m a i n t a i n i n g or re-establishing public trust in science. Potential subtopics in this a r e a include:
o I gnorance of ignorance, i.e., blindspots
o Uses and abuses of uncertainty in decision-making
o Paradox and contradiction in existing policies
o A " b l o g " (i.e., w e b - b a s e d log) reporting from "Post-Normal W a s h i n g t o n " or other particular places that a contributor happens to be
where there a r e events worthy of r e p o r t and comment.
Living in Post-Normal Times this may include

o general essays in the post-normal genre that may address such topics such as (in addition to those above):
how new problems d i f f e r from o l d ones (e.g., environmental problems that don't respond to e n d - o f - t h e - p i p e solutions);
Future scenarios
Myths that create and sustain special places and identities

o Reviews of selected books, movies and artists that present special perspectives or that d e f y categorization.
Annotated links to sites that provide interesting perspectives and mutual reinforcement
A pilot phase website will be presented for purposes of discussion, for obtaining input r e g a r d i n g overall direction, content and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l
structure, and to identify potential contributions from workshop participants.
Institutional arrangements and public participation: a laboratory of local governance

By Francesco Mazzeo i
R nald
i
There is now w i d e s p r e a d recognition, in name at least, that public p a r t i c i p a t i o n is critical for a p p r o a c h i n g complex problems. M a n y public
institutions at all levels of government a r e working to involve citizens and stakeholder in the decision-making processes. This has led to some
modifications to classical (theoreti cal) government decision making - citizens elected representatives, representatives and experts took the ir ght
decisions, citizens judged ri ghtness - but also raised many questions and concerns.
W e know that efforts required by public participatory processes have mixed results; participation can take many forms, it has differing objectives
and meanings in different situations. Public institutions a r e a w a r e that participation is necessary, but in practice still have little guidance about
what that means in a particular situation; public administrative staff can not be e x p e c t e d to e x p l a i n to citizens what they d o not understand
a n d / o r believe in. Public decision-making authorities attempt to impose on citizens their own model of governance instead of identifying different
types of it. There is, consequently, a potential disconnection between the model of governance being implemented by public authorities and
alternative models that citizens believe should be a p p l i e d .
The classical bureaucratic model has been designed to "rationalise" decision-making. Public involvement, according to this classic model, is not
an important element and can lead to inefficient and costly decisions. There is still a continuous conflict between the objective of bureaucratic
efficiency and the time and cost consumed by public p a r t i c p a t o r y processes.
One w a y of approaching the problem can be pursued through a "displacement" of the decisional space usually characterising decision-making
processes and participation.
The hypothesis concern the idea that practices and routines affect the decision process binding the final possible results; a chance for changing
the contents and meanings of these rules and therefore to legitimise shared decisions, is to enhance a reflexive process inside organisations and
among them through:
Profiling a change in the "decisional" setting;
Defining a " w a y of communication" between different institutions;
Sharing the "process" trough which decisions are taken.

In line with these problems and searching for operational solutions, a novel Laboratory (LAPOSS - LAboratory of POIicies and Social Services)
has b e e n recently p l a n n e d a n d established by the University of C a t a n i a , in c o l l a b o r a t i o n with the main public Institutions of the city.
LAPOSS, can b e considered as an inter-institutional experimental " s p a c e " in which the University (its research and teaching resources) local
institutions and citizens meet each other concerning specific issues, services, planning and evaluation of community's needs. The Laboratory has
been therefore planned as a container of ideas, projects, and activities that appreciate the opportunities for the city to consolidate the relationships
between the scientific research (national and international), the institutions and the citizens.
LAPOSS is actually e x p l o r i n g a novel a p p r o a c h to communication between institutions and citizens, which can l e a d to specific innovation and
efficiency within the activities of each of the partners involved. For the University, in fact, this means to replace the curricula with respect to labour
modifications and to training and informative requirements (i.e. training and thesis, which can be thought and planned by choosing themes and
institutional links, both theoretical and practical, otherwise impossible). For local institutions the challenge is to build stable relationships that allow
them to start performing the administration reform in subsidiary and autonomy terms (planning, responsibility, control and participation). For
the citizens the Laboratory brings a "space" to meet local institutions outside the institutional sphere, and to p a r t i c i p a t e and contribute actively
to the definition and planning of policy and services.
The decision process leading to whatever final decision on specific areas of policy, requires simultaneous treatment of these different aims, the
choice of procedural rules through which aims and means a r e chosen and realised a n d , finally enhancing of a process of inter-institutional
accountability. In o r d e r to meet these objectives, but also to better define them, the L a b o r a t o r y is working in the definition of projects and
activities, in the context also of European Community Programmes (Equal, A g e n d a 2 0 0 0 , Urban), by a d o p t i n g integrated strategies addressing
four main areas: immigrants, social services, labour and health.

W i t h respect to health issues, LAPOSS is involved in a
p a r t i c i p a t o r y a p p r o a c h that can put into place a new
real challenge, b e f o r e devising research requirements
health services, c a p a b l e of specifying action strategies
project aiming at enhancing the access to social-health services, e x p l o r i n g a planning

social a n d health local policy. It was immediately clear from the first meetings that the
or any o p e r a t i v e options, is the common formulation of the d e m a n d of access to socialfor the local social health policy.
At the end of the first set of meetings, every participant was a b l e to d e f i n e the problem of access to "their o w n " service, in terms of a shared
problem. Beyond the common knowledge of which everyone is holder, the experience of sharing a common perspective has a l l o w e d a first, shy,
development of an inter-institutional space where the proposed a p p r o a c h starts to e x p a n d .
Institutional changes and modifications have t h e r e f o r e been understood as a consequence of existing relationships among institutions a n d / o r
organizations including conflicts and legitimisation, and not a search for new internal dynamics, which would necessarily l e a d , mainly to surviving
matters or to the re-proposition of organisational routines.
Relationships among citizens, government, and science require major inter-institutional reorientation a t the policy and administrative level, not
only to empower citizens to act and to overcome application barriers that characterise public p a r t i c i p a t i o n into decision-making processes, but
to define new spaces where the decision-making rules and procedures can a g a i n b e legitimised. This is a w a y of effectively considering and
including into the final decision the value and the results o b t a i n e d by a p a r t i c i p a t o r y process.
The definition of new inter-institutional spaces and dynamics can bring legitimacy and effectiveness to decision-making processes, guaranteeing
that the process can be reproduced and recognised by all societal actors. This is a condition to assure 'quality' of policy outcomes and a possibility
of creating ears for policy-making.

^-
Bruna De Marchi
KeynDte
Discussant
Gianna Milano
Istituto di Sociologia Internazionale di Gorizia, Italy.

bruna.de-marchi@libero.it
Panorama, M o n d a d o r i , Italy, milano@mondadori.it
Nicole Alby
Europa Donna, Forum France. Nicole.Alby@wanadoo.fr
Gianna Milano
Panorama, M o n d a t o r i , Italy, milano@mondadori.it
G a b r i e l l a Salvini Porro
Federazione Alzheimer Italia, gsalvini@alzheimer.it
*~~*
Irganiser
By Bruna De Marchi
The training of scientists involves that they a r e p r e p a r e d to accept the limitations of their conceptual a n d empirical tools, to recognise the
provisional status of any received view, to promptly a b a n d o n any consolidated theory on the basis of new scientific evidence. This is well reflected
in their style of communication to fellow researchers and other 'restricted publics'. W h e n speaking at scientific conferences or publishing in scientific
journals (and possibly when providing information and advice to policy makers or clients), scholars use standard cautious language in presenting
their findings. They a c k n o w l e d g e the possible weaknesses of their d a t a and methodological design, e.g. in terms of limited d a t a a v a i l a b l e ,
reduced number of cases, less than excellent quantity and quality of sources and records, impossibility to include or control for certain variables,
need for further research and so forth.
This homogeneity in manners however, seems to break down when scientists speak in public or to the public. There, they have no specific training
and shape their style according to personal skills a n d , most relevant, personal or received beliefs and expectations about 'the lay public'. M o r e
often than not, due to scarce familiarity, lack of habit ore other, these are stereotyped and conventional. For understandable reasons, scholars
e n g a g e d in their own work may have p a i d very little attention to the changes occurred in the last decades in society, and in the relations between
science and society. Therefore they often f a i l to recognise that 'the public' is not a homogeneous mass, but contains many sectors, including those
with scientific knowledge and understanding, possibly accompanied by engagement in active citizenship. Also, that many sectors of the populace,
and possibly even some of those not highly cultivated, a r e nevertheless reluctant to accept the 'scientific verbum' simply out of trust in accredited
scholars or faith in the effectiveness and integrity of the 'scientific enterprise'.
At the same time, more and more frequently scientists a p p e a l to 'society' and to 'citizens', when they voice their own concerns and claims about,
for example, threats to f r e e d o m of research or curtail of public funding. They manifest in public places, make a p p e a l to the mass m e d i a , and
sign petitions, adopting actions and strategies traditionally alien to them. But in the agora the rules of the game a r e different than in the scientific
community and scholars a r e often ill e q u i p p e d (or ill advised) in that respect.
Another r a p i d l y g r o w i n g phenomenon, is the emergence ofalliances (permanent or t e m p o r a r y , g e n e r a l or issue specific) of citizen groups
(associations, lobbies, N G O s , ...) with scientists (individual or in groupings). W h i l e confirming something which was never questioned, i.e. the
fragmentation of interests in society, this trend also strikes a blow to the a l r e a d y shaking myth of 'the scientific community', cohesive on the basis
of common values and practices of Mertonian memory.
N o w a d a y s any group of concerned citizens, any promoter of a new technology, any prosecutor or d e f e n d a n t in a court of law can a p p e a l to
scholars of recognised s t a n d a r d and f i n d support to one or the opposite thesis on the meaning and implications of a scientific innovation or
practice, the likelihood of certain (positive or negative) occurrences or the possibility of certain (wanted or unwanted, foreseen or unexpected)
consequences. Consequently, before the public eyes the vision of 'the community' is blurred, whereas that of its internal fragmentation is amplified.
Discussions about the contributions of science to health, safety, risk and the environment occur nowadays in the public arena and are b r o a d l y
f r a m e d , without pretending that it is possible or desirable to ignore considerations about economy, politics and ethics, such as, e.g. the distribution
of a d v a n t a g e s and d r a w b a c k s . In such context, the voices of 'accredited' experts a r e to be h e a r d - and listened to - together with those of
many other stakeholders.
There a r e many theoretical and practical reasons for favouring and sustaining public d e b a t e , not least to unveil the many different (conscious
or unconscious, neutral or biased, naive or sophisticated) presuppositions and assumptions of the various parties, which would otherwise remain
hidden and unquestioned. And there a r e many (perhaps more) problems in designing structures, procedures, and practices for dialogue to take
place democratically and effectively. W h i l e the mechanisms of representative democracy a p p e a r as largely insufficient to accommodating all
the diverse instances of concern of the citizenry, progress is necessary in constructing new processes for p a r t i c i p a t i o n , which include not only
revised structures, but also innovative modes of thinking, communicating, and interacting.
By now, there exist many innovative experiences where partnership has substituted hierarchy as a model of communication, especially in the
f i e l d of health. The session aims at discussing problematic cases a n d , possibly, 'successful stories', exploring whether the latter can be r e p e a t e d
a n d e x p a n d e d , with a d i a l o g u e b e t w e e n the m u l t i p l e stakes a n d the p l u r a l perspectives which a l w a y s c h a r a c t e r i z e c o m p l e x issues.
Keyno
Communication: the gap between information and scientific knowledge. Role of the Associations
By Nicole Alby
The role of patient's or user's Associations is r a p i d l y g r o w i n g , they a r e becoming nowadays full partners of the medical setting. This new role is
strongly r e l a t e d to the drastic social changes in patients' and physicians' relationships mainly r e g a r d i n g information giving a n d the sharing of
treatment decisions. W h a t e v e r the information, even "complete", given to patients, a g a p will remain between this information and the medical
knowledge. Associations, in such a perspective, can be v i e w e d as g o - b e t w e e n amongst patients a n d physicians a n d as a transactional space
providing information, sharing along with help. This new role has to be e v a l u a t e d and implies that Associations should be p r e p a r e d to inform,
to share, to help. This is why Associations should think about these new obligations and to the ethics they should d e v e l o p f o r their new role. The
status of the individual patient is more and more taken into account, and in p a r a l l e l the use of patient's groups is progressing, as if this claim
for autonomy was creating new needs for the patients.
New laws, such as the M a r c h 2 0 0 2 l a w on Patients rights in France, have l e g a l i z e d these changes. O n e of them is the right to a c o m p l e t e
information on patient's medical status and treatments and to share medical decisions. Experience shows that there is a g r e a t difference between
the information given to patients and the medical knowledge which supposes a long specific learning and clinical experience. Physicians speak
of evidence based medicine, statistics being their references. Individual patients want to know w h a t will h a p p e n to them, what treatment, w h a t
results, in short what personal hope and destiny they have. Another point is the conscious or unconscious i d e a l i z a t i o n of medical k n o w l e d g e by
patients. In front of the d a n g e r of a threatening disease they want and all-mighty and all-knowing physician. A f t e r a while, i d e a l i z a t i o n can
easily lead to disappointment and sometimes aggressiveness. Many communication problems can be e x p l a i n e d by such a mechanism. As if doctors
had to know everything and so to be all-mighty. Even when their power is discussed. O f t e n when they want complete information, patients don't
realize what it will mean and what they really look for. The need to "know a l l " bout the disease is sometimes a desperate - and understandable
- attempt to recover some control on their life and their disease.
Another point is the psychological status of patients learning that they suffer f r o m a potentially lethal p a t h o l o g y , lets say cancer. Most of them
experience a severe emotional reaction implying intellectual inhibition, a defensive denial of a threatening reality. Turning patients into active
participants of their disease and treatments is not so easy. Patients can r e a d , they can also consult Internet, get a mass of information one
may speak of an overdose of information. W i l l they ever find the answer to their main anxieties: " W i l l I suffer?" "How and how long will I live?"
Sharing therapeutic choices is even more emotionally draining. Changes in doctor-patients relationships a r e irreversible. O n e of their consequences
is the need for patients to f i n d confirmation a b o u t the information they have received from their physicians or found by themselves, they need
also to f i n d help a n d sharing with understanding and r e l i a b l e p e o p l e . At this point they look f o r Associations, help-lines or patients having
e x p e r i e n c e d the same illness. But doctors also have to change and to be t r a i n e d for these new communication procedures. M o r e , they a r e
threatened by therapeutic failures an their possible legal consequences. All the participants in information giving an receiving have to change
their attitudes and expectancies, even if they share a common hope: cure of the disease. There should be more socio-psychological studies on
these fundamental changes.
The French law mentions the role of the Associations mostly as supports but without reference to information giving. For us it is one of the most
essential and critical aspect of their role. How to inform without intruding between patients and physicians, how to comment on therapeutic choices?
How to find the right place between patients, care-takers and families?
W h a t is the proper role of Associations in the health system and in the social setting? They must provide a reliable and accessible information,
the reliability of the information they give is the warrant of their own reliability. Providing help to patients needs also training and psychological
ability. Associations have to listen to individual sufferings and claims but also to be the representative of the g l o b a l needs of patients. W e have
- in our Association, Europa Donna Forum France - discovered the very positive role of "information groups" where any professional person
delivers information on a specific topic and answers the questions of the women. Information is heard by the women, patients and non patients
altogether. It is m e d i a t e d by the emotional support given by the group, one can observe identification together with individuation processes.
Verbal and non v e r b a l exchanges unable the sharing of information and experiences in a comforting setting. Individuals discover that a common
experience is not the same as a common identity and that a person is not reduced to its pathology, be it a severe one. W i t h the group's help
patients can then integrate fully the information. It is a real learning process. These changes occur also with physicians: they a r e in a new role,
delivering information to a group, answering questions that a r e rarely asked during usual surgery. They are o b l i g e d to a d a p t their presentation
to lay p e o p l e . Patients discover that their physicians don't know everything, that they a r e sharing their knowledge. Progressively the g a p , if
always there, is more accepted. Very often the conclusion of these groups is that truth is not so easy. There are identification processes between
patients and also between the group and the physician. They may, then accept more easily that they have different roles and may have different
k n o w l e d g e s . I n f o r m a t i o n b e c o m e s less a s t a k e b e t w e e n c o m p e t i n g f o r c e s , it c a n b e a t o o l f o r m u t u a l useful e x c h a n g e s .
It took time to discover progressively the role of these information groups. W e wish to set up researches on this point. The Association plays also
the role of a g o - b e t w e e n and offers a transactional space where individual patients, helped by the support of the group, can better integrate
information. Identification p a r a d o x i c a l l y allows to take some distance. Exchanges also d e a l with doctors-patients relationships, including taking
in account the doctor's own difficulties: such as giving b a d news. It is often an important discovery for some patients: that their care-takers may
also have problems, including communication ones. Associations have an important role: to allow these exchanges and to claim for the psychological
training of all care-takers. It is never easy to give or to receive information r e g a r d i n g threatening disease, to share difficult decisions. The
Associations can be a space to help both parties to better hear information and p l a y a role so that the g a p between information and medical
knowledge will be better understood and accepted.
Discussant
Informing to educate. Can the media help to enable w o m e n to safeguard their health themselves?
By Gianna Milano
Becoming informed in order to protect one's health and prevent illnesses such as cancer should be a duty, a form of discipline to which we should
dedicate ourselves not only occasionally, when we are obliged to, but always. It should be our daily practice to acquire knowledge and to master
the tools (both conceptual a n d methodological) n e e d e d to evaluate news a b o u t prevention and therapy. There a r e those who claim, with
justification, that scientific literacy is essential for effective participation and decision making. However this is lacking in our schools. W e have
the impression, as patients, that we have m a d e considerable progress because of following health programmes and reports on TV and in the
newspapers. But this is not enough. Only women who manage to establish a r a p p o r t with their own bodies (something which the feminist movement
has contributed towards) will be a b l e to acquire information taking this bond into account, and thus create a relationship of equals with their
own doctors: t w o forms of k n o w l e d g e coming t o g e t h e r , f r o m which a truly positive t h e r a p e u t i c a l l i a n c e can be b o r n .
Otherwise illness, or just the suspicion of an illness thought to be serious, such as cancer, is enough to throw us back down into that state of
dependency-subjection with r e g a r d to the doctor that we thought we had gone beyond. W e feel that we a r e at the mercy of others: the socalled experts for whom women a r e bodies to be t r e a t e d , but not individuals. A "conscious" decision, taken on the basis of correct information,
represents in itself a social achievement. The objective must be to reduce the risk that the emotional state should cancel out capacity for critical,
rational thought a n d , a b o v e a l l , for independent choice.
Scientific information p r o v i d e d through the media should, in theory, improve our decision making ability in the choice of a doctor or a treatment
or diagnostic test. A n d should teach us to ask the right questions, and should encourage constant research to find out more, to review w h a t is
a l r e a d y known, to r e p l a c e o l d concepts with new ones and to ensure that the tools a r e a v a i l a b l e to choose b e t w e e n the various alternatives.
A b o v e a l l , it should create the conditions to establish a relationship of equals b e t w e e n patient a n d doctor: it is true that the doctor is the one
w i t h t h e s k i l l s , b u t a n y d e c i s i o n c o n c e r n i n g o n e ' s o w n b o d y a n d w e l l - b e i n g s h o u l d b e b a s e d on s h a r e d e v a l u a t i o n .
This should all be considered in the light of the fact that medicine is not an exact science. It is neither pure nor objective and certainly not immune
from power games, social conditioning, i d e o l o g y , schools of thought a n d even fashion. There must be d e b a t e a n d dissent in o r d e r t o d e v e l o p
critical faculties and become accustomed to making decisions. The only sure thing is that, in medicine, the realm of uncertainty is much l a r g e r
than that of certainty. However this is not the message that comes across to patients through the media (or the doctors themselves). Almost everyone,
from doctors to media communicators, tend to stress the benefits (even if only potential) of tests and treatments, glossing over adverse effects
and risks and not mentioning possible alternatives and scientific disputes.
The p r o b l e m , however, is complex: how to become informed so as not to b e deceived by the false myth of medical infallibility? (It is true that
for many forms of tumour, such as in the breast, the survival rate has gone up because there is e a r l i e r diagnosis than there was some years
a g o , but the solution is still a long way a w a y ) . And what should the sources of information be? Can we trust the media to supply us with r e l i a b l e ,
objective information which is useful in the f i g h t against cancer? Informing also implies educating the public. But this does not a l w a y s h a p p e n
and the providers of information, whether they a r e scientists, researchers, journalists or editors, a r e not always a w a r e of the impact of certain
news reports and the ethical responsibility of communicating them without distortion, manipulation and f o r c e d interpretation which only confuse
and mislead the reader.
News in the field of medicine is usually handled by newspapers and TV in the same way: the " g r e a t discovery" is presented sensationally, stressing
the possible impact on medical practice and underlining the exceptional nature of the results o b t a i n e d in an e f f o r t to stir up the emotions of
readers. The media p l a y with effects, transforming what is in reality just one little step f o r w a r d , in other words a tiny piece of a vastly complex
mosaic, into a g r e a t triumph of medicine. This "vice" in the presentation of scientific news is serious enough in itself but it becomes even more so
if the subject in question is cancer, a disease which arouses d e e p fears as well as strong emotions. It is not by chance that any news about cancer,
any progress in the struggle against the g r e a t killer of our times, takes over the front pages of the newspapers a n d is the main story on primet i m e TV n e w s b u l l e t i n s . The t o n e is t r i u m p h a l i s t . T h e r e is a n e f f o r t t o t u r n s c i e n t i f i c i n f o r m a t i o n i n t o e n t e r t a i n m e n t .
However, what should accompany any news r e p o r t about a medical issue a r e the essential facts and the context in o r d e r to understand not only
what has been observed or discovered but, above all, "how". The methodological aspect (the collection of rules and principles which have e n a b l e d
d e m o c r a t i c p r o g r e s s in science) is i m p o r t a n t f o r a n y c o r r e c t e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e r e l i a b i l i t y o f t h e news b e i n g r e p o r t e d .
Can we leave to the media the task of informing, sorting through a tangle of knowledge which is complicated even for the experts? The obligation
to p r o v i d e complete information must be binding: only in this w a y can fully conscious decisions be m a d e . Both doctors and the mass m e d i a a r e
involved in this delicate responsibility. This is a crucial ethical commitment in which what is at stake is not f a m e , career, money, power, extra copies
sold or audience ratings but the life and w e l l - b e i n g of individuals (not just bodies) who should b e protagonists in their own decision-making.
Why partnership with users?

By Gabriella Salvini Porro
W h y partnership between science and society, scientists and users? Both scientists and users stand to gain from this partnership and the sharing
of k n o w l e d g e , not only of information and opinion, but also of decision making power. Real p a r t i c i p a t i o n means joint p r o b l e m solving, joint
problem solving, joint decision making, joint responsibility.

This is particularly true in the health f i e l d .
W h a t I am going to say reflects my status of being a carer of a person with dementia (my mother died for Alzheimer's in 1 9 8 6 ) and my position
of President of F e d e r a z i o n e A l z h e i m e r I t a l i a (the l a r g e s t n a t i o n a l v o l u n t a r y health o r g a n i z a t i o n s u p p o r t i n g Alzheimer's patients).
The whole purpose of scientific advances is to benefit the society. This indisputable statement should mean that society should be at the front of
researchers' minds when they design, conduct, and report any research. But it rarely is.
The involvement of consumers is becoming an increasing political priority. A primary consideration in today's democratic w o r l d is that research
decisions a r e political as well as academic. The consumers, as the "owners" of publicly f u n d e d research should have a legitimate claim to b e
involved in the process of allocating resources.
The second consideration is that lay people involvement could improve the quality and impact of research. In any case, working with the consumers
is becoming an imperative. Being confronted with a person who has done a literature search, scanned the internet, and knows what he or she
wants from health service is no longer a hypothetical scenario. People are becoming better informed about health, and a groundswell of support
and government backing exists for the c a m p a i g n being w a g e d by consumer lobbies, patient organisations, and others for more and better
information on health and for g r e a t e r involvement in decision making.
On the basis of a literature review and materials from the Cochrane Collaboration Consumer Network I'll outline and discuss some reasons for
partnership, some objections and three types of user involvement. Being clear about why a partnership will help us to identify who it is a p p r o p r i a t e
to involve and how best to involve them.
Users can help to:
ensure that issues which a r e important to them a r e identified and prioritised;
ensure that money and resources aren't wasted on research that has little or no relevance;
e n s u r e t h a t r e s e a r c h d o e s n ' t just m e a s u r e o u t c o m e s t h a t a r e i d e n t i f i e d a n d
recruit their peers;
disseminate the results of the research and ensure that changes a r e implemented.
Consumers are not:
typical;
representative;
objective.
They can be represented by others.
Types of consumer involvement:
consultation;
collaboration;
user control.
considered
important
by
professionals;
I'll s u g g e s t a p p r o a c h e s w h i c h p r o v i d e f o r p a r t n e r s h i p s , m o v i n g p e o p l e f r o m t h e r o l e o f " s u b j e c t s " t o " p a r t i c i p a n t s " .

To show how mutual learning can be p r o f i t a b l e also between genders, I will d r a w from the project EPOCH, funded by the European Commission,
which ran from 2 0 0 0 to 2 0 0 1 and was h e a d e d by Alzheimer Europe. Its objective was to address gender differences in the task of caring for
someone with dementia at home.
Questionnaires were sent out to p e o p l e involved in such task and 5 8 5 responses w e r e o b t a i n e d from 1 0 different countries in Europe. Practically
all the men with dementia were c a r e d for by women i.e. 9 7 . 2 % . However, only 5 2 . 2 % of women w e r e c a r e d for by men. 8 0 . 5 % of male carers
were spouses, whereas only 5 3 . 5 % of f e m a l e carers w e r e spouses. Such d a t a support findings f r o m other studies that most carers a r e women
and that women are less likely than men to b e c a r e d for by their spouses.
It was found that man a n d women cope with caring d i f f e r e n t l y in m a n y respects. The f i n a l recommendations of the study stressed that one
a p p r o a c h is not necessarily better than the other. Attempts to define the best a p p r o a c h , to judge who copes best a n d / o r to t r y to fit men into
the mould of the female carer should be a v o i d e d . O n the contrary, the differences between male and f e m a l e carers should be recognised a n d
respected. It may then be more possible for carers to learn from each other.
Science For Governanc e: The Implic ations O f The Complexity Revolution
M a n a g i n g Unc ertainty, Complexity A n d Value Commitments
Keynote
Young !
Discussanti
M a r i o Giampietro
Istituto Nazionale di Ricerca per gli Alimenti e la Nutrizione, I taly.

giampietro@inran.it
Tim Allen
Department of Botany, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison

W l , USA. tfallen@facstaff.wisc.edu
Jesus Ramos Martin
Universitt Autnoma de Barcelona, I taly, ramos@inran.it
Anne I ngeborg Myhr
Norwegian I nstitute of Gene Ecology, Norway, annem@fagmed.uit.no
Organiser
The crash of reductionism against the complexity of reality
By Mario
Giampietro
The p a r a d i g m change associated to complexity implies for hard scientists the explicit acknowledgment that what is represented by models and
hard d a t a is a shared perception of the reality and not the reality. Put in another way, the scientific endeavor does not d e a l with substantive
characteristics of the reality, but rather with the set of characteristics associated to an " o b s e r v e r / o b s e r v e d complex" which a r e individuated
through a process of social validation. Heavy implications of this fact are:
(1) any f o r m a l i z a t i o n a d o p t e d in a p a r t i c u l a r scientific p r o b l e m structuring is just one of the o p e n set of possible f o r m a l i z a t i o n s .
(2) the simple time a d o p t e d within the dynamics of scientific models cannot be used to discuss of sustainability and evolution. In fact, the observed
system is becoming in time (ceteris a r e never paribus). The observer is also becoming in time (the definition of what is relevant in the problem
structuring tend to be obsolete). The mechanism of social interaction used to validate the shared perception of the reality used as input for science
is changing in time.
(3) we a r e in situation of Post-Normal Science, when the characteristics of the o b s e r v e r / o b s e r v e d complex change at a speed that by-pass the
s p e e d a t which the mechanism of social i n t e r a c t i o n can v a l i d a t e the s h a r e d p e r c e p t i o n of the r e a l i t y used as input f o r science.
The p a r a d i g m shift implied by complexity can be used to develop innovative analytical tools, which a r e alternative to the reductionistic ones.
These new tools a r e based on the explicit acknowledgment of this basic epistemologica! predicament and they requires the use of new concepts
d e r i v e d from complex system thinking (e.g. mosaic effect across scales, impredicative loop analysis, selection of narratives useful to surfing on
complex time).
eynDt
For simple systems w e can use models, but complex systems must have narratives
By Tim Allen
Hierarchy Theory is a theory of the observer's role in any f o r m a l study of complex systems. It implies that the use of models to describe and
study relevant behaviours found in the reality would require the validity of several assumptions: (1 ) it is possible to define in substantive terms
a formal identity for the system generating the behavior, [a formal identity is a finite set of relevant attributes used both for pattern recognition
and in the step of representation]. This is what makes possible to distinguish an observed system from its background and to represent the
behaviour of the system within the model; (2) the perceived characteristics of such a system will remain constant, this means that the observed
system does not become something else in time; (3) the patterns of perceived relations among changes in relevant characteristics - e.g. perceived
causality - will remain constant; (4) the choices m a d e in the definition of both the semantic identity [the semantic identity is the open set of
attributes associated to a system] and the formal identity for the observed system [the formal identity used in the model in the form of the set
of variables used to characterize the system] will remain valid for the users of the model. The interests of the observer d o not change in time.
Unfortunately, the p a r a d i g m shift implied by complexity entails acknowledging the impossibility to hold any of these assumptions. In complex
systems, analysts are f a c e d with the challenge of trying to describe a reality which has multiple non-equivalent but useful ways of being perceived
and represented. The interaction of non-equivalent observers entails the u n a v o i d a b l e existence of various, non-reducible, useful narratives.
For organizing their perception and representation of the reality humans use 'types', which a r e out of scale. W i t h the definition of types ratedependent processes are re-scaled to become rate-independent representation of perceptions and events. A narrative is a series of e l a b o r a t e
scaling operations that allows different things of different sizes to be made commensurable in our organization of perceptions and representation
of events. However: (a) narratives a r e " o b s e r v e r a n d o b s e r v e d specific". That is, any selection of t y p e s a n d narratives is reflecting the
characteristics of the o b s e r v e r / o b s e r v e d complex; (b) the usefulness of narratives tends to e x p i r e . That is, both the observer a n d the o b s e r v e d
are becoming in time, often at different paces, in a process of co-evolution.
Young
Multiple scale Integrated Analysis of Societal Metabolism (MSIASM): examples of applications
By Jesus Ramos Martin
The challenge addressed by MSIASM is the representation of the performance of a set of relevant attributes of the system, by using ' p a r a l l e l
non equivalent descriptive domains'. That is, descriptions that refer to both economic and biophysical d a t a a n d to events perceived on different
scales. In o r d e r to g e n e r a t e coherence across non-equivalent descriptive domains the a p p r o a c h relies on a skeleton of congruence relations
among the values taken by variables used to m a p the relative size of parts and whole of a metabolic nested hierarchical system (a dissipative
holarchy). The rationale of the a p p r o a c h is b a s e d on 3 basic concepts: (1 ) 'mosaic effects across levels' (obtained by using redundancy in the
representation of parts and whole across non-equivalent descriptive domains); (2) ' i m p r e d i c a t i v e loop analysis (addressing the existence of
chicken-eggs p a r a d o x e s in self-organizing a d a p t i v e systems, in which the identity of the whole defines the identity of the parts a n d viceversa);
(3) 'the continuous search and the u p d a t i n g of useful narratives for surfing in complex time (based on the acknowledgment of the f a c t that the
o b s e r v e r / o b s e r v e d complex requires the simultaneous consideration of several n o n - r e d u c i b l e r e l e v a n t time d i f f e r e n t i a l s ) .
The procedure of MSIASM is based on the implementation of 3 semantic steps:
(A) Choosing variables a b l e to m a p the size of the system as perceived f r o m within the b l a c k - b o x (e.g. when c o m p a r i n g lower level elements
to the whole). The definition of size using a v a r i a b l e # 1 (as perceived from within) has to provide the closure of the representation across levels.
That is the size at the level n must be the same as the size resulting when summing all the lower level components described at level n - 1 . W h e n
d e a l i n g with socioeconomic system the nested hierarchical structure t y p i c a l of human societies could b e : whole country (economic) sectors
(economic) subsectors individual economic activities or households. The most p o p u l a r choice of variables f o r v a r i a b l e # 1 in MSIASM is "hours
of human activity" and "hectares of land a r e a " .
(B) Choosing variables a b l e to m a p the size of the system as perceived by its context in terms of e x c h a n g e d flows (e.g. "exosomatic e n e r g y " ,
" a d d e d value", "other relevant flows of key material inputs"). The definition of size using a v a r i a b l e # 2 (as perceived from the context) has to
be based on v a r i a b l e s a b l e to describe the interaction of the system with its context (e.g. consumption of exosomatic e n e r g y , a d d e d value,
material flows). Then a mechanism of accounting is implemented to allocate fractiosn of the t o t a l f l o w (the value of v a r i a b l e # 2 a t the level n)
to the individual compartments (the value of v a r i a b l e # 2 for compartments considered at lower levels).
(C) This i n t e g r a t e d m a p p i n g b a s e d on the selection of t w o v a r i a b l e s ( # 1 a n d # 2 ) is then p e r f o r m e d over the nested hierarchical structure
associated to the nested metabolic system (which is reflecting the n a r r a t i v e within which the m o d e l has been d e v e l o p e d ) . A t this point, all
compartments of the society (defined across levels either as wholes or parts) can be characterized in terms of 2 extensive variables (the definitions
of size f r o m within # 1 and that from outside # 2 ) a n d one intensive v a r i a b l e (the ratio of the two). The resulting f a m i l y of intensive v a r i a b l e s
# 3 can reflect either a biophysical accounting (e.g., exosomatic energy flows per unit of human activity) as well as an economic accounting (flows
of a d d e d value per unit of human activity).
W i t h MSIASM it becomes possible to establish relations of congruence over the integrated set of definitions of: (A) extensive variables # 1 , such
as investments of human activity, land a r e a ; (B) extensive variables # 2 , such as throughputs of matter, energy and a d d e d value in the various
compartments; and (C) the typical e x p e c t e d values of intensive v a r i a b l e # 3 associated to the various natural identities (typologies) making up
socioeconomic systems (at different hierarchical levels).
In this way, we can generate coherence in the resulting information space (e.g., economic and biophysical readings referring to different levels
of the nested hierarchy). These theoretical points a r e discussed using practical examples of application of these concepts.
Discussant
Rethinking the concept of sound science in the G M O arena?
By Anne Ingeborg Myhr
The present controversy over genetically m o d i f i e d organisms (GMOs) has caused a recommendation for e x t e n d e d peer-review processes as
involvement of different interest groups. O n the other hand the need for involvement of the public has rarely been e x t e n d e d to the provision
of scientific knowledge itself. This may be due to the consideration that objective criteria for defining "sound science" a r e considered to "sort
out" competing approaches and alternative hypothesis in the production of scientific understanding. W e describe how the criticism against four
controversial G M O studies a p p e a r s to follow the traditional understanding of scientific representation and use of knowledge. The criticism or
the "second-peer review process" has questioned the scientific quality of the published studies and deviation from the normative principle of
"sound science" has been claimed to discredit them and exclude them from further risk analysis. I consider that the need to qualify science as
sound is at odds with the prime responsibility of scientist to strive for increased knowledge in a r e l i a b l e manner. Experts working within the
"sound science" p a r a d i g m do not take into account and a d e q u a t e l y communicate the present scientific uncertainty and d o not consider alternative
hypotheses in evaluation of safety of G M O s . I will focus my comments on the implications of a d o p t i n g a limited definition of sound science, and
then recommend how to address and d i f f e r e n t l y a p p r o a c h the present scientific uncertainty and ignorance. Since my focus is primarily on the
role of science , I will argue that communication of findings representing " e a r l y - w a r n i n g s " a r e an important aspect of the scientific process and
that it may be necessary to move a w a y from traditional science and terms as "sound science" and refine scientific approaches and standards.
The Pros and Cons of Messy Governance
M a n a g i n g Uncertainty, Complexity A n d Value Commitments
:<D
- -
Keynote
Young
ussant
Roger Strand
Universitetet i Bergen, Norway, roger.strand@svt.uib.no
Jerry Ravetz
Research Methods Consultancy, London, UK.

erry_ravetz@pop3.lineone.net
Silvia Caellas i Bolt

silvia.canellas-bolta@svt.uib.no
Moses A. Boudourides
University of Patras, Greece, mboudour@upatras.gr
ganiser
The Uncertainty and Complexity of M a n a g i n g Uncertainty and Complexity
By Roger Strand
According to a certain version of Western political thinking, the messy, uncertain and complex w o r l d should be d e a l t with by getting the facts
straight, reducing the uncertainties to risk, finding the simple patterns and mechanisms underlying the complex phenomena, and firmly distinguishing
between facts and values, objectivity and subjectivity. In short, this was the philosophical foundation of the efficiency and progress of modernity.
A co-product was the pervasive problems of late modernity, to the extent that one in the latter decades have seen various doubts in the universality
o f this s c i e n t i f i c - p o l i t i c a l m o d e l , r a n g i n g f r o m p o s t - n o r m a l s c i e n c e t o t h e r e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f r e l i g i o n - b a s e d p o l i c y .
O n a level slightly less generalising, one has seen the development of a number of insights, tools and techniques for discovering and d e a l i n g
with uncertainty, complexity, and the interrelationships between facts a n d values. In academic life there e m e r g e d various discoveries or even
trends like general systems theory, catastrophe theory, chaos theory, f r a c t a l geometry, complex a d a p t i v e systems etc to study complexity as
seen in a variety of systems. There came strategies for uncertainty management, developing new and "softer" mathematics and communication
tools. And a b o v e all within the social sciences, researchers increased their reflexivity, trying to d e a l with their own personal value-ladenness,
upholding virtues that indeed have existed a long time in some disciplines. And in the policy end there are the attempts to develop a precautionary
p r i n c i p l e t h a t m a y w o r k , the Rio-inspired a t t e m p t s a t transversal g o v e r n a n c e , a n d a g e n e r a l t r e n d t o w a r d s public p a r t i c i p a t i o n .
The speakers in this session believe, we think, in this general movement towards a non-reductive stance towards and management of uncertainty,
complexity and value-commitments. Even if one may be uncertain as to whether it really helps, one could often argue that we should try something
new out of the despair of the g l o b a l lack of sustainability or fairness.
However, in this session we do not want to reproduce our own arguments that we so often have made to convince ourselves and others (or perhaps
to survive external criticism). Rather, we would like to invite you to sink down with us for a moment of hyper-reflexive exercise: Are we really
on the right track? O r a r e complex systems just a new simple science; post-normal science just normal science b e f o r e it gets g o i n g ; and public
participation little more than what somebody called useful idiots? How d o we decide if and when it is better to proceed with well justified but
embryonal methodologies (or perhaps simply playing), than the experience-based "conventional" science and governance that might have a
p h i l o s o p h i c a l f o u n d a t i o n t h a t m a y b e an instance of p l a i n l y f a l s e consciousness, but t h a t a n y w a y p l a y s no r o l e in p r a c t i c e ?
H o w extended peer communities can handle subtlety and complexity in the assessment of scientific materials
By Jerry Ravetz
How e x t e n d e d peer communities can handle subtlety and complexity in the assessment of scientific materials. In this session I will attempt to
resolve a problem that has been extant for nearly f o r t y years, since the time that I wrote Scientific Knowledge and its Social Problems. There I
showed that scientific research is craft work, whose objects a r e concepts in interaction with experience. I also showed that scientific arguments
are both complex and subtle. This is why quality-control rests with the specialist peer community, and therefore, lacking the safeguard of external
assessment, is very vulnerable to the state of morale in each scientific community. That particular discussion related to traditional research, based
on my experience of mathematics. Much of the rest of the book was devoted to the new state of science ('industrialised') and in the Conclusion I
called for a new 'critical science' with a radical, humanitarian ideology.
Soon after the book a p p e a r e d , a student observed a problem. The quality-assurance system within science depends on a collgial commitment,
which is certainly not present in the antagonistic forums of debates on science-based policy issues. I had a l r e a d y noticed this, but I said that
sharp criticisms by opponents would ensure quality. That reassurance would be relevant only if the d e b a t e were conducted properly, aiming at
consensus rather than victory; and such conditions cannot be assumed to hold always. Later, when Silvio and I d e v e l o p e d the theory of Post-
Normal Science, we implicitly recognised the problem when we said that an extended peer community consisted of those committed to resolving
the issue. There is a recognised technical term for this, 'negotiating in good faith', which has not yet been applied to scientific issues. The implication
of our definition was that if some stakeholders did not have such a commitment, the situation was beyond Post-Normal and therefore beyond
resolution by non-coercive means. Unfortunately this was never spelled out in our writings.
But recently I have realised a deeper problem. Even when the members of the extended peer community are doing their best, how can they
be competent in assessing the scientific materials, which, by my earlier teaching, are subtle, complex and necessarily esoteric? Surely, the experts
can easily 'blind them with science' at any point. My task now is to understand why this doesn't happen in practice. The solution lies in the difference
between the sorts of 'pure' science I had in mind when I wrote the book, mainly mathematics and other 'hard' natural sciences, and those involved
in policy debates. In the former case, the assessment of quality is internal; the question is the usefulness of this result for further work in its own
field. The examination will necessarily be deep, but also narrow. In the policy case, the quality is contextual. The minutiae of the evidence and
argument in the result are less critical than its relevance and robustness in the policy context. Also, critical points of quality relate to method,
which are relatively easily understood. For example, pitfalls of statistical inference can be identified and explained; and these are the usual
focus of critical scrutiny. Further, the relevance of lab-based results (assuming a pure, stable environment) to real situations of hazards or pollution
is easily scrutinised. We should also remember that much of the science involved in the policy process is 'immature' compared to mathematics
and frequently 'ineffective' in relation to its functions. In such circumstances, critics are not confronted by a mass of arcane technicalities requiring
lengthy training to comprehend, but rather by a collection of shaky arguments which are easily exposed.
In summary, I have come to realise that the locus of 'complexity and subtlety' in Post-Normal Science has shifted from the internal structure of
the scientific materials to their function in a policy debate. Indeed, since the management of uncertainty is now central to all such debates, it
can be argued that the 'extended' members of the peer community have a greater competence than the 'experts', whose previous experience
of dogmatic training and puzzle-solving practice has rendered them incapable of managing that crucial aspect of their materials.
Young
The Norcat Project: Managing Uncertainty, Complexity and Landscape values in a Norwegian village
By Silvia Caellas i Bolt
NORCAT is a transdisciplinary research project dealing with the management of uncertainty, complexity and the multitude of perspectives and
values involved in environmental and landscape governance. Applying the theoretical framework of post-normal science and participatory
approaches, the research project aims to produce, explore and compare innovative designs of processes of environmental governance in Catalunya
(Spain) and Nordland (Norway).
We will present briefly the NORCAT research project, discussing the relevance of its insights in the processes of environmental governance. More
importantly, we will show the preliminary results of the work done until now, which has been focused in the case of dredging a TBT-polluted
harbour in Nordland. We will focus in the analysis of the uncertainty involved in the case, and the outcome of the focus groups that will take
place next October.
More information about the project: http://www.uib.no/svt/norcat.
Participation Under Uncertainty

By Moses A. Boudourides
This essay reviews a number of theoretical perspectives about uncertainty and participation in the present-day knowledge-based society. After
discussing the on-going reconfigurations of science, technology and society, w e examine how a p p r o p r i a t e for policy studies are various theories
of social complexity. Post-normal science is such an e x a m p l e of a complexity-motivated a p p r o a c h , which justifies civic participation as a policy
response to an increasing uncertainty. But there a r e d i f f e r e n t categories and models of uncertainties implying a variety of configurations of
policy processes. A particular role in all of them is p l a y e d by expertise whose democratization is an often-claimed imperative nowadays.
Moreover, we discuss how different participatory arrangements are shaped into instruments of policy-making and framing regulatory processes.
As participation necessitates and triggers deliberation, we proceed to examine the role and the barriers of deliberativeness. Finally, we conclude
by referring to some critical views about the ultimate assumptions of recent European policy frameworks and the conceptions of civic participation
and politicization that they invoke.
Technology, Foresight and People
K n o w l e d g e Assessment
Organis
Bruce Beck
University of G e o r g i a , Athens, USA. BECK@smokey.forestry.uga.edu
Keyn
Peter Head
FaberMaunsell, London, UK. peter.head@fabermaunsell.com
Sarah Hunt
University of G e o r g i a , Athens, USA. sarhunt@uga.edu
Scira Menoni
DIAP-Politecnico di Milano, Italy, menoni@mail.polimi.it
'oung
Discussant
Organiser
A Conc ept of Partic ipatory Tec hnologic al Envisioning
By Bruce Be ck
It is all very well to b e a b l e to speculate about the technologies of the longer-term future. But d o the p e o p l e and policy-makers really want
this? Take the case of water. A t the Third W o r l d W a t e r Forum in Kyoto ( M a r c h , 2 0 0 3 ) , or the Johannesburg W o r l d Summit on Sustainable
Development (August, 2 0 0 2 ) , it would have been easy to take home this message:
"Forget the science, engineering, and technology for we a l r e a d y have enough of these just d e a l with on-the-ground, village-scale people
and politics, and some national politics too (via a p p r o p r i a t e l y p a c k a g e d sound bites for the politicians). Providing the poor with access to secure
water supplies and safe, hygienic domestic waste assimilation requires nothing more."
From this perspective, there seems no room for any kind of constructive, "technocractic" speculation even in the more liberated terms of the
21 st Century in order to generate foresight about the future.
Do engineers and technologists have any role to play in moving society towards greater sustainability? Can we marry sustainability science (Kates
ef a l , 2 0 0 1 ) with a d a p t i v e community learning (Beck et a l , 2 0 0 2 ) and computational environmental foresight (Beck, 2 0 0 2 ) , to create a socially
comfortable kind of "technological envisioning"? Could we develop a process whereby the community of the lay public, in concert with enlightened
engineers, through a continually a d a p t i n g , u p d a t i n g , and evolving procedural dialogue, might visualize possible technological futures that would
b e d e e m e d more sustainable arrangements of the man-environment relationship than the present? Could we, the community including
technologists as equal members with no special privilege look to a distant future in which, to use the water sector again as an example, cities
can be imagined to be more sustainable because of the innovation of a urine-separating toilet that was ecologically viable, economically feasible,
and socially desirable?
O u r session w i l l seek t o b e g i n t o a n s w e r such q u e s t i o n s , a t t h e i n t e r f a c e s b e t w e e n t e c h n o l o g y , f o r e s i g h t , a n d t h e
people.
References
Beck, (ed) ( 2 0 0 2 ) , "Environme ntal
Fore sight and Mode ls: A Manife sto",
Elsevier, O x f o r d , 4 7 3 p .
Beck, , Fath, D, Parker, , Osidele, O O, Cowie, G M , Rasmussen, C, Patten, C, Norton, G , Steinemann, A, Borrett, S R, Cox, D,
Mayhew, M C, Zeng, X - Q and Zeng, W ( 2 0 0 2 ) , "Developing a Concept of A d a p t i v e Community Learning: Case Study of a Rapidly Urbanizing
W a t e r s h e d " , Inte grate d Asse ssme nt, 3(4), p p 2 9 9 - 3 0 7 .
Kates, R W , Clark, W C, Corell, R, Hall J M , Jaeger, C C, Lowe, I , McCarthy, J J, Schellnhuber, H J, Bolin, B, Dickson, M , Faucheux, S, G a l l o p i n ,
G C, G r b l e r , A, Huntley, B, Jger, J, Jodha, S, Kasperson, R E, M a b o g u n j e , A, Matson, P, Mooney, H, M o o r e , B, O ' R i o r d a n , T and Svedin,
U (2001 ), "Sustainability Science", Science, 2 9 2 , p p 641 - 6 4 2 (27 April).
Keynote
A strategic and prac tic al approac h to sustainable development of c ities
By Pe te r He ad
Successful cities require huge investments to maintain public services and to progress improvement in quality of life for citizens and visitors. This
has been done with little r e g a r d for overall efficiency in the use of energy, land, materials, water and people. The ecological footprint of cities
is growing unsustainably and the demands on investment a r e becoming u n a f f o r d a b l e . London is taking a strategic a p p r o a c h to addressing these
problems with the aim being to seed the virtuous circles of sustainable development to improve internal efficiency.
This a p p r o a c h aims to pursue investments, plans, designs, construction methods, o p e r a t i o n a l and decommissioning strategies that l e a d to social,
environmental and economic gains. Peter will explain the methodology that London is using to deliver a Plan through a sustainable development
framework using a voluntary code of practice b a c k e d by an implementation support structure.
Civil Infrastructure as if People Really Matter

By Sarah Hunt
Achieving transparency, openness and participation in science policy processes will be no small undertaking. Steps in the right direction a r e being
taken, and increased public participation can certainly a i d in creating more socially and environmentally just societies. However, the enthusiasm
behind these movements and the rhetoric that is beginning to be e m p l o y e d can l e a d to obfuscation of some issues. Concepts such as 'now w e
have the right answer in the form of public participation', ' a c a d e m i a has come down from its ivory tower' a n d even the w o r d pair 'Science a n d
Society' can create both the positive energy that this conference is g e a r e d t o w a r d generating, but also hide some underlying constructions a n d
p o t e n t i a l conflicts. Thus it becomes i m p o r t a n t t o t a k e a d e e p e r look a t some o f these concepts a n d e x p o s e them f o r discussion.
First we need to consider history, or more specifically the history of ideas. A conceptualization of the e b b and flow in ideas helps maintain critical
distance as one implements new paradigms. Though enthusiasm for implementing such p a r a d i g m s as 'public participation' or even 'green building
codes' is to be l a u d e d , an awareness of the history of ideas points us in the direction of needing to create f l e x i b l e strategies a n d plans that
will allow for change as ideas progress. Secondly, as we discuss the ways in which to bring 'society' into 'science', it becomes necessary to analyze
what is s a i d , or not s a i d , by the use of these terms. Similarly, when w e speak of 'academics as having come d o w n f r o m its ivory t o w e r ' it is
important to realize that this phrase both creates the i d e a of a c a d e m i a coming down and mixing with society, as well as supports the i d e a that
a c a d e m i a has been removed from society. Thus this concept hides a n d leaves unexamined the ways in which a c a d e m i a has been i n t e g r a t e d
with, and influenced by society, even prior to this new movement 'down from the ivory tower.' The influence of government and industry on science
can not d e n i e d . In the light of this, w h a t does the concept of 'academics in their ivory t o w e r ' r e a l l y mean. These government a n d c o r p o r a t e
influences on scientific and technological development bring forth the lie in the i d e a of 'Science' previously having been s e p a r a t e d from 'Society'.
Thus w e reach the third point of discussion, the issue of power. By bringing these issues of discourse and power to light, w e create new spaces
in which to address such questions as 'whether increasing societies role in science will have a detrimental effect on Science'. By reopening the
discourse to include the ways in which 'society' (meaning government and industry) has been influencing 'science' all along, we refocus this question
on the real issue of concern. This being ' W h i c h aspect of society the public, governmental bodies, or c o r p o r a t e institutions should set goals
for technological development and set directions for scientific policy.' If our goals a r e a more socially and environmentally just w o r l d , increased
public participation certainly seems necessary. But openness, transparency a n d participation a r e only going to be possible if w e directly tackle
the issues of differential power, and access to power, between public, c o r p o r a t e , and governmental actors.
Discussant
N e w Perspectives on Conservation of our Cultural Heritage at Risk
By Scira Menoni
At the end of the Nineties, the Unesco has launched a program named "Cultural heritage at risk", referring to the need for deeper understanding
of the natural threats menacing several important Unesco sites all over the world. One of the most important agencies working for the protection
of historic towns and monuments was recognizing this way that there is a crucial interconnection between the latter and the environment. It is a
rather trivial discovery, which however comes from a rather narrow field of expertise that had always focused on the effect of time on monuments
rather than on the g e o g r a p h y of the places hosting and interacting actively with them.
The question of preservation of the cultural heritage is particularly crucial in a country like Italy, at least for two reasons: because it hosts around
the 8 0 % of historic landmarks and works of art and for its being exposed to different risks, like earthquakes, floods, volcanos, and landslides.
This is certainly the reason why the call of Unesco d i d not find the Italian scientific community unprepared: a number of initiatives had already
taken place, going back to the early Eighties.
One of the first thinkers in this r e g a r d was certainly Giovanni Urbani, who had been the chief of the Conservation Bureau in the Seventies and
who promoted a rather innovative exhibition of the Umbria patrimony subject to the seismic threat. Following his ideas, which included the notion
of prevention rather than restoration, which he considered to be a form of emergency intervention, a large project was initiated in the early
Nineties, named the Risk map of cultural sites in Italy, to cover the whole country. This Risk map is still at an experimental stage; nevertheless
the initiative introduced the notion of risk prevention related not only to degradation due to time and misuse, but also to natural hazards menacing
many Italian provinces and municipalities. Another important project has been promoted by Enea in conjunction with the Italian Ministry for Higher
education to integrate the information hold by the Conservation Bureau and the most recent advancement in geology and in other hazard studies.
A number of relevant questions arise when the preservation of the cultural heritage menaced by some kind of natural (or technological) hazard
is considered, like for example:
Is there any implicit assumption that buildings and artefacts are more important than people's lives and should be granted more or even
equal attention? It seems an incredibly anti-human question, however in some circumstances in the past, like for example the Firenze flood
in 1 9 6 6 , the world media coverage on the event completely neglected the fact that several people lost their lives while all the attention
was captured by the loss of paintings and other works of a r t ;
W h o should decide priorities among people's safety and well-being and historic preservation; and who should decide among different
sites at risk and upon what criteria?
In order to guarantee the safeguard of original features of historic buildings is it acceptable to fix standards of safety less stringent
than for new buildings? (This is the case of seismic retrofitting for example).
Other questions arise when the interaction between science and policy of historic heritage preservation is considered:
what are the most a p p r o p r i a t e tools to intervene, when the quantity and the importance of artefacts at stake is very large?
what are the standards to be recommended?
how the building sector should be p r e p a r e d to intervene in ancient buildings? This implies a more general questions regarding the
education and preparation of new and renovated professional expertise;
who should be hold responsible for implementing tools and verifying their efficacy, as this sector, as many others equally complex, is
fragmented among a variety of public and semi-private organisations and agencies;
in the setting of priorities how the culture and the sense of identity of settled communities should be taken into account?
However, the most important question to be answered relates to how the value of cultural heritage can be estimated. Interesting enough, in t w o
workshops held at the G e t t y Institute for Conservation, this issue has been w i d e l y discussed, g e t t i n g to proposals v e r y similar to the ones
recommended in other arenas, related for e x a m p l e to risk management or environmental preservation. The concept of sustainability has been
p r o p o s e d , focusing on the definition of a cultural c a p i t a l that should be t r a n s f e r r e d to future generations the same w a y as it was given to us.
No question like what should be g r a n t e d the status of a relevant cultural heritage can be d e c i d e d only upon economic or upon esthetical basis,
without considering the sense of the place of people living in the site, of people wishing to visit it, or simply wishing it continue to exist independently
from any possibility of direct consumption. A more p a r t i c i p a t o r y process is c a l l e d for, both in the a t t e m p t to construct a more complex a n d
articulated concept of value and to integrate the opinion of different categories of p e o p l e mentioned a b o v e , though the priority is with p e o p l e
living in the site. At least for t w o reasons: first, when the site is located in a hazardous place, they risk their own lives; second, they maintain the
site a living place preserving it from becoming a dead-museum like city.
There is, however, also another level at which residents' perspectives about the site can b e valued by decision makers and scientists: often residents
preserve important documents or traces of oral tradition useful to reconstruct the path of changes and transformations undergone by buildings
and urban areas. The latter can become p a r t of a history of vulnerability and changes in the p a t t e r n a n d severity of the h a z a r d over centuries.
Those transformations may also show to which extent the population has achieved a successful strategy of a d a p t a t i o n to the physical environment.
There a r e of course several difficulties in democratising the decision making process r e g a r d i n g cultural h e r i t a g e preservation, p a r t i c u l a r l y in
I t a l y w h e r e t h e l a t t e r is r a t h e r w i d e s p r e a d a n d i m p o r t a n t m a s t e r p i e c e s c a n b e f o u n d a l m o s t in e a c h m u n i c i p a l i t y .
At what scale the decision should be made?

How the priorities can be d e c i d e d a t the national or even regional level, when conservation is inevitably a local matter?
How this process can take place without eliciting, combined with the sense of identity, ancient a n d recent rivalries?
In a globalised w o r l d , the roots of settled populations in a place become often the reason for new or renovated conflicts, in which scientists may
easily get t r a p p e d into.
Until now, the question of what sites to preserve first or to what site devote the majority of resources has been d e c i d e d case by case, or waiting
for disasters and disruptions to occur.
A number of initiatives demonstrate, however, a growing concern of both decision makers and the public r e g a r d i n g the preservation of our historic
patrimony: the tragic choice behind any question r e g a r d i n g the need to address scarce resources to what a r e considered vital goals becomes
therefore more evident and explicit than in the past. The discovery of this "tragic choices" when it has to b e d e c i d e d if to preserve (subtracting
resources to other fields of e x p e n d i t u r e ) , what to preserve first, at w h a t costs, makes it incredibly difficult to get along with the t r a d i t i o n a l
practices there have been d e e m e d acceptable until very recently.
As the categories of sustainability, elicitation of public interest, of cultural capital have been proved to enhance the d e b a t e that seemed a little
stagnant in the "impossible to e v a l u a t e " p a r a d i g m , so the discussion of science dmocratisation in fields crossing other relevant public policy
issues r e q u i r i n g scientific a n d t e c h n i c a l inputs can p r o v e to b e of s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r e s t to the o b j e c t of t h e p r e s e n t c o n t r i b u t i o n .
Other aspects should be considered as well, very similarly again to other relevant public policy-mandated science matters, in which an individual
problem cannot be isolated from the network of interconnected systems. In our case there is the n e e d for changing the focus of preservation
from the unique, individual work of a r t , to the entire urban environment in which the latter is l o c a t e d . This is p a r t i c u l a r l y true when the entire
urban a r e a or a p a r t of it has to be considered a historic patrimony to be p r o t e c t e d , testifying the restless work of transforming, innovating
and keeping the most precious artefacts of cities.
Participatory Technology Assessment Processes: Reflections On Theory And Practice

Transparency, Openess and Participation in Science Policy Processes
Organiser
Jacquie Burgess
Department of Geography, University College London, UK.

.burgess@geog.ucl.ac.uk
Keyno
Luigi Pellizzoni
Department of Human Sciences, University of Trieste, Italy.

luigi.pellizzoni@uniud.it
Youn
Jason Chilvers
Environment & Society Unit, University College London, UK.

.chilvers@ucl.ac.uk
Kirsty Sherlock and Caspian Richards
Socio-economics Research Programme, Macaulay Institute, Aberdeen,

Scotland, k.sherlock@macaulay.ac.uk
Elena Collavin
Dipartimento di Filosofia Universit di Trieste, Italy, collavin@units.it
Discussan
Participatory technology assessment processes: reflections on theory and practice

By Jacquie Burgess
The drive for new, more inclusive governance strategies at national and European level grows as the regulation of scientific-technological innovation
becomes more hazardous for decision-makers. Take G M as a current example. W h o is to decide whether to allow the introduction of commercial
G M crops? How will that decision be justified in 1 0 or 2 0 years time if one outcome is that ecosystems are fundamentally compromised? W h a t
will be the political, economic and social consequences of making the wrong decision? How will the impacts of those consequences vary at
different spatial scales?
New governance strategies are based on a principle of partnership between the state, experts, stakeholder interests, and citizens. Through
partnership, so the argument runs, it is possible to bring more diverse knowledges and values to bear on the problem. Capturing diversity also
demands new institutional arrangements. Black-boxed, expert-driven methodologies such as formal risk assessment procedures or cost-benefit
analysis a r e not a p p r o p r i a t e . In their stead, a range of deliberative processes are being d e v e l o p e d through which participants can reason
their way to a decision. To what extent does empirical evidence provide support for these propositions? How robust are they? In what respects
do inclusive, deliberative institutions produce 'better' decisions than other approaches?
It is w i d e l y acknowledged that little progress has so f a r been made in developing criteria by which to judge the effectiveness of deliberative
participatory processes. This is a serious weakness, given the strength of claims being made: 'public participation in policy making in science
and technology is necessary to reflect and acknowledge democratic ideals and enhance trust in regulators and transparency in regulatory
systems', p24) to cite one influential recent paper. Critics are entitled to demand more robust evidence to support these claims, especially given
the opprobrium h e a p e d on more traditional and positivistic methods of risk a p p r a i s a l by proponents of the new governance for science and
technology.
One key aim of this session will, therefore, be to open up questions of how best to evaluate deliberative participatory processes in developing
science policy. Speakers will address a number of critical issues such as representativeness of participants; transparency of process; the
search for consensus; effectiveness in assisting policy outcome; and questions of geographical scale. Questions will be asked about the
extent to which there is convergence between the evaluative criteria supported by academics, process practitioners and participants in deliberative
processes.
Evaluation: the Achilles heel of participatory technology assessment?
Deliberative M a p p i n g is a participatory technology assessment methodology which sits alongside citizens' juries and consensus conferences in
its aims of promoting d e b a t e between experts, stakeholders and citizens from a w i d e range of social groups. DM differs from juries and
conferences in that it facilitates quantitative and qualitative appraisal, based in both individual and group-based deliberations. Both specialists
and citizens complete the a p p r a i s a l process, providing a unique opportunity for comparative assessment of criteria selection and option
performance. In this paper, I shall use the case material from the DM project which focused on options for closing the ' g a p ' between the number
of patients requiring a kidney transplant, and the number of potential donors.
I will discuss the extent to which, from the different perspectives
of the specialists, the citizens, the research team, external stakeholders and the sponsors , the process was judged to be effective. In the latter
stages of the paper, I will consider whether the lessons learned from DM have relevance for other complex scientific policy appraisals.
Keynote
Issues and challenges of participatory technology assessment
By Luigi Pellizzoni
The drive for new, more inclusive governance strategies at national and European level grows as the regulation of scientific-technological innovation
becomes more hazardous for decision-makers.
Take G M as a current example. W h o is to decide whether to allow the introduction of commercial G M crops? How will that decision b e justified
in 1 0 or 2 0 years time if one outcome is that ecosystems a r e fundamentally compromised? W h a t will b e the p o l i t i c a l , economic a n d social
consequences o f m a k i n g t h e w r o n g decision? How w i l l t h e i m p a c t s o f those c o n s e q u e n c e s v a r y a t d i f f e r e n t s p a t i a l scales?
New governance strategies a r e based on a principle of partnership between the state, experts, stakeholder interests, a n d citizens. Through
partnership, so the argument runs, it is possible to bring more diverse knowledges a n d values to b e a r on the problem. Capturing diversity also
demands new institutional arrangements. Black-boxed, e x p e r t - d r i v e n methodologies such as f o r m a l risk assessment procedures or cost-benefit
analysis are not a p p r o p r i a t e . In their s t e a d , a range of d e l i b e r a t i v e processes a r e being d e v e l o p e d through which participants can reason
their way to a decision. To what extent does empirical evidence provide support for these propositions? How robust a r e they? In what respects
d o inclusive, deliberative institutions produce 'better' decisions than other approaches?
It is w i d e l y a c k n o w l e d g e d that little progress has so f a r been m a d e in developing criteria by which to judge the effectiveness of d e l i b e r a t i v e
p a r t i c i p a t o r y processes. This is a serious weakness, given the strength of claims being m a d e : 'public p a r t i c i p a t i o n in policy making in science
and technology is necessary to reflect a n d a c k n o w l e d g e democratic ideals a n d enhance trust in regulators a n d transparency in r e g u l a t o r y
systems', p 2 4 ) to cite one influential recent paper. Critics a r e entitled to demand more robust evidence to support these claims, especially given
the o p p r o b r i u m h e a p e d on more t r a d i t i o n a l and positivistic methods of risk a p p r a i s a l by proponents of the new governance f o r science a n d
technology.
O n e key aim of this session will, therefore, be to open up questions of how best to evaluate d e l i b e r a t i v e p a r t i c i p a t o r y processes in d e v e l o p i n g
science policy. Speakers will address a number of critical issues such as representativeness of participants; transparency of process; the
search for consensus; effectiveness in assisting policy outcome; and questions of g e o g r a p h i c a l scale. Questions will be asked a b o u t the
extent to which there is convergence between the evaluative criteria supported by academics, process practitioners and participants in deliberative
processes.
Young
Participatory Environmental Risk Appraisal in the UK - Practitioner Perspectives on Effective Practice in the Area of Radioactive Waste
Management
By Jason Chilvers
Despite the r a p i d development of theoretical frameworks a n d p a r t i c i p a t o r y experiments in recent years e x p l o r i n g the effective involvement of
citizens and stakeholders in scientific assessment processes throughout western democracies, significant gaps remain in our understanding of what
this means in practice. This p a p e r reports on research undertaken with practitioners (process experts, p a r t i c i p a t o r y practitioners, environmental
scientists and decision makers) to better understand what effective practice means to them based on their own practical experiences. It d r a w s
on a series of in-depth interviews a n d a workshop process that d r e w together the perspectives of practitioners who a r e currently d e v e l o p i n g
analytic-deliberative practice in the area of radioactive waste management in the UK. Despite considerable fragmentation and compartmentalisation
between practitioners in this community important areas of convergence a r e emerging as to what effective practice means. Emerging principles
are presented and e x p l a i n e d in terms of p a r t i c i p a t o r y environmental risk a p p r a i s a l in general and d e l i b e r a t i v e risk communication specifically.
Sharing experiences of participation within Scottish environmental policy networks

By Kirsty Sherlock and Caspian Richards
Contemporary environmental management theory advocates greater public participation in policy making and implementation (Warren, 2 0 0 2 ) .
Although Scottish environmental policy makers subscribe to the philosophy of inclusive deliberation, many practical and epistemologica! obstacles
to implementation remain. Our p a p e r outlines the findings from a workshop that aimed to generate solutions to these obstacles through sharing
experiences. The workshop brought together academics, policy makers and practitioners within the Scottish environmental sector. The p a p e r
will concentrate on the social learning outcomes of the workshop, in order to suggest how other policy networks might benefit from our shared
experiences.
References: W a r r e n C (2002) Managing
Scotland's Environment, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press
Public information and discourses of decision-making in G M O field trials in Italy. Beyond the legal procedure: citizens, scientists and
administrators during a local public debate
By Elena Collavin
Public information and discourses of decision-making in G M O field trials in Italy.
Beyond the legal procedure: citizens, scientists and administrators during a local public d e b a t e .
Legislation and practice concerning G M f i e l d trials(i) is a particularly g o o d example of how public policy about technology, the discourses of
science itself, and social issues surrounding information, open d e b a t e , and public participation coalesce in a specific case, and simultaneously
involve institutions and individuals at different levels. Distinct social actors are involved in the policy and the decision making procedures to permit
experiments that involve cultivation of genetically modified crops, and many more are involved, on the one hand, in the actual experiment on
the ground, a n d , on the other, as concerned local citizens, scientific or commercial advocates, or as committed activists. The proposed p a p e r
will present extended analysis of a field trial with the aim of examining issues of transparency and public participation in science policy in an
exemplary situation.
The present research is carried out within the PARADYS(2) project, a three year international study funded by the EU. The focus of PARADYS
is "communicated citizenship" in decision-making procedures governing G M O f i e l d trials in seven EU countries. Data collected in the Italian
research are being analysed with tools derived from sociolinguistics and linguistic pragmatics. I will give an account of a participative meeting
that took place in a village where field trials are carried out. Starting with various discourses that derive from the scheduling and organization
of the public m e e t i n g , I shall consider d e b a t e s a t the meeting itself, a n d some of its reformulations in subsequent press r e p o r t s .
The encounter was organised by the mayor, that is, it occurred outside the officially legislated decision-making procedure which authorizes
experimental G M O crop sowing, which procedure does not provide for informing or consultation with local citizens. W e shall see how during
the d e b a t e such issues as the need for informing, consulting, and involving local people in such experiments arise and are dealt with by citizens,
politicians, and scientists.
Openness, transparency and participation of lay people in decisions related with science policy and applications are central concerns in a number
of international documents and EU Directives (for example Cartaghena Protocol, and the EU Directive 2 0 0 1 / 1 8 regulating field trials). Italy
still seems to be waiting for new a p p r o p r i a t e procedural forms to make such requirements for public participation made concrete; indeed the
legislation regulating G M O field trials is one example of the permanence of a concern rising delay in developing such innovative instruments
for governance. Meanwhile, a number of Italian regions have issued laws prohibiting field trials, and more than a hundred councils declared
themselves "antitransgeninci".
The pronouncement locally issued does not have a defined force in preventing authorized field trials to occur on the council territory, but it clearly
signals g r o w i n g concern s u r r o u n d i n g g e n e t i c a l l y m o d i f i e d o r g a n i s m s a n d a d i f f u s e d o p p o s i t i o n t o h o s t i n g G M O e x p e r i m e n t s .
The W h i t e Paper on Governance by the Commission begins with the matter of f a c t consideration that " p e o p l e increasingly distrust institutions
and politics," and science is obviously one very important institution of our society. A lot of work is being done in o r d e r to understand the causes
of such increasing distrust and set the bases to change such tendency. A recent Study on Governance entitled "The role of civil society" seems
to set the a g e n d a for democratising and increasing the involvement of civil society in the political process, r e p o r t i n g how one of the effects of
such i n v o l v e m e n t is i n d e e d i n c r e a s e d t r u s t a n d t h e c r e a t i o n o f " a c c e p t a n c e a n d consensus c o n c e r n i n g d e c i s i o n s " . ( 3 )
If dmocratisation and openness seem to foster consent, perceived secretiveness a n d the isolation of institutions a n d scientists f r o m the public
may h a v e the e f f e c t of a l i e n a t i n g citizens f r o m b o t h , a l l o w i n g f o r " c o n s p i r a c y t h e o r i e s " o f t h e sort Italians seem t o b e k e e n o n .
One of the citizens present at the encounter, having just found out that in her council a r e a a f i e l d t r i a l h a d been g o i n g on in the last 2 years,
formulated such concepts well by saying that "silence makes us suspicious, w e have become suspicious." "Silence" in that case was not the product
of some culpably hidden a g e n d a , but the effect of a legal system that does not seem to keep up with the citizens' increasing expectations for
transparency and involvement in science policy.
G M O s Field Trials, the Italian legal f r a m e w o r k :
The 2 0 0 1 / l 8 UE directive regulating f i e l d trials, which requires the members to devise instruments f o r involving the public during the decision
making process should have been implemented before the end of 2 0 0 2 , but it is still waiting to b e enforced. Thus, In Italy the actual law regulating
the procedure for d e l i b e r a t e release of Genetically M o d i f i e d Organisms in the environment is still the Legislative Decree 9 2 , 3 M a r c h 1 9 9 3 ,
which a d o p t s a n d enforces the 9 0 / 2 2 0 / C E E Directive. The Biotechnology I n t e r d e p a r t m e n t a l Commission is the advising b o d y in c h a r g e of
evaluating the acceptability of the experiments proposed in the notifications. The Commission is supposed to come to a decision within 9 0 days
since an application for f i e l d trial permission is received. In particular the Commission is in charge of verifying that notifications comply with the
provisions of the law, examining the observations d r a w n by other M e m b e r States, evaluating the a p p l i c a n t requests, a n d issuing a final advice.
The Health Ministry issues the final authorizing act.
The law specifies how the I n t e r d e p a r t m e n t a l Commission in o r d e r to reach a decision can e n g a g e in consultations with interest groups or the
general public r e g a r d i n g every f a c e t of the planned release. To the best of our k n o w l e d g e this option has never been exercised in specific
cases of field trial, while environmental groups (VAS and Greenpeace) have obtained to be heard by the Commission. By law no notice is required
to be given about the received notifications. No publicity is p r o v i d e d for rejected notifications. Information can be requested from the Commission
but applicants can d e m a n d certain limits on what information is p r o v i d e d in response. In any case no information is p r o v i d e d for notifications
that a r e cancelled by the applicant. Once the Commission has given its assent to the experiment, the following means of publicity a r e p r o v i d e d
for the authorized f i e l d triahDetails of the experiment ( such as the applicant's identity, the location of the experiment and the kind of transgenic
modification c a r r i e d out on the p l a n t e d seeds) a r e published on the Health Ministry w e b site. Signs a r e put along the perimeter of the fields
where the experiment is taking place. A d d i t i o n a l l y , local authorities a r e given all the relevant information to p r o v i d e f o r a p p r o p r i a t e f i e l d
inspections. The Regional Presidency and the senior civil servants in charge of the relevant branches of the Regional Administration a r e informed.
An Italian case of f i e l d trial:
W h i l e m a p p i n g Italy in search of cases to study I contacted the mayor of a small v i l l a g e where a f i e l d t r i a l was taking place. In interviews it
became clear that he was not a w a r e of the experiments on his territory. W e w e r e interested in discovering the opinion of local p e o p l e on the
subject and the mayor was determined to share with his citizens the information he now had and to obtain answers from the responsible scientists
and political administrators.
Months after the first encounter, a public meeting took place at the village, at which all the relevant social actors were invited: scientists involved
in the research, local politicians, green activists, representatives from consumer associations, farmer unions representatives. Journalists from local
and national newspaper were present. The public encounter was filmed and has been fully transcribed.
I choose to present d a t a from this public encounter on G M O s because the level of information and involvement of local people in this case seems
to be characteristic of the Italian situation concerning f i e l d trials. Indeed, while at least one case in Italy generated long lasting protest and the
involvement of activists also f r o m a b r o a d , the g e n e r a l situation is more similar to the one f o u n d in the case a n a l y z e d h e r e .
The almost invariable lack of information and involvement of citizens stems both from the institutional setting and from a professional attitude
a p p a r e n t l y w i d e s p r e a d among civil servants concerned with f i e l d trials. At institutional level we find a legislation that provides only formally
for information to the public; At the level of regional governance, when it comes to making case bound decisions about providing mayors and
local residents with information concerning the t r i a l , civil servants and politicians invariably decide not to act in that direction. Scientists only
make their experiments public, thus exceeding their minimal statutory obligations, when they believe the trials not to be controversial and to be
welcomed by the population.
In discussing my p a p e r I shall concentrate not only on d a t a from the encounter but also on interviews with scientists and politicians, and media
coverage about the event. From the meeting I will discuss just a f e w excerpts from the transcripts. In particular I shall discuss a final exchange in
which the scientist, summoned by a citizen promises to come back next year and share his results.
Such verbal interchange seems to be interesting for reflections on the nature of surfacing and negotiation of rights in the context of a public
meeting outside the institutional setting.
(1 ) Experiments that imply the open air growing of genetically modified plants.
(2) "Participation and the dynamics of Self Positioning in Decision-Making procedures". Scientific coordinator of the research is Professor Alfons Bora, Bielefeld University,
web site: http://www.uni-bielefeld.de/iwt/paradys/
(3)IFOK, p . l l .
Science and Society in Place-based Communities: Uncomfortable Partners

Community Based Research
Organi
Ke
David Waltner Toews
University of Guelph, Canada. dwaltner@uoguelph.ca
Ligia Noronha
The Energy and Resources Institute, India. Iigian@teri.res.in
Dean Bavington
W i l f i r d Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.

dean_bavington@yahoo.ca
Are community-based research and science compatible?

By David Waltner Toews
For some, science is the rigorous pursuit of universal truth: basic relationships in atoms, for instance, or the workings of Darwinian evolution. In
the realm of policy, this approach tends toward the search for globally applicable solutions to health and environmental problems, to harmonization
of regulations b a s e d on generic, q u a n t i t a t i v e risk assessments, and to an emphasis on the w e l l - b e i n g of generic i n d i v i d u a l citizens.
However, when science interacts with society, it does so in particular eco-social contexts, each the result of multiple interacting, place-based
histories. Many researchers have described these local contexts in terms of communities, and have suggested that, without community participation,
problems and solutions cannot be defined in human-relevant ways and policy initiatives will f a i l . However, there is no generic community, and
communities are not internally homogeneous. They may be defined at once geographically and by particular religious, cultural, work, or other
interests. Even if homogeneous in some aspects (for instance, religiously, or as self-described guardians of alternative views of reality) they may
be characterized by large internal differences in power and knowledge. They may have various levels of human, social, ecological and economic
capital, which may either hinder or facilitate collaboration with scientists.
This session will e x p l o r e the benefits as well as the dangers in conducting community-based research. Some of the questions we will explore
are: How do economic, social (including gender), and political differences in power relate to the framing of scientific questions and implementing
investigations? How can the roles/ conflicts between local knowledge and general scientific understanding be managed with mutual respect,
without simply giving in to entrenched power structures? W h a t a r e relevant definitions of community for a science-society interface? W h a t is
the relationship between science, community change, and community preservation? How do you engage communities that do not question (and
d o not want to question) the supremacy of traditional, risk-based science? How do we define 'risk' in community-based science (if traditional
notions from risk management are inappropriate)? How does governance change or need to change if we use different indicators and methods
to quantify risk? Can community based research reduce risk and improve governance through building relationships of trust between agents?
W h a t a r e the possible advantages and difficulties of this kind of research in impacting policy? W h a t kinds of institutional/ organizational
arrangements seem to w o r k / not work in addressing the preceding issues? Do the existing governance structures provide legitimate space for
genuine community collaboration in science? Are these organizational arrangements entirely culture specific (ie is work in G o a or Nepal relevant
to Europe?)? Can we only speak about democratization of science in secular, democratic communities, or is there a role (even a more important
one?) f o r d e m o c r a t i z a t i o n o f science in r e l i g i o u s l y or i d e o l o g i c a l l y s t r u c t u r e d a n d / o r n o n - d e m o c r a t i c c o m m u n i t i e s ?
The interface of science and society in community-based research

By Ligia
Noronha
This presentation will explore the interfaces of science and society in community based research through illustrations from cases in two socioecological contexts, one in countering a government proposal to "manage a beach' and another to develop interventions to improve living
conditions in a mining region. This will provide a contrast to highlight the nature of the interaction between the researchers and society
that tends to occur because of (a) the differentials in economic, social, and political power and the knowledge base of groups within the community
of interest. The context of one requires the researcher(s) to play a facilitating role in which the researcher acts as an agent to bring together
different groups within the community, groups that have a an idea of what is involved, but of which some do not individually have a sufficiently
wide knowledge base on the implications of proposed actions; the other calls for a motivating, catalytic role where the researcher has to help
articulate and frame the questions and identify issues that need reflection and action through acting as intermediaries and interpreters of the
different voices of the community and (b) the stakes involved. Finally, the presentation will touch on the difficulties of doing such research, in
particular in balancing the various interests and power structures at play, and communicating to the 'epistemic community' the transparency
and the commitment to an improved situation, which have p r o m p t e d the research. It will also discuss the effectiveness of policy suggestions that
a r e l o c a t e d in a p a r t i c i p a t o r y rather than a technocratic m o d e , where the f o r m e r allows f o r n e g o t i a t i o n b e t w e e n p l u r a l perspectives.
Control, Careful
By Dean Bavington
Use a n d
C o p i n g : O n the
relationship
between
management,
science a n d
place-based
communities
M y presentation will focus on the relationships that exist between fisheries management, science, and p l a c e - b a s e d cod fishing communities in
N e w f o u n d l a n d and Labrador, C a n a d a . Changes that have occurred in cod fisheries management since the collapse of Northern cod stocks in
1 9 9 2 will be e x p l o r e d with an emphasis on the integration of local ecological k n o w l e d g e into science-based fisheries management. Questions
will be raised around the relative p o w e r and legitimacy of managers, scientists (natural a n d social) and fishers in new regimes of communityb a s e d , participatory, and ecosystem-based fisheries management.
Fisheries science has increasingly emphasized the practical limitations imposed on fisheries management due to the complexity a n d uncertainty
of ecosystems and new forms of fisheries management emphasize the importance of including fishers' local ecological knowledge (LEK) in fisheries
management regimes. This presentation will discuss several troubling issues associated with these new ideas. First, the presentation will e x p l o r e
the way social scientists and cod fisheries managers have constructed, translated and i n t e g r a t e d the LEK of inshore fishers into fisheries science
and management in ways that often run contrary to the interests and desires of inshore fishing communities. Second, the shift f r o m m a n a g i n g
codfish as predictable statistical populations to encouraging fishers to manage themselves as professional entrepreneurs will be critically e x p l o r e d .
Third, I will raise political and ethical questions surrounding the management of fish, fishing and fishers..
Governance and New Information and Communic ation Tec hnologies: an O p e n View
Emerging Styles of Governanc e and New ICT
Organiser
Keynnte
Antnio Cmara
Faculdade de Cincias e Tecnologia, Universidade Nova de Lisboa,

Portugal, asc@mail.fct.unl.pt
Josep Blat
Universitt Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain, osep.blat@upf.edu
Cristina Gouveia
Instituto Geogrfico Portugus, Lisboa, Portugal, cgouveia@netcabo.pt
V &)
Governance and N e w Information and Communication: Learning from N e w Generation Gaming

By Antnio Cmara
Governance in the European Community (EC) results in a continuous set of rules and policies. The b r o a d g o a l of these rules and policies is to
benefit the quality of life of EC citizens.
In this process, there a r e four major groups of actors: EC policy makers; EC supporting staff; citizen representatives at the country, regional and
local levels; and the citizens themselves. Communication between the first three groups and the citizens they are representing is limited to key
issues. Such communication follows usually a one-way street model with the citizens having hardly a chance of participating in decision making.
Governance in the EC follows a non-feedback model.
New Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) may contribute to the development of a genuinely open governance. Such development
is centered in two platforms: a new European p o r t a l tentatively called Euro W e b ; and an "interactive" Euro News. These platforms will be
d e s i g n e d t o l e a d t o t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t of t w o - w a y s t r e e t s b e t w e e n t h e EC g o v e r n a n c e a n d t h e E u r o p e a n c i t i z e n s .
The British Parliament is studying the success of the Big Brother TV p r o g r a m as a democratic experience. That Parliament and others (such as
the European Parliament) could as well study the success of the Big Brother and other "public participation" oriented W e b sites. Elements that
make such sites successful a r e analyzed herein. As a result, a Euro W e b p o r t a l project is proposed including a list of key principles for content,
design and technological support development. Such project will attempt to benefit from past EC projects in content management, language
translation and multimedia digital libraries.
Euro News is the most successful news channel in Europe. It may become an interactive channel immediately by using text messaging via mobile
phones. Examples a r e p r o v i d e d to illustrate its p o t e n t i a l as a p l a t f o r m for interaction b e t w e e n the EC policy makers a n d citizens.
Euro W e b and an "interactive" Euro News are mere ICT platforms that may facilitate communication. For a more open EC governance, one may
need, in addition, new ways of communicating and receiving information from the citizens. These are the themes of the following presentations.
The last presentation in this section proposes a new style of Governance inspired on massively multiplayer video games (MASSMOG). MASSMOG
are becoming the main arena where young Europeans meet daily. A M A S S M O G communication style will certainly suit the young generations
now and will greatly contribute for a more unified Europe in the future.
Governance and New Information
and Communication
Technologies-Learning
from New Generation
Gaming
Video games are becoming the main universe of young Europeans. Video game like interfaces and their multimedia personal interaction modes
will soon become de facto standards to be followed by most content developers if they want to survive.
Based on a portuguese-dutch project, where such standards a r e a p p l i e d to create Intranet and Extranets to governmental agencies, this
communication shows how EC governance and its relationship with European citizens could be revolutionized by adopting a massively multiplayer
video game (MASSMOG) philosophy.
Governance and N e w Information and Communication Technologies - Reaching the Citizens

By Josep Blat
Governments have communicated with their citizens using a variety of media. This communication analyses the current and forecasted audiences
of the different media across the European Union. It also considers the response rate they achieve. As a result, media strategies for reaching
the citizens on a key list of issues are proposed.
Governance and N e w Information and Communication Technologies - Learning from the Citizens
By Cristina Gouveia
Citizens a r e sensors that measure the results of policies. This communication analyses an environmental oriented project where such sensing
capabilities are used. Extensions to other realms based on the lessons learned a r e proposed.
Science/Policy Interfaces for Environmental Governance
organiser
KeynDte
Sybille van den Hove
Institute for Environmental Science and Technology, Universidad

Autnoma de Barcelona, Spain, Sybille.vandenhove@laposte.net
Martin Sharman
EC-DG RTD, DI-4 Biodiversity and Ecosystems.

Martin. Sharman@cec.eu. int
Juliette Young
Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Banchory, UK. yo@ceh.ac.uk
Tom Bauler
Centre d'Etudes du Dveloppement Durable, Universit Libre de

Bruxelles, Belgium, tbauler@ulb.ac.be
Pierre Deceuninck
University of Strasbourg, France. Pierre.deceuninck@voila.fr
Participatory Interfaces between Science and Policy for Environmental Governance

By Sybille van den Hove
The f ollowing points will be presented (biodiversity will be used as the example):
Environmental issues pose multiple threats and challenges to human societies and have become a major and pressing area f or
policy action in Europe and around the w o r l d .
In response to the r a p i d rise of these threats, policy processes have multiplied at all levels f rom local community actions to
international environmental treaty making.
Concurrently, high quality environmental research has d e v e l o p e d , in natural and social sciences, as well as through interdisciplinary
endeavours.
Given the complexity of the issues at hand, the interf ace between policy action and scientif ic research on environmental topics has
become of crucial importance f or the success of these scientif ic ef f orts and policy processes.
Epistemologica!, methodological, practical and institutional questions arise on how society in general, and policy-makers in
particular, can deal with complex environmental issues where science is often conf ronted with uncertainty, indeterminacy, ambiguity and even
ignorance.
Participatory processes are increasingly advocated in this regard because they allow the contribution f rom a wider range of
actors, in addition to scientists and policy-makers and are potentially adding legitimacy and quality to the more traditional science/policy
interfaces.
There is a need to clarif y, to f urther explore and to synthesise the conditions, strengths and limitations of participatory approaches
as interf aces between environmental sciences and environmental policy-making.
The Eu ropean P l a t f o r m for Biodiversity Research Strategy: Lessons a n d O p e n Qu estions from a Science-Policy
By Martin
Interface
Sharman
Part I: Biodiversity issue and policies

Biodiversity issue: specifics of the problem
State of BD policies (EU / international) + crucial role of BD f or sustainable development: specif ics of policies
Gaps in knowledge f or policy and legislation, precautionary principle
finish on complexity and what the needs are.
Part II: EPBRS
Description of EPBRS as one way to build a BD science/policy inter f ace (mainly based on existing EPBRS documents... Rob's short version
4- the f uture of EPBRS): context, symbolism, interfaces, process and outputs.
Part III: Critical Analysis of the interf ace
W h y and how EPBRS answers the needs of European Biodiversity policy-making.
o How EPBRS provides a dynamic process to link science and policy on a societal issue that has intrinsic characteristics of complexity,
o indeterminacy, etc. (biodiversity and human societies) hence exemplifies new forms of p a r t i c i p a t o r y environmental governance,
o EPBRS as a learning process for the participants themselves, simply because of participation in the discursive process and because of
the mix of cultural and policy perceptions of the issues,
o etc.
O p e n questions: what a r e the difficulties, disadvantages, dangers of such interfaces.
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
W h o d o members represent? legitimacy of group, quality and credibility of its recommendations

Feasibility of mission statement
Problem of languages: between different science communities (e.g. natural and social sciences) between scientists and policy makers
Need to keep the group small but avoid external perception of a closed club
How to maintain commitment ?
How to help policy makers to identify, formulate and express their needs for knowledge?
How to ensure that the recommendations on research strategy a r e themselves based on cutting-edge scientific input?
How & when to identify and integrate other stakeholders?
Identification of markets for deliverables
Inadequacy of this single science-policy b r i d g e (the b r i d g e is necessary but not sufficient - how does the message get used back home?)
Ensuring timely diffusion and exploitation of results
Capture, manipulation, complacency...
Logistics / resources ?
Reliance on traditional formulae and processes
Etc.
Conclusion
O p e n up: on science/policy interfaces in general, the role of science and of the scientist for environmental governance, on science policy, etc.
Yun
Time Scales, Uncertainty and Jargon: the Case of Science and Agri-Environmental Policies
By Juliette Young
Agricultural landscapes are an important land use in Europe and can potentially offer a range of ecological conditions suitable for biodiversity.
However biodiversity in these areas is increasingly threatened by the policy and technology driven trends of intensification and abandonment.
The most notable policy in terms of agriculture in Europe is the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Initially, the objectives of the CAP aimed to
increase productivity and provide more f o o d at a lower cost for EU countries, while also achieving a f a i r standard of living for farmers. However,
habitat d e g r a d a t i o n , f o o d overproduction and social discontent led to a reform of the CAP in 1 9 9 2 . As e a r l y as 1 9 8 5 , and then with the reform
of the CAP in 1 9 9 2 , a combination of environmental and income policies, including agri-environmental measures aimed to protect a n d enhance
h a b i t a t s a n d l a n d s c a p e s v a l u a b l e to b i o d i v e r s i t y by p r o v i d i n g f i n a n c i a l incentives to f a r m e r s , w e r e i m p l e m e n t e d .
Enlargement of the EU with ten Central and East European Countries (CEEC) and three M e d i t e r r a n e a n countries will increase the agricultural
a r e a by 4 0 % and will bring many high-biodiversity areas under EU legislation. In its current f o r m , it is anticipated that the CAP could result in
huge biodiversity loss. However, it seems highly unlikely, if financially impossible, that the CEEC will receive the same subsidies as those received
by the present member states. This implies that, unless the subsidies they receive are shifted radically and immediately towards agri-environment
schemes, the CEEC will receive a significantly low amount of money for implementing these schemes and could run the risk of returning to an
intensive form of agriculture, thus threatening the high biodiversity habitats of the CEEC.
Continued support and policies encouraging the coexistence of biodiversity and farming will be essential. Ultimately, ecological considerations
have to become a central focus in policy formulation as opposed to a mere optional addition to production. This implies a necessary shift in
policy a n d , more profoundly, a change in societal trends. In this talk, we will examine how science and policy can work together to reach
environmental governance by addressing the potential problems associated with different time scales used by scientists and policy makers, the
difficulty of finding solid facts about the status and trends of biodiversity in Europe, and the possible confusion caused by different communication
and value systems.
In conclusion, the conservation of biodiversity in the CEEC will depend on the development of a long-term and flexible agri-environmental policy
f r a m e w o r k , efficient communication channels between scientists, stakeholders and policy makers as well as a thorough monitoring network.
ant
Toothless Paper tigers digest slower. Discussing lessons from a process-oriented science-policy interface
By Tom Bauler
Indicators for sustainable development (ISD) a r e supposed to participate in two ways to policy- and decision - making: directly by evaluating
the evolution of systems; indirectly by participating to the general transformation of policy- and decision-making processes towards a better
integration of uncertainties and complexity. If the success of the first t y p e of mechanism is largely related to traditional potentials and limits of
information processing within policy- and decision-making authorities, the impact of the procedural mechanism is less obviously to comprehend.
Eventually process-oriented impacts of ISD will depend on the degree of preparation of the institutional actors, science included, to change their
mechanisms of information construction and processing. It was to engage in this p r e p a r a t o r y phase that the Platform for scientific coordination
I n d i c a t o r s f o r s u s t a i n a b l e d e v e l o p m e n t was c r e a t e d in 2 0 0 1 by the B e l g i a n f e d e r a l r e s e a r c h - f u n d i n g a g e n c y O S T O
Context of the project
Since its existence in 1 9 9 6 , the Belgian funding programme dedicated to research on sustainable development (Plan for sustainable development
SPSD) generated a fairly large amount of research projects that included working programmes on the institutionalization of SD. Most of these
projects dealt with the issue by discussing the communication of information to decision-makers and its processing by decision-makers; hence
elaborating on issues directly or indirectly connected to indicators for sustainable development. It a p p e a r e d thus logical that the existing multifaceted, but diffuse expertise developed on this cross-cutting issue should profit not only to a larger and structural scientific discussion, but also
to the Belgian SD-policies. A double-cross interface was thus created in order to sustain d e b a t e between scientific actors, and to initiate debate
with policy- and decision-makers.
The Platform-interface
Unintentionally following some post-normal principle, intentionally with the aim to strengthen usability of project outcomes, most of the projects
within the funding programme were combining academic research actors with non-academic organizations (NGOs, administration, private
consultants, pressure groups,...). The indicator-interface was created on a similar logic, combining 2 academic research units (1 ) and 2 administrations
(2), all of them having not only considerable expertise on the issue of ISD, but also a series of institutional mandates linked to indicators (3). Even
if none of the partners had a substantial background with science-policy interfaces, individually they are themselves acting on a daily basis as
interfaces between policy and research. The mission of the Platform was defined as follows:
perform the follow-up and analysis of scientific, political and administrative activities with r e g a r d to indicators;
facilitate the accessibility and comprehension of these activities for the different types of actors;
stimulate information- and experience-exchange and between actors;
identify weaknesses and strengths of research activities with r e g a r d to the d e m a n d ;
promote Belgian expertise on the international level.
Obviously those missions a r e f a i r l y traditional missions of scientific institutions and science agencies which work on horizontal valorisation of
scientific research outcomes. To a certain extent it is the multi-stakeholder principle within the S D - p a r a d i g m that m a d e it possible to rethink the
assignment of this t y p e of missions and to allow a research consortium to take over.
It can not be our intention here to present the activities of the Platform. Rather will we introduce a discussion on the weaknesses and strengths of
the instrument as a science-policy interface which responds to a series of parameters determined by the implementation of SD to the organisation of
science. Both the weaknesses and the strengths a r e linked to the project being conceived as a procedural contribution to the ongoing policymaking process with regard to indicatorsE: the outcome of the project is not content-defined (e.g. is is not asked for a multi-stakeholder development
of a national indicator tool), but process-oriented (i.e. facilitate communication between actors with a potential to develop or maintain expertise
on indicators).
Lessons learned from the Platform can be translated in a pool of questions allowing to structure and engage debate on similar projects, or, more
generally, on process-oriented interfaces between science and policy in a SD-policy context. En filigrane the question to be discussed will be
the one on the a d e q u a c y and impact of multiplying layers of procedurality when treating SD-policy issues.
(1 ) Universit Libre de Bruxelles and Catholic University of Leuven

(2) Federal Planing Bureau and the research unit of the Environmental Administration of the Brussels-Region.
(3) E.g. the Federal Planing Bureau is represntlng Belgium within the UN-CSD's, Eurostat's, OECD's working groups on indicators. Universit libre de Bruxelles is coordinating
the regional state-of-the-environment of Wallonia.
How the Sociology of Sciences could help the improvement of Science-Society Interfaces?
By Pierre Deceuninck
Social Studies of Science have shown their capacity to emphasize the social factors involved in the production of scientific knowledge. In fact,
they d i d it quite well, but it seems a lack of interest in their studies for scientists' preoccupations. I n d e e d , a g r e a t amount of "science studies"
researchers are so concerned by d r a w i n g the social construction of science in opposition to classical epistemology, that they completely f o r g e t
what they could bring to either science or society.
A recent article concerning Climate Change sciences entitled "The Construction of G l o b a l W a r m i n g and the Politics of Science" published in the
Annals of the Association of American G e o g r a p h e r s by D. Demeritt led to a small controversy with one of reviewers S. H. Schneider. S. H.
Schneider who is largely involved in the Science Policy process as a scientist, member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and
ex consultant for the White House, reproached the previous article, which even if it drew links between science and society in the case of Climate
Change, was leading to a presentation of platitudes useless for both scientists and policy makers, through its impenetrable argon and its assertions
in contradiction with most of scientists' experience. He drew then, in a response to Demeritt published in the same review, a f e w suggestions to
"sciences studies" researchers, such as "to make their terminology comprehensible" and "to back up all social theoretical assertions with l a r g e
numbers of b r o a d l y representative empirical examples". He finally expressed his desire for the "science studies" to become more careful to
the needs of both scientists and policy makers by considering the outcomes when they are drawing relationships between science and society.
This example is a good introduction to understanding the new stake of sociology of sciences, which is to provide some relevant information to
communities where the question of scientific issues is becoming a real problem. I would like therefore, in this workshop to discuss the needs of
those communities concerned by science (scientists, stakeholders, policy makers, lay public, e t c . ) , as well as what has already brought the
sociology of sciences by showing of the links between science and society and how sociology can help these previous communities to realise their
goals. I propose to contribute personally to this discussion thanks to a presentation of my arguments on each of those points, relying on the
concrete example of my research performed in the Climate Change Unit of the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission, which is
deeply involved in European policy programs and can provide a good and concrete picture of existing relations between science and society
in this particular domain.
Thus, I propose to begin the discussion by presenting part of my sociological framework that divides the whole society in four sectors thanks to
the two different axes "Science" and "Power" and which tend to become independent one from another (P. Bourdieu), and within which conceptions
of science and policy differs significantly (Public understanding of science, Basic Research, Integrated Research, Science-dependant Policy). I
could therefore illustrate this consideration by describing briefly the case of Climate Change and giving more details about the position of the
different working groups of the JRCs Climate change Unit. So, our first point of discussion will be to study if there are significant differences
betweens those four groups in their idea of science (and in what they consist in), or not. This will be also the occasion for representatives of plural
perspectives (sociologists, scientists, stakeholders, p u b l i c . ) to confront their own conceptions and their expectations of sciences.
Then by presenting a few sociological studies which emphasize relationships between science and society that occurs because of social context
(B. Latour's translations), we will rise a second point of discussion which will focus on the pertinence of such descriptions. This discussion could be
oriented to a debate trying to catch if science is dealing with some new behaviour in our contemporary society, as M. Gibbons & al. suggested
it through their description of the new production of knowledge, or if it is only the representation of sciences inside the society that is new. I could
also illustrate here what is happening in the case of the Climate Change, presenting concrete examples such as the relationships existing in the
JRCs Climate Change Unit with the European Environmental Agency, the DG environment or any other organization dealing with societal issues.
The last but main discussion point will turn around the question: "How can sociology of science help in the improvement of science-society
interfaces?". Thanks to the discussion progress of the first two points, we should be able to draw the big lines of what could be the contribution
of sociology of sciences (in the same orientation as Schneider did) to a better understanding of the interfaces between science and society. I
will argue there that sociology can provide, through its tools and methodology, a better explanation of the needs of the different parts of science
and society to either scientists, policy-makers or the public. Consequently, in a reflexive perspective (A. Giddens), as far as those three groups
are concerned by a common problem, they should be able to improve themselves the existing interfaces in a better way than if they had to do
it by their own, each one looking at its private interests. This possibility will be illustrated by presenting a concrete contribution to the Network
of Excellence "ACCENT" for the European Atmospheric Chemistry community where is involve the JRCs Climate Change Unit (and which shall
be presented in this workshop by F. Raes).
Our aim for this workshop is to discuss the role of sociology of sciences, and to present it as a possible catalyser to increase communication
between the different parts of science and society by revealing the hidden mechanisms involved in those interfaces. As the 6' Framework Program
suggests it through the new thematic "Science and Society", the sociology of science can play an important role in the building of the new European
research. In order to success this challenge, it has to be careful to the wishes and expectations of the different social partners involved in science
to be relevant and not only devoted to a few sociologists. Through the presentation of my particular approach, those discussions could also turn
around the methodology used in sociology and debate my experience, which aim to follow closer science-policy processes from the laboratory's
point of view.
Consequently, In the perspective of the workshop, I hope that those discussions could be useful to all the different attendants, by warning all of
them on the possibilities that the sociology of sciences could offer thanks to concrete studies and by offering "science studies" researchers a real
opportunity to contribute actively to the improvement of those science-society interfaces that they wanted so much to exhibit.
Patents At the Interface Among Science, Society And Law
Mariachiara Tallacchini
Amedeo Santosuosso
Universit Cattolica di Piacenza, Italy, mariachiara.tallacchini@unimi.it

Tribunale di Milano, Italy, amedeo.santosuosso@fastwebnet.it
Joan Martnez Alier

Joan.Martinez.Alier@uab.es
Emanuela Gambini & Andrea Lusignani
Universit Cattolica di Piacenza, Italy, emabell@libero.it,

andlus@libero.it
Sara Casati
Universit Cattolica di Piacenza, Italy, sarasara@wanadoo.es
Organiser
Biotech Patents: A Case for Co-production between Science and the Law
By Mariachiara Tallacchini and Amedeo
Santosuosso
Criticisms of biotech patents (1) both those raised by social movements in open, ideological opposition to the industry which benefits from
patents and those which a r e more moderate and linked to a reformist view of patent law are based on the need to make the procedures for
allocation of biological and genetic resources more transparent and democratic.
Patent protection created for mechanical inventions and subsequently applied to chemical inventions was extended to organisms first simple
and later complex through
interpretation which at the same time " f o r c e d " the legal concepts involved and armoured and shielded the
scientific, social and political premises which represented the explanatory background, supporting at the same time the presumed "morally
neutral" nature (2) of patent law. The juridicalscientific black boxes contained in the discipline which obscure and remove from public d e b a t e
some assumptions of patent law, d e m a n d clarification a n d correction in societies which wish to be based on the law and democracy.
The original system of patent law is very different from the conditions in which it is at present exercised. The protection of inventive works as a
right of the personality is rooted in the figure of the " romantic author-inventor (3) . This has now been surpassed by the apparatus of technological
investment and research required by biotechnological inventions. Neither individual nature nor moral interest separate from commercial interest
now survive in the industrial organisation of patents.
In fact, the law has been used -behind the rhetorical evocation of " l e g a l certainties" to legitimise technoscience (4). Furthermore, in simply
accepting technological evolution, legal systems have to concur with the time schedules, directions and methods of control of technoscience instead
of establishing guarantees of critical reflection. Patent law has "normalised" biotechnology i.e. it has defused the potential of radical diversityavailing itself of the argument whereby biotechnology is not really a novelty, if not in the patent terminology sense of "novelty". Biotechnology
is patentable in that its "innovative and unanticipated" nature is one of the elements which qualifies invention and justifies its legal protection
(5).
One of the strongest criticisms of patentability in the biotech field concerns the claims for exclusive rights to living material and the scope of
biotech patent protection ( connected to the selfreproducibility of living organisms ). The ownership of biological resources is affecting international
relations between developing and industrialised countries, reintroducing a situation of commercial colonialism. Moreover, it risks discouraging
rather than promoting research and innovation just as it jeopardises fair access to certain medical and pharmacological treatment (6) - since
it is becoming increasingly less clear that the privatisation of technological innovation and the impetus for technological innovation are still
synergic, if not actually compatible, aims (7).
The still unresolved problems on the biotech patents front and the fluctuations which
living beings show how the mobile boundaries, constantly being r e d e f i n e d , between
two systems involved. In fact, even when the law has attempted to deconstruct the
same critical eye on its own operations, its own hidden assumptions, the theoretical and
the categories of law are e m b e d d e d (8).
still exist in identifying the thresholds of patentability of

science and the law, require greater reflection from the
discourse of science it has f a i l e d to adequately cast the
practical assumptions in which, like the concepts of science,
Patent law is one of the areas in which some sectors of the law are most permeated with scientific, social and economic premises which no longer
reflect the needs of today's international situation but perpetuate a model which, at least in part, is obsolete as regards economic relations,
international justice and democracy. Establishing a new and dynamic connection between science and society will come about through transparent
explanation both of the scientific premises with which some sectors of the law are permeated and the law which is implicit in the functioning of
techno-science.
(1 )For critical perspective see BOYLE, Shamans, Software and Spleens: Law and the Construction of the Information Society, Harvard University Press, Cambridge Ma. 1 996,
and L. M. GUENIN, Patents, Ethics, Human Life Forms, in T.J. MURRAY, M.J. MEHLMAN (eds.), Encyclopedia of Ethical, Legal, and Policy Issues in Biotechnology, John Wiley &
Sons, Boston Ma. 2000, pp.866-880.
(2) See A 4 - 0 2 2 2 / 9 7 , Report on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions (COM(95)0661 - C 4 0 0 6 3 / 9 6 95/0350(COD)), 25.6.1997, Explanatory Statement, p.30: "Patents are a morally neutral means of promoting technology".
{3)BOYLE, Shamans, Software and Spleens: Law and the Construction of the Information Society, cit. .
(4) L.M. GUENIN, Norms for Patents Concerning Human and Other Forms of Life, "Theoretical Medicine" 1996, 17, pp.279-314: "It would be virtually unprecedented to grant
a patent and later preclude use of the invention. The result could be disruption in the biotechnology industry and waste of the resources spent in expectation of a patent" (p.282)..
(5) Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1 980), at 1 1 6: "The language of patent law is broad and general and is to be given wide scope because inventions are, necessarily,
unanticipated and unforeseeable".
(6) R. G O L D , T.A. CAULFIELD a n d P.N. RAY, Gene patents a n d the s t a n d a r d of c a r e , C a n a d i a n M e d i c a l Association Journal 2 0 0 2 , 3, 1 6 7 .
(7)J. J. DOLL, The Patenting of DNA, "Science" 1998, vol.280, n. 5364, p.689; M.A. HELLER, R.S. EISENBERG, Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anticommons in Biomedical
Research, "Science" 1 998, vol.280, n. 5364, p.698; P. ROY MOONEY, The Impetus for and Potential of Alternative Mechanisms for the Protection of Biotechnological Innovations,
Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee, March 2 0 0 1 .
(8) See S. JASANOFF, Science at the Bar, Harvard University Press, Cambridge Ma. 1 995..
Instances of Biopiracy
By Joan Martinez Alier
The fact that indigenous and peasant knowledge on medicinal or agricultural plants has been given freely away, while the commercial products
derived from such knowledge have been protected (by patents or similar mechanisms), has given raise to a d e b a t e on " b i o p i r a c y " . The w o r d
itself was introduced by Pat Mooney of RAFI (now ETC) around 1 9 9 3 , the practice is much older. Examples will be described going back to the
use of "chichona officinalis" since the 17th century. In the late 1 980s, the idea of "bioprospection contracts" was introduced, implying payment
of royalties to the indigenous people, in cases where commercial profit was obtained from their knowledge. This was seen not only as a matter
of justice but also as incentive to conservation. The Biodiversity Convention of 1 9 9 2 discussed the attribution of p r o p e r t y rights on biodiversity,
and commercial access to it. Famous cases such as the InBio-Merck bioprospection contract in Costa Rica, and the bioprospecting activities of
Shaman Pharmaceuticals will be described. In agriculture, the awareness of " b i o p i r a c y " produced a d e b a t e in FAO on "Farmers' Rights", which
has not made much progress c o m p a r e d to the double objective of assuring in situ conservation (and co-evolution) of agricultural varieties, and
remuneration to peasants for that task.
Yeun
Life Patening: Towards an Alternative or a Reform?
By Emmanuela Gambini & Andrea Lusignani
Charges increasingly brought against intellectual p r o p e r t y rights have pointed out the failings and deficiencies of the patent system, which is
asked to stretch out and cover forms of life and ideas before r e g a r d e d unpatentable. These charges express different types of scepticism that
have l e d , on one hand, to the rejection of the patent system in itself as a suitable and desirable instrument of regulation. O n the other hand
there a r e those promoting the expansion of p r o p e r t y rights, who consider it a f i x e d course to fuel progress, innovation a n d efficiency.
This contribution explores some novel perspectives that could open a concrete alternative and offer, perhaps, a resolution of some questions
emerging in the patent system. In particular they throw light on the opportunity of constructing such concepts as "public d o m a i n " , "commons"
and " f r e e " (associated to the previous two as the " p r o p e r t y ' s outside") in opposition to intellectual p r o p e r t y rights, according to a logic of
inclusion/exclusion that, easily, engenders a distorsion in the attempt of defining them.
jscussant
Deliberating on Patents
By Sara Casati
The step from manipulating to patenting living matter has been short indeed. W e have assisted to a progressive reduction of life to its abstract
information. In fact, in a time of acknowledgement of science as social, contextualized practice one of its principal research objects has been
p a r a d o x i c a l l y dematerialized and decontextualized. This fact has allowed the management of the living "matter" as a commodity and the
mechanic application of misguided parameters of patenting previously used for industrial inventions- on this " p u r i f i e d " living information, not
anymore matter.
Without a public debate and a critical analysis of the scientific and axiological assumptions -which tend to be exclusive-, in institutions precluded
from a democratic process, as in W T O , decisions of central importance for every living being and for future generations, the environment and
biodiversity have been taken. W e are touching something so basic for anyone as f o o d and health. W e think that every individual as citizen has
to be involved in this important process, discussing if and how it is possible to a p p l y such an exclusive monopoly, with all its global and social
costs, debating the background models, the consequences of managing uncertainty and probability of science, acknowledging the existence of
a plurality of scientific paradigms and knowledge.
W e need a public sphere and the space of deliberation arises as a most suitable one. A space in which each person should be e q u i p p e d in
the best possible way so as to d e b a t e , participate responsibly, publicly, to interact autonomously and to manage critically information. This
approach would bring the issues related to patents back to a democratic arena where empowerment substitutes power. As a consequence, the
observed drift that the issue of patents is experiencing out of society and towards the exclusive fields of economics and science could be breached
as w e l l as t h e o b s e r v e d g l o b a l i n e q u a l i t y , c u l t u r e u n i f o r m i t y , a n d e n v i r o n m e n t a l risk t h a t this d r i f t is g e n e r a t i n g .
Science Shops as Interfaces Between Science & Society
Community Based Research
KeynD
Yun
Discussant!
Henk A.J. Mulder
Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, The Netherlands. H.A.J.Mulder@chem.rug.nl
Michael Sgaard Jrgensen
Danish Technical University, Denmark, msj@ipl.dtu.dk
Laura Pricope
University of Bacau, Romania. goreatex2001 @yahoo.com
Norbert Steinhaus & Anke Valentin
Wissenschaftsladen, Bonn, Germany, norbert.steinhaus@wilabonn.de,

anke.valentin@wilabonn.de
Science Shops as University-Society Interfaces - An introdu ction

By Henk A. J. Mulder
In the introdu ction, dr. Henk Mu lder form Groningen University, Netherlands, will give some backgrou nd to the science shop. A science
shop provides independent, participatory research support in response to concerns experienced by civil society (such as NGOs, non-profit sector).
They were developed in The Netherlands where Dutch universities now operate over 3 0 science shops. The method has been a d a p t e d to many
countries (eg DK, UK, B, D, A, E, RO and even outside Europe) and the EU is currently supporting science shop networking . Some science shops
are independent not-for-profit research centres but most are affiliated to a university acting as the intermediary between NGO's and university
researchers, teachers and students, who conduct research in response. Most university based science shops are demand driven, while the
independent science shops more often are supply driven and approach NGO's. A quite recent approach are the Canadian Community-University
Research Alliances, where a national research council funds research prog rammes planned and conducted in co-operation between community
and university.
In science shops, questions from civil org anisations are rephrased to projects for students or researchers. The research output is tailored to be
of use to the client. In the introduction to the session, information will be g iven on different operational options and the daily work of science
shop staff. A f e w examples will be g iven of science shop projects and their impact for society and for university teaching and research.
The presentations in this session also touch upon some challeng es to the role of science shops that can be further discussed. For example whether
science shops mostly a r e at the service of strong er NGO's, whether university researchers are interested in co-operation with community and
whether the university curricula offers enoug h opportunities for community projects.
A second point of discussion will be to unveil possible analog ue institutes in other countries, or to see if and how science shops could advance
public access to science in various other countries. A third point will be to see how one could streng then science shop networking while still
m a i n t a i n i n g t h e i r r e g i o n a l s p r e a d i n g , a n d s m a l l - s c a l e o p e r a t i o n to k e e p them a c c e s s i b l e also on t h e g r a s s r o o t s l e v e l .
I
Improving the interaction between NGOs and Universities throu gh science shops
By Michael Sgaard Jrgensen
Scientific knowledg e is playing an important role in the societal development, when it comes to assessing environmental threats, health problems
and social problems and their cure, but also in relation to the development and assessment of new information technolog y, biotechnolog y etc.
Scientific knowledg e is often seen as neutral, but is in fact contested and neg otiated knowledg e. This role of scientific knowledg e should be seen
together with the fact that the economic and org anisational resources for research and development are unequally distributed. Businesses and
governmental authorities and institutions have more resources themselves and easier access to and influence on the research facilities than NGO's
like consumer org anisations, environmental org anisations, t r a d e unions, social org anisations etc. Science shops offer N G O ' s free or very lowcost access t o s c i e n t i f i c k n o w l e d g e a n d r e s e a r c h in o r d e r t o h e l p them a c h i e v e social a n d e n v i r o n m e n t a l i m p r o v e m e n t .
Recent research on the role of science shops shows that science shops act as interfaces between science and society in three ways. One way is
through the enhancement of the knowledg e of a N G O , which afterwards are able to impact the social and environmental conditions by documenting
a problem and its impact, or by supporting the development of social and environmental projects of N G O ' s like better waste manag ement or
better social and health care. Another way of interaction is the impact of science shop projects on university research and the scientific discourses
through development of new research themes or prog rammes. Finally science shops contribute to the interaction between science and society
through the contribution to the competencies of the future academia, when students conduct science shops projects as part of their curricula and
thereby achieve competencies within problem-based learning , participatory methods, interaction between scientific knowledg e and community
knowledge, science communication etc.
The key note presentation includes results from the ong oing EU funded Accompanying Measures INTERACTS, where experience and expectations
in relation to interaction between N G O ' s and universities and the role of science shops a r e being e x p l o r e d . This includes around 2 5 case studies
of the impact of science shop projects in a number of countries, scenario workshops with researchers, N G O ' s and policy makers in six countries
about the future role of science shops, and the development of policy recommendations for the empowerment of N G O ' s , increased scientists'
awareness of public needs, improved services of intermediaries like science shops, and democratising of Science and Technology policy.
Young
The first science shop in Romania
By Laura Pricope
The first science shop in Romania was started in Bacau, in 1 9 9 8 . They focus on environmental issues. Supported by the Biology Department, two
young graduates took on the job of running the science shop, next to their teaching / M S c / P h D study tasks. Five years on the r o a d , the center is
now occupied with environmental education, cooperation with N G O s and local authorities and has set up courses on environment and society.
Since the establishment in Bacau, 7 other science shops have opened their doors at Romanian universities. The talk shows how the science shop
idea can be a d a p t e d and established in a new situation.
Discussant
Non-university based Science Shops in Germany
By Norbert Steinhaus & Anke Valentin
In the discussion during the workshop on Science Shops as Science Society Interfaces, we want to p a y some attention to science shops that are
not associated to a University. W h a t a r e the differences with their university-based colleagues? W h a t a r e strong and w e a k points, what "best
practices" could we a p p l y to other situations/countries where co-operation with universities is not going smoothly? In some projects, these science
shops do work with universities how is this arranged?
Science Shops offer citizens groups f r e e or very low-cost access to scientific and technological knowledge, in o r d e r to help them achieve social
and environmental improvement. Science shops a r e organisations which m e d i a t e between citizen groups (including t r a d e unions, non-profit
organisations, pressure groups, environmentalists, consumer associations and residents associations) and research institutions, (universities and
independent research facilities). W h a t distinguishes science shops from traditional knowledge transfer facilities is that they a r e committed in
theory and practice to " p a r t i c i p a t o r y " methods. Furthermore, they d o not just provide a mediation facility, they also conduct their own research
projects, generated from requests received from citizen groups.
Science Shops are not new institutions. The idea of bridging the g a p between science & citizens originates from the Netherlands. But transferring
the "Dutch M o d e l " of university-based Science Shops to Germany was almost impossible. Universities in Germany saw science shops as something
of lower rank. There were not many groups at universities that would actively support science shops. This caused Germany's first science shop in
Essen to close as early as 1 9 8 3 .
More successful were science shops that were established as non-profit associations with almost 3 0 Science Shops in G e r m a n y during the 80'ies.
But depending on volunteers who could not spend much time on projects during their studies or their times of unemployment and a lack of
permanent subsidy for their work 7 of 1 0 Science Shops closed. Currently there a r e 1 0 active Science Shops in Germany. A national exchange
and discussion forum exists but co-operation takes place via single projects. The EU-Science and Society discussion has increased the interest in
the Science Shop M o d e l within the G e r m a n universities.
Likewise, the Bonn Science Shop - as one of was founded, despite no public funding, in 1 9 8 4 by a handful of involved students who wanted
to reduce the chasm between university & citizen. It quickly turned into a professional working centre for the transfer of knowledge. The Bonn
Science Shop is a self-administered, non-profit organisation which does not receive institutional financial support. The work of the Bonn Science
Shop gives special emphasis to the topics of civil society & sustainability, environment & health, as well as the labour market. It is financed in
large p a r t through information, measurement, & consulting services, through the classes, seminars & lectures o f f e r e d by its Education Centre, as
well as through grants for specified projects. Examples of the specific fields of work will be given in the workshop and the poster section.
Building Knowledge Partnerships? - Social and Technological Conditions of Conviviality

Emerging Styles of Governance and New ICT
Keyna
Yun
Discussant
Martin O'Connor
C3ED, Universit de Versailles Saint Quentin-en-Yvellines, France.

martin.oconnor@c3ed.uvsq.fr
Jean-Marc Douguet
Universit de Versailles Saint Quentin-en-Yvellines, France.

Jean-Marc.Douguet@c3ed.uvsq.fr
Tiago Pedrosal,
Angela Guimares Pereira 1,
Ricardo A n d r a d e 2 , Nuno Cardoso2,
Edmundo N o b r e 2 , Pedro Pedrosa2
1 EC - JRC - ISPC, Italy; 2YDREAMS, Portugal.

tiago.pedrosa@jrc.it
M a r i a Cerreta
Dipartimento di Conservazione dei beni architettonici ed ambientali,

Napoli, Italy, cerreta@unina.it
Denisa Neagu
University "Al.l.Cuza" lasi, Romania, dneagu@uaic.ro
Domination and Reciprocity: Characterising the (Existential, S ocial, Economic and Technological) Conditions for Dialogue and Conviviality
By Marti n
O'Connor
This session will be based on multimedia development work currently going on in and around the European-commission funded ViRTUALiS project
(Social Learning on Environmental Issues with the Interactive Information and Communication Technologies).
Timely and reliable information to citizens is, increasingly, recognised as an essential dimension of environmental governance. But, more is needed
that just 'information'. There must be created situations that promote active enquiry, judgement and learning on the p a r t of citizens and also,
beyond the learning opportunities, prospects for meaningful participation in political life.
VIRTUALIS i s a strongly i nterdi sci pli nary project that bri ngs together a consorti um of speci ali sts i n i nformati on technology, sustai nable development,
environmental modelli ng, publi c poli cy and governance, learni ng psychology and open learni ng, to develop computer-based learni ng tools on ecosystems
and natural resources. Taki ng four domai ns as exemplary agri cultural pollut
i on, cl
i mate change, freshwater resources and mari ne capture if sheri es
Vi RTUALi S creates computer-based learn
i ng tools, exploi ti ng state-of-the-art ICT, that organi se current sci enti fi c knowledge about the four selected
environmental doma
i ns for non-speci ali st aud
i ences. The suite of ICT tools wi ll be vali dated sc
i ent
iif cally by stakeholder-based Knowledge
Qual
i ty
Assessments, tuned for use in a vari ety of classroom and open learni ng modes, parti ci patory pol
i cy processes, and ci ti zen-i nsti tuti on
commun
ii
cat ons.
The overall goal of VIRTUALIS is to demonstrate the potentials of the new technologies as media for improving citizens' awareness of environmental
management and risks, for developing novel educational programmes, and for contributing to enhanced citizen participation in governance at
all levels. H owever, in order to realise this potential of ICT for promoting improved environmental quality and improved protection from risks,
the new technologies must be d e p l o y e d in ways that o f f e r r e a d y access to information in ways that empower them to reflect, judge and act
p e r s o n a l l y in f a v o u r o f e n v i r o n m e n t a l q u a l i t y .
In this c o n t e x t , t h e W o r k s h o p Session w i l l f o c u s d i s c u s s i o n s o n :
Learning Processes with Multimedia: the p e d a g o g i c importance of the 'progressive discovery of information' and of 'translation'
concepts that underpin the conception and technical production of 'learning pathways' (with examples from the VIRTUALIS prototypes);
Deliberative Political Processes: the prospects (and eventual pitfalls) of enhanced multi-media support tools for multi-stakeholder
deliberation and citizen participation in policy and governance processes;
Generic concepts for environmental education ICT interfaces: Can the a b o v e p e d a g o g i c and political considerations be brought
together with key systems science notions of environmental pressures and environmental functions (etc.) to o f f e r some general design
principles for w i d e s p r e a d adoption?
Knowledge Quality Assessment:: what a r e the special challenges for assuring that ICT products are well tuned for use in divergent
contexts, such as: (1 ) free web-based interfaces, (2) products to be made available through exploitation agreements for teaching contexts
(including schools, universities and territorial administrations) in both classroom and open learning modes (3) participatory policy processes,
citizen-institution communications and stakeholder deliberation on environmental issues.
Appendix:
In VIRTU@LIS, four types of interactive multimedia ICT tool are being d e v e l o p e d : Personal Barometers, allowing quantification of
environmental impacts of individual lifestyles; Scenario Generators, exploring changes in patterns of economic activity towards sustainable
resource use; Virtual Visits, or interactive d i g i t a l environments within which the learning may take place; and Multi-player Games, which allow
individuals to learn about problems of governance and resource access. Using emerging ICT capacities, user-friendly interfaces and virtual
worlds will allow structured learning about personal and a g g r e g a t e societal impacts on environmental resources. Within interactive virtual
realities, a user (or a group of users) can gauge how their personal w a y of living impacts on the environmental feature or resource in question
(Personal Barometer), they can explore alternative possibilities for social and economic changes towards sustainability (Scenario Generator),
they can e x p e r i e n c e the dilemmas of s t a k e h o l d e r negotiations a n d of commercial and public policy choices ( M u l t i - A g e n t G a m e s ) ,
and they discover opportunities for personal learning through progressive disclosure of links to electronic libraries, simulation models, videos,
on-line d a t a bases (Virtual Visit).
Formally, we distinguish two main dimensions of the learning opportunity. First, a user can g a u g e how their personal w a y of living impacts on
the environmental feature or resource in question. Second, the user can explore alternative possibilities for social and economic changes towards
sustainability. The components for each environmental problmatique
f a l l into four categories:
Personal B a r o m e t e r s , a l l o w i n g q u a n t i f i c a t i o n of e n v i r o n m e n t a l i m p a c t s of i n d i v i d u a l or c o l l e c t i v e l i f e s t y l e s ;
Scenario Generators, allowing personal lifestyles to be put in the context of possible future trends and changes in patterns of economic
activity, in particular movements towards sustainable resource use;
V i r t u a l Visits, which p r o v i d e an i n t e r a c t i v e d i g i t a l environment within which the l e a r n i n g may t a k e p l a c e ;
Multi-player Games, which will allow an individual to learn about problems and processes of coordination and their impacts on resource
exploitation, governance, equity of access.
The ((lifestyles interfaces for each development a r e interactive m o d e l - b a c k e d networked virtual world tools. I n scientific terms, a Personal
Barometer and a Scenario G e n e r a t o r consist of a family of models that allow the quantification of environmental impacts linked (directly or
indirectly) to a lifestyle, and also the specification of scenarios developing different perspectives of "what is sustainable". Thus in effect, the
virtual world is coupled-back to relevant modules of i n t e g r a t e d economy-environment models at a p p r o p r i a t e r e g i o n a l , national, and g l o b a l
levels. The VI RTU@LI S concept is to organise scientific information in a distinctive way, and pre se nt it in a tangible way permitting a p p r o p r i a t i o n
by citizens.
VIVIANE, the Virtual Visit to my Environment: the c ase of agric ulture

By Jean-Marc Dougu
e t
V i V i A N e (Virtual Visit to my Environment) is an interactive multi-media learning tools for citizens' awareness of agriculture management and
risks. Computer-based I CT learning tools will organise current scientific knowledge about four selected environmental domains for non-scientific
audiences. Within interactive virtual realities, the user can g a u g e how their personal w a y of living impacts on the environmental f e a t u r e or
resource (Personal Barometer), they can e x p l o r e alternative possibilities for social a n d economic changes towards sustainability (Scenario
Generator), they can explore commercial opportunity and governance issues (Multi-Agent Game) and learn through progressive disclosure (Virtual
Visit).
VGAS - A Convivial Exploration Of Energy, Lifestyles and Climate

By Tiago Pe drosa, Ange la Guimare s Pe re ira, Ricardo Andrade , Nuno Cardoso, Edmundo Nobre
and Pe dro Pe drosa
Human activities are increasing the emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere. Carbon d i o x i d e ( C 0 2 ) , methane (CH4), nitrous
oxide ( N 2 0 ) and halocarbons, inte r alia, are some of the gases that are at the origin of the greenhouse effect (reflected solar radiation t r a p p e d
in the Earth's atmosphere).The greenhouse effect is a natural process but there a r e hypotheses that say that it is being enhanced by human
activities that increase the concentration of these gases in the a t m o s p h e r e which is c o n s i d e r e d to b e the cause of c l i m a t e c h a n g e .
The burden of responsibility of the increase in emissions of these gases into the atmosphere is usually attributed to industry. H owever, it is ultimately
a m a t t e r of e n d - u s e , r e f l e c t i n g l i f e s t y l e s , i.e. when a p r o d u c t is chosen it is also likely to b e choosing a p r o d u c t i o n process.
V GAS aims at making the connections between individual lifestyles and greenhouse gas emissions, gauging personal contributions to g l o b a l
emissions. V GAS will try to help the user to answer the question 'how does my lifestyle relate to the g l o b a l problem?', as well as 'what options
are there to reduce my contribution to the g l o b a l problem?'
V G A S consists of a set of models that relate lifestyles to emissions of three greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide. It is
designed and implemented based on modern concepts of software engineering. A highly interactive and intuitive 3D user interface, allows it to
be used by ordinary citizens, N G O s and other stakeholders who wish to investigate their contributions to a g l o b a l issue and explore alternative
pathways to reduce their burden. It consists of a number of integrated modules (and functionality):
A personal " b a r o m e t e r " the V GAS Meter that aims at accounting personal emissions of the 3 greenhouse gases considered in this
product, based on personal consuming patterns and regional or national energy and other situations.
A " W H A T IF" explorer The V GAS Explorer that aims at exploring alternative li festyles scenar
i os.
A game The V GAS G a m e whose objective is to attain a better "sustainable score" by adjusting lifestyles after a launcher of surpri ses
triggers some events that could unbalance the "sustainability situation". The game may be p l a y e d in single or multi-player modes see
box.
A virtual Library The V GAS Visit that aims at showing further information about climate change related issues, namely scenarios
developed by institutions such as the IPCC.
V G A S is about social learning but it can help with the purposes of educators. Thus the aim is to allow personal visualisation of the issues and
potential impacts of chosen pathways. For instance, the user may e x p l o r e what the impact of using public transportation is compared with that
of using private transport in terms of C 0 2 emissions. Furthermore, V G A S shall help the user to explore routes to sustainability by playing with
alternative lifestyles, exploring t r a d e - o f f s of new choices, e.g. "what are the t r a d e - o f f s if I change from private to public transport?" a what
if explorer. This explorer consists of 'what if...?' models that allow the exploration of scenarios for different perspectives of 'what is sustainable'.
The source categories considered here are those related to activities of everyday life; only few industrial processes are taken into account in V
GAS when a production process implies the emission of a G H G , e.g. power generation. The following are the greenhouse gas sources considered:
fuel combustion from energy industry and transport; fugitive emissions from solid fuels; enteric fermentation and manure management; rice
cultivation; agricultural soil; solid waste disposal on land and waste incineration.
Appendix:
The plot of the game
The user enters in the house, which is set according to what was done through the V G A S METER. Its
'sustainability situation' is characterised according to a number of indicators not only r e g a r d i n g the
emissions of greenhouse gases but also other indicators such as financial, social, personal, etc. V G A S
G a m e features a launcher of events, i .e., an engine that generates random events (surpri ses) at different
levels, including a level whose scope may not be that of the user (e.g. natural phenomena such as a
w a v e of cold or government actions such as, a c a r b o n t a x , carbon d i o x i d e targets stated through
international agreements, or changes in electricity shares, etc.). To p l a y the game the user has to
respond (in a certain time) to these challenges that will impact on sustainability indications (at several
levels, including personal indicators) and summarised in a sort of sustai nabi li ty score. The user will have
to devise actions at home that can offset or balance the sustainability indicators that due to the event
have gotten worse in this sense the g a m e is a strategy game in which capacity of adaptati on to
changes is e x p l o r e d . The personal indicators a r e either defaults given by the software or shall be
set by the user.
The impacts are calculated over a year period. The game may be played by a single user or in competition with others where the scores are given according
to overall performance of the strategy adopted after each event.
Discussant
Evaluating/Valuing: Local Potentials as "Urban Catalyst" Strategy
By Maria Cerreta
The p a p e r is p a r t of the research project of Key Action 4 "City of Tomorrow and Cultural H e r i t a g e " from the programme "Energy, Environment
and Sustainable Development", within the Fifth Framework Programme of the European Union.
The research project, co-ordinated by "Studio Urban Catalyst" at the Technical University of Berlin, was a network of 1 2 partners from five
European metropolises Amsterdam, Berlin, Helsinki, Vienna and Naples - and has investigated the potential of t e m p o r a r y uses as an engine
of urban change. It has developed models of action and strategic planning tools, integrating the potentials of t e m p o r a r y uses into a long lasting
urban development and forming an unique archive which is now a v a i l a b l e to architects, planners, municipalities, developers, p r o p e r t y owners
and temporary users.
Starting from the idea that a sustainable and successful development of urban life cannot be done without a thorough consideration for contextual
aspects, both on the level of the physical structure, as well as on the level of different dimensions as economic, social, cultural, etc., the project
investigates how temporary use of space can be considered an important resource, which can be a strategic alternative in capital-oriented urban
development concepts, offering new models for action where traditional urban planning tools a r e i n a d e q u a t e . The stimulation of non-official
activities can have a catalytical or complementary effect on the development of an urban quality, especially where t r a d i t i o n a l development
methods in urban wastelands encounter g r e a t problems (construction-costs a r e relatively high; monocultural mass investments a r e hindered by
protests and political delicacy; planning processes and regulations a r e unclear and becoming longer and longer; insecurity in marketing and
programming make f i x e d developments risky; etc.).
In a society based on economic growth this used to be considered as negative, but some developments have proven that it can be turned into
something positive: the uncertainty and openness attract and inspire.
Urban Catalyst revealed that urban wastelands, d e v e l o p e d in the right manner, are a g o o d place, where the i d e a of a sustainable urbanity
can s u r v i v e , by a sensible t r a n s f o r m a t i o n , a n d a continuous m o n i t o r i n g a n d c o n t r o l l i n g of d e v e l o p m e n t
quality.
In many aspects the project has only arrived at the contents t a b l e of things to do, in other parts it has carefully started the step into real tools
of implementation, but each one has defined a new kind of urban design praxis, involving new actors and new knowledge into an integral picture
of decision-making.
In particular, the Naples case-study was investigated considering the Campi Flegrei a r e a (Miseno), a complex context at the western periphery
of the city, that has become a "melting p o t " of illegal settlement, uncontrolled urban growth, military use and a w i d e range of t e m p o r a r y uses.
At the same time, the site is one of the Europe's most pressures and protected archaeological landscape reserves. In this reality the abuse and
the illegal a r e dominant and in the confusion of t e m p o r a r y and seasonal change, as well as informal and illegal practices, planning future
development has become very complex.
The Urban Catalyst research team focused on the introduction of specific strategies and tools of control, which could help to exploit the potential
of existing spaces for multiple and shared use scenarios. The different research steps have followed a methodological a p p r o a c h in order to
express a Decision Support System a b l e to guide the scenario construction in a multidimensional perspective. According to this aim and taking
into account the evolution of the evaluative instruments, the definition of temporary uses implementing strategies has been articulated identifying
potentials, models and tools starting from a bottom-up a p p r o a c h for recognising shared values and building a shared vision. The DSS was
conceived by phases, based on the possibility of continuous feed-backs and c a p a b l e to combine different methodologies and d a t a (soft and
hard).
The main steps are: problem structuring and organisation of knowledge, by classical and new instruments (for example, the use of interpretative
p h o t o g r a p h y , interviews and m a p p i n g tools); concept, problem solving and identification of the objectives; institutional analysis; potentials
identification and analysis, by the combined application of different approaches; elaboration of action strategies; identification of models for
actions, according to " g o o d urban governance"; selection of key-tools (juridical/legal, social/economic and physical/environmental); elaboration
of a strategic scenario, named "Misenofutura", in order to stimulate a more effective and a w a r e use of local resources. This so-articulated scheme
represents the structure to consider the evaluation as essential p a r t of the scenario planning according to a communicative perspective, where
the central aspects a r e the achievement of an inclusive arena of negotiation; the promotion of a bottom-up learning process; the increase of
institutional and social capitals. Through this approach it has been possible to face a practical challenge by developing an integrated conceptual
model, by organising the evaluative process in the form of interactive dynamics; by permitting that stakeholders put f o r w a r d claims concerns
and interests; and by implementing an iterative discursive consensus-seeking process.
The vision of Misenofutura is the last step where the existing potentials are transformed into the implementation of strategies, in order to realize
the s p a t i a l i n t e g r a t i o n among resources, stakeholders, environmental and cultural h e r i t a g e , a n d to stimulate new economic dynamics.
Portals for K n o w l e d g e M a n a g e m e n t
By Denisa Neagu
In the new society, the k n o w l e d g e society the key resource is k n o w l e d g e . Enterprises t r y to improve the k n o w l e d g e t r a n s f e r inside the
o r g a n i z a t i o n . The solution is r e p r e s e n t e d by K N O W L E D G E PORTALS. Those a r e t r a n s a c t i o n a l g a t e w a y s to specific audience with the
scope to improve p r o d u c t i v i t y , c o l l a b o r a t i o n a n d k n o w l e d g e sharing. These p o r t a l s can f i n d and c e n t r a l i z e all i m p o r t a n t a p p l i c a t i o n s ,
d a t a stores a n d k n o w l e d g e within an o r g a n i z a t i o n .
This p a p e r will p r o v e the i m p o r t a n c e of k n o w l e d g e p o r t a l s f o r an o r g a n i z a t i o n to f i n d a n d to make accessible k n o w l e d g e assets, to
e l i m i n a t e the chaos e x i s t i n g b e t w e e n divisions inside the c o m p a n y a n d to i m p r o v e the k n o w l e d g e m a n a g e m e n t of o r g a n i z a t i o n .
Portals are transactional gateways targeted to a specific audience. Implementing a portal in your organization can lead to increased productivity,
i m p r o v e d w o r k c o l l a b o r a t i o n a n d k n o w l e d g e s h a r i n g a n d m a x i m i z e d investment on e x p e n s i v e b a c k - e n d p a c k a g e s - http://www1 .ibm.com/services/kcm/know_mngt_con.html.
Portals and knowledge management systems have proved their worth to enterprises through their ability to find and centralize all the important
applications, d a t a stores and knowledge within an organization. The focus of portals and knowledge management systems has, until recently,
been on finding and centralizing knowledge an organization knew it h a d . The welcome trend n o w a n d evident in most of the entries in this
c a t e g o r y i s seen in systems that find and make easily accessible knowledge that may not be readily a p p a r e n t . Jim Rapoza -"Portals & Knowledge
Management" - hfrp://www.ewee/c.com/arh'c/e2/0,3959,1006085,OO.asp
Benefits of integrating information, training, and knowledge
Speeds up time-to-proficiency by providing users with ust-in-time training and reference materials - as much as they need, when they
need it, as often as they need it
* Shortens time-to-application by supplementing training with relevant, r e a l - w o r l d examples (e.g., case studies, lessons l e a r n e d , and best
practices) that instills a more thorough understanding of training materials in the context of the learner's work
* Maximizes productivity by providing employees with a single, on-demand resource for the information, training, and knowledge that
they need
* The deployment of a portal in your organization can increase the productivity, improve the team work, and the knowledge management
of your company.
The portals powered by NETAMO use first-class enterprise technologies, including LDAP servers (existing or new-deployment), solid J2EE technology
and transparent integration with legacy applications. W e only use bulletproof technologies, with real object orientation and real programming
languages, making a difference from already-build,weak-designed portals from our competitors.
Far beyond simple d a t a archives and streamlined access, enterprise knowledge portals represent the future of corporate information management.
Seamlessly interweaving three essential principles people, content, and technology ~ an effective p o r t a l is the ultimate r o a d m a p to every
conceivable permutation of the components in a business's landscape.
This prescient, authoritative book is a vital reference for anyone concerned with harvesting, creating, distributing, or analyzing company information.
HR executives and IT professionals will learn not only how to create the atlas to their company's universe but also how to define and assign the
roles and responsibilities t h a t w i l l ensure l o n g - t e r m e f f i c a c y a n d r e l e v a n c e . C o m p a n i e s w i l l h a v e the a b i l i t y t o :
*
*
*
*
Build technology around knowledge requirements, not the other way around
Customize desktop access around individual requirements and workstyles
Make better decisions as a result of quick access to crucial information
Maximize speed, efficiency, accuracy, and flexibility of knowledge transfer.
Intranets are powerful tools that improve communication in an organization and cut costs. Information g a p s , redundant and o u t d a t e d content
and the resulting chaos existing between divisions in organizations can be reduced when an Intranet is implemented. The enterprise information
portal as it is called t o d a y is a collaborative tool in the workplace of the new millenium.
Gains From Knowledge Management Efforts
Reduce lost time: A typical employee spends 3 0 % to 4 0 % of his time looking for information.
Lower the cost of reworking information: Redeveloping information that a l r e a d y exists costs a p p r o x i m a t e l y $ 5 , 5 0 0 annually per employee
Lower the cost of redundancy: The a v e r a g e document is copied nine to 1 1 times.
Diminish the cost of handling p a p e r : Filing costs $ 2 0 per document.
Reduce loss of intellectual assets: W h e n an employee leaves a company, 7 0 % of his knowledge leaves with him.
Knowledge Assessment and the Science/Policy Interface
K n o w l e d g e Assessment
eyuDt
oung
cussant!
Ren Von Schomberg
EC - DG RTD. Rene.Von-Schomberg@cec.eu.int
Nico Stehr
Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe and GKSS, Germany.

Nico.Stehr@t-online.de
Ruth McNally
Centre for Economic and Social Aspects of Genomics (CESAGen),

Cardiff University School of Social Sciences, UK.
McnallyR@Cardiff.ac.uk
Katy Whitelegg
Department of Technology Policy, ARC Seibersdorf Research GmbH,

Seibersdorf, Austria, katy.whitelegg@arcs.ac.at
Vassilios Laopodis
EC - DG Entreprise, vassilios.laopodis@cec.eu.int
Knowledge Society Divides... Knowledge Assessment Bridges

By Ren Von Schomberg
In the knowledge society, the utilisation and production of knowledge for the purpose of underpinning policy and anticipating the requirements
of new policies have become p r o b a b l y too complex for our current institutional mechanisms to cope with. In this session we will explore at least
three different dimensions of the needs for knowledge assessment procedures at the science-policy interface as a step to respond to this institutional
challenge. First, we have to face the fact that the received model of the "use" of knowledge from the science by policy makers is by f a r from
accurate. W e have to acknowledge that "knowledge" is also "produced" both by policy makers and scientists a n d , on t o p of that, the interaction
of policymakers and scientists in a more broader societal context often lead to new insights and increase the quality of the knowledge, potentially
to be used for the formulation and implementation of policies. Secondly, The Science/policy interface is confronted with knowledge policies (Stehr,
2 0 0 3 ) of societal actors, which a r e by nature, strategically f o r m u l a t e d . Thirdly, we will take also into consideration that the knowledge is of
cross-sectoral value and of cross-disciplinary nature. In this session we will present the results of a case study which shows how the quality of
"foresight knowledge" (typically a form of knowledge which is not "just" produced by scientists) for the use of environmental planning and policy
in the Netherlands can be assessed. In addition three speakers will comment on the case study in the light of these three dimensions or enter
into d e b a t e of the particularities of one of those three dimensions.
Keynnte
The social and political control of knowledge in modern societies
By Nico Stehr
This presentation is conceived as p a r t of a line of inquiry into the reasons for controlling novel scientific knowledge, and the ways of doing so,
by major social institutions within and across modern societies.The sociology of knowledge always had an interest in the social role of knowledge
(power based on knowledge), its transformation and its carriers (experts, intellectuals, cognitive elites). However, the primary knowledge-guiding
interest of the sociology of knowledge traditionally has been on questions concerned with the production and not the consumption of knowledge.
The emerging focus of sociology of knowledge inquiry should be with issues that may be designated as knowledge politics".\ will first describe
and delineate the notion of knowledge politics as a new f i e l d of political activity. W h e n it comes to the utilization of new capacities for action
(that is, knowledge) knowledge politics does not have to be restrictive a priori; my focus, however, will be on efforts to anticipate the effects of
new knowledge on social relations, and attempts to control its impact. Second, I will delineate some of the main reasons why knowledge politics
gains prominence as a field of political activity in modern societies. I will stress, in particular, changing relations between science and society. In
a third section of the paper, the distinction between knowledge and science policies will be introduced. Before concluding the discussion with a
brief outlook, I will sketch some pertinent episodes that illustrate knowledge politics in action.
The idea that our knowledge is a social construct is of recent origin. Since the e a r l y 1 920s, the various traditions of the sociology of knowledge
have been concerned with the social forces and processes that affect knowing and knowledge claims. More recently, the sociology of knowledge
has lifted the original restrictions pertaining to the examination of the social foundations of scientific knowledge. Almost concurrently, there is a
strong and growing interest in the effects of knowledge on social relations, particularly as a new productive force in the economic system of
modern societies. This perspective, along with the more dubious notion of knowledge management.
But young as they are, the well-established sociological examinations of the negotiated production of knowledge, have a long tradition compared
to the now emerging lines of inquiry into the societal control of new knowledge. The basic question posed in this new field of inquiry and of politics,
as I will argue, is: will what can be shown always be done?
This presentation is conceived as p a r t of such a line of inquiry into the reasons for controlling novel scientific knowledge, and the ways of doing
so, by major social institutions in modern society. I will first describe and delineate the notion of knowledge politics as a new f i e l d of political
activity. W h e n it comes to the utilization of new capacities for action (that is, knowledge) knowledge politics does not have to be restrictive a
priori; my focus, however, will be on efforts to anticipate the effects of new knowledge on social relations, and attempts to control its impact.
Second, I will delineate some of the main reasons why knowledge politics gains prominence as a f i e l d of political activity in modern societies.l
will stress, in particular, changing relations between science and society. In a third section of the paper, the distinction between knowledge and
science policies will be introduced. Before concluding the discussion with a brief outlook, I will sketch some pertinent episodes that illustrate
knowledge politics in action.
I plan to discuss what I take may well become one of the most significant and contentious issues for intellectual, legal, public, scientific and political
discourse during the century that has just begun: the growing m o r a l , political and economic pressure to regulate or police novel knowledge
or in other words, the emergence of a new f i e l d of political activity, namely knowledge politics and policies. O f course, anxieties and concerns
about the social consequences of new scientific knowledge and novel technologies are not of recent origin. Nor a r e elusive promises of the clear
blessings of science for humankind, and the mitigation of human suffering that scientific advances entail.
But what is now at stake is more than merely the vague feeling that a slowdown or a consolidation in the volume of the f a b r i c a t i o n of new
knowledge is in order.
Knowledge politics, or governance of knowledge, is about attempts to channel the social role of k n o w l e d g e ; to g e n e r a t e rules and enforce
sanctions pertaining to relevant actors and organization; to affix certain attributes (such as property restrictions or legal prohibitions) to knowledge;
and likely the most controversial strategy - to generally restrict the application of new knowledge and technical artefacts; mainly, of course,
by efforts located outside the immediate boundaries of the scientific community. The essence of knowledge politics consists of strategic efforts
to move the social control of new scientific and technical knowledge, and thereby the future, into the center of the cultural, economic and political
matrix of society.
oung
Experts, Jurors and Judges: M a n a g i n g the Science/Society Interface in Court (*)
By Ruth McNally
This p a p e r examines the issue of the interface between science and society in a specific a r e n a , namely, an English court of law. The p a p e r is
based on a case of a l l e g e d rape in which the main evidence against the defendant was DNA profile evidence. The case, known as R. v. Adams,
involved two trials and two appeals at each of which the defendant was found guilty.
The Adams trial was construed by the court as a kind of test case in which a single powerful item of "scientific" evidence was weighed against
an array of items of "common sense" evidence. Virtually all of the evidence other than the DNA profile match supported the defendant's innocence.
The evidence supporting the accused rapist's guilt not only conflicted with the evidence supporting his innocence, it was a systematically different
kind of evidence. As the court's summary mentions, the prosecution relied upon e x p e r t evidence, whereas the defense relied upon ordinary forms
of identification and description. This is only one case, but it is interesting for analytical purposes because of the unusually clear way it juxtaposed
the credibility and weight of e x p e r t evidence, and specifically of DNA profile evidence, with that of other, more ordinary, forms of evidence.
The court summary aligned the two sides of the case with a set of epistemic distinctions, namely expert judgements and common sense judgements,
and probabilistic evidence and non-probabilistic evidence.
Although jury trials occur in a small, and decreasing, proportion of criminal and civil cases in the Anglo-American courts, the jury continues to
stand proxy for the common citizen's place in the justice system. The Adams case is one of a series of cases in which courts in the US, UK, and
other countries have struggled to incorporate DNA evidence into a system of justice that stresses lay participation and public accountability.
The basic problem is that judges, lawyers, and jurors have limited acquaintance with, and very little opportunity to learn about, the technical
matters that experts a r e asked to present in court. Consequently, these lay participants can either be at the mercy of experts who make
uncontested assertions about what the evidence shows, or, when the experts disagree, be left with no technical basis for deciding which claims
to b e l i e v e . The d e f e n c e t e a m in the A d a m s trials a n d a p p e a l s a t t e m p t e d to e m p l o y a distinctive s t r a t e g y to a d d r e s s this p r o b l e m .
This strategy involved an effort to enable the jury to use a Bayesian procedure for translating all of the evidence into comparable probability
estimates. The defense a p p e a l e d to "elementary fairness" when arguing that all of the evidence should be given a symmetrical treatment.
According to the argument, the "common sense" evidence presented by the defense should be w e i g h e d on the same scale as the "scientific"
evidence presented by the prosecution, and both should be a n a l y z e d with the Bayesian a p p r o a c h .
The court's ultimate rejection of the Bayesian procedure was based on a strict demarcation between a formulaic mode of individual reasoning
and a collective f o r m of common sense deliberation. Both Adams a p p e a l judgments a f f i r m e d the role of "common sense" for making a holistic
assessment of the totality of evidence presented in the singular case. As the courts recognized, such assessments not only involve discrete questions
of fact; they also take into account the demeanor of witnesses and the credibility of testimony. They involve elements of trust which a r e fallible,
difficult to justify, and impossible to quantify. The Court also stated that the jurors' common sense rests upon knowledge of the w o r l d , which cannot
be reduced to an expert system. The Court emphasised the social, as opposed to individual, basis of jurors' judgments and a f f i r m e d the necessity
for jurors collectively to deliberate about the ultimate issue. In sum, the two Adams a p p e a l court decisions characterized the Bayesian approach
as an individualistic, reductive calculus that creates a misleading or potentially confusing a p p e a r a n c e of objectivity when a p p l i e d to "nonscientific" evidence.
However, the Adams appeals d i d not simply result in an across the b o a r d rejection of a probabilistic calculus, nor d i d they simply uphold common
sense against a technocratic procedure that threatened to subjugate (or "usurp") it. The Court d i d not discount the appropriateness of the Bayesian
method for assisting judgments about scientific evidence, and it d i d not g o along with the defense's argument for an equivalent quantitative
framing of the DNA a n d non-DNA evidence. Despite the defence's a p p e a l s for symmetry, the Court continued to d e m a r c a t e "scientific" DNA
evidence from "common sense" non-DNA evidence, and it ruled that numerical estimation was a p p r o p r i a t e for the former t y p e of evidence but
not the latter. The Court of A p p e a l a f f i r m e d the jury's jurisdiction over the "ultimate issue," but at the same time it a f f i r m e d the "scientific"
legitimacy of probability figures. The Court's use of the science/non-science distinction produced an interesting twist on the theme of 'boundary
work'. The Court d i d not simply assign special authority to " e x p e r t " or "scientific" testimony. Instead, it stipulated limits to "scientific" testimony
and ascribed g l o b a l authority to the jury's collective "common sense" deliberations.
Unlike many professional inquiries, criminal trials are typically public events enclosed in time and space and presented to lay audiences. Moreover,
criminal trials typically involve incommensurate accounts of the same events and in many cases at least some of the evidence presented is scientific,
novel and controversial. Notwithstanding these difficulties it is intrinsic to the trial-by-jury process that a lay jury must reach a verdict. For these
reasons, the English courtroom makes an excellent 'laboratory' for studying policy-making (by judges in the form of common law) at the interface
of science and society.
The research for this paper was supported by a grant from the British Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), 'Science in a Legal Context: DNA Profiling, Forensic Practice and the Courts'
(R000235853), July 1995-March 1998. The paper on which my presentation
Discussant
Are Science and Technology Councils an appropriate w a y of providing advice to the policy making process?
By Katy
Whitelegg
The main focus of the p a p e r proposed here the role of Science and Technology Councils (S&T Councils) and their appropriateness of providing
advice to the policy making process. The aim of the p a p e r is to look at the w a y in which S&T councils are developing and to ask whether they
h a v e t h e c o m p e t e n c i e s to b e a b l e t o f u l f i l the i n c r e a s i n g l y i m p o r t a n t r o l e they a r e p l a y i n g in many E u r o p e a n countries.
W h y is this interesting
So f a r there has been considerable research p e r f o r m e d on the governance of systems of innovation but not on the role of advisory councils as
p a r t of this system.
Secondly, there are many contributions on the use of experts and expert committees in contentious areas of decision making that rely on scientific
input. There are, however, f e w examples of analysis that combine these fields and that look at the use of experts in the f i e l d of science policy.
This is despite the fact that the use of experts to support the decision making process has also been growing in this a r e a and that the potential
impact of decisions for the allocation of research funding and future research strategies is large. Although S&T councils a p p e a r to receive less
attention due to the fact that the issues they d e a l with are often less contentious than that of other advisory bodies, the long term effects could
be considerable.
The proposed p a p e r aims to link these two areas of research. It aims to a p p l y the knowledge gained in previous studies on the use of experts
in policy making and use it to analyse the w a y in which experts are used in science policy. There a r e many similarities and in many cases the
use of experts would a p p e a r would a p p e a r to run along similar lines without proper consideration of the different nature of advice in S&T. An
example is the choice of experts. In the case of S&T councils the experts a r e chosen as a result of their expertise, however in the provision of
a d v i c e they then d o not d r a w on their d i r e c t f i e l d of e x p e r t i s e , but on their e x p e r i e n c e as researchers a n d research m a n a g e r s .
Background - Changes in S&T policy need for co-ordinated advice
Research funding is becoming scarcer and governments a r e feeling the pressure to spend their resources as efficiently as possible and to justify
spending t a x - p a y e r s money. They are no longer leaving the planning up to individual ministries to decide on research strategies and aims, but
are developing mechanisms through which they can both co-ordinate and validate their actions. One way of doing this is through the establishment
of S&T Councils.
In recent years S&T councils in many countries in Europe have begun to play an important role in advising governments on issues r e l a t e d to S&T
policy. Their responsibilities cover a w i d e range of activities and range from strategic policy formulation or the p r e p a r a t i o n of the research
budget to tasks or of a more specific nature such as the definition concrete research programmes.
State of the art: use of expert advice in policy making
Over the last decade considerable work has been done concerning the relationship between science and policy making and the use of scientific
expertise in policy making. This has taken different forms:
Analysis of the current crisis between policy making and science by through looking at the changes that have occurred recently
Analysis of the differences between the two systems (such as Luhmann)
Analysis of mechanisms to b r i d g e the g a p between science and policy making (and society)
Application to S&T Councils

S&T Councils play a large role in research strategies and resource allocation. For this reason the role and the working of such councils should
be carefully observed. If a balance of disciplines and views is not observed then there is a d a n g e r that research which cannot be justified in
terms of economic gain will be sidelined. Another issue where the organisation of such councils could benefit from research into the use of experts
is in the integration of non-expert based views into the decision making process which would allow the inclusion of the social dimension into
research policy.
Focus
This p a p e r aims at presenting the first attempts to outline the relevance of research and experiences on the use of experts for organising advise
in the a r e a of S&T.
Improving Science Society Relationships through Foresight Exercises in Europe

By Vassilios Laopodis
In 2 0 0 1 the CREST Council Committee produced the CREST Report on Science and Society (CREST 1 2 0 6 / 0 1 ) which was followed by the "Science
and Society Action Plan" a d o p t e d by the Commission on the 4 December ( C O M (2001 )71 4 Final), intending to develop a stronger and more
harmonious relationship between science and society, along three directions: a) promoting education and science culture in Europe, b) bringing
science policy closer to the citizens and c) supporting responsible science for policy-making.
To better implement this action plan several M e m b e r States indicated their willingness to take the lead in open co-ordination with other states
interested in a particular topic. Eight (8) clusters were f o r m e d out of which the following had a more or less direct link with societal issues (in
parenthesis the coordinating country):
Cluster
Cluster
Cluster
Cluster
Cluster
1:
2:
4:
6:
7:
Science, Technology, Innovation and the M e d i a (BE)

Science Weeks (FR)
Dialogue and Participation (NL)
Foresight and Society (GR)
Ethics (DK/SI)
The Hellenic General Secretariat for Research and Technology (GSRT) volunteered to organize a Working Group under the Cluster No 6 "Foresight
and Society" aiming to improve Science and Society relationships through Foresight Exercises in Europe. The main criteria for selecting this topic
were : a) the fact that Greece was currently implementing a national Foresight programme with a time horizon of 2 0 years () with special
emphasis on how to better involve a w i d e range of societal actors, and b) that cooperation in foresight was the subject of an international
conference on 1 4 - 1 5 M a y 2 0 0 3 at loannina, Greece, under the auspices of the Hellenic EU Presidency.
Cluster 6 "Foresight and Society" (co-ordinated by the author on secondment to GSRT) commenced its activities on 1 3 January 2 0 0 3 with a
k i c k - o f f meeting in Brussels with a f f u n d a m e n t a l o b j e c t i v e to e x p l o r e ways a n d methods to f u r t h e r the social aspect a n d f u l f i l the
communication/awareness-raising potential of Foresight activities across Europe. The interest for participation in the work of Cluster 6 was more
than encouraging, reaching a total of 35 a p p o i n t e d members representing 24 European countries with written contributions from most of them.
The group delivered its final report on 3 0 . 0 6 . 2 0 0 3 with a number of proposals to CREST and recommendations addressed to Member States,
Accession Countries, and the European Commission (in particular D G Research), and the foresight and science communication communities in
Europe.
However, it should be clear that whilst proposing the promotion of closer association between the Foresight practitioners and the S & T communicators,
a distinction should be maintained between the two areas and particularly the particular role of Foresight as a tool for scientific and technological
policy making.
Proposals and recommendations
An analysis of the results of the Cluster 6 preliminary m a p p i n g study indicates a rather symptomatic relationship between Foresight and science
communication/awareness-raising activities. The necessity has been clearly highlighted to e x p a n d this mapping exercise to take fuller account
of p a r t i c i p a t o r y aspects in f o r e s i g h t a n d e x a m i n e in a m o r e s y s t e m a t i c w a y the r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n Foresight a n d Society.
Among the recommendations the following a r e of major importance:

Establishment of a European Forum on "Foresight and Society" with a view to o f f e r i n g the possibility to scientists and practitioners in
both Foresight and Science Communication to exchange experiences, learn from successes and failures a n d d e v e l o p common strategies
and joint initiatives
Development of a mechanism for Sharing Knowledge and know-how on the communicative aspects of Foresight in the form a repository of
best practices in these domains.
Development of a Common Evaluation System to a p p l y to Foresight exercises and Public Understanding of Science programmes/activities,
with emphasis on the cross-national/regional joint characteristics and activities
Stimulation of Structural Links and Pilot Initiatives with the aim to Design and launch a limited number of trans-national joint calls for
expression of interest and submission of proposals for the selection of g o o d existing practices - funded by different sources in different
countries and regions, including structural funds. Member States should be encouraged to propose initiatives leading to the establishment
of networks and other schemes using all the FP6 instruments, and in particular ERA-NET and SSAs.
NB: An SSA proposal called "ForSociety" of 14 European countries led by Greece and inspired from these recommendations was submitted and a p p r o v e d , to the FP6 programme (ERA-NET & SSAs).
Support a number of Demonstrator projects across Europe in order to set up (or repeat) ' g o o d examples' on the use of the awarenessraising and social mobilisation potential of Foresight.
Develop Networks of excellence on Foresight and Society in Europe under FP6, to provide a mechanism for interchange between
practitioners of Foresights on successful methods for reaching broader sections of the public and even evaluate the impact of these activities
on society. The networks would also provide for developing a shared infrastructure for collecting and synthesising results and m a p p i n g
and measuring the European Foresight and Society landscape. These networks should be able to connect regional or trans-border foresight
projects methodology.
Creating links with Education with the objective to awake the attention of decision-makers and European citizens to the importance of
scientific and technological education in Europe. A particularly interesting option would be to include students and young people in Foresight
activities, receiving a feedback on technological tackling of everyday life problems, or on perceived risks and challenges posed by certain
S&T options at local or g l o b a l scale.
EXHIBITIONS
The Territory And The Local Space In The Processes Of Change Towards New Environmental
Mentalities. Contributions From The Analyse Of The Citizens' Participative Local Experiences
M a Angels Ali, Silvia Mateu, Laia Peir
I
TThe preservation of the natural environment and the research of
balance between the environment and the urban and financial planning
create one of the axis for changing science and environmental culture.
Therefore, this is a d e e p a n d complex process of change in which
present wide environmental mentalities in broad layers of the population
a r e involved and which go beyond the scientific and technical circles.
In our presentation, w e would like to show d i f f e r e n t aspects of a
research which we have been doing on the environmental behaviours
and mentalities in the municipalities within the metropolitan a r e a of
Barcelona, with the aim on foster active participating dynamics in the
local policy, as well as to ease the renewal of governmental mechanisms
and approaches on urban and territorial planning.
M o r e precisely, we will introduce the issue of the d i f f e r e n t types of
environmental mentalities which a r e characteristic of the d i f f e r e n t
entities that create the local civic network. W e will see that there a r e
important differences among these entities a n d , thus, we can set a first
classification between the entities that follow the green cultural pattern
and those that are under the influence of the middle-class environmental
culture pattern. Nevertheless, the everyday experiences in the territory
also play an important role when it comes to understanding why some
associations have a more open and developed environmental approach
than others.
Especially, w e wish to emphasize this last issue. And the situation is so
because, on the one hand, the territorial interest for the common and
close space for a population was one of the most productive working
guidelines that arose during the phases of highest participation with
the entities, with the aim to create some perspectives towards new ways
of considering the environment. A n d , on the other hand, because the
same territorial emphasis is also to be found in the processes of change
of the e n v i r o n m e n t a l mentalities of the p o p u l a t i o n s involved in
Department of Human G e o g r a p h y ,
Universidad d e Barcelona, Spain,
alio@ub.edu
environmental strikes against the projects and actions that have an

i m p o r t a n t t e r r i t o r i a l impact, such as the mobilisations against the
Hydrological
Plan
in
the
area
of
the
Ebre river.
To summarize, this is one of the results that reinforce the obvious
importance of protecting the space where w e a r e living, and which
means how important it is to take steps to improve the environmental
reality which could be one of the first steps in the process of changing
the environmental a p p r o a c h e s of the p o p u l a t i o n involved in local
management and policies.-
Tools To Inform Debates, Dialogues & Deliberations: TIDDD
ARTLab
Over recent years, the role of decision tools, in particular for environmental
issues, in which Decision Support Systems (DSS) are included has been
enhanced not only because of technological advances but also because
of g r e a t e r skill a n d openness in the actual use of such tools f o r
participation purposes. In a sense, this enhanced role has assisted a
change of function for decision tools within environmental decisionmaking processes. Emerging, more accountable and inclusive governance
styles reject the concept of a single, omnipotent decision maker and
r e p l a c e it with a d e l i b e r a t i v e process involving e x t e n d e d d e b a t e
r e g a r d i n g specific policy issues. M o r e o v e r , there has also been a
progressive recognition that it is not just at the level of decision that
appropriate consultation, dialogue and deliberation take place among
those concerned with certain governance issues.
New ICT (referring to developments m a d e in the last d e c a d e and in
particular the advent of Internet) has been used extensively in educational
programmes but its use to enhance p a r t i c i p a t o r y processes has also
been e x p l o r e d . In ARTLab, ICT has been extensively d e v e l o p e d and
used to make a b r i d g e between remote issues such as climate change
or envisioning futures for European cities, and more t a n g i b l e aspects
of everyday life in order to initiate debates about sustainability options
with groups of citizens. In the work r e p o r t e d here, and as discussed
a b o v e , the very function of ICT p l a t f o r m s takes on a new mantle;
information tools are no longer viewed as means to legitimate decisions
as was often the case with decision support systems but rather to
initiate and inform debates, dialogues or deliberations. There is therefore
an opportunity to develop new tools as shared ground platforms based
on different flows of knowledge and wisdom. Such tools are designated
here as 'Tools to Inform Debates, Dialogues & Deliberations' (TIDDD
or TID3 European Communities).
Essentially TIDDD are tools that deploy new Information & Communication
Technology (namely Internet, multi-media and 3D virtual reality interfaces)
I ARTLab, EC - JRC - ISPC, K A M sector, Ispra,

Italy, h t t p : / / a l b a . j r c . i t / a r t l a b
angela.pereira@jrc.it
in order to organise the information that feeds into a dialogue process

about a governance issue. TIDDD are designed to support participatory
processes. TIDDD a r e designed for the context a n d audience where
they a r e meant to b e used, a n d a r e characterised by
progressive
disclosure of information. The role of the information tools is not only
to p r o v i d e the a v a i l a b l e k n o w l e d g e to inform a d e b a t e but also to
constitute the common-ground through which this d e b a t e is organised,
and to integrate other sources of knowledge that may emerge during
the process. These tools are an explicit contribution to the implementation
of the science a n d g o v e r n a n c e initiatives n o t e d a b o v e , a n d a r e
characterised by the principles of progressive disclosure and information
quality.
Progressive disclosure of information is a key principle of design of
these tools due to the support it provides for mixed expertises. Information
is supplied in layers of increasing specialisation, d e p e n d i n g on actors'
interests and necessary specialised information.
This exhibition will show through a multi-media compilation some of the
work done at ARTLab r e g a r d i n g the development and deployment of
TIDDD.
>t\^
New Media Tec hnology Projec ts at Universitt Pompeu Fabra

Universitt Pompeu Fabra, Departament
d e Tecnologia, Spain.
josep.blat@upf.edu
Josep Blat
Projects r e l a t e d to collaborative environments f o r drug design, new

publishing environments, digital cinema, animation, games, educational
robotic toys will b e exhibited.
A mix of PC-base d inte ractive unatte nde d and PC-base d
exhibitions toge the r with unatte nde d vide o will be use d.
JHWHIFK
IHM
1 F*"iai llatk |
S
-
e
s
rr-
_l
TiTtf-
atte nde d
An Example Of Communication Processes To Mitigate Risk In An Urban Area Exposed

To A Hazardous Chemical Facility
Simona C a r a g l i a n o , Scira M e n o n i
Public Involvement in decision making processes concerning the mitigation

and reduction of e x p e c t e d risks should be further encouraged and
discussed. Citizens perceive a specific risk situation on the basis of their
daily experiences, individual and emotional psychology and the news
released by the m e d i a . This is the reason why a d i a l o g u e among
citizens, media and institutions should be looked for, as it constitutes an
instrument of relevant knowledge to develop risk prevention strategies.
The concept of risk constitutes a complex construct including various
aspects that a p p e a r in different individuals, cultural groups and areas.
The project that is p r o p o s e d in the poster concerns a recent Italian
e x p e r i e n c e , still in progress, that has b e e n d e v e l o p e d in a small
municipality, r e g a r d i n g communication a n d i n f o r m a t i o n practices
addressed to the population living and working in an industrial risk
a r e a where a Seveso site is located. This experience, that represents
an example of the involvement of the concerned public in chemical risk
prevention policies, was a i m e d at creating an informative network,
supporting the existent risk management instrument at the local level.
In fact, the concerned local administration has a l r e a d y developed an
"Operational Manual for Crisis Management" under our guidance, that
can be used when a sudden accident occurs in a Seveso installation.
This manual, specifying different behaviours that all the involved partners
have to carry out in case of accident, required a particular attention
in the involvement of the people living or working close to the hazardous
plant.
In the first stage, closely r e l a t e d to the development of the manual,
communication practices have b e e n used mainly t o construct the
emergency management procedure, together with the institutional and
non-institutional partners that a r e relevant to this process. A number
of meetings have been organised with institutions of civil protection,
industrial managers, citizens' associations, voluntary services, school
teachers. W i t h them the first d r a f t of the manual have been discussed
Universit d e g l i S t u d i d i V e n e z i a - IUAV
Politecnico d i M i l a n o , Italy.
Simona.Caragliano@polimi.it;
menoni@mail.polimi.it
and according to their suggestions c h a n g e d until the present " f i n a l "

version.
Now, in the second phase of the project, a more general informative
process has been organised, to involve the rest of the local population
who d i d not p a r t i c i p a t e to the construction of the manual itself f o r
various reasons. It has been decided to define this stage as the creation
of a more general "informative network" rather than as a typical risk
communication procedure. The i d e a is to have citizens, managers of
commercial malls, and the local media contribute to create a network
that can be used both for informing about prevention practices and
during the emergency itself. The creation of this network will require
the development of a number of t a r g e t e d leaflets aimed at stressing
the d a n g e r or vulnerability aspects that a r e more relevant for each
involved partners (commercial malls managers have a responsibility
towards their clients who may be completely unaware of the risk they
are exposed to; local residents have already a background knowledge,
etc.) Those leaflets will be used to p r e p a r e the terrain for discussion
and a r e not considered t h e r e f o r e as a final result; rather, they a r e
aimed at p r e p a r i n g informative channels usable during the crisis.
The exhibition of the work will include a d i a g r a m of the methodology
used, the principles of governance considered and the goals a t t a i n e d ;
the most important parts of the manual, including maps and diagrams.
Besides, the drafts of the leaflets will be presented as w e l l , to show
the basis for the discussion that is going on with the local residents and
other concerned stakeholders.
Water At 3 6 0 Degrees
P. Ciceri*, E. Tibaldi**, J. Somerville*** P. Cozens***
|
I
I
|
|
I
I
*KRILL, laboratorio per lo sviluppo sostenibile, ONLUS

*LEA Laura Conti, Universit degli Studi di Milano
Dipartimento di Biologia, sez. Ecologia
* * Universit degli Studi di Milano, Dipartimento di
Biologia, sez. Ecologia
* * * Art at work
ciceri2@unimi.it
The team
on the street" with the special equipments
LEA Laura Conti, Regional Centre for Environmental

Education, Milan University member of the national network INFEA
(Information, Training, Environmental Education) promoted from
the Italian Environmental Ministry
Biology Department of Milan University, Ecology Section
Art at W o r k , group of artists and animators skilled in

organizing events and street actions to involve people into social
and environmental topics
KRILL, lab for a sustainable development, ONLUS involved

in teacher training, environmental education, communication and
partecipatory processes
About...
Tools
Three didactic manuals about stories, actions and maps for a
sustainable development of the hydrografie basin of the Po river,
devoted to be a methodological and contents support for schools
interested in p r o m o t i n g and m a n a g i n g multistakeholders
environmental project on the local reality.
Some special quipements: a water wagon, a rolling data bank,
to b u i l d i n t e r a c t i o n s b e t w e e n citizens a n d the t h e m e .
Possibile contexts
Workshop between the team and students to start the discussion
about the theme and to prepare students to manage the activities
"on the street"
Street actions: interactions between students and citizens "played
Water at 360 degrees, target are students, citizens, ... and the
themes we can manage are water and daily consumptions, water
from the sources to the see, water as natural and anthropic element
of l a n d s c a p e , w a t e r a n d community
mapping...
The exhibition offers the opportunity to experiment some of these
ways and could be managed from students that already taken
part to that project.
Supporting Collaborative Learning in Regional Natural Park Planning: The Case of

Gravina In Puglia
Adele Celino, Grazia Concilio
The proposed exhibition presents the results of a research activity, still

on-going, for which a knowledge based system (Grav.l.C.S. GRAVina
Information C o l l a b o r a t i v e System) was implemented to support the
creation of the G r a v i n a N a t u r a l Park in Puglia (Italy). The system, in
the WEB environment, integrates information tools a l r e a d y a v a i l a b l e
in the software market and d e v e l o p e d for g r o u p decision support
t o g e t h e r with tools t h a t f a v o u r d y n a m i c r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of the
organizational memory. Organizational memory, in effect, when structured
within information systems that support the management of decisions
and actions in organizational environment, can become a valid tool to
develop multi-level (individual, of the group, organizational) collaborative
learning.
The organizations taking shape within planning processes can be both
self-generated or created ad-hoc and can have stable or t e m p o r a r y
frames. They represent environments of knowledge work and are often
virtual environments where the role of informal knowledge, together
with the formal knowledge, is nowadays considered extremely relevant,
with respect to c o l l a b o r a t i v e learning goals, by a w i d e literature.
Referring to the institutional process for the creation of the Regional
Natural Park of the G r a v i n a in Puglia (Italy), the proposed exhibition
shows the architecture of the i m p l e m e n t e d system. M o r e o v e r , the
exhibition rises points on the theme of IC technologies as media of
social learning and g o v e r n a n c e in contexts t h a t a r e t r a d i t i o n a l l y
characterized by e x p e r t knowledge and "not e x t e n d e d " procedures.
In particular, the presentation will focus on: acquisition and representation
of f o r m a l and informal k n o w l e d g e ; possible dynamic representation
of knowledge; creation, storage and use of decision/learning histories.
The exhibition will show the GRAVICS environment which will be presented
through a digital movie (created by the use of FLASH) containing either
simulations of individual a n d c o l l a b o r a t i v e work sessions or some
! D A U , Politecnico d i B a r i , I t a l y
' g.concilio@poliba.it
interviews m a d e to the system users (citizens, experts a n d G r a v i n a in

Puglia Administrators). The movie will have interactive options in order
to e n a b l e the d e e p e x p l o r a t i o n of the system a n d the n a v i g a t i o n
through the w o r k a l r e a d y c a r r i e d out with the G r a v i n a in Puglia
community with regards to the Regional Park.
KEY W O R D S : Collaborative Learning, M a n a g i n g O r g a n i z a t i o n a l
M e m o r y ; Natural Park Planning.
Participatory Processes And Educational Pilot Projects: A Case-Study Concerning Plant

Genetics And Biotechnology
M. Alexandra Abreu Limai, i\a Vasconcelos?
One of the main issues of plant genetic modification is the transfer of

highly scientific-technical information to lay people, mostly consumers
and farmers. The risk connotations that h a d became associated with
this f i e l d , made it even more difficult to make the transference of this
information with the wished transparency.
Several experiences to use focus groups to make this interface more
efficient and with g r e a t e r efficacy have been essayed, and recently,
another kind of 'interface Science/Society' occurred as a French pilot
experience: it was conducted by INRA; consisted of a Co-construction
of a Research Project, on which beside scientists several other actors
were able to participate on the construction of a project related with
transgenic plants.
In our case, an educational pilot project a b o u t plant genetics and
biotechnology; thematic area of some complexity and controversy; has
e n a b l e d us to d e v e l o p an information p l a t f o r m , (initially aimed at
secondary schools but a v a i l a b l e to all interested citizens) useful to
perform participatory processes with lay people.
In this exhibition we present and discuss the preliminary results of a
methodology d e v e l o p e d according to Marris, C , et a l . (2001),and
a p p l i e d to address some focus group meetings. Its development and
results will also be shown.
References:
Marris, C , Wynne, ., Simmons, P. and W e l d o n , S. (2001 ). Final Report
of the research project, 1 1 5 p .
1 N a t i o n a l A g r o n o m i s St. E A N / I N I A P .
edu_flora@mail.pt
2 DCEA, U n i v e r s i d a d e N o v a d e Lisboa
Visualisation of Land Use Change in the State of North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany

Anke Valentin
Bonn Science S h o p ( W i s s e n s c h a f t s l a d e n Bonn).

' Germany a.valentin@wilabonn.de
Within the last decades, cities show the tendency to grow and general
land use patterns a r e changing a c c o r d i n g t o p e o p l e s ' needs a n d
political changes as well as economic developments. The new project
of the Bonn Science Shop ("Wissenschaftsladen Bonn"), the University
of Bonn and some other partners vividly shows the dramatic loss of
green areas within the last thirty years and suggests alternative ways
of land use. Until the end of the year 2 0 0 3 an e x t r a o r d i n a r y website
will be under construction: Using satellite images and aerial photographs
processes of change will be visualised via a central web interface. The
homepage informs on current best-practice-projects and scales down
In some areas of special interest.
The g o a l of the project is not only to inform about the development in
the past but to co-operate with environmentalists, local planners, teachers
and pupils. They have been integrated into the website's construction,
they take p a r t in thematic workshops and develop teaching material.
Some communities contribute to an exhibition about land use in their
region in order to reach p e o p l e without internet, too. The project is
meant to initiate a b r o a d discussion about sustainable forms of land
use a n d it should e n c o u r a g e new w a y s of u r b a n p l a n n i n g .
Up to now, the project's process has m a d e obvious the d e e p g a u g e
between scientists and citizens. On one side scientists at University know
various methods to observe and analyse the change of land use patterns
by using satellite images. On the other side there a r e the citizens that
a r e more or less a f f e c t e d by the c h a n g e , but lack the scientific
b a c k g r o u n d . If p e o p l e a r e supposed to b e involved into planning
processes and if they are meant to have their own opinion about future
land use patterns it will be necessary to bring together both sides:
scientists and citizens. The Bonn Science Shop will achieve this g o a l by
building up the project described above and by taking a d v a n t a g e of
the broad co-operation with two universities, two science shops, software
e x p e r t s , schools, environmental grassroots a n d local communities.
Visualisation of Land Use Change

in the State of North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany
, & Jakes in Germany have tended in recent years t o

become cleaner. Under contract for the Federal Environmental
Ministry of North Rhine Westphalia, the Bonn Science Shop,
working alongside its project partners, is collecting S analysing
data pertaining t o the use l> consumption o f land in North Rhine
vyesTprraiUVer the course of the past thirty years.
This is the idea o f the project: The massive sealing op o f the surface
of the land w i l l not be stopped only by t h e proclamation of a
' L ^i
national strategy of sustainability. Rather, this reduction can
only be realised when people become conscious of the
consequences t h a t follow from distinct forms of land use.
The project is outlined in such a w a y that t h e largest number of
citiiens wilt have direct access to an abundance of information.
The only prerequisite tor participation is access to the internet.
During the first phase of the designing of the website, meetings &
workshops had already been conducted w i t h different groups *
from experts to lay persons, from school representatives t o agenda
representatives, and environmental groups - to meet the differing
needs of future users.
Science Sl'opj, Anke Valentin, phone: MO () 2a 2016)23. ankc.valentlntrwHabonn.de, w*wfl.iecr:eriiiuc!ung.iitw.du
Virtual G a r d e n
YDREAMS
Virtual G a r d e n is a interactive installation by YDreams, which wishes

to explore the concept of ubiquitous computing, that will undoubtedly
be present in our future environments. In these we'll be able to interact
in a more human way, as computers will become transparent and the
idea of computation will be f a r a w a y from the mouse, k e y b o a r d and
screen trio.
The installation looks towards these concepts, creating a dynamic space
of gathering, by projecting an imaginary garden, which reacts in many
ways to it's visitors. The people's actions a r e monitored by a camera,
from which some behavioural action can be d e r i v e d using tracking
a l g o r i t h m s , a c c o m p l i s h i n g s o m e t h i n g close t o a d i g i t a l e y e .
In practical terms, when someone enters the garden's a r e a it flowers,
gaining life almost immediately, a n d it's virtual elements (butterflies
and a rabbit) pop out to interact with the visitor.
Also these are small true experiences of the concept of artificial spaces,
mutable as to fit a specific purpose, and suggested before in science
fiction films like Star Trek or M a t r i x . Once the setup is made the basic
infrastructure can be use in a different way, by simply changing the
application's subject.
YDREAMS, P o r t u g a l .
http://www.ydreams.com
ivan.franco@ydreams.com
Tangitable People Simulating Pollutant Transport

YDREAMS
'
YDREAMS, Portugal.
http://www.ydreams.com
ivan.franco@ydreams.com
TangiTable is a tangible interface for pollutant transport simulations,

composed by a personal computer, a camera, a video projector and
a table. The users place objects representing infrastructures that affect
the water quality of a river. The environment and the pollution dispersion
along the river are then projected on the table.
System implementation
A C a m e r a (2) c a p t u r e s the o b j e c t ( i n f r a s t r u c t u r e ) p o s i t i o n .
A PC (1 ) is running the pollutant dispersion simulation, identifying new
objects placed on the t a b l e .
A projector (3) displays the virtual environment and the resulting
simulation on the t a b l e (4).
W e believe in the usage of new technologies for educational purposes,
by building a p p e a l i n g interfaces and interactions, to which youngsters
f e e l a t t r a c t e d . The i d e a of " b e i n g a b l e to p a r t i c i p a t e " is v e r y
encouraging for the general public, and delivers a fine media to present
problems such as Environmental Impact. Tangitable was presented in
the "Engenho e O b r a " exhibition, for nearly 2 months, where it was
used by nearly 8 0 . 0 0 0 people, with great acceptance, as a collective
interface for a pollutant dispersion model.
EUNA20854ENC
ite
WW*
http://alba.jrc.it/artlab
European Communities, 2003

Interfaces Between Science & Society-Collecting Experiences For Good Practice

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Interfaces Between Science & Society-Collecting Experiences For Good Practice

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

INTERFACES BETWEEN SCIENCE & SOCIETY

Collecting Experiences for Good Practice

International Worksop - Milano 27 - 28 November 2003

Knowledge Assessment Methodologies

THE MISSION OF THE JRC

JOINT RESEARCH CENTRE

INTERFACES BETWEEN SCIENCE & S OCIETY

THEMES COyERED^BY THE W O R K S H O P

Transparency, Openness and Participation in Science Policy Processes

Governance and Information and Communication Technologies in 201 0

The Tributyltin (TBT) story 1 8 7 0 - 2 0 0 0 : W h e n Small was Sexually Powerful

Towards Multi Dimensional Uncertainty Assessment

Creating Ears for Inclusive Policy

Gender Approach to Environmental Governance

Science Communication: Hierarchies or Partnerships?

Science Communication: Hierarchies or Partnerships?

Science for Governance: the Implications of the Complexity Revolution

Rethinking the Concept of Sound Science in the G M O Arena?

The Pros and Cons of Messy Governance

The Uncertainty and Complexity of M a n a g i n g Uncertainty and Complexity

Technology, Foresight and People

A Concept of Participatory Technological Envisioning

Participatory Technology Assessment Processes: Reflections on Theory and Practice

Participatory Technology Assessment Processes: Reflections on Theory and Practice

Science and Society in Place-based Communities: Uncomfortable Partners

Are Community-Based Research and Science Compatible?

Governance and New Information and Communication Technologies: an O p e n View

Science/Policy Interfaces for Environmental Governance

Participatory Interfaces between Science and Policy for Environmental Governance

Patents at the Interface among Science, Society and the Law

Science Shops as Interfaces between Science & Society

Science Shops as University-Society Interfaces An introduction

Building Knowledge Partnerships? Social and Technological Conditions of Conviviality

VIVIANE, the Virtual Visit to my Environment: the Case of Agriculture

Knowledge Assessment and the Science/Policy Interface

Knowledge Society Divides... Knowledge Assessment Bridges

Tools to Inform Debates, Dialogues & Deliberations

New M e d i a Technology Projects at Universitt Pompeu Fabra

Visualisation of Land Use Change in the State of North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany

Tangitable - People Simulating Pollutant Transport

Science & Society Interfaces: Process

This conference is a landmark in the evolution of science. Although it

Research Methods Consultants, London, UK.

interests; evidence will be evaluated differently; uncertainties managed

This communication process should not be seen as an extra cost of

There we find active d e b a t e over claims to knowledge, a d e b a t e that

These qualitative aspects are understood through the three headings

W h e n we come to science d e p l o y e d in the policy process, it is very

Evaluating Experiments In The 'New' Governance Of S cience And Technology: S ome

evidence rather than more formal judgement. This rather ill-disciplined

Here is small body of literature which seeks to address questions of

Deliberative Mapping is an innovative participatory technology assessment

in the process; specialists who attended a project dissemination workshop

deliberations. If institutions and stakeholder interests are seen to be

Quicksandy Knowledge Bases. The N e e d For Guidance For Dealing W i t h Uncertainty,

The k n o w l e d g e base a v a i l a b l e f o r decision-making on ( g l o b a l )

societal d e b a t e about the use of models in environmental assessment

The core of the guidance is set up as a checklist that can be used by

! Silvio Funtowicz, E C - J R C / I P S C - K A M , Italy.

In most spheres of industrial and institutional activity, the formalization

The contents of the others could be inferred to have no interest, and

There is no longer well-defined 'gateway' to publication through the

international treaty regimes. As a result, a new conception of knowledge