Operationalising the public in participatory technology assessment: A framework for comparison applied to three cases

Science and Public Policy

Volumn 33, Issue 8, 2006, Pages 571-584

  Hansen, Janus ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ASSESSMENT METHOD; BIOTECHNOLOGY; PARTICIPATORY APPROACH; TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION;

CENTRAL EUROPE; DENMARK; EURASIA; EUROPE; GERMANY; NORTHERN EUROPE; SCANDINAVIA; UNITED KINGDOM; WESTERN EUROPE;

EID: 33845284520     PISSN: 03023427     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3152/147154306781778678     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Abels, G and A Bora 2004. Demokratische Technikbewertung. Transcript, Bielefeld University.
2. Andersen, I-E and B Jæger 1999. Scenario workshops and consensus conferences: towards more democratic decision-making. Science and Public Policy, 26(5), 331-340.
3. Bauer, M and G Gaskell 2002. The biotechnology movement. In Biotechnology - the Making of a Global Controversy, eds. M Bauer and G Gaskell, pp. 379-404. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4. Beck, U 1992. The Risk Society. Towards a New Modernity. London: SAGE Publications.
5. Benford, R and D Snow 2000. Framing processes and social movements: an overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 611-639.
6. BMVEL, Bundesministerium für Verbraucherschutz, Emährung und Landwirtschaft 2002a. Diskurskonzept. Available at , last accessed 16 March 2004.
7. BMVEL, Bundesministerium für Verbraucherschutz, Emährung und Landwirtschaft 2002b. Diskurs Grüne Gentechnik - Erbenissbericht. Available at , last accessed 18 July 2006.
8. Bora, A 1994. Grenzen der Partizipation? Risikoentscheidungen und Öffentlichkeitsbeteiligung im Recht. Zeitschrift für Rechtssoziologie, 15(2), 126-152.
9. Bora, A 1998. Legal procedure and participation by the public: Germany's 1990 Genetic Engineering Act. Law and Policy, 20(1), 113-133.
10. Bora, A 1999. Differenzierung und Inklusion. Partizipative Öffentlichkeit im Rechtssystem moderner Gesellschaften. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
11. Davenport, S and S Leitch 2005. Agoras, ancient and modern, and a framework for science-society debate. Science and Public Policy, 32(2), April, 137-153.
12. DEFRA, Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 2004. The GM Dialogue: Government Response., London: DEFRA.
13. Dreyer, M and B Gill 2000. Germany: 'élite preoccupation' alongside continued public opposition. Journal of Risk Research, 3, 219-226.
14. Durant, J 1999. Participatory technology assessment and the democratic model of the public understanding of science. Science and Public Policy, 26(5), October, 313-319.
15. Einsiedel, E F, E Jelsøe and T Breck 2001. Publics at the technology table: the consensus conferences in Denmark, Canada, and Australia. Public Understanding of Science, 10, 1-16.
16. Elam, M and M Bertilsson 2003. Consuming, engaging and confronting science. The emerging dimensions of scientific citizenship. European Journal of Social Theory, 6(2), 233-251.
17. European Commission 2002. Life Sciences and Biotechnology - a Strategy for Europe, COM(2002)27. Brussels: Commission of the European Union.
18. Fischer, F 1999. Technological deliberation in a democratic society: the case for participatory inquiry. Science and Public Policy, 26(5), October, 294-302.
19. Fixdal, J 1997. Consensus conferences as 'extended peer groups'. Science and Public Policy, 24(6), December, 366-376.
20. Gill, B 1996. Germany: splicing genes, splitting society. Science and Public Policy, 23(3), June, 175-179.
21. Gloede, F and L Hennen 2002. Germany: a difference that makes a difference. In Participatory Technology Assessment. European Perspectives, eds. S Joss and S Bellucci, pp. 92-107. London: Centre for the Study of Democracy.
22. GM Nation? 2003. GM Nation? The findings of the public debate. Available at , last accessed 18 July 2006.
23. Grunwald, A 2002. Technikfolgenabschätzung - eine Einführung. Berlin: Edition Sigma.
24. Hammerbacher, R 2003. Diskurs Grüne Gentechnik. Abschluss-bericht der Moderation. Osnabrück: Hammerbacher gmbh. Available at , last accessed 18 July 2006.
25. Hansen, J 2005. Framing the Public - Three Case Studies in Public Participation in the Governance of Agricultural Biotechnology. Unpublished doctoral thesis, European University Institute, Florence. Available at , last accessed 18 July 2006.
26. Hennen, L 1994. Technikkontroversen. Technikfolgenabschätzung als öffentlicher Diskurs. Soziale Welt, 45(4), 454-479.
27. Hennen, L 1999. Participatory technology assessment: a response to technical modernity?. Science and Public Policy, 26(5), October, 303-312.
28. House of Lords 2000. Science and Society. Third report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology. Available at , last accessed 18 July 2006.
29. Jasanoff, S 2005. Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.
30. Jelsøe, E, J Lassen, A T Mortensen, H Frederiksen and M W Kamara 1998. Denmark. In Biotechnology in the Public Sphere, eds. J Durant, M Bauer and G Gaskell, pp. 29-42. London: Science Museum.
31. Jelsøe, E, J Lassen, A T Mortensen and M W Kamara 2001. Denmark: the revival of national controversy over biotechnology. In Biotechnology 1996-2000. The Years of Controversy, eds. G Gaskell and M Bauer, pp. 157-171. London: Science Museum.
32. Joss, S 1998. Danish consensus conferences as a model of participatory technology assessment: an impact study of consensus conferences on Danish Parliament and Danish public debate. Science and Public Policy, 25(1), February, 2-22.
33. Joss, S and S Bellucci eds. 2002. Participatory Technology Assessment European Perspectives. London: Centre for the Study of Democracy, University of Westminster.
34. Joss, S and J Durant eds. 1995. Public Participation in Science - the Role of Consensus Conferences in Europe. London: Science Museum.
35. Kass, G 2000. Public debates on science and technology: issues for legislators. Science and Public Policy, 27(5), October, 321-326.
36. Klüver, L 1995. Consensus conferences at the Danish Board of Technology. In Public Participation in Science - the Role of Consensus Conference in Europe, eds. S Joss and J Durant, pp. 41-49. London: Science Museum.
37. Körberle, S, F Gloede and L Hennen eds. 1997. Diskursive Verständigung? Mediation und Partizipation in Technikkontroversen. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
38. Künast, R 2002. Stellungnahme von Renate Künast zum Verlauf und zu den Ergebnissen des Diskurses. Speech to BMVEL, 3 September. Available at , last accessed 16 March 2004.
39. Liberatore, A 2001. Democratising Expertise and Establishing Scientific Reference Systems. White Paper on Governance. Brussels: Workgroup 1b, Commission of the European Union.
40. Luhmann, N 1979. Trust and Power - Two Works. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.
41. Luhmann, N 1989. Ecological Communication. Chicago III: University of Chicago Press.
42. Luhmann, N 1993. Risk: a Sociological Theory. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter.
43. Luhmann, N 1995. Social Systems. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press,.
44. Marris, C and P B Joly 1999. Between consensus and citizens: public participation in technology assessment in France. Science Studies, 12(2), 3-32.
45. Misztal, B 1996. Trust in Modern Societies. Cambridge UK: Blackwell Publishers.
46. Neidhardt, F 1993. The public as a communication system. Public Understanding of Science, 2, 339-350.
47. Nielsen, A P, J Lassen and P Sandøe forthcoming. Democracy at its best? - The consensus conference in a cross-national perspective. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics.
48. OST, Office of Science and Technology 2002, Dialogue with the Public: Practical Guidelines. London: OST. Available at , last accessed 18 July 2006.
49. Pellizzoni, L 2003. Uncertainty and participatory democracy. Environmental Values, 12(2), 195-224.
50. Purdue, D 1996. Contested expertise: plant biotechnology and social movements. Science as Culture, 4, 526-545.
51. Purdue, D 1999. Experiments in the governance of biotechnology: a case study of the UK National Consensus Conference. New Genetics and Society, 18(1), 79-99.
52. Renn, O, T Webler and P Wiedemann eds. 1995. Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation. Evaluation Models for Environmental Discourse. Dordrecht, Boston and London: Kluver Academic Publishers.
53. Rowe, G and L Frewer 2000. Public participation methods: a framework for evaluation. Science, Technology and Human Values, 25(1), 3-29.
54. Schön, D and M Rhein 1994. Frame Reflection. Toward the Resolution of Intractable Policy Controversies. New York: Basic Books.
55. Sclove, R E 1995. Democracy and Technology. New York and London: The Guilford Press.
56. Slovic, P 1999. Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: Surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. Risk Analysis, 19(4), 689-701.
57. Sztompka, P 1999. Trust. A Sociological Theory. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
58. Teknologirådet, Danish Board of Technology 1999. Gensplejsede fødevarer. Slutdokument og ekspertindlæg fra konsensukon-ferencen d. 12-15. marts 1999. Copenhagen: Teknologirådet.
59. Understanding Risk Team 2004. A deliberative future? An independent evaluation of the GM Nation? Public debate about the possible commercialisation of transgenic crops in Britain, 2003. Understanding Risk Working Paper 04-02. Norwich: University of East Anglia.
60. van den Daele, W, A Pühler and H Sukopp 1997. Transgenic Herbicide-Resistant Crops: a Participatory Technology Assessment. Summary Report. Berlin: WZB.