The limits of policy: Public acceptance and the reform of science and technology governance

Technological Forecasting and Social Change

Volumn 78, Issue 6, 2011, Pages 902-909

  Todt, Oliver ^a  

^a UNIVERSITAT DE LES ILLES BALEARS   (Spain)

Author keywords

Acceptance; Decision making; Governance; Precaution; Reform; Regulation

Indexed keywords

ACCEPTANCE; GOVERNANCE; PRECAUTION; REFORM; REGULATION;

DECISION MAKING;

PUBLIC POLICY;

DECISION MAKING; GOVERNANCE APPROACH; METHODOLOGY; REFORM PROCESS; SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY; STAKEHOLDER;

EID: 79957506272     PISSN: 00401625     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2011.02.007     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Resistance to New Technology 1995, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge. M. Bauer (Ed.).
2. Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology 1996, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge. A. Irwin, B. Wynne (Eds.).
3. European Commission Taking European knowledge society seriously. Report of the Expert Group on Science and Governance to the Science, Economy and Society Directorate, DG for Research 2007, EC, Luxembourg.
4. Levidow L., Marris C. Science and governance in Europe: lessons from the case of agricultural biotechnology. Sci. Public Policy 2001, 28:345-360.
5. Special Issue: Precautionary Regulation - GM Crops in the European Union. Journal of Risk Research 2000, 3. L. Levidow, S. Carr (Eds.).
6. Todt O., Muñoz E., González M., Ponce G., Estévez B. Consumer attitudes and the governance of food safety. Public Underst. Sci. 2009, 18:103-114.
7. Millstone E. Science, risk and governance: Radical rhetorics and the realities of reform in food safety governance. Res. Policy 2009, 38:624-636.
8. Cranor C. Toxic torts. Science, Law and the Possibility of Justice 2006, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
9. Stirling A. Risk, precaution and science: toward a more constructive policy debate. EMBO Rep. 2007, 8:309-315.
10. Protecting Public Health and the Environment. Implementing the Precautionary Principle 1999, Island Press, Washington. C. Raffensperger, J. Tickner (Eds.).
11. Luján J.L. Metascientific analysis and methodological learning in regulatory science. Science, Technology and Society: A Philosophical Perspective 2005, Netbiblo, La Coruña. W.J. González (Ed.).
12. National Research Council Understanding Risk 1996, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
13. Seargeant J., Steele J. Consulting the Public 1998, Policy Studies Institute, London.
14. Democratizing Technology 2002, ICHPA, Hengelo. R. von Schomberg (Ed.).
15. Rowe G., Frewer L.J. A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 2005, 30:251-290.
16. Nowotny H. The place of people in our knowledge: Towards local objectivity and socially robust knowledge. Eur. Rev. 1999, 7:247-262.
17. European Commission Science and Society Action Plan, COM(2001)714 final 4/12/2001.
18. European Commission Eurobarometer 340/73.1: Science and Technology 2010, EC, Luxembourg.
19. European Commission Eurobarometer 58.0: Europeans and Biotechnology in 2002 2003, EC, Luxembourg.
20. European Commission Eurobarometer 224: Europeans, Science and Technology 2005, EC, Luxembourg.
21. European Commission Eurobarometer 62.1, special no. 217: The attitudes of European citizens towards the environment 2005, EC, Luxembourg.
22. Millar R., Wynne B. Public Understanding of Science: from Contents to Processes. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 1988, 10:388-399.
23. Wynne B. Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science - hitting the notes, but missing the music?. Community Genet. 2006, 9:211-220.
24. Fecyt [Spanish Foundation for Science and Technology] Cuarta encuesta de percepción social de la ciencia 2008, Fecyt, Madrid.
25. European Commission European governance: a white paper, COM 428 (25/07/2001) 2001, EC, Brussels.
26. Barnett J., Cooper H., Senior V. Belief in public efficacy, trust, and attitudes toward modern genetic science. Risk Anal. 2007, 27:921-933.
27. Poortinga W., Pidgeon N.F. Trust in risk regulation: cause or consequence of the acceptability of GM food?. Risk Anal. 2005, 25:199-209.
28. Todt O. Designing trust. Futures 2003, 35:239-251.
29. López Cerezo J.A., González M. Lay knowledge and public participation in technological and environmental policy. Technology and Social Action 1997, vol. 16:33-48. JAI Press, Greenwich. C. Mitcham (Ed.).
30. Todt O. Social decision making on technology and the environment in Spain. Technol. Soc. 1999, 21:201-216.
31. López Cerezo J.A., González M. Políticas del bosque 2002, Cambridge University Press, Madrid.
32. González M.I., Estévez B. Participación, comunicación y negociación en conflictos ambientales: energía eólica en el Mar de Trafalgar. Arbor 2005, 181:377-392.
33. O. Todt, M.I. González, B. Estévez, Conflict in the Sea of Trafalgar: off-shore wind energy and its context, Wind Energy 14 (forthcoming), http://doi:10.1002/we.446.
34. Hansen S.F., Krauss M., Tickner J.A. Categorizing mistaken false positives in regulation of human and environmental health. Risk Anal. 2007, 27:255-269.
35. Shrader-Frechette K. Ethics of Scientific Research 1994, Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham.
36. Acceptable Evidence: Science and Values in Risk Management 1991, Oxford University Press, Oxford. D.G. Mayo, R.D. Hollander (Eds.).
37. Wynne B. Uncertainty and environmental learning: reconceiving science and policy in the preventive paradigm. Glob. Environ. Change 1992, 2:111-127.
38. Jasanoff S. Technologies of humility. Minerva 2003, 41:223-244.
39. Burton G.A., Chapman P.M., Smith E.P. Weight-of-evidence approaches for assessing ecosystem impairment. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. 2002, 8:1657-1673.
40. Cranor C. Regulating Toxic Substances: A Philosophy of Science and the Law 1993, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
41. Popp J.A., Crouch E., McConnell E. A weight-of-evidence analysis of the cancer dose-response characteristics of 2, 3, 7, 8-tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (TCDD). Toxicol. Sci. 2006, 89:361-369.
42. Funtowicz S.O., Ravetz J.R. Science for the post-normal age. Futures September 1993, 739-755.
43. Michaels D., Monforton C. Manufacturing uncertainty: contested science and the protection of the public's health and environment. Am. J. Public Health 2005, 95(Supplement 1):39-49.
44. Michaels D., Monforton C. Scientific evidence in the regulatory system: manufacturing uncertainty and the demise of the formal regulatory system. J. Law Policy 2005, 13:17-41.
45. Michaels D. Doubt is Our Product 2008, Oxford University Press, New York.
46. Schrader-Frechette K. Comparativist rationality and epidemiological epistemology: theory choice in cases of nuclear-weapons risk. Topoi 2004, 23:153-163.
47. Todt O., Rodríguez Alcázar J., Luján J.L. Practical values and uncertainty in regulatory decision-making. Soc. Epistemology 2010, 24:349-362.
48. Interpreting the Precautionary Principle 1994, Earthscan, London. T. O'Riordan, J. Cameron (Eds.).
49. Sandin P. Dimensions of the precautionary principle. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. 1999, 5:889-907.
50. Sandin P. The precautionary principle and the concept of precaution. Environ. Values 2004, 13:461-475.
51. Tickner J.A., Kriebel D., Wright S. A compass for health: rethinking precaution and its role in science and public health. Int. J. Epidemiol. 2003, 32:489-492.
52. Luján J.L., Todt O. Precaution in public. Public Underst. Sci. 2007, 16:97-109.
53. Foster K.R., Vecchia P., Repacholi M.H. Science and the precautionary principle. Science 2000, 288:979-981.
54. European Commission Communication from the Commission on the precautionary principle, COM 1 2000, EC, Brussels.
55. Stirling A. On Science and Precaution in the Management of Technological Risk 1999, vol. 1. EC Joint Research Center.
56. European Parliament Council Regulation (EC) No. 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28/1/2002, laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety. Off. J. Eur. Communities 1/02/2002, L 31.
57. European Parliament and Council Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23/10/2000, establishing a framework for the Community action in the field of water policy. Off. J. Eur. Communities 22/12/2000, L 327:1-73.
58. European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No. 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18/12/2006, concerning the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals. Off. J. Eur. Communities 29/05/2007, L 136:3-280.
59. European Commission Council Directive 2001/18/EC (12/3/2001) on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms. Off. J. Eur. Communities 17/4/2001, L106.
60. European Commission Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21/05/1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. Off. J. Eur. Communities 22/07/1992, L 206:7-50.
61. Hansen S.F., Carlsen L., Tickner J.A. Chemicals regulation and precaution: does REACH really incorporate the precautionary principle. Environ. Sci. Policy 2007, 10:395-404.
62. Moreno C., Todt O., Luján J.L. The context(s) of precaution: ideological and instrumental appeals to the precautionary principle. Sci. Commun. 2010, 32:76-92.
63. Todt O., Gutiérrez-Gracia A., Fernández de Lucio I., Castro-Martínez E. The regional dimension of innovation and the globalization of science. R&D Manage. 2007, 37:65-74.
64. A. Muñoz, C. Moreno, J.L. Luján, Who is willing to pay for science? On the relationship between public perception of science and the attitude to public funding of science, Public Underst. Sci. 20 (forthcoming), http://doi:10.1177/0963662510373813.
65. Service R.F. Nanotech forum aims to head off replay of past blunders. Science 5 Nov 2004, 306:955.