National Ethics Advisory Bodies in the Emerging Landscape of Responsible Research and Innovation

NanoEthics

Volumn 6, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 167-184

  Mali, Franc ^a   Pustovrh, Toni ^a   Groboljsek, Blanka ^a   Coenen, Christopher ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LJUBLJANA   (Slovenia)

^b KARLSRUHE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Germany)

Author keywords

Bioethics; Emerging technologies; Europe; Policy advice; Public participation; Responsible research and innovation

Indexed keywords

EID: 84870465327     PISSN: 18714757     EISSN: 18714765     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11569-012-0157-z     Document Type: Article

References (89)

1. Ahvenharju S, Halonen M, Uusitalo S, Launis V, Hjelt M (2006) Comparative analysis of opinions produced by National Ethics Councils. Final report. Gaia Group Ltd., Helsinki.
2. Allhoff F, Lin P, Moor J, Weckert J (2009) Ethics of human enhancement: 25 questions & answers. US National Science Foundation. Retrieved February 21, 2012, from http://www. humanenhance. com/NSF_report. pdf.
3. Bauer M, Gaskell G (eds) (2002) Biotechnology-the making of global controversy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
4. Beck U (1992) The risk society: towards a new modernity. Sage Publications.
5. Bijker EW, Bal R, Hendriks R (2009) The paradox of scientific authority. The role of scientific advice in democracies. The MIT Press, Cambridge.
6. Bogner A (2010) Let's disagree! Talking ethics in technology controversies. Sci Technol Innov Stud 6(2): 183-201.
7. Borras S (2003) The innovation policy of the European Union. From government to governance. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
8. Böschen S, Wehling P (2010) Introduction: ambiguous progress. Advisory and regulatory science between uncertainty, normative disagreement and policy-making. Sci Technol Innov Stud 6(2): 93-100.
9. Braun K, Kropp C (2010) Beyond speaking truth? Institutional responses to uncertainty in scientific governance. Sci Technol Hum Values 35(6): 771-782.
10. Callon M, Lascoumes P, Barthe Y (2009) Acting in an uncertain world. The MIT Press, Cambridge.
11. Castells M (2004) The rise of network society. Blackwell, Malden.
12. CEC-Commission of the European Communities (2008) Commission recommendation of 7/02/2008, on a code of conduct for responsible nanosciences and nanotechnologies research, C(2008) 424 final. Brussels. Retrieved February 23, 2012, from http://ec. europa. eu/nanotechnology/pdf/nanocode-rec_pe0894c_en. pdf.
13. Coenen C (2010) Deliberating visions: the case of human enhancement in the discourse on nanotechnology and convergence. In: Kaiser M, Kurath M, Maasen S, Rehmann-Sutter C (eds) Governing future technologies, sociology of the sciences yearbook 27. Heidelberg, Dordrecht, pp 73-87.
14. Coenen C, Schuijff M, Smits M, Klaassen P, Hennen L, Rader M, Wolbring G (2009) Human enhancement. European Parliament, DG Internal Policies STOA, Brussels.
15. Collins HM, Evans R (2002) The third wave of science studies: studies of expertise and experiences. Soc Stud Sci 32(2): 235-296.
16. Collins HM, Evans R (2007) Rethinking expertise. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
17. COMETH (1998) European conference of national ethics committees: comparative study on the functioning of national ethics committees in 18 member states, COMETH 98 (13). Strasbourg. Retrieved February 23, 2012, from http://www. coe. int/t/dg3/healthbioethic/cometh/COMETH_98_13_fonctionnement_CNEs_bil. pdf.
18. Delvenne P, Fallon C, Brunet S (2011) Parliamentary technology assessment institutions as indications of reflexive modernization. Technol Soc 33: 36-43.
19. EC (European Commission) (2012) Innovation union. Retrieved September 10, 2012, from http://ec. europa. eu/research/innovation-union/index_en. cfm?pg=keydocs.
20. Efremenko D (2002) Technology assessment: ethical and normative aspects. In: Bamme A, Getzinger G, Wieser B (eds) Yearbook 2002 of the institute for advanced studies on science, technology and society. Profil Verlag, Muenchen, pp 71-85.
21. EGE (2010) General report on the activities of the European group on ethics in science and new technologies to the European commission, 2005-2010. European Commission: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
22. Erasaari R (2003) Open-context expertise. In: Bamme A, Getzinger G, Wieser B (eds) Yearbook 2003 of the institute for advanced studies on science, technology and society. Profil Verlag, Muenchen, pp 31-76.
23. European Commission (2001) White paper on European Governance COM [2001] 428.
24. European Parliament (2007) European Parliament resolution of 4 September 2007 on institutional and legal implications of the use of 'soft law' instruments. Retrieved March 22, 2012, from http://www. europarl. europa. eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure. do?lang=en&reference=2007/2028.
25. Felt U, Wynne B (2007) Taking European knowledge society seriously. (European commission, directorate general for science, economy and society).
26. Ferrari A (2010) Developments in the debate on nanoethics: traditional approaches and the need for new kinds of analysis. NanoEthics 4: 27-52.
27. Friele MB (2003) Do committees Ru(i)n the bio-political culture? On the democratic legitimacy of bioethics committees. Bioethics 17(4): 301-318.
28. Fuchs M (2005) Nationale Ethikräte. Hintergründe, Funktionen und Arbeitsweisen im Vergleich. Nationaler Ethikrat, Berlin.
29. Fukuyama F (2002) Our posthuman future: consequences of the biotechnology revolution. Profile Books, London.
30. Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR (2008) Post-normal science. The Encyclopedia of Earth. Retrieved March 21, 2012, from http://www. eoearth. org/article/Post-Normal_Science.
31. Galloux J-C, Mortensen AT, De Cheveigne S, Allansdotir A (2002) The institutions of bioethics. In: Bauer MW, Gaskell G (eds) Biotechnology. The making of a global controversy. University Press, Cambridge, pp 129-149.
32. Giddens A (1990) The consequences of modernity. Polity Press, Cambridge.
33. Gieryn T (1995) Boundaries of science. In: Jasanoff S, Markle GE, Peterson JC, Pinch T (eds) Handbook of science and technology studies. Sage, London, pp 393-444.
34. Glazer S (2006) Enhancement: a cross section of contemporary ethical debate about altering the human body. The Hastings Center, Garrison.
35. Grunwald A (2004) The normative basis of (health) technology assessment and the role of ethical expertise. Poiesis Prax 2(2-3): 175-193.
36. Grunwald A (2007) Converging technologies: visions, increased contingencies of the conditio humana, and search for orientation. Futures 39(4): 380-392.
37. Grunwald A, Juillard Y (2007) Nanotechnology-steps towards understanding human beings as technology. NanoEthics 2: 77-87.
38. Hilgartner S (2000) Science on stage: expert advice as public drama. Stanford University Press.
39. Hunyadi M (2010) The imagination in charge. NanoEthics 4(3): 199-204.
40. IRGC (International Risk Governance Council) (2006) White paper on nanotechnology risk governance. Retrieved March 20, 2012, from http://www. irgc. org/IMG/pdf/IRGC_white_paper_2_PDF_final_version-2. pdf.
41. Irwin A, Michael M (2003) Science, social theory and public knowledge. Open University Press, Maidenhead.
42. Jasanoff S (2007) Designs on nature: science and democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton University, Princeton.
43. Jonas H (1979) Das Prinzip Verantwortung: Versuch einer Ethik für die technologische Zivilisation. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main.
44. Kass LR (2008) Defending human dignity. In: President's Council on Bioethics (ed) Human dignity and bioethics: essays commissioned by the president's council on bioethics. US Independent Agencies and Commissions, Washington, pp 297-331.
45. Kastenhofer K (2011) Risk assessment of emerging technologies and post-normal science. Sci Technol Hum Values 36(3): 307-333.
46. Kelly SE (2003) Public bioethics and publics: consensus, boundaries, and participation in biomedical science policy. Sci Technol Hum Values 28(3): 339-364.
47. Khushf G (2005) The use of emergent technologies for enhancing human performance: are we prepared to address the ethical and political issues? Public policy & practice (E-Journal) 4/2, http://www. ipspr. sc. edu/ejournal/Archives0805. asp, n. p.
48. Kropp C, Wagner J (2010) Knowledge on stage: scientific policy advice. Sci Technol Hum Values 35(6): 812-838.
49. Kurzweil R (2005) The singularity is near: when humans transcend biology. Penguin Group Inc., New York.
50. Ladikas M (2009) Embedding society in science & technology policy. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.
51. Lagerspetz E (2008) Ethical expertise in democratic societies. In: Lanus V, Raeikka J (eds) Genetic democracy: philosophical perspectives. Springer Science + Business Media, pp 21-29.
52. Lengwiler M (2008) Participatory approaches in science and technology: historical origins and current practices in critical perspective. Sci Technol Hum Values 33(2): 186-200.
53. Levidow L (1998) Democratizing technology-or technologizing democracy? Regulating agricultural biotechnology in Europe. Technol Soc 20(2): 211-226.
54. Mali F (2009) Bringing converging technologies closer to civil society: the role of the precautionary principle. Innov Eur J Soc Sci Res 22(1): 53-75.
55. Mali F (2004) Recent dilemmas in the social and legal regulation of biotechnology in the European Union. Vest J Sci Technol Stud 17(3-4): 39-60.
56. Mali F (2004) Odprta vprasanja in dileme inovacijske politike EU. Teorija in Praksa 41(3-4): 486-506.
57. Mejlgaard N, Stares S (2010) Participation and competence as joint components in a cross-national analysis of scientific citizenship. Pub Underst Sci 19(5): 545-561.
58. Millstone E (2009) Science, risk and governance: radical rhetorics and the realities of reform in food safety governance. Res Policy 38(4): 624-636.
59. Millstone E (2010) Technology assessment policy-making framing assumptions explicit. In: Bamme A, Getzinger G, Wieser B (eds) Yearbook 2009 of the institute for advanced studies on science, technology and society. Profil Verlag, München, pp 291-310.
60. NEC (National Ethics Committee) Forum (2011) Retrieved December 10, 2011, from http://ec. europa. eu/research/science-society/index. cfm?fuseaction=public. topic&id=1305.
61. Nordmann A (2004) Converging technologies-shaping the future of European societies. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, rapporteur.
62. Nordmann A (2007) If and then: a critique of speculative nanoethics. NanoEthics 1(1): 31-46.
63. Nowotny H, Scott P, Gibbons M (2001) Re-thinking science: knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Polity Press, Blackwell Publishers.
64. Peissl W (2002) Technology assessment in Austria-state of the art and research activity of the ITA. In: Bamme A, Getzinger G, Wieser B (eds) Yearbook 2002 of the institute for advanced studies on science, technology and society. Profil Verlag, München, pp 273-285.
65. Petersen I, Heinrichs H, Peters HP (2010) Mass-mediated expertise as informal policy advice. Sci Technol Hum Values 35(6): 865-887.
66. Pytlik Zillig LM, Tomkins AJ (2011) Public engagement for informing science and technology policy: what do we know, what do we need to know, and how will we get there? Rev Policy Res 28(2): 197-217.
67. Roco MC, Bainbridge WS (eds) (2003) Converging technologies for improving human performance: nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science. Springer, Dordrecht.
68. Roco MC, Mirkin CA, Hersam MC (2011) Nanotechnology research directions for societal needs in 2020. Retrospective and outlook. Springer, Dordrecht.
69. Roelofsen W, Boon PC, Kloet RR, Broerse JEW (2011) Stakeholder interaction within research consortia on emerging technologies: learning how and what? Res Policy 40(3): 341-354.
70. Rowe G, Frewer LJ (2005) A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Sci Technol Hum Values 30(2): 251-290.
71. Sandel MJ (2007) The case against perfection: ethics in the age of genetic engineering. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
72. Schmidt JC (2011) The renaissance of Francis Bacon. On Bacon's account of recent nano-technoscience.
73. Stehr N (2003) Wissenspolitik. Überwachung des Wissens. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main.
74. Swierstra T, Boenink M, Walhout B, van Est R (2009) Converging technologies, shifting boundaries (Editorial). NanoEthics 3(3): 213-216.
75. TAB (Office of Technology Assessment at the German Parliament) (2008) Konvergierende Technologien und Wissenschaften. Der Stand der Debatte und politischen Aktivitäten zu "Converging Technologies", Background Paper 16, authored by Coenen, C. (Berlin: TAB), http://www. tab-beim-bundestag. de/en/publications/reports/hp016. html (summary in English).
76. Thorpe C (2010) Participation as post-fordist politics: demos, new labour, and science policy. Minerva 48(4): 389-411.
77. Thorpe C, Gregory J (2010) Producing the post-fordist public: the political economy of public engagement with science. Sci Cult 19(3): 273-301.
78. Tutton R (2007) Constructing participation in genetic databases: citizenship, governance, and ambivalence. Sci Technol Hum Values 32(2): 172-195.
79. Von Schomberg R, Davies S (eds) (2009) Understanding public debate on nanotechnologies. Options for framing public policy. A report from the European Commission Services. Publication Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
80. Von Schomberg R (ed) (2011) Towards responsible research and innovation in the information and communication technologies and security technologies fields, a report from the European Commission Services. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
81. Von Schomberg R (2012) Prospects for technology assessment in a framework of responsible research and innovation. In: Dusseldorp M, Beecrof R (eds) Technikfolgen abschätzen lehren: Bildungspotenziale transdisziplinärer Methoden. Vs Verlag, Wiesbaden, pp 39-61.
82. Weber M (1958) Gesammelte Politische Schriften, 2nd edn. J. C. B. Mohr, Tuebingen.
83. Weilert AK, Hildmann PW (2011) Ethische Politikberatung. Nomos, Baden-Baden.
84. Weingart P (1999) Scientific expertise and political accountability: paradoxes of science and politics. Sci Pub Policy 26(3): 151-161.
85. Weingart P (2001) Die Stunde der Wahrheit? Zum Verhältnis der Wissenschaft zu Politik, Wirtschaft und Medien in der Wissensgesellschaft. Velbrück Wissenschaft, Weilerswist.
86. WHO (World Health Organization) (2012) The global summit of national bioethics advisory bodies. Retrieved March 20, 2012, from http://www. who. int/ethics/globalsummit/en/.
87. Williams EA, Frankel MS (2007) Good, better, best: the human quest for enhancement. Summary report of an invitational workshop. Scientific freedom, responsibility and law program of the american association for the advancement of science. Retrieved March 22, 2012, from http://www. aaas. org/spp/sfrl/projects/human_enhancement/pdfs/HESummaryReport. pdf.
88. Wilson D (2011) Creating the 'ethics industry': Mary Warnock, in vitro fertilization and the history of bioethics in Britain. BioSocieties 6(2): 121-141.
89. Wolbring G (2008) Why NBIC? Why human performance enhancement? Innovation. Eur J Soc Sci Res 21(1): 25-40.