Search

Many researchers experiment with participatory settings to increase public engagement in research and innovation (R&I). Because of their temporary nature, it often remains unclear how such participatory experiments can contribute to structural change. This paper empirically explores options for bridging this gap. It analyzes how participants can be supported to act as institutional entrepreneurs to actively promote public engagement in R&I. To draw lessons, we analyze empirical material gathered on nineteen Social Labs which were set up to promote the uptake of Responsible Research and Innovation in a European R&I funding program (Horizon 2020). Involvement of motivated participants, insight in their institutional context, and specific methods and management choices that enhance a sense of agency are identified as essential for organizing change. These findings and the resulting framework of interventions may prove valuable for further (action) research into the institutionalization of public engagement in R&I. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Alongside the gradual increase in use of participatory technology assessment (PTA), a tool to democratize decision-making on controversial technologies, a growing body of literature on how to assess the impact of PTA has developed. A distinction can be made between two generations of impact assessment studies. The first generation includes evaluations of the effects of PTAs on the state as a bounded unit of political decision-making. The second generation of assessment studies acknowledges a wider range of loci to study impact. However, neither provides insights into how a PTA impacts the relationships between the multiple arenas of political influence and political judgment. This paper develops a framework for impact assessment from a dynamic, process-oriented perspective. It draws on the 'dynamics of contention' theory proposed by McAdam et al. in Dynamics of Contention (Cambridge University Press, 2001). The framework is applied to three cases of PTA on controversial medical technologies: xenotransplantation (in the Netherlands and Switzerland) and genetic testing (in Austria). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the past decade, an entirely new regulatory framework for food safety control has emerged in Europe. Characteristic of the new institutional arrangements is the 'farm-to-fork' managerial perspective as a basis for risk management. The latter perspective is a genuine institutional innovation, cutting across long-standing borders between the traditionally separate regulatory domains of agriculture and public health. How can we understand the design of this new institutional setting? Answers formulated from a realist perspective that focus on assumed ontologically novel characteristics of 'new' risks fall short of explaining why and how the framework developed in the final decade of the twentieth century. A perspective that builds on the idiom of co-production sheds a light on the co-evolving processes of meaning-making over food risks, in particular regarding BSE, and food risk control. The eventual design can be understood as efforts to gain control of food risks under conditions of institutional ambiguity through a discursive reforging of the food chain metaphor. It was reshaped into a horizontally defined chain which runs from 'farm to fork'. In the resulting framework, food risks can be defined at the level of the production chain in addition to the individual product, which broadens the range of potential strategies for dealing with the newly framed food risks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An introduction is presented in which the editor discusses various reports within the issue on topics including the association of food risk mediatisation and politicisation to bovine spongiform encephalitis (BSE), the lack of food risks politicisation in the Netherlands, and definitional approach concerning food risks.

This paper explores the implications of treating sustainable development as a feature of the design and implementation of concrete technical projects, rather than as an abstract line of thinking about possible futures. In such ventures, human dimensions of sustainability, like managing conflicting interpretations and coping with divergent plans and perspectives, become core questions for the professionals involved. The paper describes four common dilemmas that shape this process and discusses their persistent influence on professional practice. The paper argues that confronting these problems will lead engineers to approach technical projects as arenas for learning and problem-oriented negotiation. The conclusion reviews practical strategies that engineers and other professionals may employ to cope with the complexities of integrating sustainability into their practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This mini-symposium revisits the three pillars of Deliberative Policy Analysis (DPA): deliberation, interpretation and practice. DPA was originally intended as a moral-analytical programme that integrated these pillars, but policy analysts working in this tradition seem to have mainly been guided by one specific pillar, interpretation We believe this has not only confounded the nature and potential of DPA but has also limited the knowledge and impact of policy studies. The goal of this mini-symposium is to facilitate a dialogue between representatives of the three pillars and the authors of DPA on how interpretation, practice, and deliberation could be integrated. It originates from a roundtable discussion organized at the ECPR General Conference 2018 in Hamburg. Each representative discusses the nature and development of their pillar and reflects on its value for DPA, followed by an author reflection on the past and future course of DPA. First, Selen Ercan explores the deliberative pillar. Second, Anna Durnová delves into the interpretive pillar. Third, Anne Loeber examines the practice pillar. Finally, Hendrik Wagenaar offers his author reflections. Taken together, this mini-symposium frames the focus and aims of this special issue and sets a course for the future development of DPA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on improving alignment of research and development objectives with societal values. It also mentions a social contract with science limits the ability of democratic societies to deal with challenges presented by new, disruptive technologies, such as synthetic biology, nanotechnology, genetic engineering, and artificial intelligence.

An abstract of the article "Xenotransplantation as policy problem: Comparing public debate and policies in an international perspective," by Erich Griessler and colleagues is presented.