1.
Responsible innovation and the role of scientific advice in democracy Introducing Prof. Wiebe Bijker, FGB May 3 rd

2.
Wiebe Bijker and the (social) studies of science, technology and society (STS) <ul><li>The social construction of technological systems, 1987 </li></ul><ul><li>Shaping Technology / Building Society, 1992 (with J.Law) </li></ul><ul><li>Of Bycicles, Bakelites & Bulbs. Towards a theory of sociotechnical change, 1997 </li></ul><ul><li>The Paradox of Scientific Authority. The role of scientific advice in democracies (or. Dutch ed.), 2002 </li></ul><ul><li>Past, Present and Future of Research in the Information Society, 2006 (with Benson & Brunnstein) </li></ul>

3.
The paradox of scientific authority <ul><li>“ The cases in which scientific advice is asked more urgently are those in which the authority of science is questioned more thoroughly”, p. 1 </li></ul><ul><li>...The aim of this book is to contribute to a theory of scientific advising in which this paradox is resolved </li></ul><ul><li>HOW? - Unpacking the articulations of institutional power – where does power lie and how does it act? </li></ul><ul><li>“ an ethnographic turn in studying the democratic governance of technological cultures” </li></ul>

4.
The role of scientific advice in democracy <ul><li>How are technological elites checked and held accountable? </li></ul><ul><li>What is the (best) relation between scientific advice and policy making? </li></ul><ul><li>Which role can STS play in the politics of modern societies built on science and technologies? (pp. 2-3) </li></ul>

5.
STS at the Bassetti Foundation <ul><li>Sheila Jasanoff, prof. of Science and Technology Studies, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University: “the comparative politics of bio-ethics”, 6th May 2008 </li></ul><ul><li>the political implications of society's image of science: bioethics as a cultural narration with normative effects </li></ul><ul><li>“ collective knowledge ways constitute a culture's civic epistemology: they are distinctive, systematic, often institutionalised, and articulated through practice rather than in formal rules” </li></ul>

6.
Taking European Knowledge Society Seriously <ul><li>February 15th 2008: Brian Wynne and Mariachiara Tallacchini present the report to the European Commission, Taking European Society Seriously (2007) in Italian transl: Scienza e Governance. Rubbettino, 2008. </li></ul><ul><li>“ Regimes of collective experimentation”: </li></ul><ul><li>“ The European Commission needs to create the conditions for a structured dialogue on questions relative to science, with a view to anticipating and clarifying the hopes and fears of the public”. </li></ul>

7.
&quot;No Innovation without Representation” <ul><li>17 th November, 2003: Bruno Latour's lecture A Parliament of things for the new Technical Democracies </li></ul><ul><li>increased participation of non-experts in the governance of science, blurring of the border between science and politics, emergence of &quot;hybrid forums&quot; (with representatives of &quot;natural things&quot;) </li></ul><ul><li>... new political arrangements? </li></ul>

8.
Deliberative democracy and its “experts” <ul><li>December 3rd 2008, Daniel Mulhollan, Director of the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress (IRER conference – Consultive fora - building trust ) </li></ul><ul><li>The Congress set up the CRS with &quot;complete research independence&quot; and &quot;maximum practicable administrative independence&quot; to serve as its research arm in legislative decision-making. </li></ul><ul><li>What does it mean to be an expert consultant to a decision-maker in the US context? Does reliance on expertise constitute a challenge to representative democracy? </li></ul><ul><li>Accuracy, Responsibility, Authoritativeness </li></ul>

9.
A normative study of the Dutch health Council ( Gezondheidsraad) as a “boundary organization” <ul><li>The GR “advises the government on the state of scientific knowledge” and does not meddle with politics (in theory) </li></ul><ul><li>IN PRACTICE: </li></ul><ul><li>The GR's has freedom of interpretation towards normative social discussions </li></ul><ul><li>The GR’s responds to its institutional environment </li></ul><ul><li>The GR positions itself as a social actor </li></ul>

10.
Frontstage/Backstage work for policy making effectiveness <ul><li>Translating the state of scientific knowledge to make it useful for politics and for policy making </li></ul><ul><li>Prepairing the stage: co-defining the issue and recruiting the “right” committee experts </li></ul><ul><li>Landing of the advice report: Repairing misinterpretations; Advocating the intended message </li></ul><ul><li>Many publics, many possible criteria for success, no standard protocol </li></ul>

11.
Which role for scientific advice in the democratic governance of technoscience? <ul><li>The increasing role of uncertainty and risk </li></ul><ul><li>How to weave scientific advice and public participation together </li></ul><ul><li>“ subtle boundary work and coordination mechanisms to translate the state of scientific knowledge into serviceable truth” </li></ul><ul><li>“ institutions with confidential internal processes are necessary for proper functioning of democracy at the level of technological cultures” </li></ul>