Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
NanoEthics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The article examines the role played by policy advice institutions in the governance of ethically controversial new and emerging science and technology in Europe. The empirical analysis, which aims to help close a gap in the literature, focuses on the evolution, role and functioning of national ethics advisory bodies (EABs) in Europe. EABs are expert bodies whose remit is to issue recommendations regarding ethical aspects of new and emerging science and technology. Negative experiences with the impacts of science and technology in the past have resulted in calls for increased transparency and broader participation and pluralism in expert advice and policy decision-making. Do national EABs function as inclusive, anticipatory “hybrid forums”? Or do they resemble more “classical” expert-oriented bodies, inspired by technocratic or decisionist approaches? As part of the empirical analysis of the role and functioning of institutional ethical advisory structures in 32 European countries, an extensive analysis of EAB websites and the content of publicly available documents on such institutions has been carried out, supplemented by an online survey of representatives of the EABs. One major finding of the empirical analysis is the very uneven distribution of “hybrid forum” features of EABs across Europe.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Three types of risks can be differentiated in this context: simple, complex and uncertain risks. In the case of simple risks, all necessary knowledge is available in principle. Risk management can be based on well-established routines. In the case of complex risks, the basic scientific knowledge is also available in principle, but the relations between the relevant variables of research, development and innovation are so complex that there is dissent within the scientific community about the potential effects of the new and emerging science and technology in question. Uncertain risks are risks whose relevance or very existence are in question, for example on normative or epistemological grounds; this can also involve value conflicts. Even in Europe, disagreements can be observed with regard to important societal and cultural values, for example concerning the topic of human enhancement: “[s]ome may applaud the possibilities of memory improvement through brain implants, while others will see that as blasphemous tinkering with God’s creation” ([5]: 161) or as irresponsible tampering with (human) nature.

  2. The intellectual origin of this model can be traced back to the sociological work of Max Weber, Emile Durkheim and others. Weber, for example, recognised that the idea of assigning full responsibility for all aspects of policy-making to bureaucrats and technocrats is attractive at first glance, but argued that this approach was unrealistic because political decisions could never be made solely on the basis of facts and objective knowledge since, although the choice between “means” may take place in a rational way, the choice between the “ends” and objectives of policy and the underlying values remain irredeemably subjective [82].

  3. Its intellectual roots can be traced back to Auguste Comte and Henri de Saint-Simon. The case of Merton’s model of disinterested scientific elite is also illustrative.

  4. In this context, Felt and Wynne [25] also point out that the EGE insisted on the non-public character of much of their work; its sessions are closed, and the participation of a limited public is allowed only during roundtables (one for each opinion delivered).

  5. According to Bijker et.al [5], there are three aspects closely related to robustness of knowledge: (1) its validity is tested both inside the laboratory and outside in the world where innovations are shaped by social, economic and cultural factors; (2) it needs to be achieved by including in the group of scientific experts other relevant social groups with experience as users, patients or other stakeholders; (3) society is no longer merely the addressee of science, but an active partner participating in the production of social knowledge ([5]: 157).

  6. Other EABs can perform more specialised tasks such as addressing only one narrow domain of science, technology or medicine, or can be charged with examining ethical aspects of research projects and proposals such as in the case of research ethics committees.

  7. Only half of the 32 selected countries (Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom) has well-organised websites.

  8. EABs in five countries (Bulgaria, Latvia, Malta, Romania and Slovakia) have no website at all. The website of one country (Ireland) was closed because the EAB had been discontinued due to a lack of funding. EABs in four countries (Czech Republic, Croatia, Estonia and Serbia) have websites that contain only very basic information and make no policy advice or other opinion documents available, while the EABs in six countries (Hungary, Iceland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland and Slovenia) have websites that offer basic information and a few opinion documents. None of these documents deal with new and emerging science and technology.

  9. The questionnaire was installed in the Bristol Online Survey system. The invitations to take part in the survey were sent out between July and November 2011 to representatives of all 50 selected EABs using a variety of communication channels, including e-mail, telephone and fax. For this purpose, we also used our existing personal and institutional contacts.

  10. It should be noted that some authors argue that public participation often serves merely to legitimise political decisions rather than genuinely increasing the role of stakeholders and the public in science and technology governance. One instance of such tactical use of public participation would be the promotion of forms of public engagement that are oriented towards strengthening consumer society within a framework of post-Fordist politics ([76]; [77]).

  11. Before 2000, legal aspects played a role mainly with regard to the harmonisation of the markets of the member states. This privileged position of legal rule-making was reinforced when the European Economic Community, which was based primarily on the free movement of goods, labour, capital and services in a common market,became the European Union, a political entity framed by a Constitution and a corpus of fundamental human rights [55] .

  12. The European Commission encourages the EU member states to use code of conducts as instruments to encourage productive dialogue amongst “policy makers, researchers, industry, ethics committees, civil society organisations and society at large” [12].

  13. Kelly argues that the emergence of EABs, seen as “an intuitional forum for authoritative judgments about difficult areas in science that require explicit consideration of societal values as well as technical evidence” ([46]:340), is a result of the confluence of interest in public participation in science and technology decision-making and moral framing of life sciences disputes.

References

  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

    Google Scholar 

  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

    Google Scholar 

  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

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bogner A (2010) Let’s disagree! Talking ethics in technology controversies. Sci Technol Innov Stud 6(2):183–201

    Google Scholar 

  7. Borras S (2003) The innovation policy of the European Union. From government to governance. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  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

    Google Scholar 

  9. Braun K, Kropp C (2010) Beyond speaking truth? Institutional responses to uncertainty in scientific governance. Sci Technol Hum Values 35(6):771–782

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Callon M, Lascoumes P, Barthe Y (2009) Acting in an uncertain world. The MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  11. Castells M (2004) The rise of network society. Blackwell, Malden

    Google Scholar 

  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

    Google Scholar 

  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

    Google Scholar 

  15. Collins HM, Evans R (2002) The third wave of science studies: studies of expertise and experiences. Soc Stud Sci 32(2):235–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Google Scholar 

  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

    Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Fuchs M (2005) Nationale Ethikräte. Hintergründe, Funktionen und Arbeitsweisen im Vergleich. Nationaler Ethikrat, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  29. Fukuyama F (2002) Our posthuman future: consequences of the biotechnology revolution. Profile Books, London

    Google Scholar 

  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

    Google Scholar 

  32. Giddens A (1990) The consequences of modernity. Polity Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  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

    Google Scholar 

  34. Glazer S (2006) Enhancement: a cross section of contemporary ethical debate about altering the human body. The Hastings Center, Garrison

    Google Scholar 

  35. Grunwald A (2004) The normative basis of (health) technology assessment and the role of ethical expertise. Poiesis Prax 2(2–3):175–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Grunwald A (2007) Converging technologies: visions, increased contingencies of the conditio humana, and search for orientation. Futures 39(4):380–392

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Grunwald A, Juillard Y (2007) Nanotechnology—steps towards understanding human beings as technology. NanoEthics 2:77–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Google Scholar 

  42. Jasanoff S (2007) Designs on nature: science and democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton University, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  43. Jonas H (1979) Das Prinzip Verantwortung: Versuch einer Ethik für die technologische Zivilisation. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main

    Google Scholar 

  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

    Google Scholar 

  45. Kastenhofer K (2011) Risk assessment of emerging technologies and post-normal science. Sci Technol Hum Values 36(3):307–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Kelly SE (2003) Public bioethics and publics: consensus, boundaries, and participation in biomedical science policy. Sci Technol Hum Values 28(3):339–364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Kurzweil R (2005) The singularity is near: when humans transcend biology. Penguin Group Inc., New York

    Google Scholar 

  50. Ladikas M (2009) Embedding society in science & technology policy. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg

    Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Levidow L (1998) Democratizing technology—or technologizing democracy? Regulating agricultural biotechnology in Europe. Technol Soc 20(2):211–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Google Scholar 

  56. Mali F (2004) Odprta vprasanja in dileme inovacijske politike EU. Teorija in Praksa 41(3–4):486–506

    Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Google Scholar 

  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

    Google Scholar 

  62. Nordmann A (2007) If and then: a critique of speculative nanoethics. NanoEthics 1(1):31–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Google Scholar 

  65. Petersen I, Heinrichs H, Peters HP (2010) Mass-mediated expertise as informal policy advice. Sci Technol Hum Values 35(6):865–887

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Roco MC, Bainbridge WS (eds) (2003) Converging technologies for improving human performance: nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science. Springer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  68. Roco MC, Mirkin CA, Hersam MC (2011) Nanotechnology research directions for societal needs in 2020. Retrospective and outlook. Springer, Dordrecht

    Book  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Rowe G, Frewer LJ (2005) A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Sci Technol Hum Values 30(2):251–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Google Scholar 

  74. Swierstra T, Boenink M, Walhout B, Van Est R (2009) Converging technologies, shifting boundaries (Editorial). NanoEthics 3(3):213–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Tutton R (2007) Constructing participation in genetic databases: citizenship, governance, and ambivalence. Sci Technol Hum Values 32(2):172–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Google Scholar 

  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

    Google Scholar 

  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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  82. Weber M (1958) Gesammelte Politische Schriften, 2nd edn. J.C.B. Mohr, Tuebingen

    Google Scholar 

  83. Weilert AK, Hildmann PW (2011) Ethische Politikberatung. Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  84. Weingart P (1999) Scientific expertise and political accountability: paradoxes of science and politics. Sci Pub Policy 26(3):151–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Weingart P (2001) Die Stunde der Wahrheit? Zum Verhältnis der Wissenschaft zu Politik, Wirtschaft und Medien in der Wissensgesellschaft. Velbrück Wissenschaft, Weilerswist

    Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Wolbring G (2008) Why NBIC? Why human performance enhancement? Innovation. Eur J Soc Sci Res 21(1):25–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This article was written with the support of the European Commission FP7 Science in Society funded project, Ethics in Public Policy Making: The Case of Human Enhancement (EPOCH), grant number SIS-CT-2010-266660 (http://epochproject.com). We warmly thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and all our partners in the EPOCH project for their constructive cooperation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana, Kardeljeva ploscad 5, 1000, Ljubljana, Slovenia

    Franc Mali, Toni Pustovrh & Blanka Groboljsek

  2. Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Karlsruhe, Germany

    Christopher Coenen

Authors
  1. Franc Mali
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Toni Pustovrh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Blanka Groboljsek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Christopher Coenen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Franc Mali.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mali, F., Pustovrh, T., Groboljsek, B. et al. National Ethics Advisory Bodies in the Emerging Landscape of Responsible Research and Innovation. Nanoethics 6, 167–184 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-012-0157-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-012-0157-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation