Scientific advice and public approval are gaining growing importance in political decision-making processes regarding complex technologies such as gene technology. The controversial nature of gene technology has led to the establishment of new models such as, for example, scientific expert bodies and participatory procedures which take the place of a traditional representation of interests.

Taking the perspective of the participants in the advisory bodies, this study focuses on opinion formation, negotiation procedures and decision-making in the various commissions made up of experts and laypersons and, finally, on the political reaction to the pertinent recommendations. The idea behind this is that policy advising is not a linear but rather a »recursive process« (Weingart). Further, we assume that ethical positions are not expressions of a »higher«, formalized professional reasoning, but are instead the result of negotation processes, voting procedures and formation of coalitions. From this point of view, ethics is the product of a micro-political web of activity. The strategies of the participants, their interests and motives for acting in a concrete context play an equally important role as the particular professional orientations of the experts from various disciplines and the normative and ethical opinions of the public participants in lay bodies. In particular this study examines the ways medical and biological expertise and ethical norms are dealt with in decision-making processes.

An important focus is on how voting processes as well as advisory and opinion-forming processes in commissions and forums can be used to explain and legitimate political decision-making and at the same time guarantee the protection of the opinions of minorities. Of special interest is how politics deals with disagreement among experts in expert committees and whether particular problems of justification arise for the politicians and also whether such procedures can be seen as functional from the perspective of decision-makers.

These themes are investigated using seven case studies having to do with institutionalized political consultation between experts and the public in Germany and Austria (Ethics Commissions, Enquete Commissions, consultations, and public meetings). Our goal is to formulate a concept of the ways in which expert knowledge and public participation function in forming policy in an age of constant dissension regarding new risk technologies.

This project will be carried out in cooperation with the Institute for Technology Assessment of the Austrian Academy of Sciences and the Fraunhofer-Institute for System Technology and Innovation Research (Section »Innovation in Biotechnology«).

 

Duration: 1.05.2004 – 30.09.2007

 

Further reading

- Bogner, Alexander (2005): Grenzpolitik der Experten. Vom Umgang mit Ungewissheit und Nichtwissen inpränataler Diagnostik und Beratung. Weilerswist.

- Bogner, Alexander (2005): »Die Ethisierung von Technikkonflikten. Politikberatung durch Ethikkommissionen.« In: Michael Nentwich / Walter Peissl (Hg.): Technikfolgenabschätzung in der österreichischen Praxis. Wien, S. 33-52.

- Bogner, Alexander (2005): »Moralische Expertise? Zur Produktionsweise von Kommissionethik«. In: Alexander Bogner / Helge Torgersen (Hg.): Wozu Experten? Ambivalenzen der Beziehung von Wissenschaft und Politik. Wiesbaden.

- Bogner, Alexander / Menz, Wolfgang (2005): »The Politics of Knowledge and Values: Ethics Expertise in the Stem Cell Discourse«. In: Teorie vedy / Theory of Science, Jg. XIV/XXVII, H. 3, S. 113-126.

- Bogner, Alexander / Menz, Wolfgang (2005): »Bioethical Controversies and Policy Advice: The Production of Ethical Expertise und its Role in the Substantiation of Political Decision-Making.« In: Sabine Maasen / Peter Weingart (Hg.): Democratization of Expertise? Exploring Novel Forms of Scientific Advice in Political Decision-Making. Dordrecht (Sociology of the Sciences, Jg. 24), S. 21-40.

- Bogner, Alexander / Menz, Wolfgang (2005): »Alternative Rationalitäten?
Technikbewertung durch Laien und Experten am Beispiel der Biomedizin.« In: Alfons Bora u.a. (Hg.): Technik in einer fragilen Welt. Die Rolle der Technikfolgenabschätzung. Berlin, S. 383-391.

- Bogner, Alexander / Menz, Wolfgang (2006): »Wissenschaftskriminalität. Der koreanische Klon-Skandal und die Bedeutung der Ethik.« In: Leviathan. Berliner Zeitschrift für Sozialwissenschaft, H. 2, S. 270-290.

- Bogner, Alexander / Menz, Wolfgang (2006): »Wissen und Werte als Verhandlungsform. Ethikexpertise in der Regulation der Stammzellforschung« In: Rüdiger Wink (Hg.): Deutsche Stammzellpolitik im Zeitalter der Transnationalisierung. Baden-Baden.

- Bogner, Alexander / Menz, Wolfgang (2006): »Welche Rationalität durch Verfahren? Die Organisation bioethischer Expertise.« In: Teorie Vedy / Theory of Science, Jg. XIV / XXVIII, H. 1, S. 245-264.

- Bogner, Alexander / Menz, Wolfgang (2006): »Science Crime. The Korean cloning scandal and the role of ethics.« In: Science and Public Policy, Jg. 33, H. 8, S. 601-612.

- Bogner, Alexander / Torgersen, Helge ( Hg.) (2005): Wozu Experten? Ambivalenzen der Beziehung von Wissenschaft und Politik. Wiesbaden.

- Bogner, Alexander / Torgersen, Helge (2005): »Sozialwissenschaftliche Expertiseforschung. Zur Einleitung in ein expandierendes Forschungsfeld.« In: dies. (Hg.): Wozu Experten? Ambivalenzen der Beziehung von Wissenschaft und Politik. Wiesbaden, S. 7-29.