In 1968, Jürgen Habermas claimed that, in an advanced technological society, the emancipatory force of knowledge can only be regained by actively recovering the ‘forgotten experience of reflection’. In this article, we argue that, in the contemporary situation, critical reflection requires a deliberative ambiance, a process of mutual learning, a consciously organised process of deliberative and distributed reflection. And this especially applies, we argue, to critical reflection concerning a specific subset of technologies which are actually oriented towards optimising human cognition. (...) In order to create a deliberative ambiance, fostering critical upstream reflection on emerging technologies, we developed the concept of a mutual learning exercise. Building on a number of case studies, we analyse what an MLE involves, both practically and conceptually, focussing on key aspects such as ambiance and expertise, the role of ‘genres of the imagination’ and the profiles of various ‘subcultures of debate’. Ideally, an MLE becomes a contemporary version of the Socratic agora, providing a stage where multiple and sometimes unexpected voices and perspectives mutually challenge each other, in order to strength-en the societal robustness and responsiveness of emerg-ing technologies. (shrink)

Current nanotechnology regulation is focussed on risks. On the other hand, technical guidelines and other soft law tools are increasingly replacing hard law. This risk reduction approach does not seem to be fully aligned with open principles like sustainable nanotechnology. Indeed, risk optimization tends to be rather a continuous process than a way to settle ultimate lists of risks. There is therefore a need for a more dynamic view: Life cycle assessment contributes to add momentum and context to the models. (...) However, a complementary perspective is here suggested, based on information technologies: nanotechnology platforms. Platforms for nanotechnology governance are supposed to complement and enhance the nano-regulation, adding risk assessment and management. These platforms are mainly offering information, coordination, and context or situational awareness. More recently, some informal platforms appear to play a, certainly limited but still clear, co-regulatory role. Can these informal platforms play a relevant role in nanotechnology governance? In the context of the EU Better Regulation strategy, why not envision some of these informal platforms as future co-regulation tools? The main goal of this paper is to start a discussion on the requirements these informal co-regulatory platforms should fulfill before their hypothetical inclusion in a future better regulation toolbox. (shrink)

This paper makes a conceptual inquiry into the notion of ‘publics’, and forwards an understanding of this notion that allows more responsible forms of decision-making with regards to technologies that have localized impacts, such as wind parks, hydrogen stations or flood barriers. The outcome of this inquiry is that the acceptability of a decision is to be assessed by a plurality of ‘publics’, including that of a local community. Even though a plurality of ‘publics’ might create competing normative demands, its (...) acknowledgment is necessary to withstand the monopolization of the process of technology appraisal. The paper presents four ways in which such an appropriation of publicness takes place. The creation of dedicated ‘local publics’, in contrast, helps to overcome these problems and allows for more responsible forms of decision-making. We describe ‘local publics’ as those in which stakeholders from the different publics that are related to the process of technology implementation are brought together, and in which concerns and issues from these publics are deliberated upon. The paper will present eight conditions for increasing the effectiveness of such ‘local publics’. (shrink)