In Between Facts and Norms, Jürgen Habermas works out the legal and political implications of his Theory of Communicative Action (1981), bringing to fruition the project announced with his publication of The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere in 1962. This new work is a major contribution to recent debates on the rule of law and the possibilities of democracy in postindustrial societies, but it is much more. The introduction by William Rehg succinctly captures the special nature of the work, (...) noting that it offers a sweeping, sociologically informed conceptualization of law and basic rights, a normative account of the rule of law and the constitutional state, an attempt to bridge normative and empirical approaches to democracy, and an account of the social context required for democracy. Finally, the work frames and caps these arguments with a bold proposal for a new paradigm of law that goes beyond the dichotomies that have afflicted modern political theory from its inception and that still underlie current controversies between so-called liberals and civic republicans. The book includes a postscript written in 1994, which restates the argument in light of its initial reception, and two appendixes, which cover key developments that preceded the book. Habermas himself was actively involved in the translation, adapting the text as necessary to make it more accessible to English-speaking readers. (shrink)

Misunderstanding Science? offers a challenging new perspective on the public understanding of science. In so doing, it also challenges existing ideas of the nature of science and its relationships with society. Its analysis and case presentation are highly relevant to current concerns over the uptake, authority, and effectiveness of science as expressed, for example, in areas such as education, medical/health practice, risk and the environment, technological innovation. Based on several in-depth case-studies, and informed theoretically by the sociology of scientific knowledge, (...) the book shows how the public understanding of science questions raises issues of the epistemic commitments and institutional structures which constitute modern science. It suggests that many of the inadequacies in the social integration and uptake of science might be overcome if modern scientific institutions were more reflexive and open about the implicit normative commitments embedded in scientific cultures. (shrink)

Discursive deference in the governance of science and technology is rebalancing from expert analysis toward participatory deliberation. Linear, scientistic conceptions of innovation are giving ground to more plural, socially situated understandings. Yet, growing recognition of social agency in technology choice is countered by persistently deterministic notions of technological progress. This article addresses this increasingly stark disjuncture. Distinguishing between “appraisal” and “commitment” in technology choice, it highlights contrasting implications of normative, instrumental, and substantive imperatives in appraisal. Focusing on the role of (...) power, it identifies key commonalities transcending the analysis/participation dichotomy. Each is equally susceptible to instrumental framing for variously weak and strong forms of justification. To address the disjuncture, it is concluded that greater appreciation is required—in both analytic and participatory appraisal—to facilitating the opening up of governance commitments on science and technology. (shrink)

The nanotechnologies and nanomaterials sector is a huge and growing industry. The amount of legislation already in place and still to be produced in order to regulate it will be very substantial. What process is used to produce such regulation? The answer is that very diverse regulatory approaches are and will be used. The approach taken by the European Commission diverges from the one taken by the European Parliament. Moreover, at national level, Member States add their own contribution to the (...) process. This article attempts to describe the landscape and various regulatory actions that have been undertaken by all these actors in the European Union. It first describes the role played by the European Commission and Parliament. It then looks at specific regulatory initiatives from a more sectoral perspective: Cosmetics, Food information, Restriction of the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment, Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment and Biocides. The third part of the paper describes some major national initiatives, in particular those concerning the establishment of reporting systems for nanomaterials, mixtures, articles and consumer products containing them, as an example of how to improve the current governance in the EU and to prevent the risks to human health and the environment. The fourth part gives the perspective of the European Trade Union Confederation. Finally it presents some conclusions and policy recommendations, taking into consideration the diversity of regulatory approaches. (shrink)

The idea of conducting upstream public engagement over emerging technologies has been gaining popularity in Europe and North America, with nanotechnologies seen as a test case for this. For many of its advocates, upstream engagement is about a re-conceptualisation of the science–society relationship in which a variety of ‘publics’ are brought together with stakeholders and scientists early in the Research and Development process to co-develop technological trajectories. However, the concept, aims and processes of upstream engagement remain ill-defined, are often misunderstood, (...) and have undergone little critical analysis. This special issue of NanoEthics, entitled ‘Engaging with Nanotechnologies–Engaging Differently?’ takes a multi-nation, multi-case approach to explore this idea, drawing on work represented by four articles from the US and Europe, from ethnographic work in the nanotechnology lab through to analysis of a Citizens’ Jury and other attempts to move public debate ‘upstream’. An overall message from the papers is that without adequate critique ‘upstream engagement’ might end up re-producing out-dated forms of science communication or being rejected as a failed concept before it has even matured. (shrink)

UK science policy now includes ‘upstream public engagement’ as an element in the responsible development of nanotechnology. This paper explores different understandings of the term upstream engagement before discussing in more detail a laboratory-based collaboration between social science and nanoscience aimed at exploring the social dimensions of nanotechnology. The paper concludes that concern with defining what counts as ‘upstream’ can obscure more critical questions about how to make public, and therefore accountable, deliberations about the interrelated social and technical aspects of (...) nanoscience. (shrink)

In this article we explore the emergence of a cluster of social movement organisations that have critically taken issue with nanotechnology in Germany, the UK and internationally. By applying concepts borrowed from Social Movement Research we demonstrate that this cluster is a ‘spin-off’ from the preceding movement against agrofood biotechnology, however, never succeeds in mobilizing a comparable ‘antinanotechnology movement’. We argue that the turn toward participatory and deliberative practices that is characteristic of nanotechnology policy and, to a major extent, is (...) based on the perceived threat of a ‘public backlash’ against nanotechnology, while being of little political impact, reinforces the activity of these critical organisations through the provision of political opportunities. We further argue that the stagnation of these organisations can be explained by low policy impact and low public responsiveness respectively and conclude that their trajectories hinge to a major extent on policy impact and the responsiveness of the mass-public. We end by making a concluding remark about the limits to the project of democratizing social contention through public engagement. (shrink)

This article discusses studies and politicalinitiatives concerned with enhancing publicinvolvement in major technological decisions.It argues that such decisions should include asignificant role for the mass media, andrespect for the diverse relations betweenscience and governance. The notion of`regulated worlds' is proposed as a startingpoint in a discourse that brings together themass media, science management, anddeliberative democracy.