14-1190b-innovation-managing-risk-evidence
14-1190b-innovation-managing-risk-evidence
14-1190b-innovation-managing-risk-evidence
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
154<br />
regulation of the development of new technologies being<br />
only one example.<br />
4. Conclusion: Some ways forward<br />
This section gives some possible solutions for a new<br />
model of citizen participation in establishing regulatory<br />
frameworks for new technologies. They involve public<br />
decisions at different scales: firstly in the long term, but also<br />
in the shorter term, and finally for on-going commercial<br />
negotiations.<br />
The rejection of non-transparency<br />
In the development of <strong>innovation</strong> and new technologies,<br />
the first possible solution — and unfortunately the easiest<br />
one — would be to say as little as possible and to avoid<br />
presenting and debating the <strong>risk</strong>s. This solution may be<br />
tempting for some. But, for us, this is a losing strategy in<br />
the long run: the first incident associated with a given new<br />
technology would spark a media campaign that could stop<br />
its development. We shall therefore take for granted that<br />
the participation of civil society (public and all stakeholders)<br />
is necessary in the definition and treatment of a regulatory<br />
framework for new technologies.<br />
Long-term solutions<br />
(i) In the long run, it seems absolutely necessary to try<br />
to rehabilitate scientific culture and to learn to discuss<br />
and exchange views on — in other words, to debate —<br />
technical issues.<br />
Another way forward is to strengthen the level of scientific<br />
culture and ethical approaches: the ability to explain major<br />
ethical questions and to create common rules in order to<br />
live together. Many such actions already exist in research<br />
and cultural institutions. However, these approaches must<br />
be embedded into the different communities by creating<br />
new audiences and facilitating multicultural dialogue and<br />
exchanges of expertise. For instance, in-depth discussions<br />
with lawyers are also needed to develop <strong>innovation</strong>.<br />
(ii) According to surveys, two kinds of structures are<br />
considered trustworthy by French people:<br />
• Multi-actor structures (grouping politicians, industrialists,<br />
experts, associations, policemen, firemen and general<br />
practitioners), which are considered particularly reliable.<br />
• Independent authorities on food safety.<br />
Using these bodies in public debates may be a way forward.<br />
Some shorter-term solutions<br />
In the shorter term, the public debate on a regulatory<br />
framework for the development of new technologies (or for<br />
a moratorium on them):<br />
• can no longer be conceived as a one-time debate of four<br />
or six months, but rather as a continuous process which will<br />
last several years. In her policy brief about nanotechnologies,<br />
Aude Teillant points out that “it seems essential to set up<br />
permanent forums that are open to all stakeholders and<br />
whose objective is not to reach a consensus on a given<br />
issue but to express diverging points of view freely. Such<br />
a framework would help identify the scientific, ethical and<br />
social issues raised by these new technologies”. In fact, some<br />
long-term structures for exchange and debate are needed<br />
to support the development of a new technology (or a<br />
moratorium).<br />
• should rely on international scientific knowledge — as<br />
rigorous as possible — about the questions involved: it is<br />
absolutely essential to understand what science is able and<br />
is not able to say on a given topic. The IPCC is probably the<br />
best example. It is clear, however, that these results must<br />
not be the only basis on which the policy maker will take<br />
his decision: it is necessary to add, country by country, the<br />
outcome of debates with citizens. It should be stressed that<br />
if this scientific step seems absolutely necessary for the<br />
decision-making process, it should not be considered as<br />
sufficient: the participation of civil society is the following<br />
step, as essential as the scientific assessment. (In the best<br />
process, there would be interactions and issues coming<br />
from the public that would be dealt by scientific experts).<br />
• would train leaders (political, industrial, social, etc.) about<br />
decision making in a social and political environment marked<br />
by the increasing complexity of the relationship between<br />
science, society and <strong>innovation</strong> environments and by public<br />
debate 10 .<br />
• would, before a public decision is taken, multiply (for<br />
instance under the authority of the CNDP) the forms of<br />
debate by holding meetings open to the public but also<br />
by asking other groups (public structures, associations) to<br />
organize their own debate on a given subject. There are,<br />
however, some necessary conditions for a good debate: its<br />
goal must be clearly defined, like the issues on which the<br />
government wishes further enlightenment; the public must<br />
not feel that the decision has already been made before its<br />
participation; in its commentaries on the final decision, the<br />
Government must clearly indicate how it has taken account<br />
of the main arguments presented in the debate.<br />
• would find some legitimacy on the World Wide Web,<br />
where the experts’ assumptions and assertions will be<br />
scrutinized and challenged. Since the start of the twentyfirst<br />
century, a widely interconnected global society has<br />
emerged. Time and space will now never be managed as<br />
they used to be. ‘ATAWAD’ — connected at any time,<br />
anywhere, with any device — is the synthesis, and the<br />
symbol, of this trend. Digital natives themselves will probably<br />
feel outdated compared to the ‘immersive technologies’<br />
natives who will be raised and educated between now and<br />
2050.<br />
In the shortest term, a novel scheme for high stakes/<br />
high <strong>risk</strong> ongoing commercial negotiations