Final Report Editor Ulrike Felt June 2003

OPUS – Background of the Project 1
CHAPTER 0
OPUS – Background of the Project
Ulrike Felt
The pervasiveness of science and technology‘s influence in every aspect of modern life
implies a real necessity for citizens to understand and appreciate the contributions, but
also the limits, of what research and technological development can/should provide for
human society and the natural environment. While these issues have for a long time
been confined to the nation states and were — according to the cultural, social, political
and economic context — handled in very different ways, they have definitely become a
common European concern. Solutions to societal questions closely linked to scientific
and technological development — e.g. biotechnology and food, health, communication,
environmental issues, technology and labour market, economic development — can
not be addressed anymore only on the national level, but have to be considered as a
1
European challenge with the aim of finding suitable common policies.TP PT This means that
on the one hand public awareness of the European dimension of scientific and
technological development has to be addressed taking into account the diversity of the
European regional and national contexts. On the other hand, questions of public
awareness of science and technology cannot be ”answered” anymore after scientific
and technological developments have taken place, but they have to become integral
part of a European and national science policy. Combining these two approaches
2
would allow an increased public involvement in the process of agenda settingTP PT,
but also of decision-making — and thus lead to a new kind of trust-relationship
between science and the public and to innovative form of knowledge-politics in the
3
European context.TP PT
1
TP PT See Amsterdam treaty; CEC (1997): European Union Consolidated Treaties (incorporating the Treaty of
Amsterdam, signed 2/10/97 and entered into force on 1.5.1999) (Luxemburg); Action Plan Science and
Society
2
TP PT For the policy questions see: J. SEARGEANT and J. STEELE (1998): Consulting the Public: Guidelines and
Good Practice, (Policy Studies Institute, London); L. ROSENBERG et.al., (1998): Scientific Opportunities and
Public Needs: Improving Priority Setting and Public Input at the National Institutes of Health, (National
Academy Press, Washington, DC); S. JASANOFF (1996): ”Is Science Socially Constructed, and Can It Still
Inform Public Policy?” Science and Engineering Ethics, 3 (2), 263-276
3
TP PT In the recent years a number of studies have hinted to the importance of trust in the relation between
science and the public. For a broad and very interesting collection of articles, see A. IRWIN & B. WYNNE
(eds.) (1996): Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology.
(Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press). B. WYNNE, B. (1995): Public Understanding of Science. S.
Jasanoff Gerald E. Markle, James C. Petersen, Trevor Pinch (Eds.), Handbook of Science and Techology
Studies (Thousand Oaks/London/New Delhi: SAGE): 361-388.See also the publication of the papers
presented at a conference organized by the Social Science Research Center Berlin in cooperation with DG
XII on public understanding of science: M. DIERKES & C. VON GROTE (Eds.): Between understanding and
trust: science, technology and the public (Berkshire: Harwood Academic Publishers, 1999)