Europa
[pic]
Table of Contents
Table of Contents 2
Coordinator's Preface 3
WP O Project Management 5
WP 1 Theory and method 6
WP 2 Defining Human Life 7
WP 3 Genetic Testing 9
WP 4 Habitat Directive 13
WP 5 Civic Participation after food Scandals and Scares 16
WP 6 GM-Food 18
WP 7 Nuclear Power Dilemmas in New Member States 20
WP 8 Comparison 24
WP 9 Dissemination 25
Final Plan Dissemination (Deliverable 21) 43
Coordinator's Preface
The PAGANINI project brought together a group of outstanding scholars for the period of three years to reflect and work on one of the key topics of contemporary governance: the question of how to deal with newly arising challenges in the politics of life, and in particular to which extent the utilization of participatory instruments would be useful and be called for develop working methods in the field of the governance of life.
What was outstanding about the project was the high quality of scholarship of the involved participants, the close and intense cooperation of the participants, and the development of a coherent body of results, culminating in our PAGANINI dissemination booklet.
The participants of the project met several times a year, either at workshops or conferences organized by the PAGANINI project, or at other conferences where we made an effort of being together in panels where we could present PAGANINI research. There was an excellent team spirit in the group, and my feeling was that all participants truly enjoyed our often very time-consuming meetings. We really worked very hard together towards the results of our research, and made a very strong effort to produce a joint product, guided by an agreed upon theoretical framework.
We have developed a nuanced, comparative analysis of participatory governance today that can potentially guide policies in the field of life politics, and offers an array of new insights and challenging findings. At this stage, most of our partners are involved in follow-up research or policy advising that uses and further brings PAGANINI results into political practice. We are also glad that the publication of PAGANINI results in top journals and book projects have started, and we are confident that many more publications will come out of the project.
All partners had brought excellent young scholars into our team for whom PAGANINI was the best possible way to grow and to develop as researchers. We also made a very strong effort to integrate stakeholders, media representatives, policy practitioners, activists and representatives of the public into our project. This was not always easy, but we did not give up, learnt much on the way, and were successful in communicating our project beyond the confinements of academia.
We are especially proud of our PAGANINI dissemination booklet, Participatory Governance and Institutional Innovation: The New Politics of Life of which we have now printed more than 500 copies, which we have widely distributed, and which is still available on our internet site (). While we have already published numerous papers and chapters based on PAGANINI research, and we are preparing a book which will summarize the main findings of PAGANINI, our booklet came out right of the end of our project for the June 11-12, 2007 Vienna conference, and served to disseminate our research results quickly and broadly, also accessible to the various potentially interested stake-holders. To actually have such a book produced at the end of a large project like PAGANINI requires much discipline by the partners, and tight time-management. We have received many reactions to our booklet already, and believe it has a strong impact.
This report covers the entire duration of the project “Participatory Governance and Institutional Innovation (PAGANINI)” from May 1st 2004 to July 31st 2006 and describes the progress of each WP. Since a concise summary research results of PAGANINI is available in our booklet this report gives only an account on the activities of the consortium throughout the project.
Reports of the projects about the individual case studies are also available on the project’s internet site.
WP O Project Management
The project started on May 1st, 2004. The partners met in several workshops throughout the project. The project coordinator in close cooperation with the respective local hosts coordinated the following workshops:
• 1st workshop, Rotterdam, May 14 - 15 2004
• 2nd workshop, Vienna, December 13 – 14, 2004
• 3rd workshop, Granada, April 10 –11 2005
• 4th workshop, Copenhagen, October 13 - 14, 2005
• 5th workshop, Rethymo, April 20 – 22, 2006
• 6th workshop, Vienna December 14 –16, 2006
In these workshops the consortium discussed the methodological and theoretical foundation of the project, the outlines of the case studies, research results, its dissemination strategies as well as publications plans. The coordinator also made a substantial effort to involve the advisory committee in the workshops (see below).
Another major task of project management was to organise the dissemination activities (see below), this involved in particular:
• The design of a PAGANINI project web page in cooperation with a professional web designer ()
• The organisation of the 4th workshop in Copenhagen, in 2005, which brought together policy makers, stakeholders and scholars in the respective fields under study in a joint workshop.
• The organization of the Final Conference “The New Governance of Life: Challenges. Transformations. Innovation.” at the University Campus Vienna (see below for more details).[1]
• The writing of the booklet “Participatory Governance and Institutional Innovation: The New Politics of Life” is available on ().
• The participation in the FP 6 project “IconnectEU”, which will increase the visibility of the PAGANINI project.
Erich Griessler was responsible for coordinating the consortium’s reporting to the Commission throughout the project.
WP 1 Theory and method
The goals of WP 1 were
• to elaborate the conceptual framework of the research project
• to position contemporary forms of civic participation and the ‘politics of life’ within existing concepts of participation
• to elaborate the notion of civic participation against the background of broader processes of social change and the emergence of new ‘governance’ strategies
• to work out the methodological guidelines for the case studies
In the 1st reporting period the conceptual framework and methodological guidelines have been worked out as planned, in relation to a historical and theoretical elaboration of the ‘politics of life’ and the notion of civic participation against the backdrop of broader processes of societal change and changing governance practices. The draft report has been discussed in December 2004; the final version of WP 1 has been delivered as planned and formed one important base for empirical work.
The work package was successfully completed with Deliverable 5:
Loeber, Anne, Hajer, Marteen; van Tatenhove, Jan (2005): Final Report – Theory and Method.
WP 2 Defining Human Life
WP 2 studies the conflict about human embryonic stem cell (HESC) research and therapeutic cloning in Austria, Germany, the UK, Italy, and the EU level, against the background of the situation in Israel and the United States. In particular, WP2 focuses on the question of how the highly contentious fields of HESC research and cloning have led to the creation of new forms of institutional deliberation that combine ethical consensus-finding and reflection with public participation and governance.
The work on WP2 started in December 2005 with an overview on the literature on HESC research, on both a scientific level as well as on the level of social science research. In the 1st reporting period we tried to rethink the connection of this specific issue to the main topics of the PAGANINI project that is “the politics of life” as well as the possible and the actual meaning of participation in connection to HESC research.
As second step and as a preparation of the fieldwork we began to study the particularities of the settings of each of our country case studies. In particular, we started to map the main “energy fields” in order to facilitate the fieldwork which we will start in June 2005.
HESC research as a field of research is, first, comparatively new and rapidly evolving, and, second, embedded in highly controversial and dynamic political debates as well as shifting regulatory regimes. Hence, a ‘state of the art’ on this highly dynamic research has started to develop only recently and is in continuous transformation. In reporting period 2 we therefore continued to engage in a review of secondary literature on HESC and cloning research (which is an activity that we have started in the first reporting period).
In addition, the 2nd reporting period was characterized by the engagement and generation of primary data, such as the analysis of position papers, policy documents, transcripts of Parliamentary debates, media coverage, websites and interviews.
In 3rd reporting period, Herbert Gottweis and Ingrid Metzler concluded their fieldwork, and, together with Erich Grießler wrote, the final version of the report. Herbert Gottweis conducted fieldwork and conducted interviews in San Francisco, United States of America, in May 2006. Ingrid Metzler conducted fieldwork in Italy in September 2006: She made interviews with policy makers, representatives of patient groups, and policy makers in Rome and in Milan. She finished her analysis of the Italian case study, in which she drew on her interview data, on policy documents, and data from media (print media, as well as records from radio broadcasts. Erich Griessler finished his case studies on Austria and the EU.
The WP was successfully completed with the report (Deliverable 12): Gottweis, Herbert; Metzler, Ingrid; Griessler, Erich (2007): Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research between Politics and Ethics
WP 3 Genetic Testing
The WP sets out to investigate the effects of social controversy in the issue area of genetic testing on the emergence of new forms of civic participation and to analyse the mechanisms and rationales underlying these new forms as well as their effects. The goal is to increase our understanding of the effects of institutional crisis in the sphere of “politics of life” on the development of new forms of participatory governance.
Work in WP3 in the 1st reporting period followed several phases:
The first phase consisted of identifying the main issues and theoretical concepts that relate the issue of genetic testing to the main research topics of PAGANINI: politics of life, participation, and governance. On the basis of a literature review, we specified the meaning of these topics in relation to the issue of genetic testing – and the other way round. We explored the significance of key concepts of PAGANINI for understanding the issue of genetic testing, such as risk and uncertainty, the concept of “life”, bio politics, participation, and governance in order to develop adequate conceptual tools for understanding a heterogeneous field of regulatory mechanisms, framing processes and practices of public engagement. The main method used in this phase was to develop an overview on the literature on these topics, linking them to our specific perspectives on the issue area of genetic testing.
The second phase consisted of a process of mapping diachronically and synchronically the issue area of genetic testing. In this phase we focussed on Germany in order to have one model as a starting point for developing comparative perspectives. We identified key actors, public energy fields, governance arrangements, and key incidents with regard to the question how the issue was framed and debated. Asides to key incidents in the sense of turning points in the debate, however, we also looked for more creeping changes that can only be identified in hindsight.
Based on this research we outlined a first general narrative of political processes and changing frames concerning the issue and identified the starting point of the period under study in the mid 1980s. We also distinguished different fields of problematization of genetic testing like repro-genetics, predictive medicine, paternity tests, or forensic applications of genetic testing.
The main method in the second phase was again the use of secondary literature referring to the history of political debates and regulations of genetic testing in Germany and also on the European level. However, next to this we started researching primary sources such as declarations, conference reports, and homepages of relevant organizations and actors in this field. We also began to do expert interviews in order to map the actors, involved in the political debates on genetic testing. On that basis, we preliminarily identified some key features of the development of public energy fields in the issue area of genetic testing such as: the increasing moralization of politics, the changing complexity of the risk concept, the transformation of models of science, the logic of juridification, the marginalization of the economic aspects of the issue in political debates, the individualization of the way, the issues are framed, and changing models of heredity, eugenics and discrimination.
At the PAGANINI workshop at Granada, a common PAGANINI methodology and common theoretical concepts were developed. On this basis, we began to elaborate a more detailed chronology of political narratives, identifying key incidents, turning points or creeping processes of change, old and new political actors, and different practices of policy-making, including participatory and more exclusionary practices. At Granada, we also entered the comparative stage of our study.
In the 2nd reporting period we started the third phase by mapping in detail the chronology of the politics of genetic testing and the landscape of political actors, events and public energy points in the various countries. While Susanne Schultz concentrated on the UK, Germany and European politics, Erich Griessler added his findings on the chronology of politics on genetic testing in Austria. Until October 2006 we elaborated the results of these efforts for the PAGANINI meeting in Copenhagen and integrated them into the interim report.
The main research method was exploring primary documents, secondary literature and – for the German case – one interview with the renowned political activist and academic expert.
In the beginning of this phase Susanne Schultz also participated in two German events on biopolitics, a conference and a regular meeting of the German National Ethics Council on “participation and biopolitics”, and a meeting of NGOs and social movements on biopolitics during the BUKO (Bundeskongress Internationalismus), both in May 2005. Her participation in these events helped us to contact various important actors in the field of genetic testing.
The main efforts in conducting interviews and using the method of participatory observation, however, started with the forth phase of the research. It consisted in focussing the research on specific fields of public unease, forms and sites of participatory governance and specific moments of conflict, thereby passing from the perspective of a macropolitical oversight to micropolitical moments of performing participation. In the end of January 2006, Susanne Schultz did field work, mainly interviewing, in the UK.
In the 3rd reporting period we were mainly busy with interpreting the data we already had collected and writing the final report of the work package. However, data collection and literature review went on parallel to the process of interpreting. Erich Griessler undertook a series of interviews with experts, activists, policy makers and others in the area if genetic testing, bioethics and public discourse Austria. In addition to interviews, Susanne Schultz attended the “Youth Conference ‘Die nächste GENeration’”, at Gewandhausn Leipzig, 19 May 2006 (gen-diskussion.de) for participatory observation.
Parallel to accomplishing the collection of primary data, the researchers continued to review the literature on pertinent topics such as on science – society relations; new developments in genetics, bioscience policy, especially articles in scientific journals and new books. In addition to this literature, we also reviewed a wide range of "grey" materials and other types of sources such as papers presented at national and international conferences on topics that relate to the governance of genetic testing, online publications on the respective topics; news digests on current developments in genetics and reproductive technology via email, e.g. BioNews via Email, on-line newsletters on related topics, on-line campaigns, discussions, and fora on the area of genetics, press-releases by governments or other relevant actors that relate to the topics, or articles in newspapers (e.g. The Observer; Frankfurter Rundschau). These materials proofed to be extremely important for studying ongoing events and processes in the governance of genetic testing, such as controversial discussions about the relation of "old" and "new" eugenics, the proper use of genetic tests, the concept of genetic testing in this context, the marketing of genetic tests, the organization of public discourse about genetic testing, about public unease concerning the issue, forms and sites of participatory governance and specific moments of conflict and so on.
On the basis of this data and the literature, the researchers began to interpret the results with respect to
• the different concepts and definitions of genetic testing,
• the techniques of genetic testing and new developments and directions in genetic research today,
• the scope and status of genetic testing within health care today and prospects for the near future and the economy of genetic testing,
• the question of dislocatory moments and the emergence of public unease in the area of genetic testing and the changing narratives on human genetics from the 1980s to now,
• certain ongoing – though, as we found out, rather "subliminal" public energy fields, namely the metaphor of "designer babies" and the issue of a "new eugenics",
• current forms of participatory governance in the area of genetic testing and the construction of multiple publics and new political subjectivities.
Along the lines of these topics, Susanne Schultz drafted the first version of the final report of WP3 which was amended, further elaborated and edited in a concerted effort of Susanne Schultz, Kathrin Braun and Erich Griessler during summer and fall 2007.
The WP was successfully completed with Deliverable 14:
Schultz, Susanne; Braun, Kathrin; Griessler, Erich (2007): “A Non-antagonistic Setting, “Authentic Publics” and a Moments of Unease”
WP 4 Habitat Directive
WP 4 sets out to analyse recent changes in the focus of conservation policy and their implications as regards the need to involve citizens in conservation planning and implementation. The main new challenge of conservation policy, to integrate conservation with land-use planning and subsistence practices, brings conservation policy into close contact with subsistence practices and, thus, creates new kinds of social and political conflicts. Within EU, the conflicts are accentuated when pan-European conservation goals are implemented nationally, regionally and locally. The aim of the WP is, in particular, to assess the possibilities of enhancing European multi-level governance in nature conservation, which would be based on public participation and trust. The cases to study this problem in particular are the flying squirrel (Finland) and the Loggerhead Turtle (Greece).
Case Study: Flying Squirrel
In the 1st reporting work was mainly focused on finding a common methodological and theoretical framework within the project and fining ways to get access to the field. Thus in the 1st reporting period Ari Jokinen participated in a number of domestic meetings, relevant for the project both in terms of research and in terms of creating contacts and dissemination results.
In the 2nd reporting period we conducted all basic interviews. In total we conducted 7 interviews on national level, with representatives of the main actors who have been involved in the formulation of the Finnish conservation policy after Finland’s EU membership. In addition, we conducted 21 interviews/ discussions with local actors in the Tampere city region; because of the controversial nature of the case, these were partially so confidential that the interviewees wanted to remain anonymous and refused tape-recording. Moreover, we collected observational “ethnographic” interview material with 5 surveyors who have specialized on detecting flying squirrels in the field. We have collected media – particularly newspaper – material from the period 2002-2005 both regionally and nationally: the aim was to get a clear picture of the public shape of the controversy. Finally we analysed literature extensively, particularly on the historical shaping of nature conservation policy, and on theoretical aspects of the genealogy of nature conservation.
In the 3rd reporting period the collection of media material continued. Furthermore we continued the review of literature on nature conservation.
Case Study: Carreta Caretta
In Greece, the WP focuses on the detailed case study of the policy aspects related to the protection of the Loggerhead Turtle (Caretta caretta) in the island of Crete: Rethimno, Chanea and the Messara bay as well as in the island of Zakynthos. This is the first attempt to construct a systematic, empirically based account on Caretta-Caretta and the Habitats’ Directive.
In order to understand the development of policies and participatory responses to the habitat directive the main tasks during the 1st reporting period was to collect and organize empirical data concerning the actors involved in Caretta-caretta protection initiatives in Greece and the main events that took place, as well as to identify the major issues involved. The focus of our work during the 1st reporting period was on the participatory responses in the implementation of policies related to the habitat directive, and more specifically to the case of caretta-caretta in Zakynthos and Crete. The data sources, which have been identified and used during this period, included: press reports, internet web sites related to Greek government agencies, EU agencies, environmental NGOs and various interest groups.
The main tasks during the 2nd period of the project was to continue the collection and organization of empirical data concerning the actors involved in Caretta-caretta protection initiatives in Greece and the main events that took place, as well as to analyse the major issues involved. The data sources, which we have identified and used during this period include policy and scientific reports, literature, conference proceedings, Decisions of the Supreme Court, media reports, Internet sites and 13 in-depth interviews with key actors such as policy makers and NGO representatives. In addition, we have been in contact with and acquired material from other key actors, such as NGO volunteers from Archelon and other groups who have participated in the awareness campaigns in Rethimno, the bay of Messara and Chania. In addition, a chronology has been updated for the 2nd period, depicting all the events, actions, and interventions that took place concerning the Caretta-caretta issue in Greek areas under study.
During the 3rd period of the project, our efforts concentrated on the overall completion of our dataset, its organization and the final analysis of the related development of policies and participatory responses to the Habitat Directive. Our major concern has been to gain a deeper understanding of emerging participatory practices in Greece, within the context of the EU, especially as regards the case of Caretta caretta in Zakynthos and Crete. More specifically during the summer of 2006 interviews were carried out with local stakeholders, members of the local community, leaders of local initiatives, as well as local authority representatives. Studies and other documents were also collected. These proved to be essential for our understanding of the Caretta caretta case in both islands of Zakynthos and Crete. The data sources that we have identified and used during this period include: Decisions of the Supreme Court which relate to the National Marine Park and the protection of the loggerhead turtle (2601/2005, 2602/2005), issues of the government gazette (ΦΕΚ) which relate to the National Marine Park and the protection of the loggerhead turtle, other reports, printed media, internet web sites of government agencies (Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Embassy of Greece), EU agencies, environmental NGOs, hotel/interest groups, fishermen’s associations, 14 in depth interviews with key actors. In addition, we have acquired a number of reports/theses and reviewed the literature as presented in the reports.
The work package was successfully completed with Deliverable 14:
Haila, Yrjö; Kousis, Maria; Jokinen, Ari; Nygren, Nina; Psarikidou, Katerina (2007): Learning from Conflicts over the Implementation of the Habitat Directive.
WP 5 Civic Participation after food Scandals and Scares
The objectives of the project are:
1. Historical analysis of the social controversy in the aftermath of the BSE food scare, with a focus on the way food and food production was framed initially (as a sector concern), and subsequently reframed (in terms of food safety, consumer protection and ‘transnationality’) at four regulatory nodal points (EU, NL, UK, G);
2. Identification and categorisation of emerging participatory practices;
3. Identification of the most promising responses with regard to the generation of ‘active trust’ and innovative governance, in particular by relating civic participation to other organisational practices;
4. Understanding selected practices in terms of their position in the ‘network society’ and a context of ‘multi-level governance’
5. Assessment of selected practices of civic participation in terms of generating innovative governance and inclusiveness vis-à-vis gender, age, class and ethnicity
6. Review of state of the art research in this field and mapping of related European research competencies.
In the 1st reporting period the course of events that took place before, during and following the ‘discovery’, both politically and scientifically, of BSE and its subsequent linkage to Creutzfeld-Jacob disease has been identified and mapped for the selected cases. In addition the social controversy that arose as a result has been analysed in terms of a reframing of the various issues at stake (among them food safety; trust; national – transnational character of food). A categorisation of the government approaches to dealing with the BSE event, among which emerging participatory practices, has been developed. The concept of ‘active trust’ has been made operational. These three accomplishments provided the basis for an identification and assessment of the most promising responses with regard to the generation of trust and innovative governance, in the light of the network society and the practice of mutli-level governance. A start had been made with this identification and assessment for the British case.
The 2nd reporting period was devoted to an analysis of empirical material concerning and relating to: BSE, its scientific and social ‘causes and consequences’, other food scares and animal diseases affecting the agricultural sector, agricultural policy in the Netherlands, UK, Germany and the EU, health and food safety policies in these countries, including the design and set-up of food safety governing bodies, food safety governing arrangements of the private sector, public and media perceptions of food safety and government, and participatory arrangements set up to deal with these issues. For that the following sources were used: in-depth interviews with policy makers, media representatives, scientists, publications from, and data collected in relevant previous EU-financed research projects, policy documents and transcripts of parliamentary discussion in The Netherlands, Germany, and the UK, documentation from the EU, documentation from the new food safety institutes, minutes from various (affiliated) participatory sessions, documentation from various NGOs and research institutes, media analysis, literature review.
In the 3rd period, the full list of objectives of the WP has been met, and the project has been finalised. Research activities have culminated in the final version of the case study report.
Activities that led to this result in the passed period included interviewing, other modes of data collection, in-depth media analysis and literature review. In the last period again a large amount of interviews have been conducted, in addition to those held in period 2. Additional data was collected via websites of the respective food safety organisations of the various countries under investigation (as well as international organisations). Data sources included minutes from various (affiliated) participatory sessions; documentation from various NGOs and research institutes; and through e-mail exchange with BSE-experts.
As concerns literature review: As observed before, the topic of food quality and food safety, as well as BSE/TSE and CJD have been intensively studied from various perspectives in recent years. The result is a constant stream of books and articles on the issues from a natural sciences perspective, as well as from the perspective of the social sciences, political sciences and public administration. The Interim Report (deliverable 9) includes a review of the relevant literature from the latter mentioned fields of research. This review of state of the art research in the field was kept up to date in regard to new and authoritative work on the BSE-affair that was published in the passed period. In addition, books, journal articles and other publications on particular themes related to the topic of Work package 5 has been scrutinised and analysed (see the reference list of the WP5 final report for an overview).
Furthermore, an in-depth media analysis was conducted on the basis of LexisNexis Academic database of written media and business sources, making use of data from leading newspapers and weeklies from Britain, the Netherlands, and Germany between 1970 and 2006.
The work package was successfully completed with Deliverable 15:
Loeber, Anne; Hajer, Marteen (2007): Assessing the Institutional Role of Civic Participation after Food Scandals and Food Scares.
WP 6 GM-Food
The work package examined the role played by public participation in the regulation of genetically modified agriculture in Europe. In particular it aimed:
• To understand the development of the social controversy over the use of agricultural biotechnology in Europe;
• To identify, categorise and assess existing and emerging participatory practices in Europe, and assess the way in which they have succeeded in generating innovative governance, with attention to the ‘inclusiveness’ of participation in terms of gender, age, class and ethnicity;
• To map the interlinkages between subnational, national, EU and global levels of governance in the making and implementation of agricultural biotechnology policy in Europe;
• To analyse tensions and conflicts between emergent participatory governance practices at the national level and transnational bodies such as the EU and WTO; and
• To draw out implications for the effective design of participatory institutions.
The WP explored the dynamics of the GM controversy in Europe, the regulatory problems it generated, and the emerging institutional responses, focusing on UK, Greece and EU, but also taking into account developments in other European countries. It investigated the conditions leading to the different dynamics that evolved in the two countries. But it also explored the tensions between EU legislation and both member states – as the new Directive ‘bites’ over the next few years, and the EU comes under more pressure from the WTO to liberalise the growing and importing of GM crops, many of the new participatory governance arrangements are likely to come into conflict with the EU.
The UK Case
The 1st reporting period included the following activities: Collecting archive of paper and electronic documents relating to the regulation of GM food and agriculture since 1996; Constructing a detailed chronology of GM events in UK from 1980 to 2004, charting the main events up to 1996, and month-by-month from 1997 to 2004; Identifying key ‘turning points’ for further detailed research; Identifying individuals to interview; Conducting a literature search of theories of technological innovation and regulation, particularly drawing on: Theories of biopolitics, Political economy, Science studies, Philosophy of technology; Attending public events in the area of agricultural biotechnology policy, networking with academics and policy actors working in this domain, and publicising the work of the PAGANINI project; Conducting informal interviews with key actors.
In the 2nd reporting period we conducted interviews in order to check, at an early stage, our emerging narrative analysis of the controversy over GMOs in Britain. In addition we did some secondary analysis of demographic data collected in respect of participants of the GM Nation series of public debates. Moreover, we analysed literature on publics and the governance of GM food and crops. Finally, we used the Internet to access records of meetings of government advisory bodies, those held as part of GM Nation, etc.
In the 3rd reporting period we conducted additional interviews. Once we had identified the main structure of our analytical narrative, and the most significant claims that we wanted to make, it was important to corroborate these findings with some of the most significant actors involved, and to fill in any gaps in our account. In addition interviews were analysed that were carried out as part of a past CSEC research project with members of agricultural biotechnology policy networks. In addition social scientific accounts of the production and regulation of biotechnology as well as EU documents (directives, regulations, minutes, etc.) were analysed.
The Greek Case
In order to understand the development of the social controversy over the use of agricultural biotechnology in Europe our main tasks during the 1st reporting period of the project was to collect and organize empirical data concerning the actors involved in the GM Food issue in Greece and the main events that took place, as well as to identify the major issues involved. In this data collection our major concern was to identify, categorise and assess existing and emerging participatory practices in Greece, within the context of the EU, with attention to the ‘inclusiveness’ of participation in terms of gender, age, class and ethnicity. The data sources, which we have identified and used during the 1st period include: press reports, Internet web sites, in depth interviews. Analysis of this data also continued during the 2nd period. The analytical work was finalized in the 3rd reporting period and resulted in the contribution to the case study report of this WP.
The work package was successfully completed with Deliverable 16:
Reynolds, Larry; Szerszynski, Bronislav; Kousis, Maria; Volakakis, Yanis (2007): The Role of Participation in a Techno-Scientific Controversy.
WP 7 Nuclear Power Dilemmas in New Member States
The research conducted within the 1st reporting period has primarily focussed on the Ignalina nuclear power plant in Lithuania. The research explored the following aspects: the narrative, the story’s context, the key incidents, and themes.
In the 2nd reporting period a number of interviews as well as participant observation notes were further taken with regard to the issues pertaining to nuclear power dilemmas in Lithuania and other Central and East European countries. The interviews were taken with the relevant policy makers, social movement activists, academic experts concerning the controversial aspects of decommissioning / sustenance of the nuclear power plants in Lithuania, Slovakia, Bulgaria, aiming at further delineating dominant or concurrent narratives and constellations of actors in the discourse-making. The interviews, particularly with the social movements activists have been aimed at, and turned to be quite informative in, providing the direct source of knowledge concerning issues that are of primary research interest in terms of participatory governance and institutional developments in respective countries (as well as in comparative perspective).
Various data sources (e.g. policy documents; policy-related analytical papers; public opinion survey data, etc.) from Central and East European countries as well as international organizations (anti- and pro-nuclear NGOs; the World Bank, etc.) were approached and analysed to explore relevant aspects of the research package, e.g. the timing and contexts in which certain events and narrative story lines were unfolding, the interplay among different social and political actors and institutions.
Our WP7 has commissioned through a subcontracting the representative survey of attitudes of the Visaginas town population, i.e. those directly affiliated with the Ignalina nuclear power plant, and the survey data has been compared and contrasted versus the data of a representative survey of the entire population of Lithuania. Important insights have been obtained through these surveys and their data comparison concerning public nuclear attitudes, awareness issues, risk perceptions and social, cultural, economic and political determination of these nuclear risk perceptions and attitudes.
Relevant literature review has been an on-going process in the 2nd reporting period, especially concerning the nuclear power controversies in general, the contemporary issues and research dimensions, specific texts pertaining to particular countries, especially those in the post-Soviet space. Other sources of literature that was studied were concerning multi-level governance, public participation and deliberative democracy.
Additional sources, particularly records of special TV programs and newspaper articles, devoted to the issues of nuclear power governance in general and with regard to specific CEE countries, were studied. The sources covered the period from 1988 till present. Not least, important sources for research have been the web pages of particular NGOs, nuclear power plants, governmental and research institutions reflecting different issues, discourses and controversies around particular NPPs in Lithuania, Bulgaria, Slovakia and Czech Republic.
In the 3rd reporting period a number of interviews have been carried out with relevant actors in Lithuania as well as other countries in Eastern Europe – namely Bulgaria, Czech Republic and Latvia. The interviews have been taken with parliament members, government official, academics and key-NGOs representatives in Lithuania, with NGOs in Bulgaria, Czech Republic and Latvia, with lawyers and academics in Bulgaria.
These interviews have been aimed at exploring attitudes and perspectives of particular actors in government, NGOs, academia and business concerning narratives, contextualisation and social as well as institutional change induced by, or related to, the nuclear power-related policies and societal processes in particular countries studied as well as in Eastern Europe more generally. Specifically, the interviews dealt with such issues as possible shifts in the nuclear power governance, the style of policy-making, the roles of particular social actors and settings in opening-up the public arena for inclusive, participatory governance and the hindering factors, the pressures to Eastern European countries to faze out nuclear power in the course of EU-enlargement and responses of those countries vis-à-vis emerged challenges.
Other data have been collected and analysed in relation to the policy responses in particular Eastern European countries to the challenges of phasing out versus sustaining of nuclear power as reflected in the studies conducted by, predominantly, local and international scholars and NGOs such as the BankWatch network and others.
The literature has been further reviewed as regards particular ways of studying nuclear power challenges and consequences for societal changes taking place in the former Soviet bloc countries, e.g. on what has come to be termed the nuclear nationalism, post-colonial studies projected to the transformations in Eastern Europe, the socio-anthropological studies of Chernobyl’ impacts upon post-Soviet societies, the emerging theory of social-cultural trauma and other.
The articles in newspapers have been closely studied as regards nuclear power governance in Lithuania. Meetings have been attended, recorded and studied as regards responses of parliament members, NGOs, academics towards nuclear power governance issues in Lithuania, Latvia, Czech Republic, and Bulgaria. In the latter country, a unique video recording has been carried out in September 2006 addressing the event, that could be considered outstanding in the Eastern European nuclear governance, namely the court trial into which the Minister of economics and energy of Bulgaria has been taken charged by the claims of Bulgarian environmental NGOs’ consortium on violation of particular newly embedded regulations of environmental impact assessment and public accountability in regard of the nuclear power plant development in Belene.
The progress of WP7 in relation to the plans could be described as steady and satisfactory, yet facing certain difficulties in the process of research. One important difficulty that emerged in the research process has to do with the scope of research envisaged in the project, covering a range of Eastern European countries, and the circumstance that the researchers conducting the study are based in Lithuania and do not have good command of languages in other CEE countries in which the study has been scratched out. Therefore, the need to engage immediate research partners in those countries has been urgent, whereas the institutional capability to get researchers subcontracted for a very limited period of time by KTU has been extremely limited. This draws particular conclusions on potential design of research teams and institutional arrangements for prospective studies of a similar kind. Another difficulty encountered has been the unpredicted health problem of key-researcher in Lithuania, due to which the research continuum has been disturbed. The aforementioned difficulty of command in foreign languages could not be dealt with immediately due to the institutional arrangement and contract as it has been set from the beginning, only the conclusions how to improve it in the similar prospective kind of studies could be drawn. As regards disturbances in the timing of research due to the health condition of key-researchers involved, those have had their impact till the very end of the project, resulting into limited possibilities to include specific research findings of WP7 into the dissemination booklet of PAGANINI in June, 2007.
Coordinator´s comments:
In the light of the fact that WP 7 never delivered its final report, it seems that the progress of the project hardly can be described as “steady.”
Prof. Rinkevicius had never reported about language problems of his team in the context of field-work. In fact, the funding of his WP would have allowed any financial support of translations, or the usage of interpreters at the field work stage. We always knew the participants of WP 7 did not master all the East European languages necessary for the planned field work. Due to the duration of the project, there was sufficient time to conduct field work. I had frequently asked Prof. Rinkevicius about his progress in field-work, and he always had assured me that he made good progress with his research. There was never any indication by the WP 7 team that the WP 7 team had encountered substantial difficulties in field work. Throughout the project the impression had been created that there were problems with the write-up process, but that field work was going on smoothly.
Prof. Rinkevicius reported throughout the duration of the project about his health problems, and health problems of collaborators. The health problems of the WP 5 team tended to materialize when deadlines for written reports or oral presentations came up in our project. But Prof. Rinkevicius never offered to withdraw from the project, and he never followed my advice to have his Lithuanian co-workers take a more active role in his WP. Despite my clearly articulated wish that Rinkevicius should bring the junior members of his group to our meetings (as all other WP teams did), a good part of our project meetings were only attended by Prof. Rinkevicus himself. The usual explanation for this was that his team workers had fallen ill. At the end of 2006 I began to be afraid that we might never see a final WP report from the Lithuania team. At our Vienna December 2006 meeting, I suggested to Prof. Rinkevicius to send an experienced researcher and Eastern Europe specialist from the team of our Amsterdam partner to come to Kaunas and help with the interpretation of his research and the write-up of results. I felt this might be the last chance to save the situation. But Rinkevicius refused my offer.
WP 8 Comparison
The main goals of this work package were to compare and draw conclusions from the research results from the case studies, to work out recommendations for designing participatory solutions in multilevel governance in Europe.
The issues of comparison and policy recommendations have been on the agenda throughout the project and have been particularly discussed during the last project workshops. Herbert Gottweis together with Kathrin Braun took up the results of these discussions within the consortium and synthesised the final report of the PAGANINI project. Anne Loeber, Yrjö Halia, Marteen Hajer, Ingrid Metzler and Bronislav Szerszinsky commented their draft. This process resulted in Deliverable 18: Gottweis, Herbert; Braun, Kathrin (2007): Final Report.
WP 9 Dissemination
Dissemination Tool No. 1 Advisory Committee (Deliverable 1)
The international advisory committee was a most useful addition to the progress of our project. We successfully attempted to integrate its members into our project activities, and to receive their good advice and insights. Members of the advisory committee attended our workshops and conferences, gave us substantial feedback and advice, and Herbert Gottweis assured that the members would receive the PAGANINI reports, and Gottweis continuously kept contact with the advisory committee.
Dissemination Tool No. 2 Outreach Program
The workshop “Participatory Governance and Beyond”, held on 14 October 2005 in Copenhagen, was intended to present the project, its key concepts and first results to and to discuss them with policy makers and members of the Advisory Committee. It was a defining moment in our project because it linked up our research with an excellent and prominent group of policy-makers from all over Europe to deal with the key questions of our research.
The first part of the workshop consisted in the presentation of results from our project to be commented on by the various policy makers.
The partners from the University of Amsterdam invited Dr Ingeborg Niestroy, Secretary-general of the European Environment and Sustainable development Advisory Councils (EEAC), Bram van de Klundert, General secretary of the Council for Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (VROMraad), Louis Meuleman, Secretary-general of the Advisory council for research on spatial planning, nature and the environment (RMNO).
University of Tampere invited Heikki Korpelainen, Legal Adviser, Ministry of the Environment (Finland). It was important and helpful to invite him because he is responsible for negotiations on the EU level on the Habitsts Directive, particularly on Annex (IV).
The representative from Lithuania invited to the meeting in Copenhagen was Mr. Saulius Piksrys, whose multiple roles in environmental and anti-nuclear movement, advisory to the European Commission, the EBRD, IBRD, the Government and particular agencies of Lithuania is well corresponding with the core-themes of PAGANINI as well as its’ approach in terms of participatory governance. His contribution during the Copenhagen meeting as well as comments, linkages to the relevant sources of information for research after the meeting have been very valuable.
Part two of the workshop was devoted to a DBT “citizen-conference style” round table working sessions, in which the policy-makers together with PAGANINI team members and members of the advisory board worked on solutions for various policy problems coming out of our PAGANINI WP research. This was a most interesting experience and brought moment of experimentation, self-reflexion and deliberation into our workshop. Split up into different groups, intense discussion originated.
For the policy-makers, the workshop was important to learn about how to present our PAGANINI language; methodology and research questions to others, especially to non-academic people engaged a very different manner in these fields. The concept of life politics as comprehensive framework referring as well to red as to green biotechnologies has lead to interesting discussions and a lot of questions, a good fundament for us to elaborate on our presentation since then. Also the Copenhagen meeting gave also incentives to clarify more how we present our idea of participatory governance and differ it from more restricted perspectives on formal institutionalised practices such as consensus conferences or citizen juries.
The policy-makers invited expressed that they were inspired by the PAGANINI workshop, and were convinced of the need to work on the politics of life agenda, although both still had to chew on what they had learned before being able to translate it into concrete policy advice. One of the benefits of this dissemination activity is the recognition of our project by the invited policy makers (including those who were not able to come) and the subsequent awareness raised by our work in policy-making circles. We also benefited by listening to the more practical views expressed by the invited policy makers, as well as by learning the different priorities they have.
Dissemination Tool No 3. Cooperation with Danish Board of Technology
The cooperation with the Danish Board of Technology has been only partially successful. We had planned that a DBT representative would be active in our dissemination strategy, help dissemination with good and innovative ideas and suggestions, and also take a leading role in organizing our Copenhagen meeting. However, since these objective did not materialise the consortium decided to organize its final dissemination conference on its own (see below).
Dissemination Tool No. 4 Web Page (Deliverable 3)
In May 2004 the project website (Deliverable No. 3) went on-line (). Christian Dematté from Vienna was subcontracted to design the website. He is also responsible for its periodic update. In addition he designed a project logo that is used on all the leaflets, posters, project documents and project related stationary. The website provides a public as well as a closed working area, only accessible for project participants. The public area gives information about the project, its results, and the partners. The working area can be used as a storage space for papers, literature, and information as well as an Internet forum for participants.
Dissemination Tool No. 5 Conference Presentations (Deliverable 19)
So far the project and its results have been presented in more than 70 occasions throughout Europe:
1. Balzekiene, Aistė (2007) “An Integration of Sociological Risk Theories Explaining the Risk Perceptions in Lithuania” // Paper presented at the International conference Risk and Rationalities, 29-31 March, Queens' College, Cambridge, UK.
2. Braun, Kathrin (2006): „A Question of Democracy? The Case for Gendering the Politics of Biotechnology“, Conference Science and Democracy: A New Frontier between Eastern and Western Europe?, Huddinge/Stockholm, September 4-6.
3. Braun, Kathrin (2006): „Eugenics as Historical Injustice“, Annual Meeting of the Society for Social Studies of Science (4S), Vancouver, November 1-5.
4. Gottweis, Herbert (2006): Paper given at the Workshop: Designing Institutions for Democratic Governance. Organisers: Steven Griggs (INLOGOV, University of Birmingham) and Aletta Norval (Department of Government, University of Essex), Birmingham January 19-20, 2006
5. Gottweis, Herbert (2006): “Performing Regulation: Stem Cell Politics in Korea, the United Kingdom, and Germany.” Paper presented at Seminar Series, Department of Government, University of Essex, UK, January 17, 2006.
6. Gottweis, Herbert (2006): “Rhetoric in Stem Cell Govenance”, Paper given at the ESF Exploratory Workshop, Stem Cell Cultures: Exploring the social and cultural background of European debates about human embryonic stem cells, University of Nottingham. Nottingham, UK, March 11-12, 2006.
7. Gottweis, Herbert (2006): „Explaining Hwang-gate: Stem Cell Governance in South Korea“, Annual Meeting of the Society for the Social Studies of Science (4S), Vancouver, November 1-5.
8. Gottweis, Herbert (2006): „Performing Ethical Governance: A Scenographic Perspective“, Conference: The Politics of Ethics and the Crisis of Government, Contested Technologies, the Language of Ethics, and the Transformation of Governance in Europe and the USA, University of Washington, Seattle, May 24-26.
9. Gottweis, Herbert (2006): “Emotions and Democractic Governance”. Section organized on “Policy” at the Third General ECPR Conference, with several panels dealing with stem cell research questions, Budapest, September 8-11, 2005.
10. Gottweis, Herbert (2007): „Bringing Rhetoric Back In: Policy-making between Logos, Ethos, and Pathos“, Conference: Interpretation in Policy Analysis: Research & Practice, Amsterdam, May 31-June 2.
11. Gottweis, Herbert (2007): „Hwang-gate: Lessons for Science Governance“, ESF-ORI First World Conference on Research Integrity: Fostering Responsible Research, Lisboa, September 16-19.
12. Gottweis, Herbert (2007): „Korean Dreams: Hwang Woo-suk and His Politics of Cloning“, Workshop: Times of Cloning: Historical and Cultural Aspects of a Biotechnology Research Field, Max-Planck-Institute for the History of Science, Berlin, March 1-4.
13. Gottweis, Herbert (2007): „Stem Cell Governance in the UK“, International Conference/PAGANINI Final Conference: The New Governance of Life: Challenges, Transformations, Innovations, University of Vienna, June 11-12.
14. Gottweis, Herbert; Metzler, Ingrid (2007): „Cellular Choreographies: The Politics of Stem Cell and Cloning Research in the United Kingdom and Italy – Compared“, 4th ECPR General Conference, Pisa, September 6-8.
15. Griessler, Erich (2007): „Citizen Participation in Controversial EU Research Policies? The Debate on Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research within the 6th Framework Programme“, Workshop: The Promises and Challenges of Life Science Industry in Central and Eastern Europe, Prague, October 18-19.
16. Griessler, Erich (2007): „Impediments for Public Participation in Austrian Science and Technology Policy“, 8th Conference of the European Sociological Association: Sociology of Science and Technology Network (SSTNET), Glasgow, September 4th.
17. Jamison, Andrew; Kousis, Maria (2005): “Biotechnology and the Environmental Movement”, Paper prepared for the ECPR Granada Joint Sessions, April 2005 Workshop 16. Mapping Biopolitics: Medical-Scientific Transformations and the Rise of New Forms of Governance Dilemmas of Deliberation.
18. Jokinen, Ari (2005): “Generating Active Trust and Practices for Cooperation: the Siberian Flying Squirrel in Urban Planning in Finland”. SoBio (Mobilising the European Social Research Potential in Support of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Management) Workshop, Session ”Governing Biodiversity”, Segovia, Spain, September 22-23, 2005.
19. Jokinen, Ari (2005): “Interpenetration of animate forests and urban areas: New ecological demands for local co-operation”. 7th Nordic Environmental Social Science Research Conference, Göteborg, June 15 – 17, 2005
20. Jokinen, Ari (2005): “Urbaanin suhde luontoon: luonnonsuojelun uusi aikakausi?” Helsinki University of Technology, Centre for Urban and Regional Studies, September 16, 2005.
21. Kousis, Maria; Volakakis, Yanis; Psarikidou, Katerina (2005): “Participatory Governance and Institutional Innovation: GMF and Caretta-Caretta in Greece”, paper presented at the “Bioethical Problems in the life sciences” Conference of the Joint Bioethics Graduate Program, Sept 30- Oct. 2, 2005.
22. Kousis, Maria; Volakakis, Yanis; Psarikidou, Katerina (2006): “New Participatory Arrangements: GMF and Caretta-Caretta in Greece”. contributions to discussions during the “Evaluation Workshop of the Joint Bioethics Graduate Program” University of Crete, Heraklion, May 30, 2006.
23. Kousis Maria; Psarikidou, Katerina (2006): “Environmental Activism, Biodiversity and Ethics: Caretta-caretta in Zakynthos and Crete”, paper prepared for the Democritus University of Thrace, ‘International Conference on Sustainable Management and Development of Mountainous and Island Areas’, Naxos, Greece, 29 Sept. – 1 Oct. 2006.
24. Kousis, Maria; Psarikidou, Katerina (2006): „Sustainability Narratives on Caretta Caretta: Evidence from Zakynthos and Crete“, International Conference on Sustainable Management and Development of Mountainous and Island Areas, Naxos Island, September 29-October 1.
25. Kousis, Maria; Yiannis, Volakakis (2006): „GMOs & Participatory Governance in Greece“, Conference on Methodological Issues in Social Science Research, University of Crete, December.
26. Kousis, Maria; Yiannis, Volakakis (2006): „GMOs: The Role of Participation in a Techno-scientific Controversy“, 2nd Conference on Bioethical Dilemmas in Life Sciences, Chania, October 20-22.
27. Kousis, Maria (2007): „Participatory Governance and Bioethics Committees in Greece“, International Workshop in Honor of K. Tsoukalas, University of Crete, June 5-7.
28. Kousis, Maria; Psarikidou Katerina (2007): „Governing Coastal Biodiversity: Caretta Caretta in Zakinthos and Crete“, MARE Conference: People and the Sea IV: Who Owns the Coast?, Amsterdam, July 5-7.
29. Kousis, Maria; Psarikidou Katerina (2007): „NGOs, Local Livelihood and the New Politics of Nature“, International Conference/PAGANINI Final Conference: The New Governance of Life: Challenges, Transformations, Innovations, University of Vienna, June 11-12.
30. Loeber, Anne (2006): Presentation on the changing interactions between governments, experts and citizens in dealing with food safety after the BSE food scare. Workshop on researching food safety governance, kick-off seminar on food and food safety research, January, 20, 2006. Initiator: Tetty Havinga, Juridical Dept. University of Nijmegen.
31. Loeber, Anne; Paul, K. (2005): “The Aftermath of BSE: Reordering food safety discourse in the UK and the Netherlands”. Paper presentation at the Panel on Food, Food Safety and the Environment, of the third ECPR Conference, Budapest, September 8-11, 2005.
32. Loeber, Anne (2006): „Participatory Governance in the Netherlands: Experiments in Dealing with the ‚Dissilience‘ of Practical Knowledge“, Seminar on Science and Democracy: A New Frontier between Eastern and Western Europe?, Södertörns University College, Huddinge/Stockholm, September 4-6.
33. Loeber, Anne (2007): „Learning after the Event“,International Conference/PAGANINI Final Conference: The New Governance of Life: Challenges, Transformations, Innovations, University of Vienna, June 11-12.
34. Loeber, Anne (2007): „The Role of the Evaluator in ‚Learning-while-doing‘ Transition Management“, Conference: Interpretation in Policy Analysis (IPA), Amsterdam, May 31-June 2.
35. Metzler, Ingrid (2005): “From the Far West to Afghanistan: Negotiating Reprogenetics in Italy”. Paper in preparation for the ECPR General Conference in Budapest, Hungary, September 8 – 10, 2005.
36. Metzler, Ingrid (2005): “The revenge of the embryo’: Assessing the Regulation of Stem Cell Research in Italy”. invited paper at the Biopolitics Seminar’, NAMU Research, University of East Anglia, Norwich, November 9th, Norwich.
37. Metzler, Ingrid (2005): “Performing Italy’s far west and its cure: towards a firewall between nature and culture in the post-genomic age. Some Reflections on the Governance of Reprogenetics in Italy”. Paper presented at the 3rd International Conference of the European Council for Political Research (ECPR), September 8 – 10, 2005, Budapest.
38. Metzler, Ingrid (2005): “Saving the Authority of Nature: The Regulation of Embryonic Stem Cell Research in Italy”. Paper presented at the 15th International Conference of the Council for European Studies, March 29 – April 2, 2006, Chicago.
39. Metzler, Ingrid (2005): “The birth of the sacred embryo and its midwifes”, Invited lecture at the SATSU Seminar Series "Brown Bags" Science and Technology Studies Unit, Department of Sociology, University of York. November 22, 2005, York.
40. Metzler, Ingrid (2006): „‚On Cells and Cadavers‘: The Italian Embryo Debates“, International Workshop: Life at the Margins, University of Vienna, November 27-28.
41. Metzler, Ingrid (2006): „The Revenge of the Sacred Embryo. Assessing the Regulation of Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research in Italy“, EASST Conference 2006, Lausanne, August 23-26.
42. Metzler, Ingrid (2007): „On Sticky Embryos, Upcoming Corpses & Research on ‚Foundational‘ Questions“, Marie Curie Convening: Science and Technology Studies Unit, University of York, March 29-31.
43. Metzler, Ingrid (2007): „Regenerating Italy? Stem Cell Governance in Italy“, International Conference/PAGANINI Final Conference: The New Governance of Life: Challenges, Transformations, Innovations, University of Vienna, June 11-12.
44. Metzler, Ingrid; Gottweis, Herbert (2007): „Was haben ‚verrückte Kühe‘ mit Stammzellen zu tun?“, Invited presentation at the Department of Political Science, University of Vienna, June 25th.
45. Psarikidou, Katerina (2005): “Sustainable Tourism, the EU Habitats Directive and Caretta-Caretta in Greece”. Paper in preparation for the 5th conference of The Mediterranean Association for the Sociology of Tourism, ''Tourism Beyond the Coastline: New Trends in Tourism and the Social Organisation of Space'' 22 - 24 September 2005, Thessaloniki, Greece.
46. Psarikidou, Katerina (2005): “Tourism, Caretta-Caretta and Environmental Policy” Paper in preparation for the 5th conference of The Mediterranean Association for the Sociology of Tourism, ''Tourism Beyond the Coastline: New Trends in Tourism and the Social Organisation of Space'' 22 - 24 September 2005, Thessaloniki, Greece.
47. Psarikidou, Katerina (2006): „Environmental Ethics and EU Biodiversity Policy in Tourism: the ‚Caretta Caretta Cases‘ on Zakynthos and Crete“, International Conference of Trends, Impacts and Policies on Tourism Development, Herakleion, June 15-18.
48. Psarikidou, Katerina (2006): „Tourism Development and EU Biodiversity Policy in Island Regions: The ‚Loggerhead sea turtle‘ Case on Zakynthos and Crete“, Seminar on Planning Conflicts and Their Consequences to Planning Practices, Policy Making and Procedural Justice, Fiskars, August 14-15.
49. Psarikidou, Katerina (2006): „Why Is the Protection of Endangered Species an Issue of Bioethical Concern?“, 2nd Conference on Bioethical Dilemmas in Life Sciences, Chania, October 20-22.
50. Psarikidou, Katerina (2007): „Bioethics in the Engaged Actors’ Discourse: The Case of Biodiversity Conservation in Greece“, 3rd Conference on Bioethical Dilemmas in Life Sciences, Panormo, October 5-7.
51. Psarikidou, Katerina; Nygren, Nina (2007): „Understanding Conflicts over Biodiversity Conservation: The Habitats Directive Implementation Cases in Finland and Greece“, 8th Annual Conference of the European Sociological Association: Conflict, Citizenship and Civil Society, Glasgow, September 3-6.
52. Reynolds, Larry (2005): “Capital and the quest for a “knowledge-based bio-economy”, paper presented to the CSEC/CESAGen Seminar series, The new economies of knowledge: Technoscience and capital, Lancaster University. 29 Nov 2005.
53. Reynolds, Larry (2005): “The European Union and the quest for the knowledge-based bioeconomy”, paper presented to the workshop, Mapping the Bioeconomy: The Knowledge-Based Economy and the Biosciences, Institute for Advanced Studies, Lancaster University, 28-29 April.
54. Reynolds, Larry (2005): “The Quest for the Knowledge-Based Bioeconomy”, paper presented to the workshop, The Knowledge Based Economy, Institute for Advanced Studies, Lancaster University, 19-29 October.
55. Reynolds, Larry ‘The Genetic Modification of the Agro-Food System and the Transformation of the Biopolitical’, paper presented at Workshop 16, ‘Mapping Biopolitics’, of the European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR) Joint Sessions of Workshops, Granada, 14-19 April 2005.
56. Rinkevicius, Leonardas, Balockaite, Rasa; Balzekiene Aiste (2005): “Changing Social Identities, Changing Public discourses”, 4th Baltic Readings Symposium, Kaunas, Lithuania, October 21-22, 2005.
57. Rinkevicius, Leonardas, Balockaite, Rasa; Balzekiene Aiste (2005): “Rethinking Inequalities”, 7th European Sociological Association Conference, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Institute of Sociology, Torun, Poland, 9-12 September, 2005.
58. Rinkevicius, Leonardas, Balockaite, Rasa; Balzekiene Aiste (2005): “Frontiers of Sociology”, 37th World Congress of International Institute of Sociology Stockholm, Sweden, 5-9 July, 2005.
59. Rinkevicius, Leonardas, Balockaite, Rasa; Balzekiene Aiste (2006): ‘Local Environmental Mobilisations’, ECPR (European Consortium for Political Research) Joint Sessions, workshop 21, Nicosia, Cyprus, April 25-30, 2006.
60. Rinkevicius, Leonardas, Balžekienė Aistė (2006) “Nuclear Power Controversies and their Reflections in Public Attitudes: the Case of Ignalina” // Paper presented at the Annual Baltic Readings conference, October 22, Riga, Latvia.
61. Schultz, Susanne (2006): „Genetic Discrimination or Eugenics? The Ambiguity of Expertise and Hegemonic Discursive Frames in the Participatory Governance of Genetic Testing“, EASST Conference 2006, Lausanne, August 23-26.
62. Szerszynski, Bronislav (2006): „Public Participation, Technoscience and the Environment: The Case of Genetically Modified Organisms in Europe“, Public Lecture of the China Environment and Sustainable Development Reference and Research Centre (CESDRRC) and Friends of Nature and the Northeast Asia Youth Environment Network-China (NEAYEN-C), Beijing, April 23rd.
63. Szerszynski, Bronislav; Reynolds, Larry (2006): „Discourses of the Bioeconomy“, Presentantion at the Stockholm Centre for Organisational Research (SCORE), Stockholm, November 22nd.
64. Szerszynski, Bronislav; Reynolds, Larry (2006): „GMOs, the People, and the Multitude: The Knowledge Economy and New Forms of Political Subjectivity“, International Conference Science, Knowledge Communities and Environmental Governance: Global-Local Linkages, Rutgers University, Newark, May 4-5.
65. Szerszynski, Bronislav; Reynolds, Larry (2006): „Representing GM Nation?“, International Conference Participation and Science and Technology, Edinburgh, June 5-7.
66. Szerszynski, Bronislaw (2005): “Biopolitics and Vitalism”, paper presented to the workshop The Philosophy of Science Policy, CESAGen, Lancaster University, 5-6 May.
67. Szerszynski, Bronislaw (2005): “The Biopolitics of Technological Innovation”: The Case of GM Agriculture in Europe, paper presented to the ESRC Centre for Analysis of Risk and Regulation, London School of Economics. 24 May 2005.
68. Szerszynski, Bronislaw, “The Laboratory without Walls: The End of the Mastery of Nature”, paper presented to the international conference Security Bytes: Security/Life/Terror, 17-19 July.
69. Szerszynsky, Bronislaw, “Biopolitics and Vitalism”, paper presented at Workshop 16, ‘Mapping Biopolitics’, of the European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR) Joint Sessions of Workshops, Granada, 14-19 April 2005.
70. Szerszynsky, Bronislaw, “GM Biopolitics: Vital Technology and Public Engagement”, paper presented to the Department of Geography, Open University, Milton Keynes, 16 February.
71. Szerszynsky, Bronislaw, “The Laboratory without Walls: The Case of Biotechnology”, paper presented to the 4S/EASST conference, Paris, 25-28 August 2004.
72. Szerszynsky, Bronislaw, Reynolds, Larry, “GM Biopolitics: Public Engagement and the Governance of Life”, paper presented to the Institute for Environment, Philosophy and Public Policy, Lancaster University, 8 February.
73. Volakakis, Y. (2006): “The GMO issue in Greece: a socio-political and historical approach, 1995-2005”. paper presented in the international conference “Historical Dimensions of the Environment in Greece” Centre de recherches Administratives et Politiques, Panepistimio tis Amienis - Kentro Ereunas Meletis kai Efarmogon stin Perivallontiki Ekpaideusi, University of Athens, European Society for Environmental History, April 14-15, 2006.
Dissemination Tool No. 6 Scientific Publications (Deliverable 21)
1. Balockaitė R, Rinkevicius L (2005): The Impact of Nuclear Risks in Shaping the Soviet Modernity and Governance: the Cases of Nuclear Power Plants in Chernobyl and Ignalina// Socialiniai mokslai (Social Sciences), Nr 3 (48). Kaunas: Technologija, 2005, ISSN 1392-0758, p. 7-18.
2. Balžekienė, A, Rinkevicius, L (2006): Nuclear Risk Perceptions in Lithuanian Society: Theoretical Approaches and Empirical Insights // Social Sciences (Socialiniai mokslai). - Kaunas University of Technology. ISSN 1392-0758. 2006, nr. 2(52). pp. 10-20.
3. Gottweis, Herbert (2004): Human Embryonic Stem Cells, Cloning, and the Transformation of Biopolitics in Nico Stehr (ed.), Biotechnology. Between Commerce and Civil Society (New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2004), 239-265.
4. Gottweis Herbert (2005): Regulating Genomics in the 21th Century: From Logos to Pathos? Trends in Biotechnology, Vol 23, March, 118-121.
5. Gottweis, Herbert (2005): Between Asilomar, EMBO, the OECD, and the Europe Community: Transnationalizing Recombinant DNA Regulation. Science as Culture, Vol 22. 325-338.
6. Gottweis, Herbert (2005): Emerging Forms of Governance in Genomics and Post-Genomics: Structures, Trends, Perspectives, Alan Peterson/Robin Buntin (eds.), Genomic Governance, (London: Routledge), 189-206.
7. Gottweis, Herbert (2005): Governing Genomics in the 21st Century: Between Risk and Uncertainty, New Genetics and Society, Vol 24, May, 175-193.
8. Gottweis Herbert (2006): Argumentative Policy Analysis, John Pierre/E. Guy Peters (eds.), Public Policy Handbook (London: Sage).
9. Gottweis, Herbert (2006): Rhetoric in Policy Analysis. In: Fischer, Frank; Miller, Gerald; Sidney, Mara (Eds.): Handbook of Public Policy Analysis: Theory, Politics, and Methods. London: Taylor & Francis.
10. Gottweis, Herbert, Triendl R. (2006): South Korean Policy Failure and the Hwang Debacle, Nature Biotechnology, Vol 24, 141-143.
11. Gottweis, Herbert; Prainsack, Barbara (2006): Emotion in Political Discourse: Contrasting Approaches to Stem Cell Governance: The US, UK, Israel, and Germany. In: Regenerative Medicine, Vol. 1 (6): 823-829.
12. Griessler, Erich, Littig, Beate; (2006): Neosokratische Dialoge zu ethischen Fragen der Xenotransplantation. Ein Beitrag zur Bearbeitung ethischer Probleme in partizipativer Technikfolgenabschätzung. Buchinger, E.; Felt, U. (Hrsg.): Technik- und Wissenschaftssoziologie in Österreich. Stand und Perspektiven. ÖZS, Sonderheft 8/2006, 131-157.
13. Grin, John; Loeber, Anne (2006): Theories of Policy Learning: Agency, Structure and Change. In: Frank Fischer, Gerald Miller, and Mara Sidney (eds.) Handbook of Public Policy Analysis: Theory, Politics, and Methods. London etc.: Taylor and Francis. In print.
14. Grin, John; Hajer, Marteen; Versteeg, W. (2006) (eds.): Meervoudige democratie, ervaringen met vernieuwend bestuur [Plural Democracy – experiences with administrative innovation] Amsterdam: Aksant. In print.
15. Hajer, Marteen; Versteeg, W. (2005): A Decade of Discourse Analysis of Environmental Politics: Achievements, Challenges, Perspectives, Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, Vol. 7, No. 3., pp. 175-184.
16. Hajer, Marteen; Versteeg, W. (2005): Performing Governance Through Networks, European Political Science, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 340-347.
17. Hajer, Marteen (2005): Coalitions, Practices and Meaning in Environmental Politics: from Acid Rain to BSE, in: D. Howarth & J. Torfing (eds.) Discourse Theory in European Politics, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 297-315.
18. Hajer, Marteen; Grin. John (2006): Democratie in meervoud: nieuwe kansen voor vernieuwend bestuur. In Grin, J., M. Hajer, W. Versteeg (2006) (eds.).
19. Hajer, Marteen; Versteeg, W. (2006): Een meervoudige kijk op democratie en bestuur. In: Grin, J.; Hajer, M.; Versteeg, W.(red.) Meervoudige democratie, ervaringen met vernieuwend bestuur. [Plural Democracy – experiences with administrative innovation] Amsterdam: Aksant. In print.
20. Kousis, Maria; Psarikidou; Katerina (2006): Sustainability Narratives on Caretta Caretta: Evidence from Zakynthos and Crete. In Manolas, E. (Ed.): Proceedings of the International Conference on Sustainable Management and Development of Mountainous and Island Areas. Democritus University of Thrace Greece, Vol. 1 (2).
21. Kousis, Maria (2008): Participatory Governance and Bioethics Committees in Greece. In: Samatas M.; Kousis M.; Koniordos S. (Eds.): Reader in Honor of Kοnstantinos Tsoukalas. Athens: Kastaniotis Publisher (forthcoming).
22. Kousis, Maria; Psarikidou, Katerina (2008): Governing Coastal Biodiversity: The Case of Caretta Caretta in Zakynthos and Crete. In: Selwyn, Tom; Kousis, Maria (Eds.): Contending Mediterranean Voices. Middlesex University Press (forthcoming).
23. Loeber, Anne (2006): Zoekend vormgeven aan ‘onze gezamenlijke toekomst’. Een nationaal initiatief om duurzame ontwikkeling creatief te concretiseren. In: Grin, J.; Hajer, M.; Versteeg, W.(red.) Meervoudige democratie, ervaringen met vernieuwend bestuur. [Plural Democracy – experiences with administrative innovation] Amsterdam: Aksant.
24. Loeber, Anne; van Mierlo, B.; Leeuwis, C.; Grin, J. (2007): The Practical Value of Theory: Conceptualizing Learning in the Pursuit of a Sustainable Development. In: Wals, A.; van der Leij; T. (Eds.): Social Learning toward a More Sustainable World: Principles, Perspectives, and Praxis. Tokyo: United Nations University Press.
25. Metzler, Ingrid (2007): Nationalizing Embryos: The Politics of Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research in Italy. In: BioSocieties, Vol. 2 (4).
26. Psarikidou Katerina (2006): Environmental Ethics and Biodiversity Policy in Tourism: the caretta caretta case in Greece. TOURISMOS:An International Multidisciplinary Journal of Tourism, v.2, Spring 2006 (in press).
27. Psarikidou, Katerina (2007): Bioethics and Biodiversity: The Caretta Caretta Case in Greece. MA Thesis, University of Crete: Joint Post-Graduate Programme in Bioethics, Department of Sociology.
28. Psarikidou, Katerina (2007): Bioethics and Biodiversity: The Caretta Caretta Case in Greece. MA Thesis Summary. In: E-Journal of the Joint Post-Graduate Programme in Bioethics, University of Crete (bioethics.uoc.gr).
29. Psarikidou, Katerina (2008): Environmental Ethics and Biodiversity Policy in Tourism: The Caretta Caretta Case in Greece. In: TOURISMOS: An International Multidisciplinary Journal of Tourism, Vol. 3 (1) (forthcoming).
30. Rinkevicius, L. (2006) Shaping of the public policy culture in Lithuania: sociological exploration of change in environmental nuclear policy and public participation // Sociologija. Mintis ir veiksmas (Sociology: Thought and Action) / Vilniaus universitetas, Klaipėdos universitetas. ISSN 1392-3358. 2006, nr. 1. p. 113-127.
31. Rinkevicius, L. (2007) Institutional domains, fields of tensions and institutional innovation: sociological issues // Sociologija. Mintis ir veiksmas (Sociology: Thought and Action) / Vilniaus universitetas, Klaipėdos universitetas. ISSN 1392-3358. 2007 Nr. 1, (19), pp.104-116.
32. Rinkevicius, L. (2007) Social Identity and Response to Environmental Risk: The Shaping of Civic Attitudes and Activism in Lithuania // in Filosofija. Sociologija. – Vilnius: Lithuanian Academy of Sciences, ISSN 0235-7186, Nr. 3 (forthcoming).
33. Rinkevicius, Leonardas, Balžekienė, Aistė (2007) Public Risk Perceptions and Attitudes to Nuclear Power Controversies in Lithuania: A Sociological Inquiry // Social Sciences (Socialiniai mokslai) / Kaunas University of Technology. ISSN 1392-0758. 2007, nr. 2(52). pp. 23-32.
34. Volakakis, Yiannis (2007): The conflict surrounding GMOs: An Ethics and Social Theoretical Approach. MA Thesis, University of Crete: Joint Post-Graduate Programme in Bioethics, Departments of Philosophical & Social Studies, Biology, Medicine and Sociology, June.
Dissemination Tool No. 7 Conference (Deliverable 19)
The Final Conference “The Now governance of Life: Challenges. Transformations. Innovation.” Held from June 11-12 2007 in Vienna was a very successful event. It brought together social scientists with important stakeholders, and the mass media. The conference allowed us to present PAGANINI to a broad audience.
Preceding the conference, we had prepared a dissemination tool, the booklet Participatory Governance and Institutional Innovation: Towards the New Governance of Life, Vienna 2007. The booklet then was not only distributed at the conference, but printed 600 times (on demand). Due to the strong demand for the booklet, a second printing was necessary three weeks after the publication of the booklet.
The booklet is also available on line as pdf file on the web site, and was distributed in the pdf form wherever this seemed to be preferable to the distribution of the hard copy. For more detailed information about the conference see the project web site:
Other Presentations of the Project and Its Results (Deliverable 20)
University of Vienna
Gottweis, Herbert (2005): Section organized on “Policy” at the Third General ECPR Conference, Budapest, September 8-11, 2005 with several panels dealing with stem cell research questions.
Gottweis, Herbert (2006): “Emotions and Democractic Governance”. Paper given at the Workshop: Designing Institutions for Democratic Governance. Organisers: Steven Griggs (INLOGOV, University of Birmingham) and Aletta Norval (Department of Government, University of Essex), Birmingham January 19-20, 2006
Gottweis, Herbert (2006): “Performing Regulation: Stem Cell Politics in Korea, the United Kingdom, and Germany.” Paper presented at Seminar Series, Department of Government, University of Essex, UK, January 17, 2006.
Gottweis, Herbert (2006): “Rhetoric in Stem Cell Governance”, Paper given at the ESF Exploratory Workshop, Stem Cell Cultures: Exploring the social and cultural background of European debates about human embryonic stem cells, University of Nottingham. Nottingham, UK, March 11-12, 2006.
Herbert Gottweis (2006): PAGANINI project: Insights for Consumer Science. Presentation at the Consumer Science Workshop, European Commission, December 13, 2006, Brussels.
University of Tampere
Afternoon workshops with local stakeholders in the Tampere region; during this reporting period, we had a workshop on 28 October 2005;
The main step toward dissemination is the publication in the series “Suomen Ympäristö” (“Finnish Environment”), published by the Ministry of the Environment and the Finnish Environment Institute SYKE; you have the reference and the abstract (they should be on the PAGANINI home page). Press conference was organized on May 31 in Tampere, with a good attendance and good media coverage.
University of Tamapere organized the final public meeting with the stakeholders in the Tampere city region in co-operation with the Finnish Ministry for Forestry and Agriculture and the Tampere city region.
University of Amsterdam
Paper presentation in the Workshop ‘Spiegelbeeld of spiegelpaleis? Over democratie en vertegenwoordiging’ [on democracy and representation], held at the Politicologenetmaal [yearly conference of the Dutch Political Science Association], Antwerp (Belgium), May 19-20, 2005. Conference paper: “Undoing the ‘bisection’ of democracy. Reflections on the possibilities for achieving effective and legitimate decisions on ‘what to do’” (Loeber).
Joint exploration of future challenges to research in democratic network governance on invitation of Centre for Democratic Network Governance, Roskilde University (Eva Sørensen; Jacob Torfing), Sep. 12th 2005 (Hajer, Loeber).
Invited speaker in a seminar of the Nederlandse Onderzoeksschool Bestuurkunde (NOB, Netherlands Institute of Government) for young academics to become acquainted with ‘state-of-the art’ research in the field of Political Science and Public Administration. Utrecht, 14-11-2005 (Loeber).
Presentation on invitation of SWOME [working group on environment and energy] in the seminar ‘Van kennis naar actie’ [From knowledge to action], for researchers in the field of participatory research and governance, Utrecht, 15 December 2005 (Loeber).
Lectures for the NSOB [Dutch School for Public Administration] on the topic of discourse analysis and joint governance. December 2005 (Hajer).
Written contribution for workshop Making Sense of Science in Society; considering the downstream consequences of upstreaming. ESRC Science in Society Programme, Saïd Business School, University of Oxford, 25 January 2006, (Hajer).
Presentation of the PAGANINI project and findings to the Board of Directors of the University of Amsterdam [CvB], ASSR, Amsterdam, 17 March 2006 (Hajer).
Guest lecture for the Vrije Universiteit, VU (Amsterdam). Setting the stage; a dramaturgy of policy deliberation. 24 March 2006 (Hajer).
Advisory work to the project Kennis voor Transitie Duurzame Landbouw [Knowledge for the transition towards a sustainable agriculture], Expertisecentrum (Sj. Mesu, P. Wagenmakers), Dutch Ministry of Agriculture LNV (Loeber).
Acting as Guest editors for the Special Issue on Food Safety and Environment of Science as Culture, Spring Issue 2007, featuring contributions of M.M. Roslyng, K. Paul, G. Orhan, L. Levidow and P. Feindt (Loeber and Hajer).
Chair of Panel 13-6 on Food, Food Safety and Environment, 9 September 2005, at the third ECPR Conference, Budapest 8-11 September 2005 (Hajer).
Chair of the working party Climate & Planning (Klimaat&Inrichting) of the VROM-raad (Advisory Council for Public Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment) (Hajer).
Advisory work for CCT/ SenterNovem (Ministry of Economic Affairs) on a project explicating learning experiences with the Renewable Energy Action program REACT, in close co-operation with TNO-MEP (ir. Elsbeth Roelofs) (Loeber).
Advising the preparations of a conference on taking a practitioners’ perspective on monitoring and effective learning in transition management projects, to take place in Utrecht, June 20 2006, on invitation of Competentiecentrum Transities CCT/ SenterNovem (Ministry of Economic Affairs) in close co-operation with Prof. dr. Jan Rotmans (Dutch Research Institute For Transitions Drift, Erasmus University, Rotterdam) and Prof. dr. Cees Leeuwis (Wageningen University) (Loeber).
Input in the upcoming advice on food safety to the Minister of Agriculture prepared by the Advisory Board on Technology Assessment (Loeber)
Contributions to ‘The Amsterdam-Tokyo Policy Dialogue - Comparing Policy Practice in Japan and the Netherlands in Governing Risks and Innovation’; seminar at the University of Amsterdam, Political Science Department, March 22-23, 2007. Convenors David Laws and Anne Loeber.
Lecture “BSE and the notion of ‘Risk society’; its implications for policy thought”. Graduate course on public policy and administration. (Loeber).
Input in the GARNET JERP 5.3.6 Workshop in Oslo 3rd – 5th May 2007, on the governance of knowledge and on the role of knowledge in governance, “FDI-led innovation, transfer and dissemination of knowledge, and their multilateral global and regional regulation.” Convenor: Prof. Dr. Helge Hveem. (Loeber).
Input in preparation of the FP7 research proposal LINK project co-ordinator Jacob Torfing, Roskilde University. Objective of the project will be to investigate the linking of governments and citizens through institutional forms of democratic participation; and to increase insight in participation and representation of citizens; and to reflect upon contemporary definitions, perceptions and practices of citizenship in the context. (Hajer, Loeber)
Lancaster University
Presentation of research findings and printed report at The Social and Material Practices of Agriculture, Farming and Food, Centre for Science Studies, Lancaster University, 5-6 June, 2007. The Sixth Annual Meeting of the Science and Democracy Network, University of Cambridge, 27-29 June 2007.
Lancaster University
Bronislav Szerszynski attended and participated in public meeting held by ACRE (Advisory Committee of Releases into the Environemt, London, 25 May 2005
Larry Reynolds attended and participated in meeting of Genomics Forum, Edinburgh, 8 June 2005
Bronislav Szerszynski organised and Bronislav Szerszynski and Larry Reynolds participated in related academic/policy event, The Cultural Politics of the Global Knowledge Economy: Technology, Environment and Society, with fifty academics and policymakers, Lancaster University, 11-12 July 2005
Bronislav Szerszynski attended and participated in academic/practitioner workshop Making Sense of Science in Society: considering the downstream consequences of upstreaming: Saïd Business School, University of Oxford, 25 January 2006
Bronislav Szerszynski attended and participated in academic/practitioner workshop Creative Spaces: The Production of Innovation, London School of Economics, 8 February 2006.
Bronislav Szerszynski and Larry Reynolds organised and participated in related academic/policy event, Mapping the Bioeconomy: The Knowledge-Based Economy and the Biosciences, Institute for Advanced Studies, Lancaster University, 28-29 April 2006.
Presentation of research findings and printed report at The Social and Material Practices of Agriculture, Farming and Food, Centre for Science Studies, Lancaster University, 5-6 June, 2007. The Sixth Annual Meeting of the Science and Democracy Network, University of Cambridge, 27-29 June 2007.
Kaunas Technical University
Dissemination during the study tour of Lithuanian mass media representatives to the Ignalina nuclear power plant on November 3-4, 2005, organized by the Lithuanian nuclear waste management agency RATA; as well during public hearings concerning Ignalina carried out in Latvia in November, 2005.
The project results have been communicated to the specific academic, journalist and NGO audiences in Lithuania (a workshop at Ignalina NPP for representatives of Lithuanian mass media), Latvia (Baltic Readings conference in Riga, October 2006), UK (international conference on Risk held at the University of Cambridge in March 2007 and European Sociological association’ conference in Glasgow, September 2007) and other.
University of Crete
Each year the International Symposium of Sea Turtles is one of the most important event for the people dealing with sea turtles. This year it took place for the first time in Europe and more specifically in Heraklion, Crete, Greece, from 3 to 8 April 2006. ARCHELON, the leading sea-turtle protection NGO in Greece, is the host organization of the Symposium, bringing together the major NGOs and representatives of agencies active in the protection of caretta-caretta, including several hundred people from all over the world. . Katerina Psarikidou attended The 26th Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation, in Heraklion, Crete, Greece, 3. – 8. April 2006.
Discussion with one of the organisers, Mr Vassilis Gisakis, of an anti-GMO happening which took place in Chania at April 8th , 2006held by the political- environmental activist group “Order81”. Exhibition of anti-GMO brochures and pamphlets, video documentary projections and a free debate concerning the issue (present state, NGO and other group mobilisations, presentation of the group “Order81”, actions to be taken etc).
PAGANINI Booklet displayed and distributed at:
“Bioethical Problems in the life sciences” IV Conference of the Joint Bioethics Graduate Program, with participants from the National Bioethics Committee of Greece, Oct. 7-9, 2007, Panormo, Crete.
“Thematic Workshop in honor of Konstantinos Tsoukalas (professor of Sociology and member of the National Bioethics Committee), Graduate Program in Sociology, University of Crete, Rethimno, June 2007.
PAGANINI website link was entered in the site of the Graduate Program in Bioethics, University of Crete.
Participation in EU-Project IconnectEU
PAGANINI is a partner of IConnectEU, a specific support action. It seeks to increase the visibility and impact of collaborative research in Europe by improving the dissemination of and the accessibility to research outcomes from projects covering governance aspects. The objective of IConnectEU is to create a generic infrastructure for joint dissemination activities across thematically related projects. The infrastructure consists of a software platform, a reference model for integrated dissemination, and guidelines on how to implement the infrastructure in different domains. So far, a software platform has been developed. This platform has been fed with data from the PAGANINI project that relate to dissemination (such as events, publications, etc.). These data will be continuously updated. For now, the platform is hosted in a closed area; but it will be soon public and accessible.
Final Plan Dissemination (Deliverable 21)
As one major publication plan Herbert Gottweis prepares together with Maarten Hajer and Anne Loeber an edited volume with the working title: „The New Governance of Life: Dealing with new Policy Challenges“. This volume will contain the main insights from all WPs of PAGANINI. The book is under contract with Palgrave, MacMillan, and will be published in 2008.
Moreover the following publications are planned so far:
Gottweis, Herbert has been invited by the journal BioSocieties to submit a paper summarizing the main insights from PAGANINI. Herbert Gottweis has finished a manuscript on the „Global Politics of Stem Cell Research“ (together with Brian Salter, King’s College, and Catherine Waldby, University of Sydney). The chapters written by Gottweis are based on research done in the context of PAGANINI’s WP 2.
Gottweis, Herbert works on a paper comparing UK and Korean stem cell policies for Political Studies. Herbert Gottweis currently works with Ingrid Metzler on a paper comparing Italian and UK stem cell policies, to be submitted to Comparative Politics.
Griessler, Erich (2008): „Citizen Participation in Controversial EU Research Policies? The Debate on Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research within the 6th Framework Programme“.
Griessler, Erich (2008): „Impediments for Public Participation in Austrian Science and Technology Policy“.
Loeber, Anne; Hajer, Marteen (2007): Constructing publics in novel participatory governance practices: enhancing the legitimacy of governmental action vis-à-vis food safety and food production (preliminary title). Paper accepted for presentation at the Panel „Doing Publics“: Public participation as performative practice in new governance arrangements. Convenor: Kathrin Braun. 4th ECPR Conference, Pisa, September 6-8.
Loeber; Anne (2007): Invited speech on the changing role of knowledge and knowledge production in policy making on life-political issues. Seminar: November 15-16, Department of Regional Studies and Environmental Policy, University of Tampere.
Loeber; Anne; Hajer, Marteen (2007): Title to be announced. Paper to be presented at the First Annual Interdisciplinary Social Sciences Conference, „Governing by looking back“, hosted by the Research School of Social Sciences, Australian National University, Canberra, December 12-14.
Rincevicius, Leonardas. A book monograph is being drafted based in part on research results of PAGANINI WP7. The tentative title of the book is „Beauty and the East: nuclear tensions and electric circuits in the post-Chernobyl risk societies“. There are two international publishers considered which will be named as soon as the publishing contract is signed.
-----------------------
[1] .
-----------------------
Participatory Governance and Institutional Innovation
Contract No. CIT2-CT-2004-505791
Activity Report
May 1st 2004 – July 31st 2007
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.