Contributed paper at the Conference VALDOR 2003: Values in Decisions on Risk Stockholm, Sweden, June, 9-13, 2003 PARTICIPATION UNDER UNCERTAINTY Moses A. Boudourides Department of Mathematics University of Patras 265 00 Rio-Patras Greece [email protected] http://www.math.upatras.gr/~mboudour/ Abstract: This essay reviews a number of theoretical perspectives about uncertainty and participation in the present-day knowledge-based society. After discussing the on-going reconfigurations of science, technology and society, we examine how appropriate for policy studies are various theories of social complexity. Post-normal science is such an example of a complexity-motivated approach, which justifies civic participation as a policy response to an increasing uncertainty. But there are different categories and models of uncertainties implying a variety of configurations of policy processes. A particular role in all of them is played by expertise whose democratization is an often-claimed imperative nowadays. Moreover, we discuss how different participatory arrangements are shaped into instruments of policy- making and framing regulatory processes. As participation necessitates and triggers deliberation, we proceed to examine the role and the barriers of deliberativeness. Finally, we conclude by referring to some critical views about the ultimate assumptions of recent European policy frameworks and the conceptions of civic participation and politicization that they invoke. Contents Science, Technology & Society ...................................................................................2 Complexity & Policy-Making .....................................................................................4 Post-Normal Science....................................................................................................5 Types of Uncertainty ...................................................................................................7 Uncertainty in Policy Processes................................................................................10 Questioning Expertise ...............................................................................................13 Participation & Policy-Making ................................................................................14 Participation & Deliberative Democracy ................................................................18 Concluding Remarks .................................................................................................20 Acknowledgement ......................................................................................................23 Notes............................................................................................................................23 References...................................................................................................................24 1 Science, Technology & Society Many have already discerned that something is changing in science and the world at the turn of the millennium: “business as usual in science will no longer suffice, that the world at the close of the 20th century is a fundamentally different world from the one in which the current scientific enterprise has developed” (Gallopin et al., 2001, p. 219). But almost everybody acknowledges that the main changes have been occurring in science with respect to the world, i.e., in the relationship between science and society. In the early arrangements between science and society, there used to exist clear distinctions between the two fields such that norms and principles in each one of them were harmoniously cohabiting and co-ruling a deterministic, regular (and linear) cosmos. Of course, this coexistence did not exclude any combination between science and society; the trajectories of facts, discoveries, ideas, beliefs were possibly molded by passing through a multiplicity of different modalities but in each one of them they were capitulated into exact non-contradicting rules of reason governing both science or/and society. However, since the late 1980s (and with the end of the Cold War), the distinctions between science and society were suddenly blurred and their boundaries became no longer self-evident. Since then, we have been witnessing a “reconfiguration, one that in the eyes of many researchers has narrowed the confines of academic freedom, while giving free play to commodification of research and commercial stakeholder interests (market governance) and other players, including social movements and activists or NGOs” (Elzinga, 2002, p. 2). In other words, the witnessed reconfiguration is not just a mere rearrangement by a two-ways mixing or mutual permeation of science and society; it is something more since structural transformations are occurring in both science and society. In particular, science, the authority of which used to be the foundation of legitimacy of the modern state, “is now increasingly seen as an instrument of corporate profit and unaccountable power” (Ravetz, 2001, p. 7). The way Michel Callon sees it, science in the present-day society is just a ‘quasi-public good,’ because it has become to a certain degree socially, economically or politically ‘appropriable’ (Callon, 1994, p. 400). During the last two decades, there has been an increasing number of different conceptualizations of the ways such recombination of science and society is shaped and many different names, ideas, theories and models have been coined in order to grasp the new relationship between science and society.1 Nevertheless, one should remark that it is not completely clear whether always these conceptualizations are just opinions on descriptions of how things are developing or whether they also constitute normative prescriptions of how things have to develop according to the insight of the promoters of such concepts and theories. In this sense, Mark Elam and Margareta Bertilsson (2003) are cautioning that “behind every authoritative account of major changes of science and society relations stands a more or less explicit vision of how the future ‘knowledge-based society’ should be organized. The work of accounting for change is never innocent of a desire to make a difference to change” (p. 2). Having said the last caveat, it remains to remark that – independently of the rhetoric and the inmost intentions of the coiners of all such descriptive or normative concepts or theories – some elementary but very essential premise is required to be satisfied so that these re-imaginations of science and society might be practically viable and contextually sustainable. This is the idea that a new ‘social contract’ or a ‘New Deal’ (Lubchenco, 1997; Latour, 1998; Gibbons, 1999) is needed to be established among 2 all involved parties in the assayed draw of science close to society. Such a new social contract is strongly needed not just as a procedural means to ratify the new arrangements but also as a necessary requirement to settle with a concomitant crisis linked to the changing character of science and society in our times. As it is stated in a recent working document of the Commission of the European Communities (2000), there is a paradox in the existing relationship between science and society. On the one side, science and technology constitute the “heart of the economy and society,” attracting an increasingly high amount of expectations towards the belief that they can bring a growing positive impact on society. On the other side, advances in science and technology have been happening in such ways as to end up greeted with equally growing skepticism or even alarming hostility. The reason is because sometimes techno-scientific expertise might either fail to cope with social expectations or tend to neglect public concerns about the outcomes of techno-scientific developments, which are vitally important for the whole society. For this purpose, in a concrete effort to establish a new contract between science and society, the European Union (EU) has recently adopted a number of extremely urgent priorities, which aim to improve the quality of policy-making by establishing an inclusive and participatory policy framework. Thus, the Commission of the European Communities is currently setting up the processes to implement the strategic goal to make Europe the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world by 2010, based upon the creation of a strongly participatory and democratic European Research Area (EC, 2000, 2001b). It is believed that such a sound institution is needed in order to improve the interactions between policy-making, expertise and public debate and, thus, to produce sustainable relationships between science and society (EC, 2001a). The attempted policy reorientation, which in particular strives to deal with the new situation in science-technology relationships, is commonly epitomized as the turn from traditional governing or political steering towards a new process of governing, usually described as ‘governance.’ Although there exist multiple definitions of this concept (cf., Kooiman, 2002; Rhodes, 1996; Boudourides, 2002), the general tendency is to understand governance as an analytical framework for collective action resulting from multiple interdependent state and public actors, private institutions, voluntary organizations etc. with blurring boundaries and responsibilities (Stoker, 1998). Although – at least in the context of Europe – the governance perspective is usually considered to emanate from the so-called ‘democratic