Politik, öffentliche Verwaltung und Wissen: wer prägt die Politikgestaltung ethisch und technisch komplexer Themen?

"Der Beitrag untersucht das Verhältnis zwischen Politik und Verwaltung und die Bedeutung der jeweiligen Akteursgruppen für die Regulation eines ethisch und technisch komplexen Politikproblems. Dabei geht es besonders um die Rolle von Wissen, um dessen Formen, seinen Ursprung und seine Entstehung im politischen Entscheidungsfindungsprozess. Als Fallstudie wird die Xenotransplantation herangezogen, die Transplantation tierischer Zellen und Organe in den Menschen. Diese Technologie und ihre Regulation wird in neun OECD Ländern (Dänemark, Großbritannien, Italien, Kanada, Lettland, Niederlande, Österreich, Schweden, Schweiz) untersucht." (Autorenreferat)"The paper looks at the relationship between politics and public administration as well as at the importance of different actor groups in the regulation of an ethnically and technically complex policy Problem. Of special interest is the role of knowledge and its forms, origins and genesis in the political decision-making process. The case study focuses on xenotransplantation: the transplantation of animal cells and organs into humans. This technology and its regulation is investigated in nine OECD countries (Austria, Canada, Denmark, Italy, Latvia, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom)." (author's abstract

Social labs as temporary intermediary learning organizations to help implement complex normative policies. The case of Responsible Research and Innovation in European science governance

This study aims to discuss science governance in Europe and the network of associated nonprofit institutions. The authors posit that this network, which comprises both (partial) learning organizations and non-learning organizations, has been observed to postpone taking up “responsibility” as an issue in science governance and funding decisions

Challenges in the implementation of responsible research and innovation across Horizon 2020

In the last decade, the European Commission (EC) developed an ambitious strategy to promote RRI across the Horizon 2020 Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (H2020). This effort resulted in a significant number of European-funded projects that substantially expanded the available knowledge of the theory, methods and implementation of RRI. However, various evaluations and studies revealed a limited and diffuse implementation of the concept. In this article, we aim to shed some light on this matter with a study covering eight programme lines of H2020 (ERC, MSCA, LEIT, FOOD, ENV, SEC, WIDENING and EURATOM). We employ an extensive policy document analysis and 112 semi-structured interviews carried out with various stakeholders. We argue that the limited implementation of RRI in H2020 is the result of conflicts with existing values, science cultures, economic objectives, restricted resources for its implementation and a lack of clarification around what RRI means

Improve Alignment of Research Policy and Societal Values

Historically, scientific and engineering expertise has been key in shaping research and innovation (R&I) policies, with benefits presumed to accrue to society more broadly over time (1). But there is persistent and growing concern about whether and how ethical and societal values are integrated into R&I policies and governance, as we confront public disbelief in science and political suspicion toward evidence-based policy-making (2). Erosion of such a social contract with science limits the ability of democratic societies to deal with challenges presented by new, disruptive technologies, such as synthetic biology, nanotechnology, genetic engineering, automation and robotics, and artificial intelligence. Many policy efforts have emerged in response to such concerns, one prominent example being Europe's Eighth Framework Programme, Horizon 2020 (H2020), whose focus on “Responsible Research and Innovation” (RRI) provides a case study for the translation of such normative perspectives into concrete policy action and implementation. Our analysis of this H2020 RRI approach suggests a lack of consistent integration of elements such as ethics, open access, open innovation, and public engagement. On the basis of our evaluation, we suggest possible pathways for strengthening efforts to deliver R&I policies that deepen mutually beneficial science and society relationships.Horizon 2020(H2020)741402Merit, Expertise and Measuremen

New HoRRIzon: D2.5 Actions and Activities to Realize RRI in Excellent Science

This Deliverable tells about the journey of the Social Labs from their very beginning, in which we struggled to first get an understanding of the particular Funding Line of H2020 and tried to “diagnose” its uptake of RRI, continuing with the identification of our stakeholders and our attempt to incentivize them to participate in the Social Labs. In this Deliverable, we explain which methods we used in our Social Lab Workshops to raise and discuss the question of responsibility in research and innovation and to generate ideas for Pilot Actions, which experiences we made with these group methods and, most importantly, which Pilot Actions the Social Lab participants created, developed, changed and implemented in order to realize their ambitions of RRI and a responsible research and innovation system

New HoRRIzon: D5.5 Actions and Activities to Realize RRI in Diversity of Approaches

This Deliverable tells about the journey of the Social Labs from their very beginning, in which we struggled to first get an understanding of the particular Funding Line of H2020 and tried to “diagnose” its uptake of RRI, continuing with the identification of our stakeholders and our attempt to incentivize them to participate in the Social Labs. In this Deliverable, we explain which methods we used in our Social Lab Workshops to raise and discuss the question of responsibility in research and innovation and to generate ideas for Pilot Actions, which experiences we made with these group methods and, most importantly, which Pilot Actions the Social Lab participants created, developed, changed and implemented in order to realize their ambitions of RRI and a responsible research and innovation system

Community Violence Exposure and Conduct Problems in Children and Adolescents with Conduct Disorder and Healthy Controls

Exposure to community violence through witnessing or being directly victimized has been associated with conduct problems in a range of studies. However, the relationship between community violence exposure (CVE) and conduct problems has never been studied separately in healthy individuals and individuals with conduct disorder (CD). Therefore, it is not clear whether the association between CVE and conduct problems is due to confounding factors, because those with high conduct problems also tend to live in more violent neighborhoods, i.e., an ecological fallacy. Hence, the aim of the present study was: (1) to investigate whether the association between recent CVE and current conduct problems holds true for healthy controls as well as adolescents with a diagnosis of CD; (2) to examine whether the association is stable in both groups when including effects of aggression subtypes (proactive/reactive aggression), age, gender, site and socioeconomic status (SES); and (3) to test whether proactive or reactive aggression mediate the link between CVE and conduct problems. Data from 1178 children and adolescents (62% female; 44% CD) aged between 9 years and 18 years from seven European countries were analyzed. Conduct problems were assessed using the Kiddie-Schedule of Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia diagnostic interview. Information about CVE and aggression subtypes was obtained using self-report questionnaires (Social and Health Assessment and Reactive-Proactive aggression Questionnaire (RPQ), respectively). The association between witnessing community violence and conduct problems was significant in both groups (adolescents with CD and healthy controls). The association was also stable after examining the mediating effects of aggression subtypes while including moderating effects of age, gender and SES and controlling for effects of site in both groups. There were no clear differences between the groups in the strength of the association between witnessing violence and conduct problems. However, we found evidence for a ceiling effect, i.e., individuals with very high levels of conduct problems could not show a further increase if exposed to CVE and vice versa. Results indicate that there was no evidence for an ecological fallacy being the primary cause of the association, i.e., CVE must be considered a valid risk factor in the etiology of CD

The impact of ADHD and conduct disorder in childhood on adult delinquency: A 30 years follow-up study using official crime records

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Few longitudinal studies have explored lifetime criminality in adults with a childhood history of severe mental disorders. In the present study, we wanted to explore the association between adult delinquency and several different childhood diagnoses in an in-patient population. Of special interest was the impact of disturbance of activity and attention (ADHD) and mixed disorder of conduct and emotions on later delinquency, as these disorders have been variously associated with delinquent development.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Former Norwegian child psychiatric in-patients (n = 541) were followed up 19-41 years after hospitalization by record linkage to the National Register of Criminality. On the basis of the hospital records, the patients were re-diagnosed according to ICD-10. The association between diagnoses and other baseline factors and later delinquency were investigated using univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>At follow-up, 24% of the participants had been convicted of criminal activity.</p> <p>In the multivariate Cox regression analysis, conduct disorder (RR = 2.0, 95%CI = 1.2-3.4) and hyperkinetic conduct disorder (RR = 2.7, 95% CI = 1.6-4.4) significantly increased the risk of future criminal behaviour. Pervasive developmental disorder (RR = 0.4, 95%CI = 0.2-0.9) and mental retardation (RR = 0.4, 95%CI = 0.3-0.8) reduced the risk for a criminal act. Male gender (RR = 3.6, 95%CI = 2.1-6.1) and chronic family difficulties (RR = 1.3, 95% CI = 1.1-1.5) both predicted future criminality.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Conduct disorder in childhood was highly associated with later delinquency both alone or in combination with hyperactivity, but less associated when combined with an emotional disorder. ADHD in childhood was no more associated with later delinquency than the rest of the disorders in the study population. Our finding strengthens the assumption that there is no direct association between ADHD and criminality.</p