Organizer, observer and participant

Public participation has become an important issue in science and technology studies as well as in politics. Procedures creating such multi-actor spaces of public participation are usually discussed under the label "participatory technology assessment" (pTA). PTA is considered to be a possible and promising way to foster direct interaction between members of the general public (lay people), organized interest groups, scientific experts, and sometimes also policy makers. Over the last ten years pTA has been utilized in many European countries, but also elsewhere in the world. However, there are vast differences regarding participatory methods. Abels and Bora propose a typology differentiating among seven different types of procedures. These seven types adopt divergent approaches with regard to the participants involved (who), the ways and means of participation (how) and the supposed functions of public participation (what for). The paper investigates the role social scientists play in pTA. It argues that social scientists can act in three different roles: as organizers of pTA, as scientific observers and as participants. The last role can take two different directions. Social scientists can be involved in pTA as "regular" scientific experts, or they can serve as "translators" in the complicated communication among social groups. It is this role as translator that is considered to be most innovative and worth exploring in the theory and praxis of pTA

Von Krokodilen, Hebammen und großen Männern: Spinellis Erben und ihr Plädoyer für ein föderalistisches und post-nationales Europa = About crocodiles, midwives and big men: Spinelli's beneficiaries and their plea for a federal and post-national Europe. taif 8, 2014

30 years after the adoption of a draft Treaty for a European Constitution (Spinelli draft), a new Spinelli Group takes up this legacy; in 2013 it presents a proposal for a post-national, federal Union. The article examines the contexts of the origins of the two crisis-induced constitutional projects that were supported by the "Club Crocodile" respectively by the Spinelli Group. While Spinelli in 1984 managed to mobilize a broad parliamentary support for his draft constitution, the Spinelli Group today operates more as an "advocacy coalition" lacking this large parliamentary backing. The paper discusses the continuities of the federal program and how it is adapted by the Spinelli Group to nowadays circumstances in the form of the draft of a Fundamental Law of the European Union. We argue that the impacts of the two constitutional projects cannot be reduced to short-term effects, but their long-term effects must be considered as well. Thereby, the specific restrictions influencing the work of the reform groups in the 1980s and today have to be taken into account

„Dieses Mal ist es anders“ – oder doch nicht? Eine genderpolitische Analyse der Europawahl 2014 und ihrer Folgen. TAIF Nr, 9/2014 = "This time it's different" - or not? A gender analysis of the 2014 European elections and its consequences. TAIF No. 9/2014

„This time it’s different“ was the slogan launched by the European Commission to mobilize voters for the 2014 European election. This motto referred to the fact that the May 2014 election was the first one based on the Lisbon Treaty, which was enacted in 2009. This treaty endows the European Parliament with greater powers in many ways, amongst other with regard to electing the Commission president. The European Parliament has made extensive use of these rights via a strategy of “Spitzenkandidaten” in the electoral campaign. This paper analyses the 8th election to the European Parliament from a gender perspective. In so doing, it employs the dual concept of representation as “standing for”, i.e. descriptive representation, and “acting for”, i.e. substantive representation. Based on this model we analyze the composition of the European Parliament in greater detail and reflect our findings in the light of long-term trends. In addition, the current process of electing a new European Commission is scrutinized. Based on our findings pertaining to women’s descriptive representation we then consider the options for greater substantive representation of gender issues in the period 2014 to 2019

The lack of gender equality in EU decision-making means EU citizens are still suffering from a ‘double democratic deficit’

The EU has often been accused of having a democratic deficit with respect to deficiencies in the representation of citizens in EU decision-making. Joyce Marie Mushaben and Gabriele Abels discuss the role of gender equality in assessments of EU democracy, including the notion that the lack of an adequate gender balance in EU institutions constitutes a ‘double democratic deficit’. They argue that despite improvements in the number of female MEPs, there is still a chronic lack of women in key decision-making positions, particularly in the Commission and the Council

Frauen und Embryonen im Policy-Frame supranationaler Biopolitik: Chancen und Grenzen eines 'engendering'

'Die embryonale Stammzellforschung stand seit 2000 auch auf der Agenda der EU im Kontext des 6. Forschungsrahmenprogramms. Der Beitrag geht erstens der Frage nach, welche Rolle Akteurinnen in der supranationalen Debatte gespielt haben sowie zweitens ob und, wenn ja, wie ein engendering im Sinne einer Thematisierung möglicher geschlechtsdifferenter Technikfolgen der supranationalen Politik stattgefunden hat. Dabei zeigt sich, dass Frauen, allen voran Europaparlamentarierinnen, in der Debatte stark repräsentiert waren und sie aktiv mitgestaltet haben. Geschlechtersensitive Argumente standen zwar nicht im Mittelpunkt der EU-Debatte, sie wurden jedoch immerhin verschiedentlich thematisiert - und zwar fast ausschließlich als Gefahr einer 'Instrumentalisierung' von Frauen als Eizellspenderinnen. Der Beitrag verweist auf Möglichkeiten und Grenzen, soziale Bewertungsaspekte wie Geschlechterverhältnisse einzuführen, um die technikzentrierte und wettbewerbspolitische Forschungsprogrammatik der EU zu verändern.' (Autorenreferat)'Since 2000, embryonic stem cell research has been on the EU agenda in the context of the 6th framework programme for research. This paper analyses, firstly, the role of women as actors in the supranational debate, and, secondly, whether or not and how an engendering has taken place with regard to gender-related effects of the technology. Gender-sensitive arguments were not at the heart of the EU debate. Yet, the risk of an 'instrumentalisation' of women as egg donors for research was frequently referred to in the debate. The paper illustrates the opportunities and limits of bringing in social aspects such as gender relations into EU research policy in order to change the dominant frame that focuses on the technology and its economic potential.' (author's abstract

Ethics and Public Participation in Technology Assessment

Abels G, Bora A. Ethics and Public Participation in Technology Assessment. Unpublished; Draft

Feministisch-politologische Perspektiven auf Biomedizinpolitik

'PolitologInnen sind in der gegenwärtigen kontroversen Debatte zur Biomedizinpolitik sowohl mit wissenschaftlichen Analysen als auch als ExpertInnen in einschlägigen Beratungsgremien erstaunlich abwesend. Dabei könnte die Politikwissenschaft mit ihren unterschiedlichen Teildisziplinen wichtige Beiträge zur Erforschung von Biomedizinpolitik leisten. Für das Fehlen kann ein Bündel von Faktoren identifiziert werden, von der Spezifik des Politikfeldes über methodologische und theoretische Orientierungen der Politikwissenschaft bis hin zu wissenschaftspolitischen Motiven. Ein zentraler Grund ist die Überschneidung dreier Themen- und Problemfelder, die im politikwissenschaftlichen Mainstream tendenziell als außerpolitisch gelten und/ oder in unzureichender Weise theoretisch erfasst sind: Körper, Ethik und Naturwissenschaften/ Technologie. Feministische Politikwissenschaft ist in verschiedener Hinsicht für die Analyse von Biomedizinpolitik besser gerüstet, da sie mit der Analyse von Körperpolitik und mit normativen Fragen Erfahrungen hat.' (Autorenreferat)'In the current debate about biomedicine policy, political scientists are largely absent as analysts of the controversy and as experts in advisory commissions. However, political science and its various sub-disciplines could make important and specific disciplinary contributions to the debate. This gap can be attributed to a variety of factors, ranging from issue characteristics to methodological and theoretical orientations in political science as well as to political reasons. The major cause is the intersection of three distinct issues and problems all of which are regarded as non-political and, thus, are not sufficiently theorised in political science: the body, ethics, and science and technology. Feminist political science is better equipped to analyse biomedicine policy because of its experience with the analysis of body politics and the integration of normative concerns.' (author's abstract