Balancing Security and Democracy: The Politics of Biometric Identification in the European Union

What are the relations between security policies and democratic debate, oversight and rights? And what is the role of expertise in shaping such policies and informing the democratic process? The inquiry that follows tries to answer such questions in the context of the European Union and taking the case of biometric identification, an area where security considerations and the possible impacts on fundamental rights and rule of law are at stake, and where expertise is crucial. Some hypotheses are explored through the case study: that 'securitisation' and 'democratisation' are in tension but some hybrid strategies can emerge, that the plurality of 'authoritative actors' influences policy frames and outcomes, and that knowledge is a key asset in defining these authoritative actors. A counter-intuitive conclusion is presented, namely that biometrics-which seems prima facie an excellent candidate for technocratic decision making, sheltered from democratic debate and accountability-is characterised by intense debate by a plurality of actors. Such pluralism is limited to those actors who have the resources-including knowledge-that allow for inclusion in policy making at EU level, but is nevertheless significant in shaping policy. Tragic events were pivotal in pushing for action on grounds of security, but the chosen instruments were in store and specific actors were capable of proposing them as a solution to security problems; in particular, the strong role of executives is a key factor in the vigorous pursuit of biometric identification. However this is not the whole story, and limited pluralism-including plurality of expertise-explains specific features of the development of biometrics in the EU, namely the central role of the metaphor of 'balancing' security and democracy, and the 'competitive cooperation' between new and more consolidated policy areas. The EU is facing another difficult challenge in the attempt of establishing itself as a new security actor and as a supranational democratic polity: important choices are involved to assure that citizens' security is pursued on the basis of rule of law, respect of fundamental rights and democratic accountability.democracy; pluralism; security/internal

Beyond the Earth Summit : the European Community towards sustainability?

Digitised version produced by the EUI Library and made available online in 2020

The management of uncertainty : response and learning processes following Chernobyl

Defence date: 16 October 1992Examining Board: Prof. Bruno Dente (University of Bologna) ; Prof. Klaus Eder (EUI, co-supervisor) ; Prof. Sheila Jasanoff (University of Cornell) ; Prof. Giandomenico Majone (EUI, supervisor) ; Prof. Helga Nowotny (University of Vienna) ; Prof. Brian Wynne (University of Lancaster)First made available online: 19 July 2016The research which is presented in the following pages seeks to understand why in some neighbouring countries there had been different short-term responses and different medium/long-term changes following the same event. Particularly it analyses why those in charge were taken by surprise, why different definitions of the situation emerged, why certain limit values for radiation were set and why did they differ, why certain precautionary measures were taken -or not taken- to cope with radiation risk, why different timing in responding to or acknowledging the problems caused by the fallout can be observed. Moreover it inquires why certain changes occurred in the years following the accident, why did they differ or were similar in different countries, and whether they can be interpreted as results of learning processes. In order to provide some ground and context for answering those questions, empirical work (based on individual interviews and qualitative analysis of documents and newspapers) has been undertaken. The field of inquiry was defined according to both analytical and practical criteria. An in depth examination of the events and processes that took place during the last days of April and the month of May 1986 appeared to be necessary to understand why, how and by whom certain decisions were made and why the responses to the same threat varied. Some background information on the main actors involved in nuclear policy and risk management has been gathered and selected to put in context the responses to the Chernobyl fallout. The Chernobyl accident and fallout pointed to serious shortcomings concerning the management of nuclear power both at the national and international level and rekindled scientific disagreements and political controversies over the risks connected with the utilization of such technology. In front of the same event, different responses were given in the affected countries during the fallout and different changes took places in the following years. In my interpretation, this was due to the way scientific and organizational uncertainties were managed in defining the problem and responding to it. The management of scientific uncertainties was a determing factors since Chernobyl had been a technological accident and called on science ability to identify causes, consequences and possible solution of its own technological products. The management of organizational uncertainties was also determinant since an unprecedented, non-routine event like the Chernobyl fallout required the identification and/or negotiation of ill-defined responsibilities. With respect to both these aspects, the production, selection and utilization of information and knowledge by the relevant and interacting actors proved to be crucial. In ‘turn the reason why these uncertainties had been managed in different ways -and different responses to Chernobyl emerged consequently- can be explained in the light of the interaction (in each country and at the international level) between what scientists select as relevant knowledge, what politicians wish to know and to be let known, what pressure social movements and interest groups are able to exert concerning the utilization and diffusion of knowledge, and what information the mass-media have access to, pick out and construct as news. These relations also influenced the changes, and learning processes, that have been taking place since Chernobyl. This hypothesis, which forms the core of what will be called the "Policy Communication Model", points to the link between the ways problems are defined and selected for attention, and the ways actions (including decisions) are taken or not taken. While these two processes had been analysed in depth by several authors, a tendency can be noted to focus either on the first (issue framing) or on the second one (decision making). The present work tries instead to explore the link between the two mentioned processes, building on those contributions that identified such link while still focusing either on the way issues are framed or on the way decisions are made. In the following chapters the changes that occurred in the months and years after Chernobyl will be examined, and it will be argued that they can be regarded as results of collective learning processes. Processes where communication about, reflection on and interpretation (framing) of the Chernobyl experience (which differ 8 for different actors and in different places) played a crucial role in fostering certain changes. Even if these changes do not necessarily represent improvements

User needs elicitation via analytic hierarchy process (AHP). A case study on a Computed Tomography (CT) scanner

Background: The rigorous elicitation of user needs is a crucial step for both medical device design and purchasing. However, user needs elicitation is often based on qualitative methods whose findings can be difficult to integrate into medical decision-making. This paper describes the application of AHP to elicit user needs for a new CT scanner for use in a public hospital. Methods: AHP was used to design a hierarchy of 12 needs for a new CT scanner, grouped into 4 homogenous categories, and to prepare a paper questionnaire to investigate the relative priorities of these. The questionnaire was completed by 5 senior clinicians working in a variety of clinical specialisations and departments in the same Italian public hospital. Results: Although safety and performance were considered the most important issues, user needs changed according to clinical scenario. For elective surgery, the five most important needs were: spatial resolution, processing software, radiation dose, patient monitoring, and contrast medium. For emergency, the top five most important needs were: patient monitoring, radiation dose, contrast medium control, speed run, spatial resolution. Conclusions: AHP effectively supported user need elicitation, helping to develop an analytic and intelligible framework of decision-making. User needs varied according to working scenario (elective versus emergency medicine) more than clinical specialization. This method should be considered by practitioners involved in decisions about new medical technology, whether that be during device design or before deciding whether to allocate budgets for new medical devices according to clinical functions or according to hospital department

Stretching and challenging the boundaries of law: varieties of knowledge in biotechnologies regulation

The paper addresses the question of adaptation of existing regulatory frameworks in the face of innovation in biotechnologies, and specifically the roles played in this by various expert knowledge practices. We identify two overlapping ideal types of adaptation: first, the stretching and maintenance of a pre-existing legal framework, and second, a breaking of existing classifications and establishment of a novel regime. We approach this issue by focusing on varieties of regulatory knowledge which, contributing to and parting of political legitimacy, in principle enable the making of legally binding decisions about risks and benefits of technologies. We base the discussion around two case studies, one of animal biotechnology ethical regulation, the other of ‘advanced therapy’ medicinal product regulation, both in the context of European Union frameworks. Specifically, we explore the knowledge configurations constituting expert committees and other institutional formations of expert regulatory knowledge in their political context. We show that where sectoral and moral boundaries are challenged, different modes of regulatory knowledge beyond scientific forms – legal, procedural, moral, economic and industrial – can shape regulatory innovations either by maintenance of regimes through commensuration and stretching, or through differentiation and separation creating new frameworks. We conclude that establishing an essential techno-scientific difference between pre-existing and novel technologies does not in itself require new regulatory structures, and that the regulatory strategy that is followed will be determined by a combination of different forms of knowledge

EC environmental research and EC environmental policy : a study in the utilization of knowledge for regulatory purposes

Digitised version produced by the EUI Library and made available online in 2020

Cambiamento globale, sviluppo sostenibile e funzioni di governo. Riflessioni sull’Unione Europea come governance sovranazionale funzionale

1. Sfide I processi di globalizzazione economica e di cambiamento ambientale globale sfidano le attuali capacità di governo. Tra le sfide da affrontare, la rivisitazione del concetto di sovranità alla luce di processi di interdipendenza economica ed ambientale su scala transnazionale. Le politiche intese a trasformare l’attuale modello di crescita economica in «sviluppo sostenibile» pongono ulteriori sfide, in particolare la riforma dei sistemi democratici e della nozione di cittadinanza per ..