Search

Citizens' conferences as a form of participatory technology assessment (pTA) are said to increase democratic legitimacy, take up lay knowledge and improve technological solutions. Today it is part of science and technology policy rhetoric and, sometimes, practice. We confront some elements of the scholarly discussion on pTA with policy-makers' understandings of the process in Austria. Here, participation is often framed as a form of public relations and a sensor for public sentiments rather than as a forum of multiple rationalities and co-development of policy projects. This understanding can be related to underlying conceptions of democracy and the public. We conclude that governance styles would have to change before pTA could become more than a laboratory experiment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The invocation of the precautionary principle, for instance, to prohibit the commercialisation of genetically modified crops in Austria, has been criticised for blurring the boundaries between science and politics. Three different understandings of precaution arise in the policy process around this case, and in the relevant actors' view of precaution and the perceived relationship between science and politics. The dominant 'political- economic' understanding has emphasised uncertainty about benefits and thus effectively reversed the burden of evidence. This was done without overtly shifting or challenging the boundary between science and politics, though their relative priority was reversed. The Austrian policy offers a pragmatic means to gain room for manoeuvre, rather than a coherent approach for a more reflexive way to deal with a controversial technology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Austria has interpreted the precautionary principle and Directive 90/220 in a more stringent way than other EU member states. It continues to ban the import of Bt maize despite the Commission’s recurrent warnings. The Austrian standard of GMO risk assessment emphasizes a broad definition of adverse effects beyond a purely technical account of risk, including effects of agricultural practices. Boundaries between plant, seed, food, and feed assessments tend to blur. It asks implicitly for the demonstration of safety and uses organic farming as a normative reference point. The understanding of precaution goes beyond the Danish approach in extensively interpreting the scope of Directive 90/220. This policy originated from the Environment Agency (UBA) and developed out of the division of labour among government agencies. It is in line with the inherent paternalism of Austrian governance as well as with Austrian public sensitivities concerning organic agriculture and food. When public opinion turned hostile to agricultural biotechnology, the Austrian standard became entrenched and led to Austria’s initially lone stance among EU member states. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]