Suchergebnisse

"Summarising the main ideas of actor network theory, Bruno Latour (1994; reprinted in Latour 1999, 174–215)1 proposes four concepts to describe the role of technological artefacts in society: (1) interrelated programmes of action, (2) action as a property of associations of heterogeneous entities, (3) black boxing and (4) inscription. In his contribution 'Translating Medical Practices' Bernhard Wieser (2006b) refers to these four concepts as a means to analyse prenatal testing and changes that occur in conjunction with the increased use of ultrasound screening and additional non-invasive examination methods. The interest he shares with the authors of actor network theory is to gain an understanding of the role of technology that is neither obscured by technological determinism nor by social determinism.
Actor network theory—and still more Latour's pronounced position within this strand of thinking - contradicts common sense views about technological artefacts. The empirical examples Latour provides in his texts are carefully chosen to clarify his counterintuitive point of view - e.g. the street bump (Latour 1992, 244) or the Berlin key (Latour 1996a, 37–51). Likewise, he presents thought experiments that are carefully designed to tell his story—such as the hypothetical reconstruction of the programmes of action and anti-programmes concerning the issue of leaving hotel keys at the front desk (Latour 1991) or his considerations concerning the combined action of the shooter and the gun (Latour 1994). In order to illustrate his concepts Latour applies them to a purified reality. There is nothing wrong with this but in empirical reality, as Michel Callon (1992, 79) states, '(i)mpurity is the rule'. There, the ideal typical entities and events which provide the most striking evidence for the theorist's concepts are seldom to be found. However, it is with respect to understanding impure reality that the theoretical concepts have to prove their usefulness. In the case of Latourian actor network theory this means reconsidering some of its main concepts. I will do this by discussing Wieser's considerations about applying actor network theory to the case of prenatal testing." (author's abstract)

In academic, non-profit and business research, project funding and grants are important elements to promote science, boost innovation and support researchers on their career paths. However, they are also powerful instruments to materialize and prioritize major principles of science policy and social values such as gender equality and equity. An analysis of research funding processes and organisations in the scope of the EU project CHANGE1 could illuminate gender policies and practices, aiming at a more diverse and gender equitable research and innovation landscape, but could also reveal inherent gender biases. This paper particularly focuses on the results of 41 expert interviews on research budgets, gender policies and practices in research funding in the three "strong innovator"-countries Austria, Germany and Israel, and explores the hidden potential of gender in science and research funding in all sectors.

How to best assess potential health, environmental and other impacts of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and how to interpret the resulting evidence base have been long-standing controversial issues in the EU. As a response, transparency and inclusiveness became a major focus of regulatory science activities in the GMO impact area. Nevertheless, nearly three decades of controversies resulted in a heavily polarized policy environment, calling for further efforts. Against this backdrop the EU funded project GRACE explored the value of evidence synthesis approaches for GMO impact assessment and developed an evidence synthesis framework with a strong emphasis on openness, stakeholder engagement, transparency, and responsiveness to tackle regulatory science challenges. This framework was tested and implemented in the course of 14 systematic reviews or maps conducted on selected review questions spanning potential health, environmental, and socioeconomic impacts of GMOs. An inclusive development and prioritisation of review questions is of key importance in evidence synthesis as it helps to provide a better link between stakeholder demands and concerns and policy relevant outcomes. This paper, therefore, places a particular focus on the stakeholder involvement strategy developed and experiences gathered during this particular step in the course of the GRACE project. Based on this experience, possible lessons for future engagement exercises in highly controversial fields of regulatory science are discussed.

How to best assess potential health, environmental and other impacts of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and how to interpret the resulting evidence base have been long-standing controversial issues in the EU. As a response, transparency and inclusiveness became a major focus of regulatory science activities in the GMO impact area. Nevertheless, nearly three decades of controversies resulted in a heavily polarized policy environment, calling for further efforts. Against this backdrop the EU funded project GRACE explored the value of evidence synthesis approaches for GMO impact assessment and developed an evidence synthesis framework with a strong emphasis on openness, stakeholder engagement, transparency, and responsiveness to tackle regulatory science challenges. This framework was tested and implemented in the course of 14 systematic reviews or maps conducted on selected review questions spanning potential health, environmental, and socioeconomic impacts of GMOs. An inclusive development and prioritisation of review questions is of key importance in evidence synthesis as it helps to provide a better link between stakeholder demands and concerns and policy relevant outcomes. This paper, therefore, places a particular focus on the stakeholder involvement strategy developed and experiences gathered during this particular step in the course of the GRACE project. Based on this experience, possible lessons for future engagement exercises in highly controversial fields of regulatory science are discussed.