[Documents/Docheader.htm]

Parliaments and the knowledge society

Doc. 10252
 8 July 2004

Report
 Committee on Culture, Science and Education
Rapporteur: Mr. Johannes Randegger, Switzerland, Liberal, Democratic and Reformers’ Group

For debate in the Standing Committee — see Rule 15 of the Rules of Procedure

Summary

The Parliamentary Assembly insists that scientific and technological changes have an increasingly direct effect on society and that parliaments are being overtaken by such changes. Parliamentary institutions should provide a framework within which elected representatives have the means and opportunities for becoming informed on, for questioning and for stating their views on the orientation of science and on technological choices.

The Assembly asks national parliaments of Council of Europe member and observer states to promote parliamentary technology assessment procedures based on existing good practice, to enhance formal and informal interaction between parliamentarians and scientists and to co-operate within the European Parliamentary Technology Assessment Network (EPTA).

I.          Draft resolution [Link to the adopted text]

1.         The Parliamentary Assembly recalls its Recommendation 1055 (1987) on parliamentary assessment in Europe of scientific and technological choices and its Resolution 1083 (1996) on Parliaments and the assessment of scientific and technological choices.

2.         Already in 1987 the Assembly:

  1. considered that “parliamentary institutions should provide the framework within which elected representatives should have the means and opportunities for becoming informed on, for questioning and for stating their views on the orientation of science and on technological choices at national and European levels”;

  2. welcomed recent initiatives in this sense in the French, German, British and European Parliaments and ;

  3. called on governments of member states to “recognise the important role with regard to public opinion which parliamentary institutions directly or indirectly need to fulfil in respect of major scientific orientations and technological choices and their foreseeable or possible consequences” and to ”take or facilitate the measures required to establish or strengthen, in parliamentary institutions, independent capabilities for examining, commenting on and assessing these orientations and choices”.

3.         Nine years later the Assembly stated that:

  1. “the phenomenal increase in the pace of scientific and technical progress indicates clearly that, in future, economies will be knowledge-based. The technological choices that will be made in the coming years will have a critical impact on national economies’ competitiveness and thus on people’s well-being”;

  2. “scientific and technological changes are having an increasingly direct effect on society, overturning traditional ways of life and challenging existing value systems. Their political, economic, ethical, moral and environmental implications have become so wide-ranging that those responsible for exercising political choice may be unaware of what is involved”;

  3. “whilst scientific and technological innovation has led to radical changes in legislation over the last ten years, the majority of parliamentarians are, through lack of specific training and professional experience, unable to choose between the options put forward by the specialists”;

  4. “the democratic system is in danger of becoming unbalanced as parliaments gradually lose whole areas of decision-making to the government bodies and experts who hold the relevant knowledge”;

  5. “on the one hand, politicians must not be allowed to use scientific and technological discoveries for their own purposes, with no account being taken of democratic principles; on the other hand, scientists must be prevented from influencing political decisions in order to undertake research that is not subject to democratic supervision”;

  6. “in order to meet this challenge, scientific choices must be made in a spirit of openness and public debate. Parliaments have a duty to inform themselves and take account of all aspects of technological innovations, with priority going to those that are most likely to contribute to social well-being”;

  7. “the response has been the introduction, often in an institutionalised form, of a new form of collaboration between the worlds of science and politics, usually referred to under the English term “technology assessment[TA]”;

  8. “although technology assessment was initially shaped by preventive, or even negative, considerations, its methods have increasingly reflected a desire to improve living conditions by channelling technological development, on the basis of broad-ranging consultations between the relevant partners”;

  9. “in Europe, parliamentary assessment bodies are still in their infancy. Only five countries have established such institutions. Much remains to be done to develop appropriate working methods. Each country must establish its own institutional structure for technology assessment, taking into account its particular social, economic, political, scientific and cultural characteristics”.

4.         In this text the Assembly invited the parliaments of member states “to take immediate steps to set up technology assessment bodies, drawing on existing experience, adapting it to the available material and human resources and laying down clear priorities” and “to encourage transparency and public debate on the scientific and technological choices that have to be made”.

5.         The evolution since then has proved that the Assembly was right in its earlier analysis. All the points recalled above are still valid if not more urgent. In the meantime, not very many more parliaments have set up their own structures for parliamentary assessment of scientific and technological choices. Parliaments are being overtaken by technological development and in particular that of the information society.

6.         The Assembly welcomes the setting-up in 1990 of the European Parliamentary Technology Assessment Network (EPTA) which has today 12 members and 3 associates. The Parliamentary Assembly, as one of these associates, sees its role as being to promote pan-European co-operation in the field of TA and to facilitate the emergence of parliamentary TA structures and procedures in those countries where these do not yet exist.

7.         From 1961 until 1990 the Parliamentary Assembly organised, in co-operation with other international organisations such as the European Science Foundation, the International Council for Science (ICSU) and the OECD, seven international parliamentary and scientific conferences. These proved a useful forum for debate and interaction between parliamentarians and world class scientists.

8.         There are different models of technology assessment institutions and it is for each parliament to decide which suits better its own structures and working methods. TA should not however be a means of substituting or reducing the responsibility of parliamentarians but of giving them the best possible informational basis for their decisions. It is then for them to decide whether or not certain real or possible consequences of particular choices are acceptable.

9.         The Assembly therefore asks national parliaments of Council of Europe member and observer states to:

  1. promote parliamentary practices, which would enlarge and extend the evaluation of future perspectives and to develop science and technology assessment procedures;

  2. study and base themselves on existing good practice in order to establish science and technology committees, in particular in the parliaments of emerging democracies;

  3. co-operate within the EPTA Network;

  4. enhance formal and informal interaction between parliamentarians and scientists by setting up associations of members of parliament and scientists.

10.       The Assembly decides to consider, in due course, the opportuneness of resuming the organisation, in co-operation with appropriate partners, of its series of international parliamentary and scientific conferences.

II.         Explanatory memorandum

by Mr Randegger

Introduction

1. The Assembly discussed in 1987 a report on Parliamentary assessment in Europe of scientific and technological choices (Doc. 5717) prepared by Mr Bassinet, the founding chairman of the French Parliamentary Office for Scientific and Technological Assessment (OPECST), and in 1992 a second report on technological risks and society (Doc. 6663) prepared by Mr Birraux, present Chairman of OPECST, including recommendations on the need of technology assessment in Parliaments.

2. The evolution since then has proved that the Assembly was right in its earlier analysis. All its recommendations are still topical but more urgent. In the meantime changes have occurred:

3. A new motion for a resolution on parliaments’ capacity to respond to the challenges of the knowledge society was tabled in July 2002 by Mr Tiuri, Chairman of the Finnish Parliament’s Committee on the Future. After he left the Assembly he was replaced as Rapporteur by Mr Varela who also left the Assembly shortly afterwards. The present Rapporteur is therefore the third to have contributed to this report.

4. There are different models of technology assessment (TA) institutions and it is for each parliament to decide which suits better its own structures and working methods. TA should not however be a means of substituting or reducing the responsibility of parliamentarians but of giving them the best possible informational basis for their decisions. It is then for them to decide whether or not certain real or possible consequences of particular choices are acceptable.

5. The Parliamentary Assembly sees its role as being to promote pan-European cooperation in the field of TA and to facilitate the emergence of parliamentary TA structures and procedures in those countries where these do not yet exist.

Historical background

TA Roots in the Criticism of Technology

6. In the 1960s, the general attitude toward technological progress that began as positive gradually changed. There were various reasons for this. One resulted from the war years when mankind witnessed a drastic demonstration where the products of state-of-the-art technology, such as poison gas and atomic bombs, were not necessarily beneficial to society as a whole. In addition, scientific experts increasingly expressed their concern about blind faith in progress. The American biologist Rachel Carson denounced the excessive use of chemical insecticides in the fight against pests in her landmark book “Silent Spring”, the first specific denunciation of shortsighted faith in technology. Finally, a better education for a broad sector of the population also helped them look closely at decisions made by political authorities and question the statements from experts. 

Technology Assessment – An Idea from the USA

7. The first step in the direction of evaluating the consequences of technology was taken in the United States with the formation of its Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) in 1972. The most accurate description of this institution would be to call it a competence centre, where expert opinions on a variety of topics were prepared for Congress. These studies must meet ease-of-reading and understanding requirements as well as standards for scientific exactness. The broad range of topics evaluated, which the team of employees at the OTA handled, could not prevent the end of its activities in 1995 because of political disagreements in Congress.

Why did the OTA fail in the United States?

8. Various explanations are given for the closing of the OTA in the United States. On the one hand, the budget reductions demanded by the Republicans in 1995 are considered as an important reason. Why did the OTA not receive any more financial support? The OTA was a welcome scapegoat for many. It had evolved into a very large institution and, in the eyes of the Republicans, was controlled by the Democrats (Ted Kennedy was chairman of its Senate oversight committee and its former director, Jack Gibbons, became a scientific adviser to President Clinton). It has been mentioned that the OTA placed too little emphasis on political independence and that in part it became an instrument for interest groups. On the other hand, other voices say that the OTA lacked an influential lobby and therefore lost its support and was closed down.

First Steps in Europe

9. Some European countries picked up the idea of evaluating the consequences of technology and created their own TA institutions in the 1980s. The need to coordinate projects, avoid duplication when selecting topics, as well as mutual exchange of information and experience led to the foundation of the European Parliamentary Technology Assessment Network (EPTA Network) in 1990. This encompassed organisations which were dedicated to carrying out professional technology assessments, among other things, and which could be considered, at least in part, as institutional partners in the national parliaments. Full EPTA Network members are the Danish Board of Technology, the Committee of the Future of the Finnish parliament, the Flemish Institute for Science and Technology Assessment, the French Parliamentary Office for Scientific and Technological Assessment, the Office of Technology Assessment at the German Bundestag, the Greek Permanent Committee of Technology Assessment, the Committee for Science and Technology Assessment of the Italian Parliament, the Rathenau Institute of the Netherlands, the Norwegian Board of Technology, the Centre for Technology Assessment at the Swiss Science and Technology Council, the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology of the UK and the Science and Technological Options Assessment (STOA) programme of the European Parliament. Observer status is enjoyed by Belgium, Austria and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (currently through its Sub-Committee on Science and Ethics).

The European Parliamentary Technology Assessment Network (EPTA)

Organisation

10. The EPTA Network was formally established in 1990 under the patronage of the President of the European Parliament, Mr Enrique Baron Crespo. The network was conceived by Lord Kennet at Parliamentary Office for Scientific and Technological (UK), and received enthusiastic support from other Parliamentary Technology Assessment centres, which focus on enhancing the products and experiences of their work with other similar organisations.

Objectives

11. The partners in EPTA are bodies performing science and technology assessment (TA) studies in order to advise parliaments on the possible social, economic and environmental impact of new sciences and technologies. Such work is seen as an aid to the democratic control of scientific and technological innovations. The EPTA Network now attracts increasing interest from new and prospective Parliamentary TA groups in the wider Europe.

12. The participating institutions are constitutionally and methodologically heterogeneous, but share a concern for providing impartial and high quality accounts and reports of developments in issues such as bioethics and biotechnology, public health, environment and energy, industrial and research and developments policy.

13. The network has a streamlined structure, guided by the EPTA Council, composed of parliamentarians, and by meetings of the directors of the EPTA partner organisations.

14. The EPTA network aims at advancing the establishment of technology assessment as a prerequisite for complex and critical policy discussions in the course of the parliamentary decision-making processes in Europe and at strengthening the links between TA units in Europe. (For further information: http://www.eptanetwork.org/EPTA/.

Different Forms of Institutional Settings

15. TA organisations have many different institutional settings, which vary from country to country and organisation to organisation. The specific institutional setting will affect the kind of activities they will set up and, consistently, the kind of impacts they might (and can) achieve. As such each institutional context leads to a certain extent ‘unique’ project design. It can be said that the institutional setting of a TA organisation both enables and constraints the goal setting, the range of topics and methods chosen and type of impacts that are aimed at and / or can reasonably be expected. Moreover, the way quality control mechanisms are set up may differ from one TA institution to another.

16. This section discusses the type of institutional settings, the target groups, and expertise with regards to issues and methods of TA organisations in various organisational contexts. Appendix I gives a summary of the comments received from the directors of the EPTA member organisations on the following questions: Views and suggestions on the status of TA in Europe; Added value of TA in respect to the Parliament and the society in general; Results and impacts of TA; Most critical points on the development of TA in Europe. Appendix II lists the comments of the Directors of five TA institutions members of EPTA on their respective structures, links to parliament and working methods.

Types of Institutional Settings

17. This report focus on parliamentary technology assessment but other forms exist (scientific organisation, consultancy agencies, and dialogue platforms) advising also other bodies than parliaments. In parliamentary TA, the TA organisation belongs (or is subordinated) to the Parliament. In such a setting, TA activities are mandated by parliament (individual members or commissions) and their results are intended to feed the legislative process.

Addressees or Target Groups

18. A crucial dimension to differentiate between institutions is the addressee of the TA organisation. For example, parliamentary TA organisations are usually confronted with concrete questions from the parliament. Obviously the situation appreciation focuses around these questions, since the goals to be reached are more or less defined by parliament. Nevertheless a situation appreciation has to be done, because the selection of the method refers to both the goals and the situation appreciation. As a result of the latter additional goals might need to be taken into account. The chance for concrete (political) impact seems higher, since the parliamentary TA organisation reacts to demands of the parliamentarians and the addressee thus is willing to consider the end results and (in some cases) may even need these results to make decisions. On the other hand, being closely connected to parliament may also limit the play (i.e. scope of issues and methods) of a TA institute. TA organisations not directly connected to the parliament are having a relatively harder job in selecting the topics parliamentarians are interested in and ensuring that the relevant target groups – policy makers, lay people, stakeholders - are interested in a specific issue.

Types of Expertise on Issues and Methods

19. Another aspect concerns the variety of expertise on TA issues and methods that is available within a TA organisation. For example, one institution might focus on interdisciplinary expert discussions, while others specialise in participatory methods. These types of specialisation and former experiences of a TA institution influence the goal setting and enables and constraints the various topics and methods used.

Influencing Factors

20. Three main categories of influencing factors can be identified: Institutional Setting, Technology Policymaking Culture, and Structure and State of the Innovation Process.

21. In terms of the typology of impacts as it is described in the previous sections these factors relate best to the “issue dimension”, where, “Institutional Setting” refers mainly to the dimension of “technological/scientific aspects”. Following is a brief description of the influencing factor “Institutional Setting”.

22. The particular organisational structure of the TA institution naturally poses certain limitations on the type of work it can undertake and the manner in which this can be done. The overall mission of the organisation and the main target groups for its work constitute the first such limitation; further limitations can be identified as the official relationship between the institution and its “customers”, and institutional image and overall state of competition.

Parliamentary and non-parliamentary setting

23. The TA institutions could either be attached to the national legislature (such as TAB, POST) and thus be a “parliamentary office” or have a more “independent” status of a research- or academic institution (such as EA, ITAS). This difference does not necessarily affect the independence and value of its work, but nevertheless denotes certain limitations in the work process due to the main target audience. Such limitations will doubtless have an effect in the perception and eventually the impact of the institution’s work.

24. There is great variety in the setting, organisation and overall mission of parliamentary offices in Europe. Reflecting perhaps the general national decision-making cultures, the mission of such institutions ranges from strictly adhering to the needs of the parliament (e.g. POST in the UK) to having a more general role in promoting public debates and act as bridge-builder in socially sensitive issues (e.g. DBT in Denmark). Despite this diversity which itself poses direct limitations in the work of the institution, there is a common denominator in the fact that the main audience of the institution is always the policy-making community and the main work should therefore focus exclusively on their needs. The limits this institutional arrangement poses include adherence to strict political neutrality, fast-track analysis (due to policy-making time constraints and policy-makers’ low attention span), and sometimes low institutional visibility (since parliamentary offices are mere tools in the policy-making process).

25. Non-parliamentary institutional settings are relatively rare in Europe due mainly to budgetary constraints. The few existing institutions enjoy a relatively more independent institutional arrangement since their mission and target audiences are usually described in general terms. This provides considerable flexibility in terms of working manner, study timing and results presentation since the work is independent from direct policymaking processes. In addition, there is usually self-determination in promoting the institution and raise public awareness of its work. This institutional setting does not guarantee access to the policymaking community and such institutions are also very vulnerable to general trends on budgetary cuts and public resource re-structuring.

Reactive and proactive setting

26. This refers to organisational decision-making structures relative to the topics chosen for studying. A reactive organisational structure depends on external factors in the choice of studies, the time allocation for the conclusions and even the preferred process. It refers to a situation where the TA institution is requested, or proposed as being the appropriate agency, to conduct an investigation (e.g. in the parliamentary context, by a parliamentarian in a debate, or by a parliamentary committee in the course of an inquiry). Whether or not the institution is obliged to follow or has some freedom of choice in the requests given does not alter the fact that its organisational structure is basically reactive. An example of purely reactive institutional settings is STOA in the European Parliament, which consists of a secretariat that receives requests by members of the parliament and outsources the studies. On the contrary, a proactive organisational structure refers to a situation where the TA institution decides, through its own internal programme-setting procedures, to conduct a study. This is a direct structure that maximizes self-determination and resource planning although this freedom is restricted by the fact that there is always a main target audience that requires relevance. An example of purely proactive type is the Europaeische Akademie GmbH in Germany that plans its own work programme that needs to be accepted by the funding organisations.

27. Usually there is no clear-cut distinction of TA institutions of the “reactive/proactive” category. Both parliamentary and non-parliamentary institutions might have either a proactive or a reactive structure, or indeed a combination of both. In either case there are limitations: in the reactive structure there is little flexibility in the choice of subjects and methods while in the proactive case the work can be of little policy relevance. One might argue that strict adherence to either type tends to influence the work outcome and eventual impact, and should therefore be undesirable.

Institutional Image

28. As with every other service, TA is influenced by competition forces. The number and diversity of TA services (such as risk assessment, technology foresight or bridge building) as well as the limited number of topics at any given time with direct society or policy interest, raises competition amongst TA actors and institutions. The image and public standing of the institutions will inevitably play a major role in target audience preferences and subsequent effect of the TA study.

29. The image of TA institutions is a rather elusive topic as there is virtually no comparative research in Europe as to the level of European TA institutions’ public standing or the elements of their public image. Similarly there is no “ready-made” recipe of success in this area. The institutional quality control processes vary immensely across Europe and offer no guarantee of raising public standing. As it is nevertheless a vital aspect for the future development (some might say survival) of TA to have a coherent and fair approach to improving its own image, some urgent research is requested in this area.

Conclusions and Policy Implications

30. The final report of “Technology Assessment in Europe: between Method and Impact” (TAMI) has seen the institutional setting as a specific “influencing factor” on the types and level of impact that can be expected from TA activities. Institutional boundary conditions may affect all phases and aspects of the TA process, such as:

31. On examination of the worldwide institutional landscape of those TA institutions, dealing with parliamentary TA, three models of institutional settings are visible, all of them imposing different influence on the methodology and impact of the institutions. The three models may be called the scientific institute, the parliament office, and the public institution.

32. The scientific institute is characterised by a more or less formalised link to academia, whether this is in the form of connection to a university, to the research councils or to an academy of science. This type of institution typically has its strength among those types of impact that have to do with the research, analysis and synthesis of knowledge – the cognitive dimension of TA. The limitations can be found among those roles that can be regarded as being in conflict with the role of the scientist. For example, it can be difficult for these institutions to take an active role in setting the public agenda, to involve itself in interactive normative clarification, or to set up political processes.

33. The parliament office serves parliamentarians directly, and is set up as an internal office of the parliamentary institution. The strength of this type of institution seems to be connected to the clear focus on the need of parliamentarians, which favours impacts on the knowledge and policy dimensions.

34. The main limitation is the other side of the coin – a low ability to set up TA as learning processes directly involving or put in the hands of stakeholders and the general public, which makes impacts of opinion-forming and debate less probable. In terms of methods, this means that these institutions mostly focus on scientific consultation – often in connection with hearings involving stakeholders -, and have lesser focus on methods that support the social and political processes outside parliament.

35. The public institution may be set up in connection to the parliament or the government, or other constructions. It has a high degree of self-governing competencies, obligations towards the societal discourse as such. Parliamentary TA institutes set up as public institutions also have obligations towards the parliament, and most often a direct link to a parliamentary committee. The autonomy to take up issues and pick methodology as the institution finds it most relevant is an important feature of this model of organisational, which is reflected in the use of a broad toolbox, which potentially can result in any of the impacts/roles in the TAMI typology. The downside of this model, however, is mostly to be found in the low involvement of politicians in the internal process of the institution, which may hinder the call for TA as part of the parliamentary decision-making process.

36. Though such models can be identified and can be seen to influence methodology and impact, the choice of roles has as much to do with institutional strategies as it has with formal boundaries. Inside the models, the aims of the institutions are always subject to negotiation, which means that the right strategies may open up for new methodological fields to explore, and, subsequently, for new and more roles to be played. For example, the scientific institution may open up for interactive methods involving stakeholders or citizens, in order to supplement the scientific analysis with debate; the parliamentary office may decide to take in citizen participation in order to serve the parliamentarians with in-depth knowledge about public opinion; and the public institution may compensate for the weak links to the parliament by going into cooperation with the parliamentary committees directly on an ad hoc basis. An important feature of TA seems to be that such strategies are real, and there is a tendency for all types of TA institutions towards expanding the toolbox and playing a more diversified set of roles. These points are supported by the fact that across the different models and the many different kinds of TA being performed in our societies, there is a common understanding of the rationales and the mission of TA activities.

37. From the assumption that the establishment of TA offices is an expression of a general need for more conscious technology policy-making, it follows that such offices should be present, wherever knowledge, opinion forming and action is necessary. This may be among parliamentarians, but it may be among stakeholders, experts or the general public as well. In consequence, this means that the strongest TA is to be found when certain TA goals can be unrestrictedly pursued with regard to method, target groups, communication efforts, etc.

The Mode of Operation and Instruments of Technology Assessments

38. An interdisciplinary approach is characteristic of TA institutions. The clarification of possible repercussions of new technologies should be carried out as comprehensively as possible. This certainly includes economic, social, ecological, legal and ethical aspects.

Three Important Pillars of Technology Assessment

39. For all of their conceptual and organisational nuances, the European TA institutions still have a great deal in common. Among these is the basic assumption that technology assessment consists of three prime components.

“Classic” TA Studies (Expert Reports)

40. On the one hand, TA studies pursue an explorative, analytical objective. This means that a specific technology is systematically analysed and examined for possible economic, social and ecological consequences and secondary effects. In the sense of a decision-making tool for political bodies, part of this would include highlighting possible options for action. TA studies take the broadest possible approach in their examination of which social consequences could possibly result from the introduction of a new technology or the further development of currently used technology. The focus is the positive and negative influences of this technology on social, cultural, political, economic and ecological systems and processes.

Participatory TA Methods (Cooperation Measures)

41. Besides classic TA studies, TA institutions may use various forms of participatory procedures (for example, consensus conferences, public forums, or focus groups) in order to gather the opinions of those affected qualitatively. The objective is to inform decision makers, who tend to listen to the experts first and foremost, of the way citizens see the problem. The perspective of informed laypersons can therefore be included in the evaluation of controversial technologies. The evaluation of new technologies may not be left up to technicians, sociologists and political scientists. The risk is too great that the opinion of experts will deviate diametrically from the population, which is affected by it or benefits from it. The call for the inclusion of laypersons in the evaluation of technical and scientific options results from this perception. For this reason, cooperation measures belong to a technology assessment as normative, participatory components just as much as the explorative, analytical studies.

Communication and Public-Relations Work

42. The soundest studies and most impressive participatory procedures are useless if they are not communicated to the target group. For this reason, communication is considered a key element of every TA project. Communication must take place before, during and, naturally, after the conclusion of the project. Depending on the phase of the TA project, the emphasis is on recording and listening, interaction or informing. Communication with key people is part of the initial part of a TA project. During this phase, among other things, the focus is on identifying the central problems of controversial technologies and on grasping the expectations of decision makers and the current state of the technology. The more precise the understanding of the status quo is, the more unassailable the results of a TA project will be later. During the course of a project it is important to maintain contact and keep a dialogue going with the target groups. These groups can be informed of the progress of a project and at the same time the project heads can receive feedback, which could allow them to make adjustments if necessary. At the conclusion of a project, providing information to the general public is of primary importance. This public-relations phase helps disseminate the results and conclusions of the TA project.

43. TA institutions have a great number of different information channels during the described phases. Among these are, for example, TA newsletters, TA web sites, press conferences, different events with members of parliament and other interest groups, where the results of various TA activities can be presented.

44. Good relations with the media, among other things, are very important for raising the level of awareness about TA and its activities. It is crucial that the topics being studied are explained to the general public in understandable language and at the right point in time; and that those undertaking the study are successful in making them the point of discussion in a suitable form which provokes reactions and creates synergies.

Parliamentary and Scientific Conferences organised by the Assembly

45. The Committee on Science and Technology of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe organised in 1961-1990 seven parliamentary and scientific conferences. These confer�ences were organised in various parts of the world, and were an efficient forum for establishing contacts between parliamentarians, and familiarizing them with the latest scientific and technologi�cal issues.

46. The first parliamentary and scientific conference took place in London 1961. It was pointed out that parliamentarians would be obliged to take into account the stage of scientific development, in order to be able to understand and judge prevailing conditions in their true light. Thus, Parliaments in all countries would have to consider the establishment of a firm liaison with science.

47. The second conference was held in Vienna in 1964. It concluded, inter alia, that in each country there should be a Minister responsible for the promotion and co-ordination of science policy in all its aspects. The Third conference was organised in Lausanne in 1972 and had four main themes: the problems of society in the scientific technological age, the role of parliaments, European co-operation in scientific research and European technological development. It had participants also from the United States, Canada and Japan.

48. During the Third Parliamentary and Scientific Conference the proposal was also presented before the US Congress to create an Office of Technology Assessment. The creation of technology assessment capacities in different national Parliaments and also the European Parliament followed. These structures have developed since then and have established a close co-operation by creating a European Parliamentary Technology Assessment network, EPTA.

49. The Fourth Parliamentary and Scientific Conference, which was organised in Florence in 1975 had as its general theme: “Science and the Future of Man in European Society”. The Fifth Conference was organised in Helsinki in June 1981 on the subject of “Technology and Democracy: Impacts of Technological Change on European Society and Civilisation”. The two last Conferences in this series were organised in Tokyo, 1985, and in Ottawa, 1990.

50. The organisation of these conferences was abandoned after the Ottawa conference. Consideration should however be given to their resumption.

Apendix I

Input from the EPTA member organisations on the situation and the future of TA in Europe

The following is a summary of the comments received from the directors of the EPTA member organisations on four questions.

Question 1: Views and suggestions on the status of TA in Europe

There is unanimity that in several west European countries there are well-established TA organisations. Through the EPTA Network we have an efficient platform to organise the exchange of ideas, experience and staff, all of which significantly benefit the participants. What is missing is a platform to establish contacts with - and to organise support for - countries and people interested in the TA, this mainly in countries (southern and eastern Europe) where the institutionalisation of TA is still lacking (at universities, research institutions as well as at the parliamentary level).

The European Union, especially the European Parliament and - within this structure - STOA (which is now being restructured) should play a larger role in the optimisation of the national TA institutions. It would be an interesting step forward to map the TA situation in the Union. In a second stage, the European Parliament could, for example, assign the Commission the task of studying inter-parliamentary cooperation among the national and regional TA institutes. Strengthening TA in Europe requires more “pan-European” or at least “bi- or trilateral” studies of common areas of interest. In a third stage, the Commission could define specific measures to stimulate EPTA, the existing European TA network.

The lack of EU Commission involvement means that TA is only funded nationally with little or no support from the EU. There are no initiatives to make a stronger cross-EU TA possible. EPTA could play an important role, but it would take a common financial pool, because many of the EPTA organisations cannot use their resources for European (non-national) projects. Strengthening forms of institutional cooperation among the European parliamentary TA-organisations would also benefit new TA-institutions coming from the present and future member states in their start up phase.

In addition to the above-mentioned aspects, Technology Foresight is gaining terrain in Europe, which is good, but it cannot stand alone: First, it should not be Technology Foresight or TA, but Technology Foresight and TA. Second, there is a great need for a strong problem-oriented European TA, since Europe is facing major problems in this area. Third, methodologically TA is 25 years ahead of Technology Foresight. Fourth, the Technology Foresight perspective is nearly always embedded in TA activities - so there really should be integration between the two.

Question 2: Added value of TA in respect to the Parliament and the society in general

The following aspects can be mentioned as general considerations:

TA raises the quality of the public debate about technology, by promoting research and analysis, by stimulating the public debate, by informing target groups and by democratising technological choices.

TA can clarify positions and arguments by means of balanced information.

By stressing public participation, TA can involve the general public in the debate.

TA’s unique contribution is the independent and unbiased assessment of societal problems and options for problem solving. It is an interdisciplinary and the bird’s eye view TA can provide.

TA seeks to lower the threshold for parliamentarians to pursue an active technology policy by putting technological options on the political agenda, and by making visible different policy alternatives and thereby helping to define the space for political action.

As a summarised reflection, TA increases the awareness and ability to constructively cope with problems in the policy-technology-society interface. This is of great importance in so-called “knowledge societies”. The sole role of parliamentary TA remains giving reasonable background information for politics and society. Information based on ‘sound scientific evidence’ and ‘enlighten and reasonable interactive communication’.

Question 3: Results and impacts of TA

It is not the idea to list all of the different results and impacts within the interviewed countries but it is rather to summarise the long experience in respect to the achieved results and impact of different TA organisations in Europe.

An important contribution of TA is the constant support within a broad range of parliamentary committees in their work on technological and scientific issues. Many of the presented TA reports are highly appreciated by members of parliament, as well as the media and the scientific community. What is from TA reports first of all valued is the comprehensive and balanced overview on existing and promising future applications of a new field of technology development.

The participatory TA methods are getting stronger so that the TA can involve the general public in the technological debate. With specific participatory methods (but without neglecting more traditional methods) TA supported parliaments in the complex decisions they must make about science and technology. This allowed policy-makers to keep in touch with society and improved the performance of a nation’s institutions.

All over Europe, TA institutions played a crucial role in raising the awareness, initiating and contributing to nationwide debates about specific subjects, such as organ donation, traffic policies, reproductive technology, stem cells, or genetically modified foods.

Question 4: Most critical points we should be especially aware on the development of TA in Europe

The European TA institutes are by their very nature obliged to concentrate on the local (national or regional) situation. As a consequence, the need to organise on a supra-national institutional level is far from evident. Nevertheless, there is a need for organising greater institutional cooperation. Moreover, the European TA institutes are rather small. In general, this means they lack budgetary means and personnel to maximise the potential of European cooperation.

Maybe it is time to give TA a chance to expand? Most TA institutions are settled with certain obligations and certain resources. Instead of evaluating them as they are, it seems that there is a general need to evaluate them for what they could be given new perspectives and greater resources. They could, for example, manage broader information activities, technology foresight programmes, science communication events, science-society research activities and much more, which typically are spread among many smaller institutions. In the long run, maybe we should even think on a fusion among the European TA institutions - but only if it shows to be possible to manage the problem-driven and the vision-driven perspective in the same institutions.

The ‘eastern’ countries, including the accession countries, are a special case.  Most of them have limited budgets for parliamentary TA.  For this reason, many of them are thinking of creating special relationships between their parliaments and their National Academies of Science. This is acceptable but some consequences need to be recognised. The academies will always tend to be ‘pro-science’ ( they will support more public funding for scientific research, higher salaries for researchers, etc).  A completely independent parliamentary TA service would not necessarily support such policies - it would recognise that there could be political arguments that funds might be better spent in areas other than scientific research.  Also, the academies may not be best placed to ‘capture’ the continuing debate on the role of experts versus lay persons.

It is crucial that TA-Institutions should be independent and explorative but not neutral or give well-balanced analyses.

TA institutes should explore the right questions in an open society.

On the methodological side, particularly participatory TA methods should be applied more on a European level as a contribution to development of awareness within the European public sphere.

In conclusion: all this requires resources and time to learn from each other.

Appendix II

Input from the Directors of five EPTA member organisations on structures, procedures, links to parliaments and working methods

1.         Italy’s Chamber of deputies - VAST Committee

The form of institutionalisation of the organisation

The VAST Committee was established for the first time during the 13th Parliament (1996-2001) and re-established by the Bureau of the Chamber of Deputies at the beginning of the 14th Parliament, with the task of co-ordinating parliamentary initiatives and activities related to scientific research and technology application; it met on 5th February 2002 for the first time. The VAST Committee is chaired by the Speaker of the Chamber of Deputies, On. Pier Ferdinando Casini, who has delegated the co-ordination of its activities to On. Bruno Tabacci, Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Economic Activities, Trade and Tourism. The VAST Committee consists of twelve MPs, representing all parliamentary groups, and the Secretary General of the Chamber of Deputies.

Link to the Parliament

The VAST Committee is set up as an exclusively parliamentary committee. The committee is an “offshoot” of the Bureau of the Chamber and is designed as an instrument for a general overview on methods and procedures adopted in all parliamentary bodies when they pertain to technology policies. The VAST committee maintains a close dialogue with the other parliamentary committees within the Chamber in order to suggest, encourage and extend all the parliamentary procedures capable to ensure that technological options are fully understood and properly appraised as part of the parliamentary fact-finding activity. Without any external experts sitting on it, the committee ensures a comprehensive linkage between Parliament and the highest national expertise by means of seminars and hearings. These initiatives are carefully organized and carried out in order to attain a very precise objective: combining political approaches and high expertise on political issues taking into consideration only the technological aspects that are of real political interest through accessible and short presentations.

Structure, organisation and the existing working procedure with the Parliament

The staff is composed by five person that cares for VAST as soon as other activities regarding internet web site and technological innovations. It is essential when Parliament is conducting its preliminary analysis  - by which is meant the fact-finding work, particularly when issues are being dealt with in Committee, in order to acquire essential information for assessment and for policy choices - to be fully aware of the latest developments in new technologies. Parliament is the forum where a well-informed public debate ought to take place on the great issues connected with the new technologies.  Fact-finding and relations with experts are therefore an essential stage in the decision-making process, and it is essential to reflect on the ways in which parliamentary procedures enable, and to a certain extent "bind", the decision makers to carry out complex assessments based on technological evidence.

Practical procedure and Results

During the current Parliament the Chamber of Deputies of Italy has frequently addressed topics related to the relations between humans and the ethical, social, and individual freedom issues concerning people and arising from the utilisation of new technologies or scientific processes. The most important topics approved by the Italian Parliament in the last year (laws, still non definitively approved, on the Legal protection of biotechnological inventions and the recently approved law 19th February 2004, n. 40 on Medically assisted in vitro fertilisation) were assisted by help of scientific knowledge introduced in the Parliaments through hearings and fact-findings investigations. The VAST Committee during the 14th Parliament organised 5 Seminars and enquiries on scientific topics of major parliamentary interest, with the participation of numerous academics and experts in the specific sectors, such as: The introduction of new technology and development of transport systems to support the productive system" (4 October 2002); Perspectives of research and innovation in Italy (12th December 2002); Future of Aerospace Policy in Italy and Europe (3rd April 2003); Industrial policy for information technology (15th may 2003); Technologic innovation in industrial districts (30th October 2003). It also participates to the interparliamentary initiatives of the EISC (European Interparliamentary Space Committee) and to the several international Meetings, such International round table meeting on Science, Technology and Innovation Policy organized by Unesco and Committee for the future of Finland Parliament (Helsinki, 12th January 2003) and European Conference of Members of National Parliaments on Information and Communication Technologies, organised by EPRI (Berlin, 8th October 2003).

The strong points of the institution and what to improve

Fact-finding and relations with experts are therefore an essential stage in the decision-making process, specially if conducted by a Committee created like an “offshoot” of the Bureau of the Chamber and inspired at a bipartisan logic, and that it not operates under ordinary criteria of political contrast between opposition and majority, like in the standing committee. The Parliament is the right place where the "world of technology" could be linked with the "political world", translating technological language into political terms in order to highlight the consequences of the decisions regarding technology on the organisation of the economy and society. This type of information influences the quality of the political debate in Parliament. In many cases, if Parliament ignores the technological aspects, it will not be able to identify or correctly pinpoint the problems and will therefore be unable to assess the consequences of particular decisions or the various possible options that exist. For the future activity it’s necessary to ensure a more continuous activity of the Committee, like the standing Committee that operate every week, whereas VAST stands with a non regular calendar; it’s also necessary to have an adequate internal staff to follow different fields of technology assessment.

2.         The Danish Board of Technology - Teknologir�det

The Danish Board of Technology (DBT) was established in 1985 as a time-limited institution and made permanent in 1995. It is established by law as an independent institution, connected to the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation, and with a formal link to the Committee on Science and Technology at the Danish Parliament. The DBT communicates and co-operates directly with the relevant committees in the Parliament in connection to the TA activities, and the committees can ask the Board to take up certain issues or to arrange TA activities for the Parliament.

The DBT consists of a Board of Governors (11 members) and a Board of Representatives (50 members), served by a secretariat (13.5 man-year, plus project employed assistance). It receives a yearly grant of 10 million DKK ~ 1.3 million € from the public budget.

The DBT regards the Parliament and the government as the main customers, served by specific types of activities and communication services. However, as a public, independent institution, the Board has an obligation to also direct the activities towards the specific actors (industry, academia, NGO’s etc), the broader public (media, education system, public debate etc), as well as towards political decision-makers in a broader sense. Because of this, the methodology of the DBT is composed of five clusters of methods:

The Board decides the topics for the yearly work-plan after an open call for ideas, rating of the ideas and a problem situation analysis on the 20 most promising topics. Methods are chosen to give the best possible answer to the problem situation.

The results of the work of the Board are plural of nature, since the topics, involved actors and methods are most diverse from project to project. The results range from the generic impacts (increasing awareness and understanding; documenting knowledge and normative standpoints etc), to the process related results (increased dialog between actors; mediation of conflicts; production of broadly supported scenarios and options etc), and finally to decisions taken (new public strategies; research initiatives; legislation etc).

The strengths of the construction and approach of the DBT are connected to a) the freedom to choose the most effective method and audience in accordance with the problem analysis; b) the independent status in connection with the interactive methodology, which makes the DBT a trusted “third part” in the political debate on science and technology issues; and c) the direct links to political decision-makers, which ensures relevance for the many people who contribute to the TA processes.

3.         The Austrian Institute of Technology Assessment (ITA)

The form of institutionalisation of the organisation

The Institute of Technology Assessment (ITA) is a research facility of the Austrian Academy of Sciences (AAS). It was founded in its present form on January 1st, 1994, based on its predecessor, the Technology Assessment Unit (TAU). At present, the Institute employs about a dozen scientific researchers. Their expert knowledge of economics, business management, sociology, political science, communications technology, telecommunications, molecular biology, medicine, genetics, chemistry, ecology and law is combined in the interdisciplinary field of technology assessment (TA). Teams of employees of the Institute, who are assisted when required by external experts, form the core group. A scientific board that has been set up by the Austrian Academy of Sciences supports the institute. ITA is financed by the Austrian Academy of Sciences as well as by third parties (such as the Austrian Fund for Scientific Research FWF, different Austrian ministries, the Commission of the European Union etc.).

The link to the Parliament

There are rather weak institutional links to Parliament in Austria. This is due to the fact that the Austrian legislative system strongly depends on governmental proposals and formerly was strongly influenced by social partnership negotiations before/parallel to parliamentary discussions. Anyway ITA has provided information and advice to Parliament several times. ITA did the scientific secretariat of the Austrian Enquete-Commission, which led to the law on GMOs in Austria. The findings of the Austrian Technology Delphi, commissioned by the Federal Ministry of Research, where directly reported by the Minister to the respective commission at Parliament furthermore several members of ITA are invited experts for parliamentary hearings from time to time.

Practical procedure

Proposals of possible studies are discussed with representatives from federal ministries or other financing bodies, proposals are written for EU-Framework programmes, different bodies (federal as well as regional ones) ask ITA to do a study, international partners invite ITA to participate and there is some money for basic research, which is devoted to important questions, where financing is not easily to get. Methodological procedures cover all the interdisciplinary methods from the Social Science and Technology Assessment tool-box.

Results

About 140 studies since 1988, results are very heterogeneous: from direct impact on decisions to studies with almost no effect (although in good quality).

The strong points of the institution and what to improve

ITA is good in scientific interdisciplinary work on some specific areas. Main areas of work are ICT, biotechnology, environmental technologies, Health Technology Assessment and some work has been done in the conceptual and methodological field. We would like to go more into participation to bring together scientific expertise with layman and stakeholder opinions.

4.         The Greek Committee of Technology Assessment

The Greek Committee of T.A. is a parliamentary committee provided by the Standing Orders of the Greek Parliament.  Art 43 A of the Standing Orders of the Greek Parliament   provides the establishment of a permanent committee of Technology Assessment consisting of 17 Members of Parliament representing all the parliamentary groups in the House. Its task covers any matter within the sphere of the technology development so as to give advice on strategy on technological field. It is also entitled with the encouragement of the international cooperation on technology assessment.

The Directorate of Studies of the Greek Parliament undertakes the scientific support of its work. Several scientists and researcher fellows participate to the discussion meetings of the committee in order to present their point of view on TA matters.

Our Committee has examined issues concerning the environment, the consequences from the utilisation of new technologies or scientific processes (Activities 2003:  Environmental consequences of the extraction of gold.- New technologies and urgent medical assistance - Ethical questions of cloning).

5.         The Flemish Institute for Scientific and Technological Assessment (viWTA)

The relationship between viWTA and the Flemish Parliament

viWTA is an autonomous institute within the Flemish Parliament, established by decree. As such it does its work independently, and is only accountable to the Parliament. It has its own Board of Directors, who are responsible for decisions of policy. The Board consists of sixteen members, half of whom are members of the Flemish Parliament, while the other half is composed of experts from the Flemish scientific, ecological en socio-economic community. The Director of the Board always is a Member of Parliament. The director of viWTA is granted the right to inspect all official documents, and must be heard by Parliament on request.

The main role of viWTA is to advise the Flemish Parliament on the impact of technology on society, either on its own initiative or in response to questions from the Parliament.

These questions have to pass through the Extended Bureau of the Parliament, i.e. the Flemish Parliament’s executive committee, enlarged with the chairpersons of the political groups. The Extended Bureau can formulate questions itself, or can base questions on proposals of one or more Parliamentary Commissions. Prior to any research proposal of the Extend Bureau, viWTA is required to give a (non-binding) advice, as a safeguard to the mission and the independency of viWTA. So far, viWTA has done research on its own initiative. The legislative work necessary for direct Parliamentary questions has been finished in February 2004. The first Parliamentary questions are expected after the elections of June 2004.

viWTA is a relatively young institution, but our first major research project already led to a Parliamentary resolution on genetically modified foods, which was unanimously accepted in March 2004. Moreover, an additional advice on these matters was formulated, which will be discussed in Parliament after the elections.

The strengths of viWTA are its flexibility, its multidisciplinary character, the permanent attention for quality control, the conscious choice for integrated projects, and last but not least, the remarkable depth and broadness of its approach to technology assessment, not only with respect to the content of the research projects, but with respect to methodology as well. The major weakness of viWTA has been removed in February 2004, when Parliament has defined procedures to give direct assignments to viWTA.

Reporting committee: Committee on Culture, Science and Education

Reference to committee: Doc. 9515 and Reference No 2759 of 3 September 2002

Draft resolution unanimously adopted by the Committee on 24 June 2004

Members of the Committee: MM. de Puig (Chairman), Baroness Hooper MM. Prisacaru, Smorawinski (Vice-Chairpersons), Apostoli, Banks, Barbieri, Mrs Bemelmans-Videc, Berceanu (Alternate: Canacheu), Mrs Bilic, MM. Braga, Buzatu, Colombier, Cubreacov, Dalgaard, Mme Damanaki, Mr Debono Grech, Mrs Delvaux-Stehres, Mr Devinski, Mrs Dromberg, Mrs Eymer, Mrs Fern�ndez-Capel Ba�os, MM. Gadzinowski, Goutry, Grachev (Alternate: Chernyshenko), Gross, G�nd�z I, G�nd�z S, Gunnarsson, Mrs Hadziahmetovic, MM. Hegyi, Henry, Howlin (Alternate: Mooney), Huseynov R, Iannuzzi, Jakic, Jarab, Kocharyan, Legendre,  Lengagne (Alternate : Nachbar), Letzgus, Libicki, Livaneli (Alternate : Kepenek), Mrs Lucyga, MM. Malgieri, Marxer, McNamara, Mrs Melandri, MM. Melnikov (Alternate: Fomenko), Mestan (Alternate: Pavlov), Mezihorak, Mrs Milotinova, Mrs Morganti, Mrs Muttonen, Mrs Nakashidze, MM. Nazar� Pereira, O’Hara, Mrs Ohlsson, Mrs Papadimitriou, Mrs Pericleous Papadopoulos, MM. Rakhansky, Randegger, Mrs Reps, MM. Ribera Ambatlle, Rockenbauer, Mrs Rugate, Mr Rybak, Mrs Samoilovska-Cvetanova (Alternate: Mrs Petrova-Mitevska), M. Schneider, Mrs Serna Masia, MM. Shybko, Šileikis, Mrs Skarb�vik, MM. Skoch (Alternate: Korobeynikov), Stojadinovic, Sudarenkov, van Thijn, Vakilov (Alternate: Mirzazada), Mrs Westerlund Panke, M. Wodarg, ZZ, ZZ  (Alternate: Mrs Radulovic-Šcepanovic).

N.B. The names of those present at the meeting are printed in bold

Head of secretariat: Mr Grayson

Secretaries to the Committee: Mr Ary, Mrs Theophilova-Permaul