Objectives

The constantly growing demand for energy on a global scale has caused two problems the production and utilization of biofuels is intended to help solve:

• The production and use of fossil energy has undoubtedly contributed towards climate change;
• Dependence on imports reduces energy supply security.

The promotion of energy generation through biogenic fuels is one way out of this dilemma. However, as the quantity of biomass necessary to achieve the climate targets cannot be made available within the EU, the utilization of today’s bioenergy technologies will hardly reduce the dependence of energy supply on imports, but at least diversify it. Nonetheless, the ecological benefit is increasingly being challenged.

The communication from the European Commission on the EU Strategy for Biofuels (2003) essentially contains three objectives:

• Increased promotion of biofuels in the EU and in developing countries,
• Preparation for the extensive use of biofuels and
  • Intensification of co-operation with developing countries in the field of the sustainable production of biofuels.

The objectives for individual nations receive special emphasis.

The EU has responded to growing scepticism as regards the sustainability and energy efficiency of biofuels and has increasingly employed scientific studies further to develop its strategies or commissioned studies itself. Here, assessments of the consequences of producing and using conventional biofuels play an equally important role as the promotion of technological development in the fields of second-generation biofuels and engine design.

The strategies of EU Member States differ in terms of the production and import of biofuels. This is partly due to reasons of climate.

A comparison between Sweden and France makes the difference clear: countries like France with a high proportion of agriculture and/or agro-industry and strong lobbies with influence on state policy view the production of biofuels as an opportunity to restructure national agriculture. This is the case with France. In such countries, interest in importing biomass is much lower. Conversely, countries like Sweden with a high GDP, low significance of agriculture and a large demand for energy tend to be interested in reducing CO₂ emissions and the dependence on oil imports. Sweden aims at substituting for imports, but is highly interested in them.

In Austria, biofuels currently play an insignificant role. According to its own sources, the largest Austrian oil company, the OMV, does not import directly, but buys via raw materials dealers. The OMV is biding time as regards the future. After initial enthusiasm in the agricultural sector and processing industry, interest in domestic production has declined, especially as the starting products, rape and sugar beet, exhibit little energy efficiency.

The EU sustainability criteria for biofuels were formulated in the guideline for renewable energy sources. Here, it is a question of significantly reducing greenhouse emissions. Only sustainable biofuels may be used in the EU.

The sustainability criteria for biofuels lay down that their production must be proven to have no detrimental effect on biological diversity and land use. In terms of development co-operation, the sustainability criteria are vague and the local contexts too little heeded.

The EU guidelines form the framework for sustainability criteria, but leave the concrete formulation of strategies and implementation to individual Member States. There are several reasons for this, deriving from the principle of subsidiarity:

• The strategies of individual Member States on biofuels differ for reasons of different national interests.
• Different strategies aim at reaching the EU’s 20/20/20 targets by sustainable energy supply.
• The case of the field of transport shows that industrial and technology policy has a major role to play. The car industry is an important actor stakeholder in technology development; biofuels are competing with alternative energy sources.
• Vehicle manufacturers respond to political decisions, but also influence them.
• Differing climactic conditions in Member States require the use of different propulsion systems for vehicles.

The result of the study shows that differentiation is necessary:

• The starting materials for biofuels are diverse and their sustainability not uncontested. Biogenic fuels differ substantially in production and use.
• The impact of biofuel production on emerging and developing countries are not unproblematic in ecological and also socio-economic terms.
• European policy is oriented towards reducing dependence on imports and developing pertinent technology. Medium- and long-term, the production of biofuels is only meaningful for emerging and developing countries, if they are produced for local demand.

For exporting emerging and developing countries, the orientation towards exports and increased wealth due to the higher share in world trade are linked to numerous risks, for the following reasons:

• Ecological causes:
  The accelerated cultivation of energy plants might cause permanent ecological damage by virtue of the high space and irrigation requirements as well as the intensive use of pesticides.
• Social causes:
  The economically meaningful production of biomass necessitates large acreage. This goes hand in hand with acreage competition between food and energy plantations. This competition is exacerbated by the fact that in Africa food production is frequently intended for export and large areas of land have been sold or surrendered to foreign enterprises, mainly from China, India and the Arabic-speaking countries, with long-term lease contracts.
• Economic and technical causes:
  Today, great hopes are being placed on generating bioenergy from waste products (second-generation biofuels) and alternative energy sources. That reduces the dependence on imports of the EU and its Member States (and are ecologically more meaningful), but decreases the chances of the emerging countries and the developing countries on the world market.

However, Austria’s role in development co-operation is not sufficient to warrant involvement in the large-scale elaboration of national development plans. In the context of the production and import of biofuels, this implies orienting development co-operation towards collaboration with civil society and taking an active part in the discussion at the European level.

Framework for ‘epistemic governance’ of biodiversity: the discourse on a science policy-interface for biodiversity and ecosystem services
Alice B. M. Vadrot

Abstract

This article addresses the discourse on the science-policy interface in the field of biodiversity governance within the context of the recently established Intergovernmental Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). It analyses several narratives and problem perceptions linked to biodiversity science and governance in order to better understand the background to the institutionalisation process of IPBES and related interests and conflicts. It starts from the assumption that the discourse on the need to enhance the science-policy interface relates to the difficulties in assessing the concept of biodiversity, the crisis of biodiversity governance and inefficient policy implementation. Objects and the mode of thinking about them constitute each other mutually; in the same way, political programmes presuppose the order of reality that they describe and challenge. They are both constructed and interwoven. The establishment of IPBES goes beyond institutional rearrangement and needs to be analysed with regard to the epistemic and strategic dimension of science-policy interaction and a non-linear approach to the interrelations between science and policy.

Programme

The workshop held in Vienna at the 25^th of May 2011 is part of the HealthGovMatters Project. It is a three-year collaborative research project (2009-2012) co-funded by the European Commission under the Seventh Framework Programme ´Science in Society`. The project comprises three core areas of research and two forms of events, of which one is a citizen workshop. The research and workshops are conducted in Germany, United Kingdom and Austria.  (http://www.healthgovmatters.eu/).

The citizen workshop aimed at facilitating public engagement with science and at stimulating a discussion on the role of new technologies in the way how neurological diseases are framed.

The event was organized at the Selbsthilfeunterstützungsstelle (SUS Self-help coordination Unit”) to ensure the visibility of the event among a wide range of patient and health related organizations. Participants of different backgrounds attended the workshop: neurologists, patients, practitioners, researchers, medical scientists, students, and heads of self-help groups. They all had experience with diseases and (new) technologies.

The workshop has offered a platform for exchange of views of expert and lay people.  These were observed and analyzed according to the following questions:

• How do the participants talk about new technologies?
• To which knowledge/experience do they refer to?
• How is the doctor/patient relationship perceived?
• What are the (dominant) modes of justification of their opinions?

The first part of the workshop was constituted of two presentations and discussion rounds; the second part was dedicated to intensive work, experience exchange and discussion within two breakout groups. The results were summarized and presented to the plenary session. Finally, Alice B. M. Vadrot presented first results of the HealthGovMatters project. The welcome speeches were held by Ronald J. Pohoryles (Director of the ICCR), Andreas Keclic (SUS) and Julie Hartley (Goldsmith Institute). The two presentations from Markus F. Peschl (University of Vienna) and Susanne Asenbaum-Nan (medical university of Vienna) addressed the role of imaging technologies in the construction of neurological diseases. The speakers assessed the issue from two opposing perspectives- a philosophical and epistemological and a natural science and practical perspective- that build the ground for extensive and controversy discussion on how to draw the line between the normal and the pathologic.

How do natural sciences and technologies influence our perception of the human being?

The first presentation focused on the ´conditia humana` and its perception by natural sciences, which in turn impacts the use and development of new technologies.  Entry point of the presentation was the the very basic questions: What constitutes the human being and what is the respective natural science perspective and influence? Markus F. Peschl assessed the topic by providing insights into the general procedures of natural sciences and their application to human activities and conditions. Natural sciences and technologies are based on a reductionist view on rationality and reason and thus of mental procedures and neurological diseases. This can best be illustrated by natural science approaches towards decision making. Imaging Technologies such as the Electroencephalography (EEG) have the potential to indentify the moment a decision is made by recording changes in the brain’s spontaneous electrical activity over the specific time of decision making. Imaging technologies suggest that the physical moment of decision making precedes the moment we are conscious about the decision making process. This result challenges the concept of the ´free will` and the subjective perception of individual and independent decisions making, e.g. the relation between mental and physical processes and the relation between structure and function.

To deal with this contradiction and to overcome the conclusion that human decisions are physically determined Peschl distinguishes between four dimensions of reality: Perception, (Natural) Sciences, Philosophy, and Metaphysics that demand for different types of knowledge and methodology. He concludes that the decision on what actually needs to be analyzed when it comes to human action and being is a precondition for valid and solid knowledge. We have to be aware about the limits of each knowledge form and the limits of their explanatory power. Natural Sciences and technologies exclusively address the functional dimension of human beings and thus answer the question of the ´how` and not of the ´what`. They tend to reduce human activities to physical procedures, but instead of enduring the paradigm of positivism and applying it to overall human activities they should be aware of their limited applicability and explanatory power.

The subsequent discussion showed that this statement is challenged by benefits deriving from new technologies. However, most participants addressed the problem inherent in natural science perspective by questioning the relationship between structure and function and the problem of causality. Furthermore the utility of imaging technologies in the light of scientific uncertainty was debated and their benefits discussed. If quantified knowledge on brain procedures is limited to the provision of functional knowledge, why do we need to link it back to the human being as such? One possible answer is the potential of technologies to visualize diseases and abnormalities that lead into the manifestation of neurological diseases beyond prejudices and stigmatization. In this respect functional Imaging is important as it contributes to the deconstruction of myth and it contributes to the diversification of therapeutic options. Furthermore we should get rid of philosophical considerations as serious interpretations of images produced by EEG, MRT and others provides us with information on probabilities and presumptions, even though the dichotomy and reciprocity between structure and function remains debated. One solution might be to open positivism and to allow for plurality of methodological approaches and paradigms.

Imaging technologies and the diagnosis of neurological diseases -what`s new?

Susanne Asenbaum-Nan`s presentation addressed the practical implications and challenges of Imaging Technologies. She presented the function and application of Positron Emission Tomography (PET), a nuclear medicine imaging technique that produces images of functional processes in the body. Her focus was the role of PET in diagnostic procedures of neurological diseases. Functional brain imaging is primarily applied to analyze physical functions such as perfusion, metabolism and neurotransmitter systems and related abnormalities and structural changes. Correspondingly nuclear medicine is a tool for the demonstration of structure. Applied in the clinical context the following important question remains: How far developed does the disease need to be to make such a sensitive examination applicable and significant? In many cases the pathology is visible before the patient actually suffers and shows symptoms (e.g. Parkinson, Dementia). What to do with the information that a ´normal` person will develop a disease and how to ensure that technologies are not hastily applied and increasingly used for prediction purpose and the assessment of probabilities?  Similar questions need to be raised in the framework of genetic testing. Asenbaum-Nan admits that the number of examination exceeds the real need and possible benefits. Furthermore she points out that medical doctors and scientists have ´no problem` in integrating these technologies into clinical day-to-day life, especially as the objective of finding constantly caring and appropriate therapies are at the very fore. Medical doctors and scientists simply have no time to take philosophical and epistemological questions into account. The only thing they can do is to contribute to the development of elaborated forms of prevention that profit from enhanced diagnostic methods.

The question of how to cope with the application of imaging technologies and their potential to diagnose a person before a clinic is made was issue of further discussion mainly through its relation to the political dimension of the governance of medical knowledge. How should the society cope with these ´new` patients and who draws the line between the normal and pathologic? Today more people are diagnosed and new technologies contribute to an increase in the number of diagnosed diseases. The participants of the workshop agreed that this assumption should not lead to the conclusion that our societies will have to cope with a huge number of neurological diseases in the light of an aging society. We need to reflect today’s societies, but not by appling linear models and dramatic scenarios. One major challenge is the integration of patients with neurological diseases into society by opening the discourse, providing information and education and by ensuring a long-term and integrated mode of rehabilitation, as for example in the case apoplexia. The current health and insurance system tends to disintegrate, suspend, conceal and hide patients with neurological diseases. Some participants tend to link this development to the general approach to and perception of neurological diseases. They affect and act on the brain and interlink with what we perceive to be the “soul” and individuality of human beings. They are unpredictable, located within the ´forbidden` and related to mysticism. This is also due to the close relationship between neurology and psychiatry most notably in the field of pharmaceuticals that often have the same impact and scope: The brain, or to be clearer the neurons and synapses. But again, what is a normal brain?

Many neurological diseases such as epilepsy (especially the idiopathic type) are characterized by punctual seizures that can neither be located nor deduced from potential structural abnormalities. The assessment of causalities remains unclear as the reduction to single causes is. Even though genetics provide us with some fragile evidence on heredity, the question of why a specific neurological disease appears at some point in life remains unclear. It is not visible, but through technological intervention. Technologies have a say in framing neurological diseases, but do they draw the line between the ´normal` and the ´abnormal`? The individual responses of the participants clearly point out the difficulties of answering this question, but the responses went into the same direction: We do not know, but technologies can help us, if there are not misused and framed by strong juridical frameworks and corresponding political debates and action.  Technologies are a source of empowerment as they show what nobody wants to see: neurological conditions are ´normal` conditions and should be taken as such, even though this implies a wide range of epistemological, juridical and ethical questions that need to be reflected by other disciplines and debated within society.

For any further information on the outcome of the Workshop and the HealthGovMatters Project please contact: a.vadrot@iccr-international.org

Downloads

Presentation Asenbaum
Presentation Peschl
Presentation Vadrot

Photos

Sessions focus on risk, understanding and choice, food safety, food security and climate change, socio-economic impact of food safety regulations, allergens, emerging issues in food (such as nanotechnology) chemical contaminants and mycotoxins, and food safety education curricula around the globe; all under the umbrella of the impact on consumers. The conference will also introduce the new MoniQA Association, a non-profit-distributing organisation dedicated to collaborative research promoting a more secure and safer food supply, which will succeed the EU-funded Network of Excellence.

The conference features a wide array of speakers from food safety researchers, socio-economists, regulators, and representatives from food industry and retail as well as consumer representatives from around the globe.  The event follows up on earlier, highly-successful MoniQA Conferences in Rome (2008) and Krakow (2010) with inter- and cross-disciplinary activities bridging the concerns of citizens, food science and the European economy.

The conference includes table-top sessions with hands-on demonstration showcasing MoniQA activities and results. A poster session will highlight selected scientific research, and EU-funded projects, such as CHANCE and FoodRisc, will also contribute.
The social programme includes a welcome reception and  a conference dinner. A site visit to a vinery, including sightseeing, is optional on the day after the conference (Friday September 30, not included in conference fee).

For further information and to register please go to http://varna2011.moniqa.org/
The detailed programme is available at http://varna2011.moniqa.org/programme

We also offer the following exhibition and sponsoring opportunities for this exciting event:

• Exhibiting with table-top or booth (1500 € including 1 registration fee; discount available for MoniQA Associated Partners)
• Option to sponsor a coffee break, lunch or the welcome reception, which will feature corporate logos and acknowledgement of support during the specific activities (e.g. banners, promotional material)
• Promotional material including gifts in the conference bag

Through exhibiting and/or sponsorship, your will contribute significantly to the success of the conference; supporting young researchers and the contribution of expert speakers. Sponsoring the 3rd MoniQA International Conference is an effective way to reach the world’s food research and analytical communities. Use this opportunity to showcase your brand name and build product awareness worldwide.

More detailed information about exhibiting and/or sponsoring is available at http://varna2011.moniqa.org/exhibitors

Alice B. M. Vadrot

The first editorial of Innovation – The European Journal of Social Science Research – was dedicated to the question whether innovation is only a technical and economic issue. The author’s answer was that it is a societal and scientific issue that is located in different sub-systems of society and calls for innovative research, and for innovation of, and within, the social sciences. Periods of crisis do not only affect the economy, but to a similar extent shake up the scientific community. This is still a prevailing issue.

From today`s perspective, nobody would doubt the fact that innovation needs to be thought about within a broader context – this is indicated by the invasion of literature with concepts related to innovation in many scientific disciplines. Innovation is everywhere and innovative approaches to innovation have entered the arena of scientific inquiry and debate. But what is actually the point? Taken into account that the term ‘innovation’, deriving from the Latin term innovare, means to renew or to change, the question should rather be what, by whom and how changes can be made, rather than asking on how concepts of change can be renewed. This is even more relevant in periods of crisis and societal change.

In the first editorial  of Innovation, Ronald J. Pohoryles, the founder of the Journal, argued that strategies to combat periods of crisis should not primarily rest on economic considerations and concepts, but on interdisciplinary approaches that take into account the overall context of society, politics, the economy and culture. As global stagnation is not only due to developments in the economic sphere, a broader concept of innovation needs to be framed and taken as a basis for appropriate research and science. But what is actually meant by that and what characterises scientific research?….

This issue contains the following articles:

Alice B. M. Vadrot
Editorial- Innovation – not just a technical and economic problem!

Helen Santiago Fink
Promoting Behavioral Change towards lower Energy Consumption in the Building Sector

Michael Schmidt
Behavioral Change as catalyst for increasing Energy Efficiency? A réplique to Santiago Fink

Joana Carla Soares Gonçalves and Klaus Bode
The environmental value of buildings: a proposal for performance assessment with the reference to the case of the office tall building.

Agnieszka Schirru-Nowicka et al.
The value of the Display® Campaign as a voluntary energy and environmental performance certification system of buildings for sustainable municipal energy management in Ukraine.

Evisa Kica & Nico Groenendijk
The European Patent System: Dealing with Emerging Technologies.

Pavlos-Marinos A. Delladetsima
Planning for knowledge infrastructure and capacity building in a distinct insular regional context (Cyclades-S. Aegean). The role of Higher Education Institutions’ research actions.

Anders Lundström and Chunyan Zhou
Promoting innovation based on social sciences and technologies：the prospect of a social innovation park.

Agnieszka M. Dadura and Tzong- Ru (Jiun-Shen) Lee
Measuring the innovation ability of Taiwan’s food industry using DEA.

Erkki Karo and Rainer Kattel
Should “Open Innovation” change innovation policy thinking in catching-up economies? Considerations for policy analyses.

Anita G. Heeren
The changing ways of disclosure. Literature review of Disclosure towards terminally ill children including HIV.

Selectivities in knowledge Production and Use within the ecological crises: The science-policy interface in Biodiversity Politics.

Significant problems surround efforts to tackle the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystem services. Implementation of current biodiversity policy has resulted in regulatory discontent, a cycle crisis, and controversy. One factor relating to the conflicting views on the value assigned to biodiversity is its conservation and sustainable use. Current efforts to demonstrate biodiversity’s value rest primarily on the concept of ecosystem services and the benefits for society deriving from biodiversity, assuming that an anthropocentric and economy-based starting point is likely to motivate effective policy-making, integration, and implementation.

The current implementation problems of multilateral policies and the integration of biodiversity into other policy areas are closely linked to the low priority assigned to biodiversity (LePrestre 2002, Dybas 2006). In current discussions about the necessity to strengthen the science-policy interaction for biodiversity and ecosystem services, a fragmented research area, and an insufficient basis of shared interpretations of the problems that need to be dealt with (Loreau et al. 2006; Barbault & LeDuc 2005; UNEP/IPBES/1/1-1/6 2008) challenges the overall governance of biodiversity.

Moreover, a serious communication problem exists between science and policy on global environmental change and requires institutional restructuring and the support and identification of knowledge brokers (Young et al. 2008, Schroeder et al. 2008: 259ff), as well as transferable concepts of value of biodiversity. One challenge is the concept of biodiversity itself, the value attributed to it, and its relationship to ecosystem services. It is important to note that differing definitions yield markedly different policy priorities and strategies. A better handle on biodiversity, which includes the improvement of relevant indicators and the creation of an acceptable prioritisation of the problems, is essential to strengthen the mandate of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and its implementation (Raustiala 1996: 2).

Another direct problem is the communication between science and policy, which is characterized  by weak science-policy interaction on biodiversity and a lack of knowledge brokers to link the two communities (Watson 2005; Vadrot et al. 2010). The establishment of holistic science organisations for biodiversity, including scientific communities and institutes such as the International Union for Conservation of nature (IUCN), Diversitas, and the International Council for Science (ICSU), plays in important role in problem framing and awareness raising, whilst the research area on biodiversity is rather fragmented. Scientific communities in general tend to influence the policy process, in particular as powerful sources for the construction of international environmental regimes (Haas 1992; Rowlands 2001, Gehring & Oberthür: 2006).

The importance of enhancing the SPI is supported 1) by the conclusions of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment in 2005 with its alarming results concerning the loss of biodiversity and the call for further research (MA 2005), 2) by the outcome of the conference on “Biodiversity, Science and Governance” in Paris in 2005 organized by Jacques Chirac, which resulted in the initiation of a consultation process under the leadership of the International Mechanism of Scientific Expertise on Biodiversity (IMoSEB), 3) by the establishment of an Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) and 4) by the request of the European Platform for Biodiversity Research Strategy (EPBRS) to “develop a conceptual and procedural framework for institutions and governance structures to help resolve conflicts that impede the implementation of biodiversity targets” (EPBRS 10/2009).

In her presentation at the Conference “Social Sciences in the ecological crises” held in Vienna on the 15^th of April Alice Vadrot addresses the role of science-policy interfacing in biodiversity governance. In accordance with the conception of knowledge as power source she analyses the selectivities in knowledge production and use on biodiversity. She starts from the assumption that the biodiversity crisis also relates to scientific and conceptual weaknesses and struggles that take part in framing problem perceptions of and solutions to biodiversity loss and the degradation of ecosystem services.

In her presentation she assesses the correlations between the conceptual and institutional dimension of science-policy interfacing in Biodiversity Governance. The institutional dimension relates to the recently established Intergovernmental Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) that is expected to provide policy-makers with sound scientific knowledge and assessments on biodiversity and that is seen to strengthen the science-policy interface in biodiversity governance. The conceptual dimension refers to the fact that the term biodiversity faces semantic contingency since its increased use in the 1980ies. The establishment of an Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) for Biodiversity seems to address the institutional, as well as the conceptual impairments and consequently contributes to enhanced governance of biodiversity and the implementation of biodiversity policies.

However, the analysis of the discourse on IPBES shows that the establishment of IPBES has a political and strategic dimension as well. Diverging interests and strategic selectivities surround the discussions on the institutional setting of IPBES and the use of the concept of Ecosystem Services. The outcome of the Busan Meeting on the institutional setting of the science-policy interface is the result of a three year consultation process that lead into the exclusion of the objection that the IPCC model does not provide an ideal for IPBES. Alice Vadrot argues that diverging interests and strategies of policy-makers and the scientific community lead into the rather poor framework for IPBES allowing specific knowledge forms, scientific concepts and a linear approach of knowledge production to dominate other relevant expertise and problem framing.

Even though policy-makers and scientists acknowledge the relevance of a pro-active, bottom-up science-policy interface both communities take part in the stabilisation of a poor model for IPBES, due to their interests and strategic selectivities. One remarkable factor is the belief in the objective and neutral character of science providing policy-makers with truth. Another important parameter is the interest in reformulating the relevance of biodiversity governance and science through institutional reconfiguration.

The naive approach to evidence- based policies in the light of the issue of biodiversity that anticipates a high potential for conflicts may be seen as strategic attempt to depoliticize negotiation processes especially within the CBD and to emphasize the economic benefit of nature. Both interpretations support the reproduction of power relations in the area of the use of natural resources.

Download Presentation

• Presenting research results of the analysis of science-policy interfacing in the area of biodiversity governance
• Discussing an appraisal approaches that were developed through interviews with policy-makers and scientists in the field of biodiversity
• Evaluating the success of these approaches for use in supporting Policy-makers

Presentation abstract:

Significant problems surround efforts to tackle the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystem services. Implementation of current biodiversity policy has resulted in regulatory discontent, a cycle crisis, and controversy. One factor relating to the conflicting views on the value assigned to biodiversity is its conservation and sustainable use. Current efforts to demonstrate biodiversity’s value rest primarily on the concept of ecosystem services and the benefits for society deriving from biodiversity, assuming that an anthropocentric and economy-based starting point is likely to motivate effective policy-making, integration, and implementation.

We argue that such an approach potentially challenges the governance of biodiversity, considering that this solution to environmental problems blurs our vision of the ecological, political, social and economic complexities. Qualitative interdisciplinary research might help to overcome the shortcomings deriving from quantitative research and approaches such as the concept ecosystem services , especially in the case of the rather fuzzy field of biological diversity and the political conflicts surrounding this issue.  In this respect the paper addresses the process of science and research entering Policy Environments and the institutionalisation of the science-policy interface on biodiversity and ecosystem services that tends to be seen as important instrument to enhance international compliance and implementation of multilateral policies.

The highly interactive, cross-disciplinary conference will bring together top academics, practitioners and policy planners to discuss successful strategies of delivering qualitative research for policy making in times of austerity.

Open Issue

This Issue contains the following articles:

Ronald J. Pohoryles: Editorial

Borut Rončević & Matej Makarovič: Towards the Strategies of Modern Societies: Systems and Social Processes

Corinne Autant-Bernard, Sylvie Chalaye , Fabio Manca , Rosina Moreno & Jordi Suriñach: Measuring the adoption of innovation. A typology of EU countries based on the innovation survey.

Haldun Çanci: The Gulf war and Turkey: Selected regional changes, and their domestic reflections (1991-2003)

Louise Horvath & Susanne Mayer: Caring for informal caregivers: policy approaches to the provision of support services

Tarmo Kalvet & Veiko Lember: Risk Management in Public Procurement for Innovation: The Case of Nordic-Baltic Sea Cities

INNOVATION Volume 23 Issue 4

Special Issue: Sustainable energy and responses to climate change

Current discourses on environmental issues tend to focus on the mitigation of climate change and sustainable energy supply with regard to the mode of natural resources use. It becomes clear that the protection and conservation of nature as a response to environmental problems is being challenged by the specific character of the human-nature interface and by the means of how to ensure and secure a sustainable way of life. Correspondingly, the dispositive of sustainability and environmental awareness extends across different socio-economic sectors and respective policies that are framed based on responses to climate change that address categories such as green business or CO₂ neutral energy. Current developments clearly indicate that a broad range of innovative approaches lack sound scientific knowledge and mostly build on scientific uncertainty, inadequate policies, and multisided social, political, and economic conflicts and diverging interests. In this respect, the significance of social science knowledge to tackle ecological problems that lie at the core of sustainable development has been increasing. The emphasis on the pertinence of the recognition and enhancement of social science in the field of environment by no means impairs the importance of natural sciences. The complexity of the issue calls for an interdisciplinary approach and innovative thinking that might create the foundation for a process of self-reflection among the natural sciences and of their impact on social and political trends and developments. Knowledge is a precondition for action, and human action is an indicator for sustainability and the integration of social, environmental, and economic concerns. But what does being ´green` mean and to what extent does the EU 2020 policy contribute to the integration of environmental issues across different socio-economic sectors. This issue of Innovation aims at providing insights into the discrepancies surrounding solutions to simultaneously combat climate change and to secure (sustainable) energy supply.

The Special Issue contains the following articles:

Lead Article:

Alex Warleigh-Lack: Greening Europe For Legitimacy? A Cautionary Reading of Europe 2020

Debate Section:

Rupert Read: No surprise that the EU is not an ‘Ecological Union’ – a response to Warleigh-lack

Gwyn Prins: Comment on Warleigh-Lack paper

Ronald J. Pohoryles: Europe in the making – what role environmentalism; and, why should sustainable development be less than environmentalism? A réplique  to Warleigh-Lack

Alex Warleigh-Lack: Greening the European Union and Europe 2020: A Response to Read, Prins and Pohoryles

Paul Bellaby, Rob Flynn & Miriam Ricci. Towards Sustainable Energy: Are there lessons from the history of the early factory system?

Chang-gul Park, Jong-ku Son & Yoo-Jin Han: Three-Level Filtering Process for National R&D Projects: Case of Photovoltaic Energy in Korea

Alice B.M. Vadrot & Ronald J. Pohoryles: Multi-Level Governance, Technological Intervention, and Globalisation: The Example of Biogenetic Fuels

Aaron Leopold: The changing constellation of power and resistance in the global debate over agrofuels

Privacy Perceptions of Young People

In a first session the changing perception of privacy within European societies was focused, based on the interim results of the school survey of the project. Mr. Nicolas Bach presented first results about the privacy perceptions of teenagers aged between 16 and 18 years. This was followed by a presentation of the media researcher Ms. Bernadette Kneidinger of the University of Vienna about the fascination Facebook. She has inquired within several studies the usage motives and usage habits of social network sites with an emphasis von generational differences in privacy perceptions. The main results were in line with the PRACTIS school survey intermediate results.

The Evolvement of Law

Within a second session the current and future challenges to privacy protection were dealt with, by focusing on the legislative dimension of the issue. Initial thoughts about privacy implications of new technologies were presented by Prof. Michael Birnhack (TAU). Then, Mr. Christof Tschohl focused on ‘Modern Legislation and the Bridge between Technology and Law’. He focused on the “bridging” necessity pointing at how the process of technology-making could interact with legislation. Finally, Mr. Andreas Krisch presented why the ‘Internet of Things’ evolved to be a major challenge to European Data Protection Law. Krisch is president of European Digital Rights (EDRi) and of the Austrian Association for Internet Users (VIBE!AT). As member of the European Commission’s RFID Expert Group on Privacy and Security and the High Level Expert Group on the Internet of Things, he regularly contributes to the European discussion on a society friendly adoption of RFID and IoT technologies in Europe.

And the future?

It is with such questions and challenges in mind that the third and last session of the PRACTIS workshop was devoted to drafting future scenarios. It explored how future challenges to privacy and technology might be anticipated and met by policy-makers. This dimension will be the focus of the PRACTIS project in the months to follow.

Read an article in the austrian newspaper Der Standard about the project (german).

Its annual consortium meeting was held in As, Norway from the 14th to the 18th of February 2011. The five year NoE is now entering the last year. Amongst others some of the key outputs expected are:

• Socio-economic impact assessment toolbox for introduction or changes in food safety regulations;
• MoniQA database which allows rapid searching of relevant analytical methods for specific analytes including information about  the degree of  validation, legal requirements and  limits, and  the  availability of methods;
• MoniQA laboratory accreditation support tool;
• Several other outputs on specific chemical contaminants testing such as dioxins and testing of allergens.

The NoE will hold its third international MoniQA conference in Varna, Bulgaria from the 27th-29th September 2011. For more log onto:  http://varna2011.moniqa.org/

INNOVATION – The European Journal of Social Science Research invites contributions in the form of original research articles and research notes for a thematic issue on ‘privacy and technology’. Topics to be discussed in this issue of the journal include (but are not limited to) the following:

• Data Protection in Europe (with a special focus on New Member States)
• International, comparative Analyses of Approaches to Privacy
• Cognition and Privacy
• Privacy and Health Care
• Changes in Privacy perceptions

Article length can range between 6,000 to 10,000 words for original research and debate articles and 2,000 to 4,000 for research notes.

The special thematic issue on ‘privacy and technology’ is supported by the PRACTIS project. This project is funded by the European Commission’s FP7 and identifies how emerging technologies and their convergence might impact on the fundamental individual and structural values in which the European legal right to privacy is rooted, as well as on societal perceptions and conceptions of privacy.

All submissions will be peer-reviewed. Please send papers to: innovation@iccr-international.org

Articles from INNOVATION – The European Journal of Social Science Research are abstracted in Sociological Abstracts; Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts; Geo Abstracts; Ebsco CD Rom Database and Universal Microfilms Inc; CD Rom Database; Multicultural  Education Abstracts; International Political Science Abstracts; Politics and Policy; Research Alert; Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts; Caredata Abstracts; International Bibliography of the Social Sciences; Thompson Scientific.

Separate documentation is available with guidelines for contributors (including style guide); and guidelines for research notes.

The Austrian institutes and research organisations involved in extra-university research deliver this in critical areas ranging from knowledge transfer from universities to industry to the analysis of social and economic developments, from historic archives up to the creation of international policies. The affected institutions train and educate young scientists and deliver goal oriented research while being non-bureaucratic and cost efficient. The scientific institutes and organisations involved in extra-university research obtain between 30% and 80% of their financing from the competitive research grants or via contracts from private business. They are successful in the domestic market and vital to the excellent balance maintained by Austria in the acquisition of EU Funding in the Framework Programmes as well as in Special Programmes. Up to now, they have received base funding or substantial project financing from the Federal Ministry for Science and Research.

The Institutes and bodies involved in extra-university science will be deprived of the basis for their work. The proposed budget is not about saving, but rather it completely stops all funding for the institutes. This will result in the complete elimination of the scientific knowledge society in Austria and the scientific community will be harmed for a long time to come.

To protest against these measures the platform ‘Wissenschaft Österreich’ was formed with four goals:

1. to communicate the contribution of the Austrian science institutions,
2. to demonstrate the dramatic consequences of the elimination of funding,
3. to ensure the appropriate public pressure in the public debate,
4. to support members in government and parliament who opposes this.

Please support the platform with your signature and declare yourself against the threatened extinction of the Science Budget in Austria: http://wissenschaft.research.at

The workshop is organized in the framework of the ‘HealthGov Matters’ project of the ‘Science in Society’ programme of the European Commission (6FP) and looks into the role of professional and patient organizations in the governance of health care knowledge and medical research.

Programme

Download Agenda

Participation

External participation to the workshop is for free but limited in number.

Venue

Library, Austrian Mission to EU
Avenue de Cortenbergh 20
B-1040 Brussels

Stefan Gara, Geschäftsführer ETA Umweltmanagement
Michael Schmidt, ICCR

Moderation

Alena Baich

Lässt sich der steigende Energieverbrauch mit Innovation in den Griff bekommen? Heißt die Devise immer sparsamere Geräte, immer bessere Sonnenkollektoren, immer bessere Bautechniken, u.s.w.? Kann dadurch die Lebensqualität sogar steigen? Sind Szenarien, wie sie der Film „Energy Autonomy“ zeichnet, realistisch? Oder ist dies naiv, und werden wir uns künftig manches einfach nicht mehr leisten können?

Besonders verdichten sich diese Fragen in den Bereichen Verkehr und Gebäude. Denn in beiden Fällen ist der Energiebedarf hoch, allerdings lassen sich nur im Gebäudebereich bereits jetzt mit marktreifen Technologien substantielle Einsparungen erzielen.
Das Forschungsinstitut ICCR hat im Rahmen mehrerer EU Projekte an der Entwicklung von Policy-Strategien für die Reduktion des Energiebedarfs und die verstärkte Nutzung erneuerbarer Energien gearbeitet.

Anhand der Erfahrungen aus diesen Projekten wird die Frage nach dem Vertrauen in „Innovation“ als Mittel gegen Energieknappheit diskutiert.

Datum

Mittwoch, 2. Juni 2010, 19:00 Uhr
Eintritt frei. Für Erfrischungen ist gesorgt.

Ort

ICCR
Schottenfeldgasse 69
1070 Wien

On Sunday 18 April 2010, four ICCR staff members took part in the team competition at the traditional Vienna City Marathon. Bernadette Allinger, Louise Beltzung, Jérôme Segal and Michael Schmidt completed the 42.195km in 3 hours and 23 minutes and thus came 72nd out of the 1,435 finishing teams in the “Mixed” class. The real hero of the team was Jérôme, who ran the full marathon distance despite an injury and the fact that he had completed the Paris marathon in 2 hours 49 minutes just seven days before!

Thanks to the beautiful spring weather, the event once again attracted tens of thousands of spectators and the ICCR team will surely be back to set a new team record next year.

Innovation – The European Journal of Social Science Research invites contributions in the form of original research articles, research notes, debate articles or thematic issues in the following fields:

• European public policies: energy, transport, environment, biodiversity, food safety
• Regulatory Impact Assessment: EU and national policies

• Research policies and university / evaluation reform
• Emerging and converging technologies
• Role of humanities
• Interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity

• EU Neighbourhood Policy – with special focus on Turkey, Ukraine, Northern Africa
• Community Conflicts and Conflict Resolution Policies

• European Arts Festivals and Public Culture
• Science, Culture and Society
• Scientific citizenship

Article length can range between 6,000 to 10,000 words for original research and debate articles and 2,000 to 4,000 for research notes.

Concepts for special thematic issues must include an outline of the topic and a list of contributors with an indication as to the timeline for the production of final manuscripts.

All submissions will be peer-reviewed.

Articles from Innovation – The European Journal of Social Science Research are abstracted in Sociological Abstracts; Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts; Geo Abstracts; Ebsco CD Rom Database and Universal Microfilms Inc; CD Rom Database; Multicultural  Education Abstracts; International Political Science Abstracts; Politics and Policy; Research Alert; Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts; Caredata Abstracts; International Bibliography of the Social Sciences; Thompson Scientific

Separate documentation is available with guidelines for contributors (including style guide) and guidelines for research notes.

Innovation online:
http://www.iccr-international.org/publications/innovation
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713424882~db=all

The Role of Patient and Professional Organizations for EU Health Governance

www.healthgovmatters.eu

Brussels, 21 & 22 September 2010
(Location to be announced)

Advances in medical science and technology such as genetics, biotechnology and nanotechnology, are promising the alleviation of suffering among chronic disease patients, the treatment of widespread diseases and the containment of rare conditions. At the same time they raise ethical questions and challenge patient-centred approaches to care and the role of patients in medical research. This workshop will explore and discuss variations in knowledge production and governance frameworks within health care and medical research across EU countries. Papers addressing the following topics are especially welcome:

• The role of different interest organizations such as the medical profession, scientific associations, the pharmaceutical industry and patient organizations in debates on health care and medical knowledge
• Impact of regulations on medical research practice and cross-national differences
• Meaning and practice of informed consent in medical research and clinical trials
• Changing public representations of health and medical knowledge
• The role of citizen and/or patient participation in medical research

Theoretical as well as empirical papers are welcome. Papers that address the status and implications of new technologies in genetics, neurology and neuro-imaging, computer implants and new pharmaceutics are encouraged – as well as papers elaborated from different disciplinary backgrounds (sociology, anthropology, political science, law, social work and medical science).

The workshop is intentionally designed to be small (20 participants) in order to facilitate in-depth discussion and networking. It will comprise two round-table discussions and three sessions of presentations of original research or policy work. Participants will be expected to submit a 2-4 page paper outline in advance of the workshop and a full 6,000 words paper thereafter. Publication is planned.

Deadline for submission of abstracts (500 words): 15th May 2010. Please reply to Liana Giorgi at l.giorgi@iccr-international.org

Participation at the workshop is free of charge but participants are expected to cover their own travel and accommodation expenses. Lunch and dinner are complementary. Financial assistance for covering travel or accommodation costs is available on a limited basis.

The ECO-BUILD Project, funded under the EU FP6 will conclude in April of 2010. Since its commencement in 2007, the project has researched innovative technologies, policy and programmatic measures for improving the overall energy performance in the building sector. Eco-build will present its project outcomes together with policy recommendations at its final conference organized in the framework of the EU Sustainable Energy Week 2010. The lessons learned from the Eco-buildings cluster group, and the Smart-Eco project will also contribute to understanding how to overcome long-standing obstacles within the building sector and the value of embracing a new approach for the design, construction and operation of new and/or refurbished buildings.

More information can be found on the ECO-BUILD Conference Website.

In essence, the newsletter gives an overview of the ongoing and prospective projects at the institute. After an editorial on the topical subject of the contribution of the social sciences to overcoming the recent crises, Andreas Schadauer und Ronald J. Pohoryles outline the future of the social sciences by reporting on the findings of two research projects (SSH-Futures and Platon +). This is followed by an article by Helen Santiago Fink and Michael Schmidt dealing with the crucial role of the building sector in European Energy Policy (ECO-BUILD). Michael Schmidt and Katherine Dolan then give a short report on the evaluation of European transport research (SITPRO +). The next article by Katharina Paul gives an introduction to new medical techniques in the neurosciences, a completely new field at the institute (HealthGovMatters). Liana Giorgi then examines the question as to whether arts festivals can be instruments for bringing together the citizens of Europe, or even of the world (EURO-FESTIVAL). In conclusion, Katharina Zwiauer presents the opportunities and hazards of biofuel production in the Sahel Zone (WIN-WIN).

Apart from these articles, Broadsheet also contains project updates, staff biographies and a schedule of events in 2009. We wish you great pleasure reading.

Einladung

Veranstaltungsort

Österreichische Gesellschaft für Literatur
Herrengasse 5 (Palais Wilczek)
1010 Wien

Beginn: 19 Uhr bei freiem Eintritt

The 3rd Workshop of the ECO-BUILD project will take place in Brussels, Belgium in November 2009. More information can be found on the ECO-BUILD Conference Website.

Venue
Hotel Metropole
31, place de Bruckere
1000 Brussels, Belgium

Background

This conference is the final conference of the SSH-FUTURES project commissioned by DG Research in the 6th Framework Programme. The project was completed by an international consortium headed by the Interdisciplinary Centre for Comparative Research in the Social Sciences (ICCR).

The Social Sciences and the Humanities have an important mission in the formation of the Knowledge Economy and Society and evidence-based politics. However, the role and contribution of the Social Sciences have not yet been fully comprehended. There are discrepancies between the potential importance of social science knowledge and the comparatively low attention it receives from politics, other research communities and the public in general.

The Social Sciences and, to a lesser extent, the Humanities have contributed to this phenomenon. The landscape is fragmented, as the Social Sciences and the Humanities are, to some degree, split according to national boundaries and disciplines, even sub-disciplines.

This leads to two major threats: to an over-emphasized claim to autonomy (the ‘ivory tower’ phenomenon), on the one hand, and a misunderstanding of what ‘applied research’ means for the Social Sciences and the Humanities (‘consulting approach’), on the other.

How can the Social Sciences and the Humanities better cope with the needs of society? This is the key question that will decide on their future.
The issue is contingent on three elements: an understanding of what society’s needs are, what the Social Sciences and the Humanities have to offer and if knowledge-producing institutions can deliver the expertise requested.

In complex societies, it is evident that single disciplines cannot provide solutions to problems on their own. The co-operation between all types of knowledge producers is important and necessary. ‘Useful’ research combines knowledge from different disciplines. Hence, interdisciplinary research plays a key role in the acceptance of the new mode of knowledge production, which is expected better to address policy concerns and social demands. To reach society, the economy and the political system, good interaction is required between the different intellectual communities, an interaction that overcomes traditional feuds between schools and disciplines.

Downloads

• Programme
• Abstracts
• List of Participants
• CVs of Papergivers

Photos

Conference photos

Venue

Hotel Metropole
31, place de Brouckère
1000 Brussels
www.metropolehotel.com

Einladung

Veranstaltungsort

ICCR
Schottenfeldgasse 69
1070 Wien

14 – 18 Uhr bei freiem Eintritt