Gabriele Abels

The long and winding road from Asilomar to Brussels: Science, politics and the public in biotechnology regulation

To critical consumers living in the European Union (EU), 18 April 2004 was a decisive date. New EU regulations became operational. Together with previous laws, they established the most restrictive regulatory regime in the world for so-called ‘green’ biotechnology. This legal framework, however, did not ban genetically modified organisms (GMOs) from the common market, but instead, allowed for the development of biotechnology under strict political control. Major objectives include the protection of consumer interests and the environment. Genetically modified foodstuffs have to undergo scientific risk assessment by the newly established European Food Safety Authority (EFSA); in addition, consumer interests can be included in the market authorization procedure. Also introduced were rigorous labelling requirements for GM food, tied to a monitoring system in order to enable traceability of GMOs ‘from farm to fork’. Simultaneously, the Council of Ministers lifted the de facto moratorium on market approval of GM foodstuffs. These foods may now find their way onto supermarket shelves where, however, they still encounter overall sceptical European consumers. The European Commission has also recently approved GM crops for commercialization in the EU. Some had been waiting for authorization for many years such as Bt11 corn. There was also an extension of authorization for 26 GMOs approved and registered before 1998. In addition, a number of new applications for commercialization are currently (as of May 2005) undergoing completeness checks by the EFSA for their possible authorization in the near future. GM crops, so far planted mainly for experimental purposes, may also be grown for commercial purposes once new seed varieties are included in the ‘Common Catalogue of Varieties of Agricultural Plant Species’. Overall, this is a very changed regulatory situation to before April 2004. Science as Culture Vol. 14, No. 4, 339–353, December 2005

ExpertInnen-Interviews in der Politikwissenschaft

Die Entwicklung der Biotechnologie ist in den vergangenen Jahren zum Gegenstand zahlreicher empirisch-politikwissenschaftlicher Studien geworden. Methodisch wird dabei vielfach auf Expertlnnen-Interviews zuruckgegriffen, die ein zentrales Erhebungsverfahren politologischer Forschung im Allgemeinen darstellen, dessen Methodik gleichwohl „vielfach erprobt, wenig bedacht“ (Meuser/Nagel 2002)1 ist. In diesem Beitrag werden wir in einem Werkstattbericht unsere Erfahrungen mit Expertlnnen-Interviews anhand von zwei Forschungsprojekten darlegen, die sich mit der politischen Steuerung der Biotechnologie befassen. Wir werden Moglichkeiten und Grenzen des Verfahrens in einem sich hochst konflikthaft konstituierenden Politikfeld aufzeigen. Aus der anhaltenden politischen Brisanz der Biotechnologie und den Charakteristika der Befragungsgruppe sowie aufgrund allgemeiner Probleme mit Daten aus Befragungen resultieren — so unsere These — Probleme hinsichtlich der Gutekriterien, die es nahe legen, ExpertInnen-Interviews im Rahmen einer Methodentriangulation durch andere Erhebungsverfahren (Dokumentenanalyse, teilnehmende Beobachtung etc.) zu erganzen.

Adapting to Lisbon: Reforming the Role of German Landesparlamente in EU Affairs

In Europeanisation studies subnational parliaments are so far treated as a quantité négligeable – despite the fact that their key functions are strongly affected by European integration and they are perceived as losers of European integration. Given the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty, which acknowledges a role for subnational parliaments on subsidiarity issues, and given the concept of parliamentary ‘responsibility for integration’ introduced by the German Bundesverfassungsgericht, this represents a substantial gap. These recent changes in the institutional environment have led to a wave of reforms in the German Landesparlamente concerning their EU-related functions. The key strategy is strengthening the control function vis-à-vis the Länder governments. The high degree of convergence in terms of control strategies and instruments is explained by the fact that these reforms follow by and large the path adopted in the aftermath of the Maastricht Treaty, but with some interesting modifications.

Research by, for and about Women: Gendering Science and Research Policy

Imagine that you have finished a PhD in philosophy in Germany.1 You want to apply for a post-doc programme and need a recommendation from your research supervisor. You find out that you are pregnant with your second child, but you have a reliable child-care provider and an unusually supportive husband. When you inform your supervisor, he announces that he will no longer support your career, since a mother should stay home with her children rather than do research.2

Interviewing Experts in Political Science: A Reflection on Gender and Policy Effects Based on Secondary Analysis

Unquestionably, German political science draws from a plurality of methods. In comparison to Anglo-Saxon political science, it is for the most part coined less by the “precedence-position of quantitative methodologies and methods hailing from the natural sciences” (Dackweiler, 2004, p. 53; our translation) — simultaneously, it is also characterized by a lack of methodological reflexion. In his 1991 appraisal of qualitative processes Patzelt points out that the practice of empirical political research was once grasped by the “popularity wave known as qualitative analysis” (Patzelt, 1991, p. 53; our translation) and considered herein a faulty approach. Thus, collective statements “ostensible inclinations in regard to categorizing reflection about research methods as irrelevant or to attribute these to Sociology” (ibid.) should be voiced. Interestingly, gender studies in (German) political science are no exemption. Looking at introductory-, text- and handbooks one has to realize how rarely chapters on methods may be found (Dackweiler, 2004, Ebbecke-Nohlen/Nohlen, 1994).

Mandating – a likely scrutiny instrument for regional parliaments in EU affairs?

ABSTRACT Scrutinising governments lies at the heart of parliamentary activities in EU affairs. This applies to national as well as to regional parliaments, most of which possess a toolbox of scrutiny instruments, including the power to mandate, allowing for the strongest form of scrutiny vis-à-vis governments. The article investigates the existence of mandating tools in the 70 regional parliaments equipped with legislative competences in Austria, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK, whose role in EU affairs has been strengthened by stipulations in the Lisbon Treaty. It is argued that mandating tools are, first, not widely used; second, they are more commonly applied in cases where national parliaments act as ‘policy shapers’ – enabling policy transfer – and if meso-level factors involving territorial politics create further incentives. In sum, the regional parliaments in six member states are still trying to find a place in the maturing EU multi-level parliamentary system.

Introduction: Studying the EU from a Gender Perspective

Arising in the aftermath of two appalling world wars, of the horrors of the Holocaust and of the deadly effects of nationalism, European integration evolved into a fascinating process that sought to build a ‘common house’ for Europeans. Key architects of the European dream, the so-called founding fathers included Altiero Spinelli, Robert Schumann, Jean Monnet, Walter Hallstein and Paul-Henri Spaak. Efforts to create a new political order took place on the continent against the backdrop of the Cold War and of rapidly changing societies. Designed by all-male architects, the European dream house nonetheless featured several ‘static calculation flaws’ affecting the quality of life of all men and women who shared life in this structure, even determining who could occupy which rooms. The contributors to this book set out to detect these flaws and to uncover the ways in which design errors have been recognised by European Union (EU) officials, as well as to investigate the extent to which inherent flaws have (or have not) been remedied in the course of further integration.

Legitimationsprobleme europäischer Staatlichkeit

Seit einigen Jahren wird in der Fach- wie in der politischen Offentlichkeit intensiv uber Zustand und Perspektiven der Demokratie debattiert Wahrend einige teils euphorisch in neuen Formen deliberativer, zivilgesellschaftlich unterfutterter Partizipation und in direktdemokratischen Instrumenten die Zukunft der Demokratie sehen, sprechen andere vom postparlamentarischen (Benz 1998) oder gar postdemokratischen (Crouch 2008) Zeitalter Der europaische Integrationsprozess hat diese Debatte stark befordert.

Conclusion: regional parliaments – a distinct role in the EU?

ABSTRACT Regional parliaments can shape EU policy-making via a range of domestic and European channels. In the context of a renewed interest in the subnational level, this article aims to address three core questions: have regional parliaments really been empowered by the early warning system provisions? Which factors explain differences in strength and mobilisation? Finally, what kind of a role do regional parliaments play in EU policy-making today, now that they have had several years to react to the trend towards multilevel parliamentarism? The authors argue that regional parliaments do indeed have the potential to contribute a distinct perspective to EU policy-making, even if their current level of activity is still low. Their distinctive territorial focus sets them apart from national parliaments. Their level of activity still varies greatly between parliaments depending on a number of factors.

Zwischen Networking und Verbandspolitik. Gleichstellungspolitik in der bundesdeutschen Politikwissenschaft

Die Politikwissenschaft — und hier insbesondere die deutschsprachige — war lange Zeit gegenuber Versuchen einer feministischen Transformation eine „besonders widerstandige Disziplin” (Kreisky 1994 und 1995; vgl. auch Ebbecke-Nohlen/Nohlen 1994:133f.). Wahrend es in anderen sozial- und kulturwissenschaftlichen Nachbardisziplinen (z.B. in der Soziologie und Geschichte) und seit 1969 auch in der US-amerikanischen Politikwissenschaft (vgl. Lang/Sauer 1994) Zusammenschlusse feministisch orientierter Forscherinnen gab, war die Politikwissenschaft in Deutschland eine man-nerbundische und androzentrische Enklave. Nicht nur die Politik, sondern auch die Politikwissenschaft galt als „Mannersache”; uber die Ursachen hierfur sind vielfach Uberlegungen angestellt worden.1