José Luis Luján

Perceptions, attitudes and ethical valuations: the ambivalence of the public image of biotechnology in Spain

This paper analyzes the study of the public perception of biotechnology, comparing different studies made on the European and the Spanish national levels. It aims at testing the applicability of these kinds of studies, and describes some of their limits. The analysis shows clear ambivalence in the public response to distinct applications of this technology, pointing out the crucial differences between general moral valuation and attitude towards specific products. Taking into account this difference appears fundamental for the design of future perception studies able to more accurately reflect public understanding.

Precaution in public: the social perception of the role of science and values in policy making

This article presents the results of a study of public perception recently completed in Spain which questioned citizens about their views on the precautionary principle, the role of science in policy making, as well as their level of trust in science. The results show that Spanish citizens, by a significant margin, consider that scientists may be influenced by economic interests, that values play a key role in policy making, and that policy should be guided by precaution. Two groups were identified, one with a moderate and the other one with a more stringent interpretation of precaution. The results indicate that public policies that do not sufficiently take into account precaution and exclude values from decision making are likely to encounter resistance among many citizens.

A new social contract for technology? -- On the policy dynamics of uncertainty

This paper proposes a typology of two fundamentally opposing conceptualizations of managing technology under uncertainty: ‘technology governability’ and ‘technology selection’. A wide variety of different versions of these idealized conceptualizations can be shown to underlie the controversies about scientific‐technological development. The example of genetic engineering indicates that such points of view are reconstructed over time in different forms and diverse settings, not only by the scientific community or during regulatory decision making, but by a rather wide‐reaching spectrum of social actors. Thus, the current efforts to open up science and technology decision making to a wider range of participants is interpreted here as an effort of generating a new social contract for technology management, by way of bridging the differences between the two opposing conceptualizations.

Precaution: A taxonomy

In this paper we propose a typology of three interpretations of the precautionary principle, each with its associated philosophical and policy implications. We found that these different interpretations of precaution are closely related to variations in the understanding of scientific uncertainty, as well as varying ways of assessing possible (but uncertain) impacts of scientific–technological development. There is a direct link to the question of what scientific knowledge is and what role it plays in regulation and decision-making. The proposed typology permits a conceptual systematization of the current controversies related to the precautionary principle, while facilitating understanding of some of the deeper roots of science and technology policy debates.

Who is willing to pay for science? On the relationship between public perception of science and the attitude to public funding of science

This article examines the relationship between the general public’s understanding of science and the attitude towards public funding of scientific research. It applies a multivariate and discriminant analysis (Wilks’ Lambda), in addition to a more commonly used bivariate analysis (Cramer’s V), to data compiled from the Third National Survey on the Social Perception of Science and Technology in Spain (FECYT, 2006). The general conclusion is that the multivariate analysis produces information complementary to the bivariate analysis, and that the variables commonly applied in public perception studies have limited predictive value with respect to the attitude towards public funding of scientific research.

Values and Decisions: Cognitive and Noncognitive Values in Knowledge Generation and Decision Making

The relevance of scientific knowledge for science and technology policy and regulation has led to a growing debate about the role of values. This article contributes to the clarification of what specific functions cognitive and noncognitive values adopt in knowledge generation and decisions, and what consequences the operation of values has for policy making and regulation. For our analysis, we differentiate between three different types of decision approaches, each of which shows a particular constellation of cognitive and noncognitive values. Our objectives are to present a structured analysis of the varying functions that different kinds of values can adopt, as well as the value-related tensions and trade-offs they give rise to. We argue that the operation of noncognitive values in scientific knowledge generation, policy, and regulatory decision making can be understood as an enabling factor, rather than a limiting one.

Practical Values and Uncertainty in Regulatory Decision‐making

Regulatory science, which generates knowledge relevant for regulatory decision‐making, is different from standard academic science in that it is oriented mainly towards the attainment of non‐epistemic (practical) aims. The role of uncertainty and the limits to the relevance of academic science are being recognized more and more explicitly in regulatory decision‐making. This has led to the introduction of regulation‐specific scientific methodologies in order to generate decision‐relevant data. However, recent practical experience with such non‐standard methodologies indicates that they, too, may be subject to important limitations. We argue that the attainment of non‐epistemic values and aims (like the protection of human health and the environment) requires not only control of the quality of the data and the methodologies, but also the selection of the level of regulation deemed adequate in each specific case (including a decision about which of the two, under‐regulation or over‐regulation, would be more acceptable).

Analyzing Precautionary Regulation: Do Precaution, Science, and Innovation Go Together?

In this article we argue that the precautionary principle, as applied to the regulation of science and technology, cannot be considered in any general manner inconsistent with the norms and methods of scientific knowledge generation and justification. Moreover, it does not necessarily curtail scientific-technological innovation. Our argument flows from a differentiated view of what precaution in regulation means. We first characterize several of the most relevant interpretations given to the precautionary principle in academic debate and regulatory practice. We then use examples of actual precaution-based regulation to show that, even though science can have varying functions in different circumstances and frames, all of those interpretations recur to scientific method and knowledge, and tend to imply innovation in methods, products, and processes. In fact, the interplay of regulation and innovation in precautionary policy, at least in the case of the interpretations of precaution that our analysis takes into account, could be understood as a way of reconciling the two fundamental science and technology policy functions of promotion and control.

The Context(s) of Precaution: Ideological and Instrumental Appeals to the Precautionary Principle

This article contributes to the clarification of the concept of precaution and its function in social debate. The authors compare the uses of precaution in science and technology—related conflicts (as indicated by an analysis of media reports on precaution) with data from a survey on precaution and the role of science in decision making. While the survey data confirm the existence of opposing “idealized” or “ideological” conceptualizations of the role of science in regulatory decisions, the analyzed media reports show an added degree of complexity on the level of social dynamics. The media analysis identifies an instrumental use of the concept of precaution in social debate, which is independent of “ideological” positions on precaution, and serves as a way of empowerment for social actors critical of scientific-technological proposals, allowing them to counterbalance information asymmetries.

The role of epistemic policies in regulatory science: scientific substantiation of health claims in the European Union

This paper presents an analysis of the concept of scientific substantiation in European health claims regulation. It focuses on the controversies about the demand for the establishment of cause-and-effect relationships between food consumption and health outcomes in claim substantiation. Our analysis, on the basis of regulatory and scientific documents, identifies two opposing views about the aims of health claims regulation. Each of these two stances links certain regulatory objectives with specific epistemic policies, that is particular sets of scientific methodology, criteria, and procedure. The regulators, in selecting a demanding evidentiary approach based on a hierarchy of methodologies that requires causal data for substantiation of claims, give priority to preventing the authorization of false claims. The opposing view, espoused by the critics of this approach, opts for less demanding requirements for substantiation, implying the market availability of a wider range of products with health claims that may provide individual as well as public health benefits. We argue that one of the objectives that underlie the European regulators’ demand for causal data is to protect their own credibility, by trying to isolate them from value-laden debates about the limitations of scientific methodologies, as well as the societal and policy implications of regulatory decision-making.