What options are open for peoplecitizens, politicians, and other nonscientiststo become actively involved in and anticipate new directions in the life sciences? In addressing this question, this article focuses on the start of the Human Genome Project (1985-1990). By contrasting various models of democracy (liberal, republican, deliberative), I examine the democratic potential the models provide for citizens' involvement in setting priorities and funding patterns related to big science projects. To enhance the democratizing of big science projects and give citizens opportunities to reflect, anticipate, and negotiate on newdirections in science and technology at a global level, liberal democracy with its national scope and representative structure does not suffice. Although republican (communicative) and deliberative (associative) democracy models meet the need for greater citizen involvement, the ways to achieve the ideal at a global level still remain to be developed.
DOCUMENT
It is assumed by the projects demonstrating Positive Energy District (PED) concepts in cities across Europe that citizens should want and need to be involved in the development of new energy concepts, such as PEDs for these concepts to be deployed successfully. Six different PED research and innovation projects are investigating the types and expectations of citizen engagement. They evaluate the impact of energy citizenship on the success of PED deployment across Europe.
DOCUMENT
Citizen participation in local renewable energy projects is often promoted as many suppose it to be a panacea for the difficulties that are involved in the energy transition process. Quite evidently, it is not; there is a wide variety of visions, ideologies and interests related to an ‘energy transition’. Such a variety is actually a precondition for a stakeholder participation process, as stakeholder participation only makes sense if there is ‘something at stake’. Conflicting viewpoints, interests and debates are the essence of participation. The success of stakeholder participation implies that these differences are acknowledged, and discussed, and that this has created mutual understanding among stakeholders. It does not necessarily create ‘acceptance’. Renewable energy projects often give rise to local conflict. The successful implementation of local renewable energy systems depends on the support of the local social fabric. While at one hand decisions to construct wind turbines in specific regions trigger local resistance, the opposite also occurs! Solar parks sometimes create a similar variation: Various communities try to prevent the construction of solar parks in their vicinity, while other communities proudly present their parks. Altogether, local renewable energy initiatives create a rather chaotic picture, if regarded from the perspective of government planning. However, if we regard the successes, it appears the top down initiatives are most successful in areas with a weak social fabric, like industrial areas, or rather recently reclaimed land. Deeply rooted communities, virtually only have successful renewable energy projects that are more or less bottom up initiatives. This paper will first sketch why participation is important, and present a categorisation of processes and procedures that could be applied. It also sketches a number of myths and paradoxes that might occur in participation processes. ‘Compensating’ individuals and/or communities to accept wind turbines or solar parks is not sufficient to gain ‘acceptance’. A basic feature of many debates on local renewable energy projects is about ‘fairness’. The implication is that decision-making is neither on pros and cons of various renewable energy technologies as such, nor on what citizens are obliged to accept, but on a fair distribution of costs and benefits. Such discussions on fairness cannot be short cut by referring to legal rules, scientific evidence, or to standard financial compensations. History plays a role as old feelings of being disadvantaged, both at individual and at group level, might re-emerge in such debates. The paper will provide an overview of various local controversies on renewable energy initiatives in the Netherlands. It will argue that an open citizen participation process can be organized to work towards fair decisions, and that citizens should not be addressed as greedy subjects, trying to optimise their own private interests, but as responsible persons.
DOCUMENT
We live in a time of radical changes in Europe. The climate crisis, the war in Ukraine, energy crisis, the pandemic, increasedprice levels and interest rates, digitalization, robotization, reduced birth rates, an aging population, migration, a decliningdemocracy index and increasing friction level between continents and powerful states makes us uncertain about tomorrow.Deglobalization, shorter production lines, changed export models, bloc formations and sovereignty might be results of someof the large challenges we see today. We see tendencies towards increasing poverty and a declining middle class. It isperhaps more important than ever in recent times to show optimism on behalf of young people and future generations.European cooperation and the link between the right skills for the right future seems to be more actual and important thanever. A report from McKinsey Global Institute (2017) about future work life, competence development and digitalization,shows that approximately 50 % of todays jobs can disappear in the nearest future caused digitalization, robotization and AI.MGI’s in-dept report have covered more than 20 countries and 30 industries (mckinsey.com). We have also a commonEuropean challenge reagarding too many youth outside the working life. The NEET index (Not in Employment, Education orTraining) was 14 % totally for the EU countries, 9.6 % for Germany, 6.3 % for Netherlands and also 6.3 % for Norway in2021 (ssb.no).This is a challenge we have to solve as we need to increase the work participation as welfare costs willincrease as a consequence of more immigration and several older people.
