Minerva

, 47:281 | Cite as

Governing by Values. EU Ethics: Soft Tool, Hard Effects

Article

Abstract

The institutionalization of ethics and the direct influence of politics on how ethics bodies frame their opinions have been widely recognized and explored in the last few years. Less attention has been paid to what kind of normative instrument “ethics” as an institutional phenomenon has become in the State under the rule of law, and which institutional powers it has depended on. This paper analyzes the rise of ethics in the European Union context, where ethics, constructed as an isolated set of values, has been exploited for its symbolic capacity to evoke citizenship, has become quite formalized as to certain features, and has acquired the potential to redefine the traditional divisions of powers in the State under the rule of law.

Keywords

EU ethics Technology assessment Soft normativity Subsidiarity State under the rule of the law 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Prof. Peter Weingart and Prof. Dominique Pestre for the conversations during the seminar held in Paris in March of 2008, and my anonymous referee for the important comments and the relevant questions raised.

References

  1. Ashcroft, Richard E. 2003. Constructing empirical bioethics: Foucauldian reflections on the empirical turn in bioethics research. Health Care Analysis 11: 3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bauer, Martin W., and George Gaskell (eds.). 2002. Biotechnology—the making of a global controversy. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bell, Daniel. 1969. Government by commission. In The presidential advisory system, ed. Thomas E. Cronin, and Sanford D. Greenberg, 117–123. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  4. Bimber, Bruce. 1996. The politics of expertise in congress. The rise and fall of the office of technology assessment. Albany NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bishop, Jeffrey P., and Fabrice Jotterand. 2006. Bioethics as biopolitics. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 31: 205–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bobbio, Norberto. 1993. Teoria generale del diritto. Torino: Giappichelli.Google Scholar
  7. Brown, Mark B. 2009. Three ways to politicize bioethics. The American Journal of Bioethics 9: 43–54. doi: 10.1080/15265160802617811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Callahan, Daniel. 1999. The social sciences and the task of bioethics. Daedalus 128: 275–294.Google Scholar
  9. CEC. 1991. Promoting the competitive environment for the industrial activities based on biotechnology within the community. Commission Communication to Parliament and the Council. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities SEC, 629 final.Google Scholar
  10. CEC. 1992. The principle of subsidiarity. Communication of the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities SEC, 1990 final.Google Scholar
  11. CEC. 2001. European governance. A white paper. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities COM, 428 final.Google Scholar
  12. CEC. 2002. Science and society action plan. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  13. CEC. 2005a. Commission decision on the renewal of the mandate of the European group on ethics in science and new technologies. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities 2005/383/EC.Google Scholar
  14. CEC. 2005b. Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: An action plan for Europe 2005–2009. Communication of the Commission to the Council, and the Economic and Social Committee. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  15. CEC. 2008. Commission recommendation of 07/02/2008 on a code of conduct for responsible nanosciences and nanotechnologies research. Brussels, 424 final.Google Scholar
  16. Christiansen, Thomas, Knud Erik Jørgensen, and Antje Wiener. 1999. The social construction of Europe. Journal of European Public Policy 6: 528–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cini, Michelle. 2001. The soft law approach: Commission rule-making in the EU’s state aid regime. Journal of European Public Policy 8: 192–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Coates, Joseph F. 1975. Why public participation is essential in technology assessment. Public Administration Review 35(1): 67–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Daston, Lorraine, and Peter Galison. 2007. Objectivity. New York: Zone Books.Google Scholar
  20. Delors, Jacques. 1989. Discours de Bruges 21.10.1989. In Discours de Jacques Delors. Europe Documents 1576: 1–8.Google Scholar
  21. Dodds, Susan, and Colin Thomson. 2006. Bioethics and democracy: Competing roles of national bioethics organisations. Bioethics 20: 326–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Eckenwiler, Lisa A., and Felicia Cohn (eds.). 2007. The ethics of bioethics, mapping the moral landscape. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  23. EGE. 1998. EGE opinion on ethical aspects of human tissue banking. Brussels. Opinion no. 11.Google Scholar
  24. EGE. 2007. EGE opinion on the ethical aspects of nanomedicine. Opinion no 21.Google Scholar
  25. Elliott, Carl. 2007. The tyranny of expertise. In The ethics of bioethics. Mapping the moral landscape, ed. Lisa A. Eckenwiler, and Felicia Cohn, 43–46. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  26. ENVI. 2006. Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, draft report on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on advanced therapy medicinal products and amending Directive 2001/83/EC and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 (COM(2005)0567–C6-0401/2005–2005/0227(COD)), Provisional 005/0227(COD), 16.5.2006; 30.5.2006; 8.11.2006.Google Scholar
  27. ENVI/JURI. 2007. Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, report on the proposal for a regulation of the European parliament and of the council on advanced therapy medicinal products and amending directive 2001/83/EC and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 (COM(2005)0567–C6-0401/2005–2005/0227(COD)), Rapporteur: Miroslav Mikolášik, Draftswoman: Hiltrud Breyer, Committee on Legal Affairs, Enhanced cooperation between committees—rule 47 of the rules of procedure, final A6-0031/2007, 7.2.2007.Google Scholar
  28. EP. 1997. European Parliament resolution on the mandate of the group of advisers on the ethical implications of biotechnology to the European Commission. European parliament. B4-0484/97.Google Scholar
  29. EP. 2007. European Parliament resolution of 4 September 2007 on institutional and legal implications of the use of ‘soft law’ instruments. (2007/2028(INI)), P6_TA (2007)0366.Google Scholar
  30. EP. 2009. European Parliament resolution of 24 April 2009 on regulatory aspects of nanomaterials. (2008/2208(INI)).Google Scholar
  31. Eriksen Erik O. 2005. Citizenship and democratic legitimacy in the EU. Final report. EUR23114. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  32. Estella, Antonio. 2002. The EU principle of subsidiarity and its critique. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. EUR 23906. 2009. Commission recommendation on a code of conduct for responsible nanosciences and nanotechnologies research & Council conclusions on responsible nanosciences and nanotechnologies research. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  34. Evans, John H. 2006. Between technocracy and democratic legitimation: A proposed compromise position for common morality public ethics. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 31: 213–234.Google Scholar
  35. Flear, Mark L. 2009. The EU’s biopolitical governance of advanced therapy medicinal products. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 16(1): 113.Google Scholar
  36. Flynn, Brendan. 1997. Subsidiarity and the rise of “soft law” in EU environmental policy. Human capital and mobility network OP 40. Colchester: University of Essex.Google Scholar
  37. GAEIB. 1996. The patenting of inventions involving elements of human origin. Group of Advisors on the Ethical Implications of Biotechnology. Opinion no 8.Google Scholar
  38. Galloux, Jean-Christophe, Arne Thing Mortensen, Suzanne de Cheveigné, Agnes Allansdottir, Aigli Chatjouli, and George Sakellaris. 2002. The institutions of bioethics. In Biotechnology—the making of a global controversy, ed. Martin W. Bauer, and George Gaskell, 129–148. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  39. IOM. 1995. Committee on the social and ethical impacts of developments in biomedicine. Institute of Medicine. In Society’s choices: Social and ethical decision making in biomedicine, ed. Bulger, Ruth Ellen, Elizabeth Meyer Bobby, and Harvey V. Fineberg. Washington DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  40. Jasanoff, Sheila. 2005. Designs on nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Jecker, Nancy S., Albert R. Jonsen, and Robert A. Pearlman. 1997. Bioethics, an introduction to the history, methods, and practice. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.Google Scholar
  42. Kelly, Susan. 2003. Public bioethics and publics: Consensus, boundaries, and participation in biomedical science policy. Science Technology and Human Values 28: 339–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kunkle, Gregory C. 1995. New challenge or the past revisited? The office of technology assessment in historical context. Technology in Society 17: 175–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Larsson, Torbjorn. 2003. Precooking in the European Union—the world of expert groups, Finansdepartementet ESO Studies. http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/4997/a/36305. Accessed Aug 2009.
  45. Lehning, Percy B. 2001. European citizenship: Towards a European identity? Law and Philosophy 20(3): 239–282.Google Scholar
  46. Leinhos, Mary. 2005. The US National Bioethics Advisory Commission as a boundary organization. Science and Public Policy 32: 423–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Levidow, Les, and Susan Carr. 1997. How biotechnology regulation sets a risk/ethics boundary. Agriculture and Human Values 14: 29–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Levitt, Mairi. 2003. Public consultation in bioethics. What’s the point of asking the public when they have neither scientific nor ethical expertise? Health Care Analysis 11: 15–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lipset, Seymour M. 1959. Political man, the social basis of politics. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  50. McGuinness, Sheila. 2008. Research ethics committees: The role of ethics in a regulatory authority. Journal of Medical Ethics 34: 695–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Merton, Robert K. 1968 (Enlarged edition). Science and democratic social structure. In: Social theory and social structure. 604–615, New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  52. Mörth, Ulrika. 2005. Soft law and new modes of EU governance—a democratic problem? Paper presented in Darmstadt. November 2005. www.mzes.uni-mannheim.de/projekte/typo3/site/fileadmin/research%20groups/6/Papers_Soft%20Mode/Moerth.pdf. Accessed Aug 2009.
  53. Nordmann, Alfred (Rapporteur). 2004. Converging Technologies—shaping the future of European societies. Brussels. http://cordis.europa.eu/foresight/reports.htm. Accessed Aug 2009.
  54. OTA (Office of Technology Assessment). 1986. The regulatory environment for science—a 1036 technical memorandum. OTA-TM-SET-34. Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  55. OTA (Office of Technology Assessment). 1991. Biotechnology in a global economy. OTA-BA-1038 494. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  56. OTA (Office of Technology Assessment). 1993. Biomedical ethics in U.S. public policy—1040 background paper. OTA-BP-BBS-1O5. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  57. Paula, Lino E. 2008. Ethics committees, public debate and regulation: An evaluation of policy instruments in bioethics governance. Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit.Google Scholar
  58. Pellegrino, Edmund D. 2006. Bioethics and politics: “Doing ethics” in the public square. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 31: 569–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Peters, Anne, and Isabella Pagotto. 2006. Soft law as a new mode of governance: A legal perspective. Integrated project newgov—new modes of governance. http://www.eu-newgov.org/database/DELIV/D04D11_Soft_Law_as_a_NMG-Legal_Perspective.pdf. Accessed Aug 2009.
  60. Polanyi, Michael. 1962. The republic of science. Minerva I 5: 4–73.Google Scholar
  61. Powers, Madison. 2005. Bioethics as politics: The limits of moral expertise. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 15: 305–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Salter, Brian, and Mavis Jones. 2005. Biobanks and bioethics: The politics of legitimation. Journal of European Public Policy 12: 710–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. SCENIHR (Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks). 2009. Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks. Opinion on: Risk assessment of products of nanotechnologies. Adopted by the SCENIHR during the 28th plenary meeting of 19 January 2009. http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/04_scenihr/docs/scenihr_q_015.pdf. Accessed Aug 2009.
  64. Smits, Ruud, Jos Leyten, and Pim den Hertog. 1995. Technology Assessment and technology policy in Europe: New concepts, new goals, new infrastructures. Policy Sciences 28: 271–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Snyder, Francis. 1993. Soft law and institutional practice in the European Community. European University Institute working paper, LAW no. 93/5.Google Scholar
  66. Soudan, Y. 1998. Subsidiarity and community in Europe. Ethical Perspectives 5: 177–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Stevens, Tina M.L. 2000. Bioethics in America, origins and cultural politics. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  68. STOA. 1998. Transparency and openness in scientific advisory committees: The American experience. Scientific Technology Options Assessment, European Parliament PE 167 327/Fin. St. IPTS Report, Issue 39, November 1999, http://ipts.jrc.ec.europa.eu/home/report/english/articles/vol39/TEP1E396.htm. Accessed Aug 2009.
  69. Streeck, Wolfgang. 1995. From market making to state building? Reflections on the political economy of European social policy. In European social policy between fragmentation and integration, ed. Stephan Leibfried, and Paul Pierson, 389-431. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  70. Tallacchini, Mariachiara. 2002. Epistemology of the European identity. The Journal of Biolaw & Business, Supplement Series Bio-EthixTM: 60–66.Google Scholar
  71. Tallacchini, Mariachiara. 2008. Ethics between law and politics: The case for human biological materials. Proceedings of the congress “Wert Urteile, Judging Values”, International Congress on Justice and Human Values in Europe, May 9–11, 2007, Karlsruhe. http://www.werturteile.de/start/index.php?whereami=Publication&language=e. Accessed Aug 2009.
  72. Trubek, David M., Patrick Cottrell, and Mark Nance. 2005. ‘Soft law’, ‘hard law’, and European integration: Toward a theory of hybridity. Jean Monnet working paper 02/05, New York: NYU School of Law. http://www.jeanmonnetprogram.org/papers/05/050201.html. Accessed Aug 2009.
  73. Wynne, Brian, Ulrike Felt, et al. 2007. Expert group on science and governance. Taking European knowledge society seriously. Brussels: European Commission DG Research Science, Economy and Society.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Università Cattolica S.C.PiacenzaItaly

Personalised recommendations