Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Minerva Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Office of Technology Assessment Act, Public Law 92–484, 92d Congress, H.R. 10243, October 13, 1972.

  2. The demise of OTA was perceived in Europe as a sign of concern and a warning against the risk of TA becoming obsolete. Where it survived, Parliamentary TA evolved towards more democratic ways of decisions.

  3. See the European Parliament Technology Assessment, http://www.eptanetwork.org/EPTA/what.php. Accessed August, 2009.

  4. See http://cordis.europa.eu/search/index.cfm?fuseaction=prog.document&PG_RCN=176328. Accessed August, 2009.

  5. Scientific Technology Options Assessment (STOA) Rules, adopted by the Bureau of the European Parliament on 19 April 2004, PE 343.325/BUR.

  6. Commission Decision on the renewal of the mandate of the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies, 11 May 2005, (2005/383/EC).

  7. This page, as others listed below, exists now only in the Internet Archive Wayback Machine: http://web.archive.org/web/20030418165425/http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/science-society/ethics/research-e-legislation_en.html. Accessed August, 2009.

  8. http://ec.europa.eu/european_group_ethics/archive/1991_1997/bilan_en.htm. Accessed August, 2009.

  9. http://ec.europa.eu/european_group_ethics/archive/1991_1997/organisation_en.htm. Accessed August, 2009.

  10. Council Decision 1999/468/EC Council Decision of 17 July 2006 amending Decision 1999/468/EC laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (2006/512/EC).

  11. http://ec.europa.eu/european_group_ethics/archive/1991_1997/bilan_en.htm. Accessed August, 2009.

  12. http://web.archive.org/web/20030614221600/http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/science-society/ethics/research-e-legislation_en.html. Accessed August, 2009.

  13. See: http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ethics_en.html. Accessed August, 2009.

  14. Protocol (No 30) on the application of the principle of subsidiarity and proportionality, (Amsterdam, 2 October, 1997).

  15. http://web.archive.org/web/20030418165425/http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/science-society/ethics/research-e-legislation_en.html. Accessed August, 2009.

  16. http://ec.europa.eu/european_group_ethics/archive/1991_1997/bilan_en.htm. Accessed August, 2009.

  17. Directive 2004/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on setting standards of quality and safety for the donation, procurement, testing, processing, preservation, storage and distribution of human tissues and cells, L 102/48 Official Journal of the European Union, 7 April 2004.

  18. Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on advanced therapy medicinal products and amending Directive 2001/83/EC.

  19. I discussed the concept of the “safe-and-ethical” citizen in Tallacchini 2008.

  20. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/expert/infopress_page/066-5722-113-04-17-911-20070420IPR05538-23-04-2007-2007-false/default_en.htm. Accessed August, 2009.

  21. See: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/FindByProcnum.do?lang=2&procnum=COD/2005/0227. Accessed August, 2009.

  22. Ib.

  23. Günter Verheugen, the German Vice-President of the Commission.

  24. Frédérique Ries, on behalf of the ALDE Group.

  25. Johannes Blokland, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group—(NL). For all these citations, see http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/FindByProcnum.do?lang=2&procnum=COD/2005/0227. Accessed August, 2009.

  26. Adamos Adamou, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group.

  27. Marco Cappato (ALDE), in writing, Italy.

  28. For an integrated understanding of the ethical challenges posed by emerging nanotechnologies, see, for instance, the DEEPEN project.

    http://www.geography.dur.ac.uk/projects/deepen/Home/tabid/1871/Default.aspx. Accessed August, 2009.

  29. http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/index.cfm?fuseaction=public.topic&id=74. Accessed August, 2009.

References

  • Ashcroft, Richard E. 2003. Constructing empirical bioethics: Foucauldian reflections on the empirical turn in bioethics research. Health Care Analysis 11: 3–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, Martin W., and George Gaskell (eds.). 2002. Biotechnology—the making of a global controversy. London: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • Bishop, Jeffrey P., and Fabrice Jotterand. 2006. Bioethics as biopolitics. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 31: 205–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bobbio, Norberto. 1993. Teoria generale del diritto. Torino: Giappichelli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, Mark B. 2009. Three ways to politicize bioethics. The American Journal of Bioethics 9: 43–54. doi:10.1080/15265160802617811.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callahan, Daniel. 1999. The social sciences and the task of bioethics. Daedalus 128: 275–294.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • CEC. 2001. European governance. A white paper. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities COM, 428 final.

  • CEC. 2002. Science and society action plan. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • CEC. 2008. Commission recommendation of 07/02/2008 on a code of conduct for responsible nanosciences and nanotechnologies research. Brussels, 424 final.

  • Christiansen, Thomas, Knud Erik Jørgensen, and Antje Wiener. 1999. The social construction of Europe. Journal of European Public Policy 6: 528–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coates, Joseph F. 1975. Why public participation is essential in technology assessment. Public Administration Review 35(1): 67–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daston, Lorraine, and Peter Galison. 2007. Objectivity. New York: Zone Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delors, Jacques. 1989. Discours de Bruges 21.10.1989. In Discours de Jacques Delors. Europe Documents 1576: 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dodds, Susan, and Colin Thomson. 2006. Bioethics and democracy: Competing roles of national bioethics organisations. Bioethics 20: 326–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • EGE. 1998. EGE opinion on ethical aspects of human tissue banking. Brussels. Opinion no. 11.

  • EGE. 2007. EGE opinion on the ethical aspects of nanomedicine. Opinion no 21.

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • EP. 2009. European Parliament resolution of 24 April 2009 on regulatory aspects of nanomaterials. (2008/2208(INI)).

  • Eriksen Erik O. 2005. Citizenship and democratic legitimacy in the EU. Final report. EUR23114. Brussels: European Commission.

  • Estella, Antonio. 2002. The EU principle of subsidiarity and its critique. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • GAEIB. 1996. The patenting of inventions involving elements of human origin. Group of Advisors on the Ethical Implications of Biotechnology. Opinion no 8.

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • Jasanoff, Sheila. 2005. Designs on nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Kelly, Susan. 2003. Public bioethics and publics: Consensus, boundaries, and participation in biomedical science policy. Science Technology and Human Values 28: 339–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kunkle, Gregory C. 1995. New challenge or the past revisited? The office of technology assessment in historical context. Technology in Society 17: 175–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Lehning, Percy B. 2001. European citizenship: Towards a European identity? Law and Philosophy 20(3): 239–282.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leinhos, Mary. 2005. The US National Bioethics Advisory Commission as a boundary organization. Science and Public Policy 32: 423–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levidow, Les, and Susan Carr. 1997. How biotechnology regulation sets a risk/ethics boundary. Agriculture and Human Values 14: 29–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipset, Seymour M. 1959. Political man, the social basis of politics. New York: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuinness, Sheila. 2008. Research ethics committees: The role of ethics in a regulatory authority. Journal of Medical Ethics 34: 695–700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merton, Robert K. 1968 (Enlarged edition). Science and democratic social structure. In: Social theory and social structure. 604–615, New York: The Free Press.

  • 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.

  • Nordmann, Alfred (Rapporteur). 2004. Converging Technologies—shaping the future of European societies. Brussels. http://cordis.europa.eu/foresight/reports.htm. Accessed Aug 2009.

  • 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.

  • OTA (Office of Technology Assessment). 1991. Biotechnology in a global economy. OTA-BA-1038 494. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

  • 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.

  • Paula, Lino E. 2008. Ethics committees, public debate and regulation: An evaluation of policy instruments in bioethics governance. Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pellegrino, Edmund D. 2006. Bioethics and politics: “Doing ethics” in the public square. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 31: 569–584.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Polanyi, Michael. 1962. The republic of science. Minerva I 5: 4–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powers, Madison. 2005. Bioethics as politics: The limits of moral expertise. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 15: 305–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salter, Brian, and Mavis Jones. 2005. Biobanks and bioethics: The politics of legitimation. Journal of European Public Policy 12: 710–732.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, Francis. 1993. Soft law and institutional practice in the European Community. European University Institute working paper, LAW no. 93/5.

  • Soudan, Y. 1998. Subsidiarity and community in Europe. Ethical Perspectives 5: 177–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, Tina M.L. 2000. Bioethics in America, origins and cultural politics. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Tallacchini, Mariachiara. 2002. Epistemology of the European identity. The Journal of Biolaw & Business, Supplement Series Bio-EthixTM: 60–66.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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 

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Università Cattolica S.C., Piacenza, Italy

    Mariachiara Tallacchini

Authors
  1. Mariachiara Tallacchini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mariachiara Tallacchini.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tallacchini, M. Governing by Values. EU Ethics: Soft Tool, Hard Effects. Minerva 47, 281–306 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-009-9127-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-009-9127-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation