The conference met its objective. The extensive programme centred on keynote presentations by leading scientists and a strong focus on debate and dialogue.

Keynote speeches respectively described the (R)ELSI theme in general, reviewed current thinking on the development and status of nanotechnology, and finally presented a vision on new interactions between science and society. The debates and workshops then further analysed and built on these. The debates generally did not target direct policy recommendations but sought more to recognise and flag trends, developments and points of concern in the field of ‘religious, ethical, legal and social issues’ (RELSI).

No conclusion or formal mission statement was presented at conference end. In his final speech, sociologist Abram de Swaan was requested to ‘send off’ participants with some inspiring and perhaps provoking statements. He fulfilled his task, which led to mostly approving and a few less approving reactions from participants.

The following more specific policy-relevant statements, recommendations and conclusions (not always formulated as such) can be derived from the speeches, debates and workshops:

• Ethics has undeniably gained a place in European research themes and projects. However it often remains limited to a descriptive approach, where a more normative interpretation may be desirable. It is not sufficient simply to observe that there is a plurality of norms and values (general impression expressed by Mieth).
  
• Developments with regard to the role of philosophy of life can also mean it is useful to create more explicit room for theology, as well as ethics in European research projects. Care should be taken to avoid theological research being allowed to be made dependent on religious and philosophical institutions. Such research should not be limited to Christian traditions (Mieth).
  
• Philosophy of life is an issue that is (again) playing a role, also in debates on science and society. But there also continues to be resistance and scepticism with regard to addressing this dimension of science. This can mean that a theme such as ‘Intelligent Design’ in Europe, unlike in the USA, is not yet viewed as a relevant subject for scientific debate. However, this is not a reason for avoiding the debate. Indeed, it is because of the fact that science has lost its ivory tower position (Rip) and carries out its task in an ever closer relationship with other actors (business, government, and civil institutions), that extra attention is needed for the direction and significance of scientific research and values realised from it.
  
• In the recent past biotechnology, for example, has instigated a multitude of reactions: from unquestioning acceptance without any thought for the potentially adverse consequences to blind rejection. Nanotechnology is threatened by the growth of ‘nano-hysteria’ (Eigler). Apart from providing specific scientific information, such a reaction can be anticipated by not concentrating on overly elaborate definitions and detailed consequences in the longer term, but more on step-by-step concrete applications in the shorter term (Nordmann).

• Economic and social aspects have always played a role in the development of science. Today, these are more tangible than in the past and are being more actively converted into policy. All in all this is leading to increasingly intensive interaction between universities and civil institutions (not just business). In this respect it is possible to speak of a co-evolution between science and society. Increasing reflection on this co-evolution is seen in the increasing importance of among others of technology assessment and explicit interest for ELSI. (Rip)
  
• Scientific imaging technologies are becoming increasingly important in the refining of theories in many scientific areas. The number of socially relevant applications is also showing strong growth. Scientists must realise that this ‘imaging by science’ is also having consequences for the ‘imaging of science’. This imaging of science and scientists is often made visible in artistic expressions. For science and scientists, and actors outside the scientific field, it is useful to learn about the images existing on both sides, without this immediately leading to mutual attempts at persuasion.
  
• In order to form a proper judgement on science in society, requires knowledge and insight of what science is and not what science appears to be. Herein lies an important role for mediators. For example with regard to neuro-imaging, it is particularly important to guard against the incorrect concretisation of abstract definitions and images as if it were possible to directly reduce all kinds of mental functions directly to overactivity or underactivity of a certain locus in the brain, and as if mental disorders were merely based on disorders in neuronal circuits. Another pitfall is based on the incorrect assumption that the way in which all kinds of psychological and social process actually occur is normative for how these processes should occur. This is also called the naturalistic fallacy.
  
• Scientists should be aware of the potential negative consequences of their work, for example due to misuse. Such risks should preferably be assessed ex ante. This requires specific training in disciplines such as ethics and risk assessment. It is preferable that this task setting is adopted by the scientific community itself and not via government intervention. The responsibility lies with individual scientists and their organisations. However, it is important that the government provides scientists and universities with sufficient facilities to implement this responsibility.

• The acknowledgement and stimulation of the social and economic relevance of science and technology (for example, as expressed in the Lisbon declaration) is hopeful and encouraging on the one hand, but on the other hand raises questions as to whether scientific training and freedom, and independence may be rendered subordinate to economic objectives.
  
• Applied scientists regularly experience social or economic pressure to make promises about positive research results. Additionally, such promises are often made by politicians or parties interested (for example patients) on the basis of incorrect information or wishful thinking. Scientists themselves are responsible for preventing such unfounded impressions. Paying greater attention to the methodology of providing scientific information to the general public can be important.

• A significant difference between the natural sciences on the one hand, and the social sciences and humanities on the other is that – natural sciences – more than others, contributes to a makeable world via technology. On the one hand this leads to the hope for miracles (such as curing cancer) and on the other to threats (such as genetically engineered viruses escaping into the atmosphere). This means there is always a moral background to intervening through natural sciences.
  

• Although ELSI/ELSA is particularly relevant to the ‘manipulative sciences’ there is no science that is morally irrelevant. All fields of science are – albeit in different ways – morally and socially relevant. In scientific research increasing attention is being paid to ELSI/ELSA. Parallel to the increasing attention for this in scientific research, it is also recommended that it be given an explicit place in scientific education.

• The make-up of the scientific staff of universities and research institutes should reflect the structure of society as a whole. Without diversity there can be no dialogue between science and society (Mr. van der Hoeven).

• In the future there will continue to be a need for European projects in the field of science and society, and particularly also in the relationships between science, ethics, philosophy of life and developments in society. This will also be programmed in the seventh framework programme, by which it will be essential that scientists and researchers in the field are involved (Gerold).

• In the same way as in the Renaissance, today’s era is also a melting pot of many initiatives and creative expressions. Science and technology are expanding and flourishing in many places and no longer exclusively in renowned institutions. Recent developments (converging technologies) are leading to a blurring of borderlines between what were previously clearly distinctive scientific disciplines (chemistry, biochemistry, physics). Conditions need to be created – just as during the Renaissance – to allow science and society to optimally benefit from this. Let us therefore cherish the heterogeneity of the melting pot. (Rip, Schroten)

You can download here some of the reports from the workshops as pdf-files. More reports and impressions will soon be published on this website.

Keynote speeches and debates
Keynote speech 1
Full text Mieth
Keynote speech 3
Academic dispute
Full text Sitter Liver
Summary De Swaan

Workshops
Workshop 1 - Bildung or Image Building
Workshop 2 - Images of the Mind
Workshop 3 - Religion and Science
Workshop 4 - Promises of Science
Workshop 5 - Playing God
Workshop 6 - Images of Science
Workshop 7 Mediating between science and society
Workshop 8 - Using science

Back to top