FALLON Catherine, SPIRAL – Scientific and Public Involvement in Risk Allocation Laboratory

1. Struggling with emerging instruments in Belgium (Wallonia) Tentative Governance in emerging science and technologyActors constellation, institutional arrangements and strategies. FALLON Catherine, SPIRAL – Scientific and Public Involvement in Risk Allocation Laboratory

2. Struggling with emerging instruments in Belgium in the biomedical field (pharmacogenomics) • 1. The object • II. The theoretical frame : • - analysing science policy through its instruments • - a cultural approach to the construction of institutions • III. The methods: the tools derived from ANT • IV. Results : the diversity of « actors constellations » • Tentative conclusions ?

4. Funding public research in Belgium • Public funded basic research is organised in universities (research/training), through : • - Funds allocated within the university (with a strong say from the rectorate) • - FNRS (Funding research council - all disciplines) • - Funds allocated by the stateS (federal, regional) in areas defined as strategic • - European funds are also praised .... FP and ERC • NB : Industrial funds in universities (6.5%) • New : The Walloon authorities are launching new funding schemes : • with more prominence to short term competitive programmes • in partnership with industry or other end-users (PPP) • This is particularly true in fields considered as strategic for the economy : eg pharmagenomics (Belgium major field) • Research units have access to various funding schemes : • These public funding schemes are "instruments of science policy".

5. What are these instruments ? • They are organized by a series of public authorities ERC PCRD E.U. Pôles Pg them IPR Pg Exc PPP Wallonia $ Eu funds FNRS ARC French Com PAI Federal B Old New

6. Block Grants Univ. funds Instruments are dynamic. P Ex ARC PAI Driventowards application Driven by thematics Academic Driven PPP Thema Poles FNRS PCRD ERC CompetitionBased

7. The instruments of public policy • (Governing by instruments, Lascoumes & LeGales, 2007) • Instruments are technical : they have to fill specific functions, according to policy objectives • Instruments are social : they carry a concrete concept of the politics/society relationship, as well as meanings and representations, supporting some behaviours and privileging some actors. An instrument organizes specific social relations •  Looking at "instruments at work" means analyzing their specific outputs and the power relations and forms of social control they organize. • The "mode of government“ (M.Foucault) can be analysed through procedures and techniques , reports.. : the materiality of public actions.

8. Analysis of instruments of public policy as translation process: • Instruments are produced through a series of steps of translation: • coordinating heterogeneous actors (scientists, civil servants, industry) : stabilizing associations by constructing ‘obligatory passage point’, • producing representations, contributing to describe and categorize the social (eg. defining what is “good science”?) •  Conditions of emergence contribute to shape the instrument : an historic approach is necessary • We use tools derived from the sociology of translation (Callon,1986) • with a pragmatic approach, to observe the "agency in action“ and “instruments at work”

9. Instruments are institutions : • Institutions are bundles of cognitive, normative and regulative features that are taken for granted and contribute to shape the behavior of actors, modifying their expectations and preferences. • not only ==> functional services (eg: funding research) • ==> internal procedures for categorisation and hierarchisation (good research / bad research) • ==> identification processes  define institutional boundaries(science / non science) • ==> authority patterns  resource allocations, power relations • ==> legitimation strategy ensuring inscription in society( society giving public funds for a meeting in Twente ?)

10. Theoretical frame : a cultural institutional analysis • (Douglas 1986) • The construction of a social group and definition of categories • of thought and specific worldviews are intertwined processes, Natural and social orders are being produced simultaneously (Jasanoff) Values and beliefs are mobilised through the social interactions; They contribute to the setting of the group convention They settle the legitimate ground for an given institution. • develop a specific order, mobilizing values & belief • Subject to transformation • What frontiers of the group? What internal control?  4 basic forms of cooperation

11. The "grid/group" classification  4 basic forms of cooperation

12. Groups are hierarchic, fatalist, egalitarian and individualist Cooperation is bureaucratic, random, based on mutuality, on competition,

13. Field work  institutional innovation : • Actors <> Objects • With a diachronic approach to appreciate the translation dynamics • Setting for participation ? Who is allowed ? • Control and settings for allocation of ressources ? • Each instrument creates a specific interaction space :

14. FNRS • Collegiality: internal definition of rules. Authority resides in the collective itself. Control of the frontiers is important. • Resisted to a tentative of control by the national administration of science • Could not avoid stronger university control

15. Thematic programs • Regional administration (in charge of industrial policy) • developed a complex bureaucratic procedure : • - administration defines the thematics • - administration organises evaluation • administration organises ranking / selection .. • Administration is very proud of the instrument. • The programme is not co-constructed with the political DM, nor the researchers.

16. Poles of competitiveness • Funding "High level research in innovation niches" in • "interorganisationnal learning networks" with a strong • “end-users orientation”: • Industry control the strategic management of the Pole. • University researchers are “loose” partners • Regional administration was put on the side (the political authorities delegated the administration of the pole to an independent body – not profit adhoc organisation)

17. Public Private Partnerships • Funding "High level research in innovation niches" in • With a strong participation of co-funding industry to the strategic orientation of the research; with a co-funding from the regional authorities : • Industry negotiates with the universities (at department level and with the authorities) and the administration; • Univ. departments control the strategic management of PPP : long term (structural cooperation) or short term (project) • Regional administration is cooperating in the evaluation process

18. Groups are hierarchic, fatalist, egalitarian and individualist Cooperation is bureaucratic, random, based on mutuality, on competition Pg them PPP FNRS Pôles Hood (1998) : There is no « one best way » , but a tendency to polarise and reinforce its own references

19. Tentative Conclusions … • What is governance ? (Simoulin, 2003) A dynamic reality, with • practices of coordination ( euphemizing hierarchy & power relations) • What is changing ? • New tensions in terms of forms of accountability (increase of end-users control and output driven evaluation) under the NPM mantra (agencification, deregulation, delocalisation, more competition, multi level governance) • State is an actor among the others : Private / Public frontiers are disappearing: there is a diversity of forms of cooperation between Private and Public actors • World is complex and ungovernable ==> authorities can only work through concertation and participation • New forms of communication (less hierarchical and less formal)

20. Instrumental polyphony : • do we need stronger orchestration ? Each instrument is auto-referential (its own worldview and sensemaking): can gouvernance help confront the increase of fragmentation and manage its consequence ? Eg: fragmented “Science Policy Councils” => no aggregration • GOV as process : it legitimizes and helps build space for the confrontation of independant sub-systems. French speaking Belgium : innovative instruments in the policy mix; a multi-centered polity; old : no political steering of science : science making without “professional policy makers” (Universities 1836, FNRS 1927)new : political engagement mainly in industrial policy (IPR, Poles, European cohesion policies); what aggregation dynamics (eg FNRS? CPS? others?)