The title was “How do deliberative governance processes support the integration of multiplicity of expertises and the plurality of norms of justices ? The case of high level radioactive waste”. It’s not that bad that the project didn’t make it : I could never remember the title.

Here it is.

~~~

Preamble

Although R&D programmes on the safe management of high level radioactive wastes have been conducted in some of the major industrial countries for some time now, there is still a degree of scientific controversy with regard to the best management option. One of the many issues facing high level radioactive waste (HLW) management is the need to manage some wastes over extremely long periods of time (ranging from several generations to periods longer than recorded history), raising questions about not only our scientific, technical and organisational ability to face this challenge, but also the ethical consequences of our choices. As a consequence, RWM in general (and HLW management in particular) has been a high-profile issue at different times and in many places worldwide over the past 30 or more years. Faced with problems of securing public and/or political acceptance and support, there has been an observable shift of “problem framing” in RWM from purely technical issues towards innovation in governance. Yet, this shift has not lead to any major change in Belgium regarding HLW management.

Developing a governance project for the management of radioactive waste is a task of high responsibility, particularly for HLW. On the social and political sides, there are no “ready to use” rules for achieving this task. Due attention must be given to the tuning of the governance procedures, at each stage of the process, from the scenario analysis until the long term follow-up of the implemented decision. As there is no “magical formula” fitting every governance situation, the proposal of this Ph.D. is to study both the normative and the empirical sides of governance applied to HLW management. By questioning the criteria for effective governance processes under conditions of high and long term uncertainties, we hope to increase the chances of success (e.g. in terms of acceptance, of duration, etc.) of the future decision-making.

Disponible ici : Sociology Thesis Abstract : resisting to nanotechnology

I finally wrote an abstract of my sociology’s master thesis. It’s available by clicking the above link.

In a few words, the leading idea can be put like this : science is not the private property of scientists. Other actors are involved, and their statements and acts must be taken in consideration if one intends to study science, especially when focusing on scientific controversies. This is what we tried to demonstrate in the particular case of nanotechnology.

Mémoire réalisé par Patrick Gillon en vue de l’obtention du grade de licencié en sociologie à l’Université de Liège.

“Dans les controverses étudiées les acteurs qui interviennent développent des argumentations et des points de vue contradictoires qui les amènent à proposer des versions différentes du monde social et du monde naturel. Qu’arrive-t-il si l’on maintient tout au long de l’analyse la symétrie entre les négociations qui portent sur l’un et sur l’autre ? Aboutit-on nécessairement à un chaos indescriptible ? (Callon, 1990 : 175)”

Obtenir une copie de mon mémoire (.pdf)

Cette création est mise à disposition sous un contrat Creative Commons.

A venir : un album photo, un beau C.V. et peut-être un article de sociologie…