[Evidence-based policy-making? The meaning of scientific knowledge in policy processes]. / Evidence-based policy-making? Die Bedeutung wissenschaftlicher Erkenntnisse in politischen Prozessen.

Scientific findings are often not adopted and utilized as assumed and intended by their producers and mediators. These gaps in the uptake and use of scientific "evidence" induce reflections on the communication between science and its addressees in society. If "politics" is conceived as an addressee, could its members be identified as a "target group"? What are the knowledge needs of policy-makers? What do they expect not only in terms of "the evidence" provided, but also with regard to the role that its producers play in processes of counselling? And how do these expectations fit together with the models of counselling and communication that producers of scientific knowledge presuppose in the framework of evidence-based policy-making?

Working with Research Integrity-Guidance for Research Performing Organisations: The Bonn PRINTEGER Statement.

This document presents the Bonn PRINTEGER Consensus Statement: Working with Research Integrity-Guidance for research performing organisations. The aim of the statement is to complement existing instruments by focusing specifically on institutional responsibilities for strengthening integrity. It takes into account the daily challenges and organisational contexts of most researchers. The statement intends to make research integrity challenges recognisable from the work-floor perspective, providing concrete advice on organisational measures to strengthen integrity. The statement, which was concluded February 7th 2018, provides guidance on the following key issues: § 1. Providing information about research integrity § 2. Providing education, training and mentoring § 3. Strengthening a research integrity culture § 4. Facilitating open dialogue § 5. Wise incentive management § 6. Implementing quality assurance procedures § 7. Improving the work environment and work satisfaction § 8. Increasing transparency of misconduct cases § 9. Opening up research § 10. Implementing safe and effective whistle-blowing channels § 11. Protecting the alleged perpetrators § 12. Establishing a research integrity committee and appointing an ombudsperson § 13. Making explicit the applicable standards for research integrity.

Legitimation problems of participatory processes in technology assessment and technology policy.

Since James Carroll (1971) made a strong case for "participatory technology", scientists, engineers, policy-makers and the public at large have seen quite a number of different approaches to design and implement participatory processes in technology assessment and technology policy. As these participatory experiments and practices spread over the last two decades, one could easily get the impression that participation turned from a theoretical normative claim to a working practice that goes without saying. Looking beyond the well-known forerunners and considering the ambivalent experiences that have been made under different conditions in various places, however, the "if" and "how" of participation are still contested issues when questions of technology are on the agenda. Legitimation problems indicate that attempts to justify participation in a given case have not been entirely successful in the eyes of relevant groups among the sponsors, participants, organizers or observers. Legitimation problems of participatory processes in technology assessment and technology policy vary considerably, and they do so not only with the two domains and the ways of their interrelation or the specific features of the participatory processes. If we ask whether or not participation is seen as problematic in technology assessment and technology policy-making and in what sense it is being evaluated as problematic, then we find that the answer depends also on the approaches and criteria that have been used to legitimize or delegitimize the call for a specific design of participation.