Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T06:12:23.306Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Integrating societal concerns into research and development (R&D) on geological disposal at the national level

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Meritxell Martell  and
Kris Van Berendoncks
Meritxell Martell*
Affiliation:
Merience SCP, Spain
Kris Van Berendoncks
Affiliation:
University of Antwerp, Prinsstraat 13, 2000 Antwerpen, Belgium
*
*E-mail: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The European InSOTEC project aims to identify remaining socio-technical challenges for the implementation of geological disposal of radioactive waste in European countries. Geological disposal has been recognized as the reference solution in radioactive waste management by the European Commission, which has set up the IGD-TP as a platform to foster exchanges between authorities on research and development (R&D) on this topic. This paper turns to the national level to analyse national R&D programmes on radioactive waste management (RWM) and particularly, geological disposal (GD) in order to assess to what extent there are national platforms that broaden interaction beyond an expert community. For this, we focus on identifying those practices and structures that reflect a degree of inter- and transdisciplinarity in the design and implementation of national R&D programmes. Our argument, embedded in the Science and Technology Studies (STS) literature, is that the way GD is framed by the research and policy community has important implications for the processes of developing and governing a technology. From our empirical case studies, we will explore the extent to which social-science research is integrated and the way stakeholders may have an impact on the development of R&D programmes. Overall, including social science research as an integral part in R&D programmes on GD and fostering collaboration between different types of knowledge in the R&D agenda-setting phase may help in the consideration of GD as a socio-technical problem, where the social and the technical are inextricably linked.

Keywords

cross-disciplinarytransdisciplinaryIGD-TPradioactive waste managementgeological disposal
Type
Research Article
Information
Mineralogical Magazine , Volume 79 , Issue 6 , November 2015 , pp. 1563 - 1571
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
Copyright © The Mineralogical Society of Great Britain and Ireland 2015. This is an open access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Mineralogical Society of Great Britain and Ireland 2015

References

Aparicio, L. (editor) (2010) Making Nuclear Waste Governable. Deep Underground Disposal and the Challenge of Reversibility. Springer/ANDRA.Augsburg, T. (2006) Becoming Interdisciplinary: An Introduction to Interdisciplinary Studies. Kendall/ Hunt Publishing, Dubuque, Iowa, USA.Google Scholar
Bergmann, M., Brohmann, B., Hoffmann, E., Loibl, M. C, Rehaag, R. Schramm, E. et al. (2005) Quality Criteria of Transdisciplinary Research. A Guide for the Formative Evaluation of Research Projects. Institute for Social-Ecologic Research, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.Google Scholar
Bijker, W., Hughes, T. and Pinch, T. (1987) The Social Construction of Technological Systems. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.Google Scholar
Blowers, A. and Sundqvist, G. (2010) Radioactive waste management - technocratic dominance in an age of participation. Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences, 7, 149-155.Google Scholar
Bruce, A., Lyall, C., Tait, J. and Williams, R. (2004) Interdisciplinary integration in Europe: the case of the Fifth Framework Programme. Futures, 36, 457–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
COVRA (2011) OPERA: Research Plan. OPERA-PG-COV004, July 2011.Google Scholar
Dini, P., Iqani, M. and Mansell, R. (2011) The (im) possibility of interdisciplinarity: lessons from con-structing a theoretical framework for digital ecosys-tems. Culture, Theory and Critique, 52, 3–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
EC [European Commission] (2013) 2012 Interdisciplinary Study. Benefits and limitations of nuclear fission for a low-carbon economy. Defining the priorities for Euratom fission research and training (Horizon 2020). Compilation of the experts’ reports. Background to the synthesis report.Google Scholar
EKRA (2002) Contribution to a strategy on radioactive waste management in Switzerland (Beitrag zur Entsorgungsstrategie für die radioactiven Abfälle in der Schweiz’ in German). Authors: W. Wildi, D. Appel, M. Buser, F. Dermange, A. Eckhardt, P. Hufschmied, H.R. Keusen and M. Aebersold, October 2002.Google Scholar
IDEA (2008) Evaluation of the European Technology Platforms (ETPs). Idea consult. Report commissioned by the EC - DGBUDG, Brussels.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, S. (editor) (2006) States of Knowledge. The Co-Production of Science and Social Order. Routledge, New York.Google Scholar
Jeffrey, P. (2003) Smoothing the waters: observations on the process of cross-disciplinary research collaboration. Social Studies of Science, 33, 539–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehtonen, M. (2010) Opening Up or Closing Down Radioactive Waste Management Policy? Debates on Reversibility and Retrievability in Finland, France and the United Kingdom. Risks, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy, 1 (4), Article 6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MEE (2011) KYT 2010 Finnish Research Programme on Nuclear Waste Management 2006-2010. Final report. Ministry of Employment and the Economy. Energy and the Climate 26/2011.Google Scholar
MEE (2013) KYT 2013 Review Report. Ministry of Employment and the Economy. Energy and the Climate 10/2013.Google Scholar
Minhans, A. and Kallenbach-Herbert, B. (2012) Identifying remaining socio-technical challenges at the national level. InSOTEC working paper, Germany.Google Scholar
NEA (2011) Reversibility and Retrievability for the deep disposal of HLW and Spent Fuel. Final report of the NEA R&D Project. NEA/RWM/R(2011)4. OECD, Paris.Google Scholar
Nowotny, H., Scott, P. and Gibbons, M. (2001) Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. Polity Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
ONDRAF/NIRAS (2010) Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) over het afvalplan van NIRAS. NIRAS 5249-506-068, June 2010.Google Scholar
SKB (2013) RD&D Programme 2013. Programme for research, development and demonstration of methods for the management and disposal of nuclear waste. Technical report TR-13-18. September 2013.Google Scholar
Solomon, B.D., Andrén, M. and Strandberg, U. (2010) Three decades of social science research on high-level waste: Achievements and future challenges. Risks, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy, 1(4) Article 2, 13–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stauffacher, M. and Moser, C. (2010). A new ‘epistemic community’ in nuclear waste governance? Theoretical reflections and empirical observations of some fundamental challenges. Catalan Journal of Communication and Cultural Studies, 2, 197–211.Google Scholar
TNS (2008) Attitudes to Radioactive Waste - Special Eurobarometer 297. European Commission, Brussels.Google Scholar
Wallace, H. (2010) Rock Solid? A scientific review of geological disposal of high-level radioactive waste. Gene Watch UK: report commissioned by Greenpeace International.Google Scholar
Walter, A.I., Helgenberger, S., Wiek, A. and Scholza, R. W (2007) Measuring Societal Effects of Transdisciplinary Research Projects: Design and Application of an Evaluation Method. Evaluation and Program Planning, 30, 325–338.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed