What options are open for peoplecitizens, politicians, and other nonscientiststo become actively involved in and anticipate new directions in the life sciences? In addressing this question, this article focuses on the start of the Human Genome Project (1985-1990). By contrasting various models of democracy (liberal, republican, deliberative), I examine the democratic potential the models provide for citizens' involvement in setting priorities and funding patterns related to big science projects. To enhance the democratizing of big science projects and give citizens opportunities to reflect, anticipate, and negotiate on newdirections in science and technology at a global level, liberal democracy with its national scope and representative structure does not suffice. Although republican (communicative) and deliberative (associative) democracy models meet the need for greater citizen involvement, the ways to achieve the ideal at a global level still remain to be developed.
It is assumed by the projects demonstrating Positive Energy District (PED) concepts in cities across Europe that citizens should want and need to be involved in the development of new energy concepts, such as PEDs for these concepts to be deployed successfully. Six different PED research and innovation projects are investigating the types and expectations of citizen engagement. They evaluate the impact of energy citizenship on the success of PED deployment across Europe.
To achieve the “well below 2 degrees” targets, a new ecosystem needs to be defined where citizens become more active, co-managing with relevant stakeholders, the government, and third parties. This means moving from the traditional concept of citizens-as-consumers towards energy citizenship. Positive Energy Districts (PEDs) will be the test-bed area where this transformation will take place through social, technological, and governance innovation. This paper focuses on benefits and barriers towards energy citizenships and gathers a diverse set of experiences for the definition of PEDs and Local Energy Markets from the Horizon2020 Smart Cities and Communities projects: Making City, Pocityf, and Atelier.
We live in a time of radical changes in Europe. The climate crisis, the war in Ukraine, energy crisis, the pandemic, increasedprice levels and interest rates, digitalization, robotization, reduced birth rates, an aging population, migration, a decliningdemocracy index and increasing friction level between continents and powerful states makes us uncertain about tomorrow.Deglobalization, shorter production lines, changed export models, bloc formations and sovereignty might be results of someof the large challenges we see today. We see tendencies towards increasing poverty and a declining middle class. It isperhaps more important than ever in recent times to show optimism on behalf of young people and future generations.European cooperation and the link between the right skills for the right future seems to be more actual and important thanever. A report from McKinsey Global Institute (2017) about future work life, competence development and digitalization,shows that approximately 50 % of todays jobs can disappear in the nearest future caused digitalization, robotization and AI.MGI’s in-dept report have covered more than 20 countries and 30 industries (mckinsey.com). We have also a commonEuropean challenge reagarding too many youth outside the working life. The NEET index (Not in Employment, Education orTraining) was 14 % totally for the EU countries, 9.6 % for Germany, 6.3 % for Netherlands and also 6.3 % for Norway in2021 (ssb.no).This is a challenge we have to solve as we need to increase the work participation as welfare costs willincrease as a consequence of more immigration and several older people.
