Voici le texte de sa présentation (en anglais) :

An NGO created 20 years ago whose objective is to put science and scientists back into society and to democratise science, in many different ways, at the level of the definition of the knowledge we need, of the production of knowledge and its uses. We believe that knowledge and science are eminently political objects and we advocate the role of science in the ecological and social crises, as well as the social responsibility and political commitment of science and scientists.

Our actions take several forms. We seek to foster debates numerous socio-technical controversies linked to the use of certain technosciences (such as GMOs or geo-engineering), but we also develop numerous views on technical democracy and the organisation of the research world. Over the past twenty years, we have set up numerous tools such as the Citizens’ Conventions, an instrument of citizen’s political deliberation whose purpose can be, for example, to allow the democratic elaboration of choices on the use of technologies or the orientations of research. We have also been at the origin of thee French Whistleblowers’ House and have contributed a great deal to the development of participatory research in France, for which we claim for a high degree of democracy and the co-construction of knowledge.

The association is at the crossroads of two types of advocacy: a political advocacy, on the need to democratise the mechanisms of production and use of knowledge and techniques; another on the very nature of socio-technical controversies and the societal choices we make. Genome editing is a perfect illustration of the complementarity of these two pleas and of the complexity of the issues at the Science/Society interface.

Sciences Citoyennes’s position on genome editing

Genome editing, and more generally the development of all techniques of genetic manipulation of living organisms, do not correspond to any demand from society, nor are they supported by an open, global debate on the legitimacy, usefulness or risks associated with these new technologies. The rapid development of biotechnologies is characterised by a complete democratic vacuum and by the grip of the scientific and industrial worlds on public decisions. The political agenda is captured by a very influential minority, and the choices to develop these techniques are made in an undemocratic way. Not only is the choice to manipulate the living, the genome of plants, animals and humans made without the consent of citizens, but it is made against them.

Indeed, Sciences citoyennes is fundamentally opposed to the vision of man, of society, of the living being that this biotechnological frenzy carries, a project of civilisation that is built against the ethical values on which our societies are based, that endangers the conditions of life of man on Earth and that is an attack on human dignity. We are at the dawn of a technological revolution which, like the revolution of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, will profoundly change our relationship with the world. Today, it is our ‘humanity’ that is at stake and the advances in genetic sciences and technologies give always more powerful weapons to those who wish to dehumanise us.

Bioethics legislation and regulation

This mobilisation is more than necessary in view of the political situation in France. France adopted a bioethics law fairly quickly (in 1994, i.e. 12 years after the first French test-tube baby), agreeing that this law should be amended regularly, every 5/7 years. However, this revision of the law does not always respond to the emergence of new problems or social issues, but rather seems to follow scientific advances, to submit to international competition, to seek ever more medical or paramedical applications which constitute a market with strong growth potential for many companies. French bioethics laws are modified very regularly, they do not regulate the scientific, technical, medical or commercial practices but are constantly adapted to the state of knowledge and techniques and to ‘progressive’ pressure groups. In other words, the law does not regulate Science, it is Science that creates the law. This constant evolution of regulations over the last twenty years is manifested by an increasing permissiveness towards the demands of scientists and certain lobbies and leads to the authorisation of ever more scientific experiments and medical practices. In this respect, certain measures in the latest bioethics law are confounding :

– Authorisation of the mass production of gametes through the directed in vitro differentiation of somatic cells or stem cells. The risks of merchandising of gametes, the generalisation of pre-implantation diagnosis and positive eugenics have obviously not been taken into account.

– Authorisation of human-animal chimeras by combining embryonic cells (human/mouse, human/pig) with transfer into the uterus of the animal species.

The question of the dilution of identity of these « hybrid objects », the very nature of these demiurgic creations, the infringement of animal and human dignity, etc., did not embarrass the legislators, who saw it only as a practical means of producing organoids (to produce organs for transplantation), or of furthering science.

– Editing the genome of human embryos by applying Crispr-Cas9 on an experimental basis to define the conditions of good practice prior to the birth of genetically modified children. Here again, under the pretext of the non-implantation of embryos, the legislators have authorised the ultimate transgression, that of substituting themselves for Chance/Nature, whatever name we give it, and arrogating to themselves the right to modify, control, and even create our own genetic, bodily and material identity. We would no longer depend on anyone but ourselves, the ultimate fantasy of becoming one’s own God.

These laws were passed not in the name of the welfare or sake of mankind, but in the name of Science. The law has been used not as a tool for regulation, but as a tool for the promotion of biotechnology; politicians do not seem to care about the best interests of mankind, but rather are in a hurry to blindly respond to the fantasies of the craziest scientists and the most demanding parents. This forced march of biotechnological progress is done while refusing to ask questions about the medical, social, cultural and moral consequences of these laws. Thus, what is the point of producing thousands of gametes artificially, if not to use them intensively and thus profoundly modify our ways of « reproducing » ourselves as individuals, as a species ? What is the point of authorising the modification of human embryos if not to then, in the name of the « care » provided to the embryo, henceforth considered as a « patient », authorise the re-implantation of embryos « cured » of their genetic defects, related to orphan or social diseases ?

The project of mastering man, from his creation to his death, of improving « human quality » is what drives this permanent revision of the bioethics laws and is reminiscent of the wildest transhumanist delusions. But obviously, this is not said publicly. The political space in which these laws were drawn up, discussed and voted on has been captured by the scientific and industrial world. There has been no really contradictory public debate on these precise points. In this sense, the evolution of French laws reflects an abdication to scientific or societal pressure groups of what a law should be (regulating science and medicine) and the democratic way in which it should be elaborated.

Lack of public mobilisation

Public attention has been focused on other, less technical, aspects of the latest bioethics laws. The extension of medically assisted procreation and the authorisation of surrogate motherhood, which have given rise to a great deal of mobilisation and discourse, has played the role of the tree that hides the forest. As far as the editing of the human genome is concerned, the general feeling is non-existent. There is very little information, and even less debate on these issues. These debates have had little to do with the issue of human biotechnology, have rather served as a relay for the dominant discourse and have had almost zero media coverage. However, when you explain in detail to your family or friends the state of the legislation in France, what is being done or can be done, the concrete consequences of these new laws… people are individually horrified. No one can imagine that it is acceptable to produce human/animal chimeras, thousands of gametes artificially and even less to modify the human genome… And yet, this is what is going to happen thanks to the latest legislative revision

In France, there are very strong mobilisations against plant biotechnologies, built on many associations and activists, and the issue of GMOs is very present in the media with a strong people’s commitment for or against. But surprisingly, when these biotechnologies are applied to humans, this does not trigger any reactions in the population, as if a smokescreen separated them from this reality. It is likely that this ‘factory of ignorance’ is the result of the activity of pressure groups that were able to capture the space for public discussion and decision-making at a fairly early stage. Unlike other fields (plant biotechnologies, digital technology, pesticides, etc.), these groups are not all in the service of economic interests but seem to defend a certain vision of science and human beings, an ideology.

The responsibility of scientists

In my opinion, the scientific community is largely responsible for the invisibilisation of the issue of human genome editing, and this has been the case since the 1990s and the first law authorising PGD in 1994. The debate has been captured and the terms imposed by scientists who have reduced it to its technical dimension, prevented any possibility of addressing ethical, social, cultural or even medical issues. The absence of contradictory debates illustrates this capture. Positions or initiatives seeking to question the extremely rapid development of human biotechnologies are quickly caricatured and labelled as obscurantist, religious, anti-progress movements… Scientists have imposed their agenda on the political world, by imposing the idea that genome manipulation is inevitable, indispensable. They are manoeuvring to short-circuit any attempt at prohibiting or even regulating human biotechnologies by once again mobilising a rhetoric of scientific and economic promises, by defending the « imperative of medical finality » and, as is often the case, by waving China around like a scarecrow: « It has to be done because if we don’t do it, China will.

The reaction of the French scientific community to the Chinese GMO babies is an illustration of its position on genome editing: favourable. Indeed, scientists condemned Jangkui He’s experiments, not for ethical or moral reasons, but because this « work » had not been done correctly, from a technical and legal point of view. They did not question the very fact of creating GMO babies, and they rather gave the impression that they regretted not having done it themselves first. They were more hurt that they had been scooped by an outsider researcher, than concerned about the risks of developing these human biotechnologies. These scientists are now organised in international networks, penetrate international bodies and hold congresses where they define the conditions they consider necessary to promote their projects. It is a vision of a mythical, omniscient and omnipotent science that is being imposed, a science that places itself above cultural and political norms, above ethical and moral values, a science that is accountable to no one and decides our future without us and even against us, and it is this vision of Science that should frighten us the most and encourage us to react.

Find more about it here : https://stopdesignerbabies.org/news/

Lisez plus sur Sciences Citoyennes

Voici le texte de sa présentation (en anglais) :

An NGO created 20 years ago whose objective is to put science and scientists back into society and to democratise science, in many different ways, at the level of the definition of the knowledge we need, of the production of knowledge and its uses. We believe that knowledge and science are eminently political objects and we advocate the role of science in the ecological and social crises, as well as the social responsibility and political commitment of science and scientists.

Our actions take several forms. We seek to foster debates numerous socio-technical controversies linked to the use of certain technosciences (such as GMOs or geo-engineering), but we also develop numerous views on technical democracy and the organisation of the research world. Over the past twenty years, we have set up numerous tools such as the Citizens\’ Conventions, an instrument of citizen\’s political deliberation whose purpose can be, for example, to allow the democratic elaboration of choices on the use of technologies or the orientations of research. We have also been at the origin of thee French Whistleblowers\’ House and have contributed a great deal to the development of participatory research in France, for which we claim for a high degree of democracy and the co-construction of knowledge.

The association is at the crossroads of two types of advocacy: a political advocacy, on the need to democratise the mechanisms of production and use of knowledge and techniques; another on the very nature of socio-technical controversies and the societal choices we make. Genome editing is a perfect illustration of the complementarity of these two pleas and of the complexity of the issues at the Science/Society interface.

Sciences Citoyennes\’s position on genome editing

Genome editing, and more generally the development of all techniques of genetic manipulation of living organisms, do not correspond to any demand from society, nor are they supported by an open, global debate on the legitimacy, usefulness or risks associated with these new technologies. The rapid development of biotechnologies is characterised by a complete democratic vacuum and by the grip of the scientific and industrial worlds on public decisions. The political agenda is captured by a very influential minority, and the choices to develop these techniques are made in an undemocratic way. Not only is the choice to manipulate the living, the genome of plants, animals and humans made without the consent of citizens, but it is made against them.

Indeed, Sciences citoyennes is fundamentally opposed to the vision of man, of society, of the living being that this biotechnological frenzy carries, a project of civilisation that is built against the ethical values on which our societies are based, that endangers the conditions of life of man on Earth and that is an attack on human dignity. We are at the dawn of a technological revolution which, like the revolution of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, will profoundly change our relationship with the world. Today, it is our \’humanity\’ that is at stake and the advances in genetic sciences and technologies give always more powerful weapons to those who wish to dehumanise us.

Bioethics legislation and regulation

This mobilisation is more than necessary in view of the political situation in France. France adopted a bioethics law fairly quickly (in 1994, i.e. 12 years after the first French test-tube baby), agreeing that this law should be amended regularly, every 5/7 years. However, this revision of the law does not always respond to the emergence of new problems or social issues, but rather seems to follow scientific advances, to submit to international competition, to seek ever more medical or paramedical applications which constitute a market with strong growth potential for many companies. French bioethics laws are modified very regularly, they do not regulate the scientific, technical, medical or commercial practices but are constantly adapted to the state of knowledge and techniques and to \’progressive\’ pressure groups. In other words, the law does not regulate Science, it is Science that creates the law. This constant evolution of regulations over the last twenty years is manifested by an increasing permissiveness towards the demands of scientists and certain lobbies and leads to the authorisation of ever more scientific experiments and medical practices. In this respect, certain measures in the latest bioethics law are confounding :

– Authorisation of the mass production of gametes through the directed in vitro differentiation of somatic cells or stem cells. The risks of merchandising of gametes, the generalisation of pre-implantation diagnosis and positive eugenics have obviously not been taken into account.

– Authorisation of human-animal chimeras by combining embryonic cells (human/mouse, human/pig) with transfer into the uterus of the animal species.

The question of the dilution of identity of these \ »hybrid objects\ », the very nature of these demiurgic creations, the infringement of animal and human dignity, etc., did not embarrass the legislators, who saw it only as a practical means of producing organoids (to produce organs for transplantation), or of furthering science.

– Editing the genome of human embryos by applying Crispr-Cas9 on an experimental basis to define the conditions of good practice prior to the birth of genetically modified children. Here again, under the pretext of the non-implantation of embryos, the legislators have authorised the ultimate transgression, that of substituting themselves for Chance/Nature, whatever name we give it, and arrogating to themselves the right to modify, control, and even create our own genetic, bodily and material identity. We would no longer depend on anyone but ourselves, the ultimate fantasy of becoming one\’s own God.

These laws were passed not in the name of the welfare or sake of mankind, but in the name of Science. The law has been used not as a tool for regulation, but as a tool for the promotion of biotechnology; politicians do not seem to care about the best interests of mankind, but rather are in a hurry to blindly respond to the fantasies of the craziest scientists and the most demanding parents. This forced march of biotechnological progress is done while refusing to ask questions about the medical, social, cultural and moral consequences of these laws. Thus, what is the point of producing thousands of gametes artificially, if not to use them intensively and thus profoundly modify our ways of \ »reproducing\ » ourselves as individuals, as a species ? What is the point of authorising the modification of human embryos if not to then, in the name of the \ »care\ » provided to the embryo, henceforth considered as a \ »patient\ », authorise the re-implantation of embryos \ »cured\ » of their genetic defects, related to orphan or social diseases ?

The project of mastering man, from his creation to his death, of improving \ »human quality\ » is what drives this permanent revision of the bioethics laws and is reminiscent of the wildest transhumanist delusions. But obviously, this is not said publicly. The political space in which these laws were drawn up, discussed and voted on has been captured by the scientific and industrial world. There has been no really contradictory public debate on these precise points. In this sense, the evolution of French laws reflects an abdication to scientific or societal pressure groups of what a law should be (regulating science and medicine) and the democratic way in which it should be elaborated.

Lack of public mobilisation

Public attention has been focused on other, less technical, aspects of the latest bioethics laws. The extension of medically assisted procreation and the authorisation of surrogate motherhood, which have given rise to a great deal of mobilisation and discourse, has played the role of the tree that hides the forest. As far as the editing of the human genome is concerned, the general feeling is non-existent. There is very little information, and even less debate on these issues. These debates have had little to do with the issue of human biotechnology, have rather served as a relay for the dominant discourse and have had almost zero media coverage. However, when you explain in detail to your family or friends the state of the legislation in France, what is being done or can be done, the concrete consequences of these new laws… people are individually horrified. No one can imagine that it is acceptable to produce human/animal chimeras, thousands of gametes artificially and even less to modify the human genome… And yet, this is what is going to happen thanks to the latest legislative revision

In France, there are very strong mobilisations against plant biotechnologies, built on many associations and activists, and the issue of GMOs is very present in the media with a strong people’s commitment for or against. But surprisingly, when these biotechnologies are applied to humans, this does not trigger any reactions in the population, as if a smokescreen separated them from this reality. It is likely that this \’factory of ignorance\’ is the result of the activity of pressure groups that were able to capture the space for public discussion and decision-making at a fairly early stage. Unlike other fields (plant biotechnologies, digital technology, pesticides, etc.), these groups are not all in the service of economic interests but seem to defend a certain vision of science and human beings, an ideology.

The responsibility of scientists

In my opinion, the scientific community is largely responsible for the invisibilisation of the issue of human genome editing, and this has been the case since the 1990s and the first law authorising PGD in 1994. The debate has been captured and the terms imposed by scientists who have reduced it to its technical dimension, prevented any possibility of addressing ethical, social, cultural or even medical issues. The absence of contradictory debates illustrates this capture. Positions or initiatives seeking to question the extremely rapid development of human biotechnologies are quickly caricatured and labelled as obscurantist, religious, anti-progress movements… Scientists have imposed their agenda on the political world, by imposing the idea that genome manipulation is inevitable, indispensable. They are manoeuvring to short-circuit any attempt at prohibiting or even regulating human biotechnologies by once again mobilising a rhetoric of scientific and economic promises, by defending the \ »imperative of medical finality\ » and, as is often the case, by waving China around like a scarecrow: \ »It has to be done because if we don\’t do it, China will.

The reaction of the French scientific community to the Chinese GMO babies is an illustration of its position on genome editing: favourable. Indeed, scientists condemned Jangkui He\’s experiments, not for ethical or moral reasons, but because this \ »work\ » had not been done correctly, from a technical and legal point of view. They did not question the very fact of creating GMO babies, and they rather gave the impression that they regretted not having done it themselves first. They were more hurt that they had been scooped by an outsider researcher, than concerned about the risks of developing these human biotechnologies. These scientists are now organised in international networks, penetrate international bodies and hold congresses where they define the conditions they consider necessary to promote their projects. It is a vision of a mythical, omniscient and omnipotent science that is being imposed, a science that places itself above cultural and political norms, above ethical and moral values, a science that is accountable to no one and decides our future without us and even against us, and it is this vision of Science that should frighten us the most and encourage us to react.

Find more about it here : https://stopdesignerbabies.org/news/

Lisez plus sur Sciences Citoyennes

Missions

• Contacter les participants potentiels (contacts fournis par les organisateurs et si nécessaire recherche d’autres contacts intéressants, suivi des contacts)
• Organiser des réunions en ligne (disponibilités, ordre du jour), envoyer les invitations et rappels.
• Animer des réunions et rédiger les compte-rendus
• Contacter des intervenants (par exemple des experts d’un sujet) (contacts fournis par les organisateurs et si nécessaire recherche d’autres contacts intéressants)
• Rédiger une première version d’un rapport de synthèse, relecture possible par le comité de pilotage et des experts sollicités et rédaction d’une version finale du rapport de synthèse.

Compétences

• Langue – Français (langue maternelle), anglais (courant)
• Communication – en particulier en travaillant avec la société civile ; expérience dans le domaine de l’agriculture et de l’alimentation souhaitée.
• Animation / coordination – travail en petits groupes avec un large éventail de publics, capacité à animer des réunions notamment à distance Capacité à enrichir la discussion avec des éléments extérieurs, introduire des experts, vulgariser si nécessaire.
• Organisationnel – maintenir les contacts avec les participants, les intervenants et le comité de pilotage
• Rédaction – Essentiel : Réaliser des compte-rendus synthétiques et faciles d’accès des discussions.
• Analyse – Souhaitable : Capacité à mettre en perspective et analyser ce qui sera produit par les discussions, notamment lier ces travaux avec les travaux de recherche (études sur les sciences et les techniques, processus citoyens participatifs, débats autour des systèmes et technologies alimentaires)

Calendrier (2020-2021)

• Septembre – Octobre – recherche d’un animateur, travail du comité de pilotage, et contact des éventuels participants
• Octobre – Novembre – Décembre réunions
• Décembre – Janvier première version du rapport, relecture par le comité de pilotage et certains experts si nécessaire
• Février – rapport final de la première phase.
• Février – juillet – deuxième phase potentielle.

Merci d’envoyer un CV (1 page) et une lettre de motivation (2 pages max) en français à rmitralias@confederationpaysanne.fr et/ou en anglais à tom@etcgroup.org.

La date limite est le 04/10/2020. Des entretiens seront organisés mi-Octobre.

Nous recherchons un prestataire indépendant pour une mission d’animation/coordination. Ce prestataire ne sera pas salarié, et aura bien un statut d’indépendant.

Description du projet (en anglais)

English translation

Context

Which Way Forward? Is an international initiative organized by ETC Group (see more details attached). In France, it is coordinated by representatives of Pollinis, Sciences Citoyennes and the Confédération Paysanne. The facilitator of this process will be integrated into its steering committee.

Missions

• Contact potential participants (contacts provided by the organizers and if necessary search for other interesting contacts, follow-up of contacts)
• Organize online meetings (availability, agenda), send invitations and reminders.
• Facilitate meetings and write minutes
• Contact speakers (eg subject matter experts) (contacts provided by the organizers and if necessary search for other interesting contacts)
• Write a first version of a summary report, possible proofreading by the steering committee and requested experts and drafting of a final version of the summary report.

Skills

• Language – French (mother tongue), English (fluent)
• Communication – especially when working with civil society; experience in agriculture and food desired.
• Animation / coordination – work in small groups with a wide range of audiences, ability to lead meetings, especially remotely. Ability to enrich the discussion with external elements, introduce experts, popularize if necessary.
• Organizational – maintain contact with participants, speakers and the steering committee
• Writing – Essential: Produce summary and easily accessible reports of the discussions.
• Analysis – Desirable: Ability to put into perspective and analyze what will be produced by the discussions, in particular to link this work with research work (studies on science and technology, participatory citizen processes, debates around food systems and technologies)

Calendar (2020-2021)

• September – October – search for a facilitator, work of the steering committee, and contact of possible participants
• October – November – December meetings
• December – January first version of the report, proofreading by the steering committee and some experts if necessary
• February – final report of the first phase.
• February – July – potential second phase.

Please send a CV (1 page) and a cover letter (2 pages max) in French to rmitralias@confederationpaysanne.fr and / or in English to tom@etcgroup.org.

The deadline is 04/10/2020. Interviews will be organized in mid-October.

We are looking for an independent service provider for this role. This service provider will have a self-employed status and therefore will not be an employee.

Description du projet (en anglais)

Lisez plus sur Sciences Citoyennes

Missions

• Contacter les participants potentiels (contacts fournis par les organisateurs et si nécessaire recherche d’autres contacts intéressants, suivi des contacts)
• Organiser des réunions en ligne (disponibilités, ordre du jour), envoyer les invitations et rappels.
• Animer des réunions et rédiger les compte-rendus
• Contacter des intervenants (par exemple des experts d’un sujet) (contacts fournis par les organisateurs et si nécessaire recherche d’autres contacts intéressants)
• Rédiger une première version d’un rapport de synthèse, relecture possible par le comité de pilotage et des experts sollicités et rédaction d’une version finale du rapport de synthèse.

Compétences

• Langue – Français (langue maternelle), anglais (courant)
• Communication – en particulier en travaillant avec la société civile ; expérience dans le domaine de l’agriculture et de l’alimentation souhaitée.
• Animation / coordination – travail en petits groupes avec un large éventail de publics, capacité à animer des réunions notamment à distance Capacité à enrichir la discussion avec des éléments extérieurs, introduire des experts, vulgariser si nécessaire.
• Organisationnel – maintenir les contacts avec les participants, les intervenants et le comité de pilotage
• Rédaction – Essentiel : Réaliser des compte-rendus synthétiques et faciles d’accès des discussions.
• Analyse – Souhaitable : Capacité à mettre en perspective et analyser ce qui sera produit par les discussions, notamment lier ces travaux avec les travaux de recherche (études sur les sciences et les techniques, processus citoyens participatifs, débats autour des systèmes et technologies alimentaires)

Calendrier (2020-2021)

• Septembre – Octobre – recherche d’un animateur, travail du comité de pilotage, et contact des éventuels participants
• Octobre – Novembre – Décembre réunions
• Décembre – Janvier première version du rapport, relecture par le comité de pilotage et certains experts si nécessaire
• Février – rapport final de la première phase.
• Février – juillet – deuxième phase potentielle.

Merci d’envoyer un CV (1 page) et une lettre de motivation (2 pages max) en français à rmitralias@confederationpaysanne.fr et/ou en anglais à tom@etcgroup.org.

La date limite est le 04/10/2020. Des entretiens seront organisés mi-Octobre.

Nous recherchons un prestataire indépendant pour une mission d’animation/coordination. Ce prestataire ne sera pas salarié, et aura bien un statut d’indépendant.

Description du projet (en anglais)

English translation

Context

Which Way Forward? Is an international initiative organized by ETC Group (see more details attached). In France, it is coordinated by representatives of Pollinis, Sciences Citoyennes and the Confédération Paysanne. The facilitator of this process will be integrated into its steering committee.

Missions

• Contact potential participants (contacts provided by the organizers and if necessary search for other interesting contacts, follow-up of contacts)
• Organize online meetings (availability, agenda), send invitations and reminders.
• Facilitate meetings and write minutes
• Contact speakers (eg subject matter experts) (contacts provided by the organizers and if necessary search for other interesting contacts)
• Write a first version of a summary report, possible proofreading by the steering committee and requested experts and drafting of a final version of the summary report.

Skills

• Language – French (mother tongue), English (fluent)
• Communication – especially when working with civil society; experience in agriculture and food desired.
• Animation / coordination – work in small groups with a wide range of audiences, ability to lead meetings, especially remotely. Ability to enrich the discussion with external elements, introduce experts, popularize if necessary.
• Organizational – maintain contact with participants, speakers and the steering committee
• Writing – Essential: Produce summary and easily accessible reports of the discussions.
• Analysis – Desirable: Ability to put into perspective and analyze what will be produced by the discussions, in particular to link this work with research work (studies on science and technology, participatory citizen processes, debates around food systems and technologies)

Calendar (2020-2021)

• September – October – search for a facilitator, work of the steering committee, and contact of possible participants
• October – November – December meetings
• December – January first version of the report, proofreading by the steering committee and some experts if necessary
• February – final report of the first phase.
• February – July – potential second phase.

Please send a CV (1 page) and a cover letter (2 pages max) in French to rmitralias@confederationpaysanne.fr and / or in English to tom@etcgroup.org.

The deadline is 04/10/2020. Interviews will be organized in mid-October.

We are looking for an independent service provider for this role. This service provider will have a self-employed status and therefore will not be an employee.

Description du projet (en anglais)

Lisez plus sur Sciences Citoyennes

• Tab %d
• Tab %d
• Tab %d
• Tab %d
• Tab %d
• Tab %d
• Tab %d

Lisez plus sur Sciences Citoyennes

• Tab %d
• Tab %d
• Tab %d
• Tab %d
• Tab %d
• Tab %d
• Tab %d

Lisez plus sur Sciences Citoyennes

Toutefois, les chiffres parlent d’eux mêmes. Le 8 mars dernier, le ministère de l’Agriculture a fait paraître un communiqué révélant qu’au niveau national, le recours aux produits phytosanitaires a augmenté de 5,8% entre la période 2011-2013 et la période 2012-2014 et de 9,4% entre 2013 et 2014.  (1).

Ces statistiques du ministère montrent bien que loin de l’image véhiculée par la grande majorité des médias, l’agriculture française n’a absolument pas de quoi pavoiser face à sa voisine espagnole si décriée. Le propos ici n’est pas de comparer les mauvaises pratiques des pays européens en matière d’utilisation d’intrants mais plutôt de faire prendre conscience que le discours (ou l’absence de discours) le plus souvent rassurant et minimisant les quantités croissantes de pesticides utilisées en France est loin de refléter la réalité.

Ce début de printemps est également l’occasion de découvrir des solutions alternatives aux pesticides, avec la 11e édition de la Semaine pour les alternatives aux pesticides 2016 du 20 au 30 Mars 2016, organisée par Générations futures. Coïncidence ou volonté de profiter de cette actualité, l’INRA publie une étude sur les coûts cachés (2) (environnementaux, sanitaires, réglementaires et frais d’évitement) de l’utilisation de ces produits. Cette étude mentionnée dans l’article de Stéphane Foucart du 19 mars 2016 (3) met en avant le rapport défavorable des coûts/bénéfices induit par l’utilisation de pesticides.

Au vu des rapports et des statistiques, publiés ces dernières années et dévoilant l’impact négatif de l’utilisation de pesticides au niveau sanitaire, environnemental mais également sur le point historiquement mis en avant par leurs adeptes, les rendements, il est légitime de se poser la question : Doit-on continuer à accepter et soutenir l’utilisation des pesticides qui après des années de pratiques ont un impact dangereux et n’ont rien apporté de positif si ce n’est de contribuer à enrichir les secteurs de l’agrochimie et des biotechnologies ?

Nathalie Seyssel – Valtorta

(1) agriculture.gouv.fr/sites/minagri/files/160308_cp_resultats-ecophyto2014.pdf

(2) « Et si les pesticides coûtaient plus qu’ils ne rapportent ? » Stéphane Foucart, Le Monde, 19 mars 2016.

(3) « The Hidden and External Costs of Pesticide Use », Denis  Bourguet  et  Thomas  Guillemaud (INRA), Sustainable Agriculture Reviews, 2016.

Lisez plus sur Sciences Citoyennes

En quoi consiste précisément ces disciplines techno-scientifiques émergentes ? Quels sont les modèles de développement qu’elles véhiculent ? Les modèles économiques qui les sous-tendent ? De façon plus générale, quels sont leurs impacts sur l’environnement et sur nos vies ?

La conférence-débat « Manipuler le climat, manipuler la vie – Raison et déraison des nouvelles technologies » a lieu à l’auditorium de la Cité des Sciences et de l’Industrie à Paris le 14 octobre 2013 à 19h00.

L’entrée est libre et gratuite dans la limite des places disponibles.

• Tab %d
• Tab %d
• Tab %d
• Tab %d
• Tab %d

Clive Hamilton est un essayiste politique et philosophe australien, spécialiste des questions environnementales. Il a publié plus d’une douzaine d’ouvrages dont Requiem pour une espèce (Presses de Sciences Po, 2013) et Les apprentis sorciers du climat (Le Seuil, 2013). Il est membre de la Royal Society of the Arts et siège à la Climate Change Authority auprès du gouvernement australien.

Pat Mooney est le cofondateur et directeur de l’ONG canadienne ETC Group, qui s’intéresse aux enjeux socio-économiques et écologiques mondiaux des nouvelles technologies. Nanotechnologies, biologie de synthèse, géo-ingénierie font partie des questions sur lesquelles ETC se penche, produit des rapports de grande qualité, et s’engage notamment au niveau international (Nations Unies ; réseaux d’organisations de la société civile).

Geneviève Azam est maître de conférences en économie et chercheuse à l’Université Toulouse II. Elle est par ailleurs militante écologiste et altermondialiste au sein de l’organisation Attac-France. Elle participe régulièrement à la chronique « à contre-courant » de l’hebdomadaire Politis. Elle a récemment co-publié le livre La nature n’a pas de prix – les méprises de l’économie verte (Attac, éditions les liens qui libèrent, 2012). Source : Wikipedia

Catherine Bourgain est généticienne et chargée de recherche au Centre de recherche, médecine, sciences, santé, santé mentale, société (CERMES3) à l’INSERM où elle travaille sur le repositionnement des questions scientifiques, médicales, éthiques et économiques induit par les technologies de la génomique haut débit. Elle est également présidente de l’association pour une Fondation Sciences Citoyennes, et  a cosigné un livre aux éditions du Seuil en 2013 : ADN superstar ou superflic ?.

L’animation de la conférence-débat sera assurée par Basta! (agence d’informations indépendantes sur l’environnement et les alternatives sociales).

Pat Mooney et Clive Hamilton interviendront en anglais. Une traduction est prévue.

Les interventions seront suivies par une discussion avec la salle.

L’accès à la conférence-débat est libre et gratuit dans la limite des places disponibles. La conférence commencera à 19h00.

Auditorium de la Cité des sciences et de l’industrie
30 Avenue Corentin Cariou
75019 Paris

Métro : ligne 7, arrêt Porte de la Villette

Bus : 139, 150 ou 152, arrêt Porte de la Villette

Tramway : T3b

Agrandir le plan

N’hésitez pas à faire circuler l’information sur la conférence-débat grâce aux éléments ci-dessous.

Fondation Sciences Citoyennes

ATTAC-France 

Basta!

ETC Group

Réseau Semences Paysannes

Sur le geo-engineering

http://www.bastamag.net/spip.php?page=recherche&recherche=g%C3%A9o-ing%C3%A9nierie&x=0&y=0

http://www.etcgroup.org/fr/issues/climate-geoengineering

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/opinion/geoengineering-our-last-hope-or-a-false-promise.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=opinion&

http://www.seuil.com/page-collection-anthropocene.htm

 

Sur la biologie de synthèse

http://www.etcgroup.org/fr/issues/synthetic-biology

https://sciencescitoyennes.org/biologie-synthetique-questions-autour-de-nouvelles-promesses/

http://www.seuil.com/livre-9782021040944.htm

 

Sur les NBIC (nano, bio, info, cogno) ou BANG (bits, atoms, neurons, genes)

http://www.bede-asso.org/lang/fr/nos_actions/veille_coalition/democratisation_gouvernance/bang.php

Lisez plus sur Sciences Citoyennes

Inscription conseillée avant le 10 juin :https://colloque.inra.fr/debat-sciences-societe-2013

Accès libre dans la limite des places disponibles

Médiation du débat : Fondation Sciences Citoyennes et Centre de culture scientifique et technique « Terre des Sciences »

Affiche du débat du 20 juin 2013
Flyer Débat 20 juin 2013

Programme

15h30 : accueil et introduction

16h30 : trois ateliers thématiques

Objectif de chaque atelier : Il s’agira de susciter réflexions et questions sur le thème débattu. Sur la base de la présentation de ce que l’INRA fait sur le thème, il s’agira de s’interroger sur ce qui existe et manque. La volonté est que le plus grand nombre puisse s’exprimer, de favoriser le dialogue et de faire émerger des questions. La synthèse de ces réflexions et questions sera présentée et servira à amorcer les débats du soir.

• Atelier A : Quelle place pour la société civile dans les orientations de recherche au sein de l’INRA ?

Mots-clés : co-construction des savoirs – recherche participative – reconnaissance des savoirs des paysans – de la « question » à la « question de recherche » (toute question n’est pas une question de recherche).

Intervenants : Véronique Chable et Benoit Dedieu

• Atelier B : Quelles innovations végétales pour quelle diversité des systèmes de culture à partir des recherches de l’INRA ?

Mots clés : semences – biotechnologies – hybridation – propriété intellectuelle – biodiversité cultivée – innovations systèmes – critères de sélection

Intervenant : Jacques Caplat et Christian Huyghe

• Atelier C : Les impacts sociaux, environnementaux, sanitaires et économiques des innovations ?

Mots clés : critères de sélection – acceptation – droit des paysans – toxicité – progrès – cohabitation des agricultures – COV et Brevet au sein de l’INRA – propriété industrielle

Intervenants : Guy Kastler et Pierre-Benoit Joly

18h15 : buffet (règlement sur place)

19h30 : Quelles recherches au sein de l’INRA pour quelle Agriculture demain ? Comment nourrir, préserver et employer demain ?

Avec la participation de :

– Christophe Bonneuil, historien des sciences, CNRS
– Pierre Henri Gouyon, professeur au Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, à AgroParisTech et Sciences Po
– Hervé Guyomard, directeur scientifique Agriculture de l’INRA
– Christian Huyghe, directeur scientifique adjoint Agriculture de l’INRA
– Guy Kastler, réseau Semences Paysannes
– Henri Seegers, président du centre INRA Angers- Nantes

Objectif du débat :

Il s’agira d’apporter des éléments de réponses aux questions posées dans l’intitulé de la plénière.

Pour cela, nous nous appuierons sur une synthèse des 3 ateliers de l’après-midi sans reprendre les discussions de ces ateliers. En exposants les questions, problématiques et éléments de réponses apportées par chaque atelier nous introduirons ainsi la table rondes et les échanges entre les intervenants de la plénière ainsi qu’avec la salle.

3 sous-questions donneront les grandes orientations de cette plénière :
1) Identifier la place et l’utilisation des biotechnologies dans les orientations de recherche au sein de l’INRA ?
2) Quelles définitions, pratiques et places pour l’agroécologie dans la recherche au sein de l’INRA ?
3) Quelles sont les sources de financement et les partenariats de l’INRA et quelle autonomie décisionnelle cela induit pour les chercheurs ?

C’est le troisième débat d’un cycle de débats publics « sciences et société ». Le premier débat portait sur « Protection du verger et biotechnologies – Pourquoi la recherche utilise-t-elle des plantes transgéniques ? » et le deuxième sur « Grandes cultures et Alimentations : pourquoi la recherche utilise-t-elle les biotechnologies ? ».

Compte-rendu du débat du 27 novembre 2012 – Compte-rendu du débat du 24 janvier 2013

L’INRA Angers-Nantes et le Collectif NCSO avaient signé, en juillet 2012, un texte commun qui donne le cadre de ces débats.

Débats publics « science et société » portés par le Collectif Nos Campagnes Sans OGM et l’INRA Angers-Nantes

Préambule : par la signature de ce texte commun, nous souhaitons poser le cadre de trois débats contradictoires initiés et portés collectivement par le centre INRA Angers-Nantes et le collectif Nos Campagnes Sans OGM.

De nos jours, les activités scientifiques et leurs applications techniques, dans des domaines aussi variés que l’environnement, la santé, l’énergie, l’organisation sociétale ou l’agriculture, sont susceptibles de transformer notre société, et ceci avec une vitesse sans précédent dans l’histoire de l’humanité. Ces transformations, aux conséquences positives ou négatives (avérées ou perçues), parfois peu ou pas réversibles, interpellent notre responsabilité et appellent notre action, pour le bien-être des générations futures et pour notre planète.

Certaines innovations biotechnologiques issues de la recherche agronomique créent des tensions et suscitent des débats au sein de la société, à propos de leurs effets constatés ou supposés, qu’ils soient environnementaux, sanitaires, sociaux, économiques, juridiques ou éthiques. Par ailleurs, certaines de ces technologies sont largement mises en œuvre en agriculture dans d’autres pays. Depuis le milieu des années 1990, des collectifs agricoles et citoyens se sont créés en réponse à l’arrivée sur le marché et dans les champs des plantes génétiquement modifiées et des organismes vivants brevetés. Ils interpellent aussi bien les chercheurs que les décideurs politiques ou les acteurs économiques.

En tant qu’organisme public de recherche finalisée, l’INRA s’engage, dans le domaine ici envisagé, à accroître les connaissances scientifiques nécessaires à la maîtrise des biotechnologies végétales ainsi qu’à favoriser le développement d’innovations en ciblant des caractères agronomiques d’intérêt collectif répondant à des défis décisifs pour l’agriculture, l’alimentation et l’environnement. L’INRA a également pour mission de constituer des ressources publiques accessibles et de renforcer les capacités d’expertise sur les impacts de ces innovations. L’INRA s’engage en outre à ouvrir le dialogue avec l’ensemble des parties prenantes sur les avantages, impacts et risques des biotechnologies.

De son côté, le collectif Nos Campagnes sans OGM a pour objectif de défendre le respect du vivant, la biodiversité et les droits des agriculteurs de semer et ressemer leurs propres semences. Pour le collectif, l’impossible coexistence supprime la liberté des agriculteurs à produire sans OGM. Le collectif, favorable à la recherche en milieu confiné, s’oppose à la culture des OGM en plein champ et à leur utilisation dans l’alimentation humaine et animale. Le collectif demande la refonte totale des procédures d’évaluation des OGM, souhaite le renforcement de la recherche publique au service de tous et conteste la marchandisation du vivant et la privatisation des gènes et/ou de leur fonction.

Dans ce contexte, le collectif Nos Campagnes Sans OGM et l’INRA Angers-Nantes partagent localement la volonté de débattre contradictoirement et publiquement sur les objectifs et démarches de la recherche agronomique. Ces échanges témoigneront, d’une part, de l’intérêt des citoyens pour la recherche publique et, d’autre part, de la volonté de l’INRA, en tant qu’institut de recherche publique finalisée, de répondre aux interrogations de la société et de favoriser le dialogue entre l’ensemble des acteurs concernés par la recherche (chercheurs, acteurs des filières concernées, contribuables et citoyens). Le collectif Nos Campagnes Sans OGM et l’INRA Angers-Nantes partagent ainsi deux préoccupations majeures : le droit des citoyens de participer aux choix de société et, plus largement, l’importance de retisser des liens de confiance entre science et société par un dialogue renouvelé.

Lors de trois débats publics, il s’agira d’échanger sur les points qui font divergence, d’identifier ceux qui font consensus, et  de mener des réflexions sur la construction progressive du dialogue  « sciences et société » et sur de nouvelles formes de coopération. Les deux premiers débats porteront sur les thèmes suivants : protection du verger et biotechnologies et cultures/élevage et biotechnologies. Le troisième débat-forum portera sur le questionnement élargi quelles recherches pour quelles agricultures ?  Ce cadre de coopération et ces débats n’enlèvent en rien la liberté d’expression, de revendication et d’actions des différentes parties, que se soit pour l’INRA ou le collectif Nos Campagnes Sans OGM et pour chacune des parties composant ce dernier.

Lisez plus sur Sciences Citoyennes

 Thierry Roge/REUTERS

Lisez plus sur Sciences Citoyennes