Experts and Politics in the German Nuclear Waste Governance

Advisory Bodies between Ambition and Reality
  • Ana María Isidoro LosadaEmail author
  • Dörte Themann
  • Maria Rosaria Di Nucci
Part of the Energiepolitik und Klimaschutz. Energy Policy and Climate Protection book series (EPKS)


This chapter provides a comparative analysis of the work of selected commissions appointed in Germany over the last 40 years to advise the Parliament or ministries in matters concerning nuclear waste disposal. Our analysis focuses on the science policy interfaces; it questions the role of science in society and politics by scrutinising the composition of these committees with regard to distance, plurality and neutrality as well as the evolution of disposal concepts and strategies within these advisory bodies. Five exemplary institutions are considered: the Enquete-Commission “Future Nuclear Energy Policy”, the Working Group on the Selection Process for a Nuclear Disposal Location (AkEnd), the Nuclear Waste Management Commission (ESK) (2008-present), the Commission on the Storage of High-Level Radioactive Waste (EndKo) and the National Civil Society Board (NBG). By reviewing the work of these bodies, we also explore the role played by scientific advisors and advisory bodies in policymaking. Finally, we discuss the scope of their mandate and their influence with regard to political and policy outcomes.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. AkEnd (2002). Auswahlverfahren für Endlagerstandorte. Empfehlungen des AkEnd – Arbeitskreis Auswahlverfahren Endlagerstandorte., last accessed 28 February 2019.Google Scholar
  2. atommüllreport (2016). Enquete-Kommission Zukünftige Kernenergiepolitik., last accessed 13 January 2019.
  3. .ausgestrahlt (2014). Quasi unter Ausschluss der Öffentlichkeit: Die vierte Sitzung der Atommüll-Kommission., last accessed 27 February 2019.
  4. Bergmans, A.; Kos, D.; Simmons, P. and Sundqvist, G. (2015). The participatory turn in radioactive waste management: Deliberation and the social-technical divide. In: Journal of Risk Research, 18(3), 347–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blowers, A. (2016). The Legacy of Nuclear Power. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boswell, C. (2012). How Information Scarcity Influences the Policy Agenda: Evidence from U.K.Google Scholar
  7. Clark, W. C. and Majone, G. (1985). The critical appraisal of scientific inquiries with policy implications. In: Science, Technologies, & Human Values, 10 (3), 6–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cozzens, S. E. and Woodhouse, E. J. (1995). Science, Government, and the Politics of Knowledge. In: Jasanoff, S.; Markle, G. E.; Peterson, J. C. and Pinch, T. (Eds.) (1995). Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 532-553.Google Scholar
  9. Deutsch, D. (1997). The Fabric of Reality. London: Penguin. Deutscher Bundestag (n.d. a). Kommissionen. Online:, last accessed 12 February 2019. Deutscher Bundestag (n.d. b): Enquete-Kommission. Online:, last accessed 12 February 2019.
  10. Deutscher Bundestag (1980). Bericht der Enquete Kommission „Zukünftige Kernenergiepolitik“., last accessed 28 December 2018.
  11. Deutscher Bundestag (2017). Geschäftsordnung des Deutschen Bundestages., last accessed 20 February 2019.
  12. Di Nucci, M. R. and Pearce, D. A. (1989). Technology vs. Science: The Cognitive Fallacy. In: Synthese, 81(3), 405–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Douglas, H. E. (2009). Science, policy, and the value-free ideal. Pittsburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Elliott, K. C. (2017). A Tapestry of Values. An Introduction to Values in Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. EndKo (2016). Abschlussbericht. Verantwortung für die Zukunft. Ein faires und transparentes Verfahren für die Auswahl eines nationalen Endlagerstandortes. Kommission Lagerung hoch radioaktiver Abfallstoffe., last accessed 15 December 2018.
  16. ESK – Entsorgungskommission (2015). Entsorgungskommission (ESK). Access: 03.01.2019, last accessed 13 November 2018.
  17. Gibbons, M. (1999). Science’s new social contract with society. In: Nature 402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Guston, D. (2000). Between politics and science: Assuring the integrity and productivity of research. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Habermas, J. (1987): The Scientization of Politics and Public Opinion. In: Shapiro, J. J. (Ed.) (1987): Toward a Rational Society. Cambridge: Polity Press, 62-68.Google Scholar
  20. Hume, D. (2000). A Treatise of Human Nature. In: Norton, D. F. and Norton, M. J. (Eds.) (2000). Oxford Philosophical Texts, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Jasanoff, S. (1990): The fifth branch: science advisers as policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Jasanoff, S. (2004). States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and the Social Order. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Jasanoff, S. (2011). Quality control and peer review in advisory science. In: Lentsch, J. and Weingart, P. (Eds.) (2011). The Politics of Scientific Advice: Institutional Design for Quality Assurance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 19-35.Google Scholar
  24. Lentsch, J. and Weingart, P. (2011). Introduction: the quest for quality as a challenge to scientific policy advice: an overdue debate? In: Lentsch, J. and Weingart, P. (Eds.) (2011). The Politics of Scientific Advice: Institutional Design for Quality Assurance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3-18.Google Scholar
  25. Maasen, S. and Weingart, P. (2005). What’s new in scientific advice to politics? In: Maasen, S. and Weingart, P. (Eds.) (2005). Democratization of Expertise? Exploring Novel Forms of Scientific Advice in Political Decision-Making, Dodrecht: Springer, 1-20.Google Scholar
  26. Mignolo, W. (2002). The Geopolitics of Knowledge and the Colonial Difference. In: The South Atlantic Quarterly, 101(1), 57-96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. NBG – Nationales Begleitgremium (2016): Die Aufgaben. Online:, last accessed 20 February 2019.
  28. NBG Report (2018). Erster Bericht zum Auswahlverfahren für einen Endlagerstandort., last accessed 28 February 2019.
  29. Pedersen, D. B. (2014). The Political Epistemology of Science-Based Policy-Making. In: Social Science and Public Policy, 51, 547-551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Popper, K. (1963). Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, 5th edition, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Roose, J. (2010). Der endlose Streit um die Atomenergie. Konfliktsoziologische Untersuchung einer dauerhaften Auseinandersetzung. In: Feindt, P. H. and Saretzki, T. (Eds.) (2010). Umwelt- und Technikkonflikte, Wiesbaden: VS Verlag, 79-103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Siefken, S. T. (2007). Expertenkommissionen im politischen Prozess. Eine Bilanz zur rot-grünen Bundesregierung 1998 – 2005. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.Google Scholar
  33. StandAG (2013). Gesetz zur Suche und Auswahl eines Standortes für ein Endlager für hochradioaktive Abfälle. Standortauswahlgesetz., last accessed 22 February 2019.
  34. Van den Hove, S. (2007): A rationale for science–policy interfaces. In: Futures, 39(7), 807-826 Experts and Politics in the German Nuclear Waste Governance.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ana María Isidoro Losada
    • 1
    Email author
  • Dörte Themann
    • 1
  • Maria Rosaria Di Nucci
    • 2
  1. 1.Forschungszentrum für UmweltpolitikFreie Universität BerlinBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Forschungszentrum für Umweltpolitik (FFU)Freie Universität BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations