In 2003, the WRR suggested in the ‘Deciding on Biotechnology’ report that individuals should not be given ownership of their personal genetic information (DNA) to prevent risk selection and exclusion. Yet, that does not seem politically and ethically feasible. From that perspective, the research question of this article is how to regulate ownership and use of genetic information. Better predictability of health and longevity risk, through genetic information and thanks to new developments in geno-economics, possibly in combination with ‘big data’, makes risk selection by insurance companies attractive. That holds more specifically for the pension system. In addition to insurance for investment risk, the pension system also offers insurance for longevity risk. In itself, selection for longevity risk via premium setting is not unwarranted since the ‘bad risks’ with long life expectancy are the highly educated, so that the current implicit risk solidarity in pension insurance in The Netherlands, unlike in health insurance, brings about more inequality. But an unrestricted risk selection does raise ethical and social questions and does not fit into the new pension system in the Netherlands. That is why good and extensive legislation is needed for property rights and the utilization of genetic information of individual citizens. A similar focus on regulation is also in order for the use of DNA information of the government in criminal cases. Here the question is what additional options the government should have to use the information to solve crimes.

New technology, flexibilization and the intensification of work could have significant consequences for those who still have work in the future, and for the quality of that work. In a new report, the Netherlands Scientific Council for Government Policy (WRR) is therefore arguing that good work for everyone should now be seen as an important aspiration for companies, institutions, social partners and the government. Good work is essential for general well-being: for the individual’s quality of life, for the economy and for society as a whole. We make nine policy proposals to promote and facilitate good work for more people.

In a democracy citizens should actually have influence on the choices that directly influence their lives. Citizens have two ways for this influence: directly by participating in the policy process (in its formulation, its decision making or its implementation) or indirectly by voting for a political party or representatives through which citizens have influence on the outcomes. These two are not opposite to each other, but rather complementary. My main argument in this article is that the smaller the scale, the greater the possibilities for citizens to exert direct influence. The larger the scale, the more important it is that this influence runs through their representative institutions

This article reflects on the proposed measures of the Dutch Government to increase the number of women in the Dutch public administration. Based on the lessons learned from the practice of the public sector, this study concludes that there is still much work to be done with regard to female participation in the Netherlands, but when it comes to the ethnic minorities, the situation is alarming. Politicians directly elected by the citizen, such as MPs and councillors, do see a representation of the ethnic diversity of society. Where the citizen has no direct influence, such as the king’s commissioners, mayors, and aldermen, the percentages are zero or slightly higher than zero. It is argued that mechanisms such as selection procedures are hindering gender and ethnic diversity at the top of the public organizations. It is, therefore, suggested that introducing quota could bring more diversity in public administration.