The role of technology assessment in systemic innovation policy

The Theory and Practice of Innovation Policy: An International Research Handbook

Volumn , Issue , 2010, Pages 387-416

  Smits, Ruud ^a   Van Merkerk, Rutger ^b   Guston, David H ^c   Sarewitz, Daniel ^c  

^a UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

^c ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 79951949402     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4337/9781849804424.00025     Document Type: Chapter

References (64)

1. Adviesgroep Micro-Elektronica (1980), ‘Maatschappelijke gevolgen van de micro-elektronica, The Hague: Staatsuitgeverij.
2. Akrich, M. (1995), ‘User representations: practices, methods and sociology’, in A. Rip, T. Misa and J. Schot (eds), Managing Technology in Society: The Approach of Constructive Technology Assessment, London, UK and New York, USA: Pinter.
3. Arnold, E., et al. (2003), ‘Research and innovation governance in eight countries’, a Meta-analysis of Work Funded by EZ (Netherlands) and RCN (Norway), Technopolis, Brighton.
4. Belt, H. van den and Rip, A. (1987), ‘The Nelson-Winter-Dosi model and synthetic dye chemistry’, in W. Bijker, T. Hughes and T. Pinch (eds), The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA and London, UK: MIT Press.
5. Bennett, I. and Sarewitz, D. (2006), ‘Too Little, Too Late? Research Policies on the Societal Implications of Nanotechnology in the United States’, Science as Culture, 15 (4). 309-325.
6. Bereano, P (1997), ‘Reflections of a participant-observer: the technocratic-democratic contradiction in the practice of technology assessment’, Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 54 (2-3), 163-176.
7. Bessant, J. and Rush, H. (1995), ‘Building bridges for innovation: the role of consultants in technology transfer’, Research Policy, 24 (1), 97-114.
8. Bijker, W. (1995), On Bikes, Bicycles and Bakelite, Cambridge, MA, USA and London, UK: MIT Press.
9. Bimber, B. (1996), The Politics of Expertise in Congress: The Rise and Fall of the Office of Technology Assessment, Albany: State University of New York Press.
10. Bimber, B. and Guston, D. (1997), ‘The end of OTA and the future of technology assessment’, Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 54 (2), 125-130.
11. Boekholt, P., Lankhuizen, M., Arnold, E., et al. (2001), ‘An international review of methods to measure relative effectiveness of technology policy instruments’, final report, Technopolis, Brighton and Amsterdam.
12. Brede DNA Commissie (1983), ‘Eindrapport van de commissie ter bestudering van de maatschappelijke en ethische aspecten van werkzaamheden met erfelijkheidsmateriaal’, The Hague: Staatsuitgeverij.
13. Bruijn, H. de, Heuvelhof, E. ten and R. in’t Veld (2002), Procesmanagement, Vol. 2, Schoonhoven: Academic Services.
14. Caplan, N. (1979), ‘The two-communities metaphor and knowledge utilization, American Behavioral Scientist, 22 (3), 459-470.
15. Coates, V. (1975), Readings in Technology Assessment, Washington, DC: George Washington University.
16. Collingridge, D. (1980), The Social Control of Technology, London, UK and New York, USA: Pinter.
17. Cook-Deegan, R. (1995), The Gene Wars: Science, Politics, and the Human Genome, New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
18. Decker, M. and Ladikas, M. (eds) (2004), Bridges Between Science, Society and Policy; Technology Assessment: Methods and Impacts, Berlin, Germany, Heidelberg, Germany and New York, USA: Springer-Verlag.
19. Dosi, G., et al. (1988), Technical Change and Economic Theory, London, UK and New York, USA: Pinter.
20. Dunn, W. (1980), ‘The two-communities metaphor and models of knowledge use: an exploratory case survey’, Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 1 (4), 293-362.
21. Edler, J., Kuhlmann, S. and Smits, R. (2003), ‘New governance for innovation: the need for horizontal and systemic policy co-ordination’, report on a workshop held at the occasion of the 30th anniversary of the Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI), Karlsruhe, Germany, 14-15 November 2002, organised in collaboration with the Copernicus Institute, Dept, of Innovation Studies, Utrecht University, and the ‘Six Countries Programme - the Innovation Policy Network (6CP)’, ISI-FhG, Karlsruhe.
22. Fisher, E. and Mahajan, R. (2006), ‘Nanotechnology legislation: contradictory intent? US federal legislation on integrating societal concerns into nanotechnology research and development’, Science and Public Policy, 33 (1), 5-16.
23. Freeman, C. (1987), Technology Policy and Economic Performance: Lessons from Japan, London, UK and New York, USA: Pinter.
24. Fri, R., Morgan, M. and Stiles, Jr., W. (2002), An External Evaluation of GAOs Assessment of Technologies for Border Control, Washington, DC: GAO.
25. General Accounting Office (2002), ‘Technology assessment: using biometrics for border security’, GAO-03-174, Washington, DC.
26. Geurts, J. (1993), ‘Omkijken naar de toekomst’. Lange termijn verkenningen in beleidsexercities’ [Looking back to the future. Long-term foresight studies in policy exercises], address Tilburg University, Samson H.D., Tjeenk Willink.
27. Grin, J., Graaf, H. van de and Hoppe, R. (1997), Technology Assessment Through Interaction: A Guide, The Hague: Rathenau Instituut.
28. Guston, D. (1999a), ‘Evaluating the first U.S. consensus conference: the impact of the citizens’ panel on telecommunications and the future of democracy’, Science, Technology, & Human Values, 24 (4), 451-482.
29. Guston, D. (1999b), ‘Stabilizing the boundary between US politics and science: the role of the office of technology transfer as a boundary organization’, Social Studies of Science, 29 (1), 87-111.
30. Guston, D. and Sarewicz, D. (2002), ‘Real-time technology assessment’, Technology in Society, 24 (1-2), 93-109.
31. Hippel, E. von (2005), Democratizing Innovation, Cambridge, MA, USA and London, UK: MIT Press.
32. Hippel, E. von (1988), The Sources of Innovation, Cambridge, MA, USA and London, UK: MIT Press.
33. Hoo, S. de, Smits, R. and Petrella, R. (eds) (1987), ‘Technology assessment an opportunity for Europe. Proceedings and full papers of the 1st European Congress on technology assessment’, published in the context of the European Congress on Technology Assessment (Amsterdam, 2-4 February 1987) by the Dutch Ministry of Education and Science in cooperation with the Forecasting and Assessment of Science and Technology Programme of the European Communities (FAST, EC-DGXII), The Hague and Brussels.
34. Kuhlmann, S. (2003), ‘Evaluation of research and innovation policies: a discussion of trends with examples from Germany’, International Journal of Technology Management, 26 (2-4), 131-149.
35. Kuhlmann, S., Boekholt, P., Georghiou, L., et al. (1999), ‘Enhancing distributed intelligence in complex innovation systems’, report published within the framework of the Targeted Socio-Economic Research Programme of the European Commission, ISI-FhG, Karlsruhe.
36. La Porte, T. (2000), ‘Shaping the information revolution’, in N. Vig and H. Paschen (eds), Multivisioning the Future: Parliamentary Technology Assessment in Europe, Albany: State University of New York.
37. Lundvall, B.-Å. (1992), National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning, London, UK and New York, USA: Pinter.
38. Morgan, M. and Peha, J. (eds) (2003), Science and Technology Advice for Congress, Washington, DC: Resources for the Future Press.
39. Nelson, R. and Winter, S. (1982), An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, Cambridge, MA, USA: Belknap Press.
40. OECD (2002), Dynamising National Innovation Systems, Paris: OECD Publishing.
41. Oudshoorn, N. and Pinch, T. (eds) (2003), How Users Matter: The Co-construction of Users and Technologies, Cambridge, MA, USA and London, UK: MIT Press.
42. Parsi, J., Tosi, J. and Guston, D. (forthcoming), ‘Anticipating the ethical and political challenges of human nanotechnologies’, in F. Allhoff, P. Lin, J. Moor and J. Weckert (eds), Nano Ethics: Examining the Societal Impact of Nanotechnology, Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons.
43. Porter, A., Youtie, J. and Shapira, P. (2006) ‘Refining search terms for nanotechnology’, white paper available at http://cns.asu.edu/cns-library/author.htm.
44. Rip, A., Misa, T. and Schot, J. (eds) (1995), Managing Technology in Society: The Approach of Constructive Technology Assessment, London, UK and New York, USA: Pinter.
45. Roco, M. (2006), Keynote Address Center on Nanotechnology and Society First Annual NanoPolicy Conference, Washington, DC: National Press Club.
46. Roobeek, A.J.M. (1990), Beyond the Technology Race. An Analysis of Technology Policy in Seven Industrial Countries, Amsterdam, The Netherlands and New York, USA: Elsevier Science Publishers.
47. Sarewitz, D. (1996), Frontiers of Illusion, Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
48. Schot, J. and Rip, A. (1997), ‘The past and the future of Technology Assessment’, Technology Forecasting and Social Change, 54 (2), 251-268.
49. Sdove, R. (1995), Democracy and Technology, New York: Guilford Press.
50. Simon, H. (1976), Administrative Behavior, a Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Behavior, Vol. 3, New York: The Free Press.
51. Smits, R. (2002), ‘Innovation studies in the 21st century: questions from a user’s perspective’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 69 (9), 861-883.
52. Smits, R. (2001), ‘The new role of strategic intelligence’, in A. Tiibke, K. Ducatel, J. Gavigan and P. Moncada-Paterno-Castello (eds), ‘Strategic Policy Intelligence: Current Trends, the State of Play and Perspectives’, IPTS Technical Report Series, EUR 20137 EN, IPTS, Seville.
53. Smits, R. and Hertog, P. den (2007), ‘Technology assessment and the management of technology in economy and society’, International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy, 3 (1), 28-52.
54. Smits, R. and Kuhlmann, S. (2002), ‘Strengthening interfaces in innovation systems: rationale, concepts and (new) instruments’, report prepared on behalf of the EC-STRATA Workshop ‘New challenges and new responses for S&T policies in Europe’, 22-23 April 2002, Brussels.
55. Smits, R. and Leyten, A. (1991), Technology Assessment: Waakhond of Speurhond (Technology assessment: watchdog or tracker? Towards an integral technology policy), Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
56. Smits, R. and Weijers, T. (1991), ‘Technology assessment: watchdog or integrated part of technology policy?’, keynote paper presented at the second European Congress on Technology Assessment, Milan.
57. Smits R., Leyten, A. and Hertog, P. den (1995), ‘Technology assessment and technology policy in Europe: new concepts, new goals, new infrastructures’, Policy Sciences, 28 (3), 272-299.
58. Stine, J. (1986), ‘A history of science policy in the United States, 1940-1985’, Science Policy Study Background Report No. 1. Task Force on Science Policy, Committee on Science and Technology, US House of Representatives, 99th Congress, 2nd session, US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
59. TAMI (2004), ‘Technology assessment in Europe; between method and impact’, EC-STRATA Program, Brussels.
60. Utterback, J. (1994), Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation, Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
61. Vig, N. and Paschen, H. (eds) (2000), Parliaments and Technology: The Development of Technology Assessment in Europe, Albany: State University of New York Press.
62. Vught, F. van (1980), Toekomstonderzoek en Ruimtelijke Ordening, Enschede: Technical University Twente.
63. Whiteman, D. (1986), Communication in Congress: Members, Staff, and the Search for Information, Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
64. Wolbring, G. (2006), ‘Scoping document on nanotechnology and disabled people for the Center on Nanotechnology in Society at Arizona State University’, available at http://cns.asu.edu/cns-library/author.htm#W.