Office of Technology Assessment: History, implementation, and participatory critique

Technology in Society

Volumn 42, Issue , 2015, Pages 9-20

  Sadowski, Jathan ^a  

^a ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Democratic control of technology; History of technology policy; Office of Technology Assessment; Technology and science policy

Indexed keywords

ACADEMIC RESEARCH; COMPLEX SCIENCE; HISTORY OF TECHNOLOGY; OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTS; POLICY MAKERS; PUBLIC VALUES; SCIENCE POLICIES; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTS;

EDUCATION;

ACADEMIC RESEARCH; ASSESSMENT METHOD; IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS; PARTICIPATORY APPROACH; SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY; TECHNOLOGY POLICY;

EID: 84923013408     PISSN: 0160791X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2015.01.002     Document Type: Article

References (79)

1. A history of science policy in the United States, 1940-1985 1986, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, Report prepared for the Task Force on Science Policy, Committee on Science and Technology.
2. Barben D., Fisher E., Selin C., Guston D. Anticipatory governance of nanotechnology: foresight, engagement, and integration. Handbook of science and technology studies 2008, 979-1000. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. 3rd ed. E. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, J. Wajcman (Eds.).
3. Bereano P.L. Reflections of a participant-observer: the technocratic/democratic contradiction in the practice of technology assessment. Technol Forecast Soc Change 1997, 54:163-175.
4. Blair P.D. Congress's own think tank: learning from the legacy of the Office of Technology Assessment (1972-95). Sci Public Policy 2013, 1-9. 10.1093/scipol/sct057.
5. Impacts of the early cold war on the formulation of U.S. Science Policy: selected memoranda of William T. Golden, October 1950-April 1951 1995, AAAS Publication Services, Washington, DC. W.A. Blanpied (Ed.).
6. Bimber B. Politics of expertise in Congress 1993, Working Paper 18. MIT Program in Science, Technology, and Society.
7. Bimber B. The politics of expertise in Congress: the rise and fall of the office of technology 1996, SUNY Press, Albany, NY.
8. Bimber B., Guston D.H. Politics by the same means: government and science in the United States. Handbook of science and technology studies 1995, 554-571. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. 2nd ed. S. Jasanoff, G.E. Markle, J.C. Peterson, T.J. Pinch (Eds.).
9. Bozeman B. Public values and public interest: counter-balancing economic individualism 2007, Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC.
10. Bozeman B., Sarewitz D. Public value mapping and science policy evaluation. Minerva 2011, 49:1-23.
11. Brooks H. Technology assessment in retropsect. Sci Technol Hum Values 1976, 17:17-29.
12. Bush V. Science: the endless frontier 1945, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
13. Carson N. Process, prescience, and pragmatism: the Office of Technology Assessment 1989, OTA, Washington, DC.
14. Carson R. Silent spring 1962, Houghton Mifflin, Boston.
15. Carter A.B. Directed energy missile defense in space 1984, OTA, Washington, DC.
16. Casper B.M. The more controversial, the better. . .. Bull At Sci 1978, 34(2):26-27.
17. Chhetri N., Grossman G. Policy makers versus people. Cairo Rev Glob Aff 2012, 5:118-125.
18. Coates V. An OTA handbook 1982, Mimeo.
19. Crane A., Friedman B. Lecture notes: six day course on technology assessment and OTA 1985, Mimeo.
20. Davies S.R., Selin C., Gano G., Pereira A. Citizen engagement and urban change: three case studies of material deliberation. Cities 2012, 29(6):351-357.
21. Ellul J. The technological society 1967, Vintage Books, New York.
22. Evans R., Plows A. Listening without prejudice? Re-discovering the value of the disinterested citizen. Soc Stud Sci 2007, 37(6):827-853.
23. Foley R.W., Wiek A. Patterns of nanotechnology innovation and governance within a metropolitan area. Technol Soc 2013, 35(4):233-247.
24. Gray L. On 'Complete' OTA reports. Technol Forecast Soc Change 1982, 22:299-319.
25. Gibbons J.H. Science, technology and law in the third century of the constitution. Technol Soc 1988, 10:311-315.
26. Gibbons J.H., Gwin H.L. Technology and governance. Technol Soc 1985, 7:333-352.
27. Greenberg D.S. Science, money, and politics: political triumph and ethical erosion 2003, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
28. Guston D.H. Science and technology advice for the Congress: insights from the OTA experience. Presented at creating institutional arrangements to provide science and technology advice to Congress, held in Washington, DC, 14 June 2001.
29. Guston D.H. Insights from the Office of Technology Assessment and other assessment experiences. Science and technology advice for Congress 2003, 77-89. RFF Press, Washington, DC. M.G. Morgan, J.M. Peha (Eds.).
30. Guston D.H. Participating despite questions: toward a more confident participatory technology assessment. Sci Eng Ethics 2011, 17(4):691-697.
31. Guston D.H. Building the capacity for public engagement with science in the United States. Public Underst Sci 2014, 23(1):53-59.
32. Guston D.H. Understanding 'anticipatory governance'. Soc Stud Sci 2014, 44(2):218-242.
33. Guston D.H., Sarewitz D. Real-time technology assessment. Technol Soc 2002, 24(1-2):93-109.
34. Handler P. "On reports." The National Research Council in 1978 1979, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC.
35. Hellström T. New vistas for technology and risk assessment? The OECD programme on emerging systemic risks and beyond. Technol Soc 2009, 31(3):325-331.
36. Herdman R.C., Jensen J.E. The OTA story: the agency perspective. Technol Forecast Soc Change 1997, 54:131-143.
37. Hill C.T. The congressional Office of Technology Assessment: a retrospective and prospects for the post-OTA world. Technol Forecast Soc Change 1997, 54:191-198.
38. Holt R. Op-ed: reversing the congressional science lobotomy. Wired April, 29 2009, [accessed 04.04.13]. http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/04/fromthefields-holt/.
39. Houghton A. In memoriam: the Office of Technology Assessment, 1972-95. House of representatives congressional record, extension of remarks E1868-E1870 September 28, 1995, [accessed 03.04.13]. http://www.princeton.edu/%7Eota/ns20/hough_f.html.
40. Inouye A., Süsskind C. 'Technological trends and national policy,' 1937: the first modern technology assessment. Technol Cult 1977, 18(4):593-621.
41. Inquiries, legislation, policy studies re: science and technology: the second progress report of the subcommittee on science, research, and development 1966, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington DC.
42. Jørgensen T.B., Bozeman B. The public values universe: an inventory. Adm Soc 2007, 39(3):354-381.
43. Karlsson R. Theorizing sustainability in a post-concorde world. Technol Soc 2014, 39(November):1-9.
44. Keiper A. Science and Congress. New Atlantis 2004, 7:19-50.
45. Krieger J.H. Technology assessment no longer theoretical. Chem Eng News 1970, [retrieved Oct 29.10.12]. http://www.fas.org/ota/technology_assessment_and_congress/krieger/.
46. Kunkle G.C. New challenge or the past revisited? The Office of Technology Assessment in historical context. Technol Soc 1995, 17(2):175-196.
47. Lambro D. Fat city: how Washington wastes your taxes 1980, Regnery/Gateway, Washington, DC.
48. Martin D. R.W. Peterson, leader on environment, dies at 94. NY Times February 23, 2011, [accessed 20.12.13]. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/24/us/politics/24peterson.html.
49. Mooney C. Requiem for an office. Bull At Sci 2005, 61(5):40-49.
50. Nader R. Unsafe at any speed: the designed. Dangers of the American automobile 1965, Grossman Publishers, New York.
51. Office of Technology Assessment for the Congress 1972, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, Hearing before the subcommittee on computer services, U.S. Senate Committee on Rules and Administration.
52. OTA Policy analysis at OTA: a staff assessment 1993, OTA, Washington, DC.
53. Powell M., Delborne J., Colin M. Beyond engagement exercises: exploring the US national citizens' technology forum from the bottom-up. J Public Deliberation 2011, 7(1). article 4.
54. Randolph R.H., Koppel B. Technology assessment in Asia: status and prospects. Technol Forecast Soc Change 1982, 22(3-4):363-384.
55. Recent economic changes in the United States 1929, Mcgraw-Hill, New York, Report to the committee on recent economic changes of the president's conference on unemployment.
56. Recent social trends in the United States 1933, Mcgraw-Hill, New York, Report of the president's research committee on social trends.
57. Reppert B. OTA emerges as nonpartisan player: surviving a rocky start, science agency wins over most skeptics. Wash Post January 5, 1988, [accessed 02.04.13]. http://www.princeton.edu/%7Eota/ns20/ota88_f.html.
58. Russell E. Testing insecticides and repellents in world war II. Major problems in the history of American technology. 1998, Houghton Mifflin, Boston. M.R. Smith, G. Clancey (Eds.).
59. Sadowski J., Guston D.H. Technology assessment in the USA: distributed institutional governance. Technol Assess - Theory Pract 2015, 24(1):50-56.
60. Schlesinger A.M. The imperial presidency 1973, Houghton Mifflin, New York.
61. Sclove R. Reinventing technology assessment: a 21st century model 2010, Report to the Science+Technology Innovation Program at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
62. Selin C. Merging art and design in foresight: making sense of emerge. Futures 2015, in press. 10.1016/j.futures.2014.12.006.
63. Selin C., Sadowski J. Against blank slate futuring: noticing obduracy in the city through experiential methods of public engagement. Remaking participation: science, environment and emergent publics 2015, Routledge, New York, in press. J. Chilvers, M. Kearnes (Eds.).
64. Does technology drive history? The dilemma of technological determinism 1994, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. M.R. Smith, L. Marx (Eds.).
65. Swierstra T., van de Bovenkamp H., Trappenburg M. Forging a fit between technology and morality: the Dutch debate on organ transplants 2010, 32(1):55-64.
66. Technological trends and national policy 1937, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, Report of the subcommittee on technology to the national resources committee.
67. Technology Assessment Act 1972, Public law 92-484. H.R. 10243, 92nd U.S. Congress.
68. Technology assessment and the environment: hearing before the subcommittee on science, research and development. U.S. 91st Congress, house, 2nd session, committee on science and astronautics, subcommittee on science, research and development 1970, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
69. Technology: process of assessment and choice 1969, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, Report of the committee on science and public policy, National Academy of Sciences to the Committee on Science and Astronautics.
70. The debate over assessing technology. Business Week 1972, [retrieved 29.10.12]. http://www.fas.org/ota/technology_assessment_and_congress/businessweek/.
71. U.S. Congress: house, congressional record April 16, 1970.
72. van Dam L., Howard R. How John Gibbons runs through political minefields: life at the OTA. Technol Rev October 1988, 47-51.
73. Van Eijndhoven J.C.M. Technology assessment: product or process. Technol Forecast Soc Change 1997, 54:269-286.
74. Wender B.A., Foley R.W., Prado-Lopez V., Ravikumar D., Eisenberg D.A., Hottle T.A., et al. Illustrating anticipatory life cycle assessment for emerging photovoltaic technologies. Environ Sci Technol 2014, 48(18):10531-10538.
75. Whiteman D. Congress and policy analysis: a context for assessing the use of OTA projects. Technol Forecast Soc Change 1997, 54:177-189.
76. Wood F.B. Lessons in technology assessment: methodology and management at OTA. Technol Forecast Soc Change 1997, 54:145-162.
77. Wynne B. The rhetoric of consensus politics: a critical review of technology assessment. Res Policy 1975, 4(2):108-158.
78. Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) Minutes of the technology assessment board meeting 1974, OTA, Washington, DC.
79. Wilsdon J., Willis R. See-through science: Why public engagement needs to move upstream 2004, Demos, London.