Emerging technologies and the interpretative turn in technology assessment

Teorija in Praksa

Volumn 51, Issue 5, 2014, Pages 726-741

  Bogner, Alexander ^a   Torgersen, Helge ^a  

^a ERICH SCHMID INSTITUTE OF MATERIALS SCIENCE   (Austria)

Author keywords

Expert rationality; Public participation; Synthetic biology; Technology Assessment; The deliberative turn in technology assessment

Indexed keywords

EID: 84937570802     PISSN: 00403598     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Andrianantoandro, Ernesto, Subhayu Basu, David K. Karig and Ron Weiss (2006): Synthetic biology: new engineering rules for an emerging discipline. Molecular Systems Biology. Published on-line, May 16, doi:10.1038/msb4100073.
2. Barben, Daniel, Erik Fisher, Cynthia Selin and David H. Guston (2008): Anticipatory Governance of Nanotechnology: Foresight, Engagement, and Integration. In Edward J. Hackett, Olga Amsterdamska, Michael Lynch and Judy Wajcman (eds.), The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, 979-1000. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
3. Bijker, Wiebe E., Thomas P. Hughes and Trevor Pinch (eds.) (1987): The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology. Cambridge: MIT Press.
4. Bogner, Alexander (2012): The Paradox of Participation Experiments. Science, Technology, & Human Values 37(5):506-527.
5. Boussaguet, Laurie and Renaud Dehousse (2009): Too big to fly? A review of the first EU citizens conferences. Science and Public Policy 36(10):777-789.
6. Brom, Frans W. A. (2009): Beyond providing information: Technology Assessment as a contribution to societal and political opinion forming, 1-2 in Newsletter No. 93. Europäische Akademie Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler GmbH.
7. Callon, Michel, Pierre Lascoumes and Yannick Barthe (2011): Acting in an Uncertain World. An Essay on Technical Democracy. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
8. Collins, Harry and Robert Evans (2007): Rethinking Expertise. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
9. Decker, Michael, John Grin, Armin Grunwald, Peter Mambrey, Rob Reuzel, August Tepper and Gert Jan van der Witt (2000): Outline. In John Grin and Armin Grunwald (eds.), Vision Assessment: Shaping Technology in 21st Century Society, 1-6. Berlin: Springer.
10. de Vriend, Huib (2006): Constructing Life. Early Social Reflections on the Emerging Field of SB. Working Document 9, The Hague: Rathenau Institut.
11. Dierkes, Meinolf, Ute Hoffmann and Lutz Marz (1992): Leitbild und Technik. Zur Entstehung und Steuerung technischer Innovationen. Berlin: Edition Sigma.
12. Drew, Endy (2005): Foundations for engineering biology. Nature 438(7067):449-453.
13. ETC Group - Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration (2007): Extreme Genetic Engineering. An Introduction to Synthetic Biology. Available on www.etcgroup.org, 24th June 2014.
14. Gaskell, George, Toby Ten Eyck, Jonathan Jackson and Guiseppe Veltri (2005): Imagining Nanotechnology: Cultural Support for Technological Innovation in Europe and the United States. Public Understanding of Science 14(1):81-90.
15. Gavelin, Karin, Richard Wilson and Robert Doubleday (2007): Democratic Technologies? The final report of the Nanotechnology Engagement Group (NEG). London: Involve.
16. Grin, John and Armin Grunwald (eds.) (2000): Vision Assessment: Shaping Technology in 21st Century Society. Berlin: Springer.
17. Grunwald, Armin (2004): Vision Assessment as a new element of the FTA toolbox. In Proceedings of the EU-US Seminar on New Technology Foresight, Forecasting & Assessment Methods. Seville 13-14 May 2004.
18. Grunwald, Armin (2009): Technology Assessment: Concepts and Methods. In Anthonie Meijers (ed.), Philosophy of Technology and Engineering Sciences (Handbook of the Philosophy of Sciences, Vol. 9), 1103-46. Amsterdam, etc.: Elsevier.
19. Guston, David and Daniel Sarewitz (2002): Real-Time Technology Assessment. Technology in Society 24(1-2):93-109.
20. Hagendijk, Rob and Alan Irwin (2006): Public Deliberation and Governance: Engaging with Science and Technology in Contemporary Europe. Minerva 44(2):-184.
21. Joss, Simon and Sergio Bellucci (eds.) (2002): Participatory Technology Assessment - European Perspectives. London: University of Westminster Press.
22. Kearnes, Matthew (2009): The Time of Science: Deliberation and the 'New Governance' of Nanotechnology. In Mario Kaiser, Monika Kurath, Sabine Maasen and Christoph Rehmann-Sutter (eds.), Governing Future Technologies - Nanotechnology and the Rise of an Assessment Regime, Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook, Vol. 27, 279-301. Dordrecht: Springer.
23. Kurath, Monika and Priska Gisler (2009): Informing, involving or engaging? Science communication, in the ages of atom-, bio- and nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science 18(5):559-573.
24. Latour, Bruno (1987): Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
25. Nisbet, Matthew C. (2010): Framing science. A new paradigm in public engagement. In LeeAnn Kahlor and Patricia Stout (eds.), Communicating science, 40-67. New York: Routledge.
26. Nordmann, Alfred (2007): If and Then. A Critique of Speculative NanoEthics. NanoEthics 1(1):31-46.
27. Oye, Kenneth A. and Rachel Wellhausen (2009): The Intellectual Commons and Property in Synthetic Biology. In Schmidt M. et al. (eds.), Synthetic Biology: the technoscience and its societal consequences, 122-139. Berlin, New York et al: Springer.
28. Open Wetware. 2014. Synthetic Biology. Available on http://syntheticbiology.org, 4th June 2014.
29. Petermann, Thomas (1999): Technikfolgen-Abschätzung - Konstituierung und Aus differenzierung eines Leitbilds. In Stefan Bröchler, Georg Simonis and Karsten Sundermann (eds.), Handbuch Technikfolgenabschätzung, Vol. 1, 17-49. Berlin: Edition Sigma.
30. Pielke, Roger A. (2007): The Honest Broker. Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics. Cambridge: University Press.
31. Quednow, Boris B. (2010): Ethics of neuroenhancement: A phantom debate. Biosocieties 5(1):153-156.
32. Radkau, Joachim (1995): Learning from Chernobyl for the fight against genetics? Stages and stimuli of German protest movements - a comparative synopsis. In Martin Bauer (ed.), Resistance to new technology - nuclear power, information technology and biotechnology, 335-55. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
33. Rask, Mikko, Richard Worthington and Minna Lammi (eds.) (2011): Citizen Participation in Global Environmental Governance. London: Earthscan.
34. Rip, Arie, Thomas J. Misa and Johan Schot (eds.) (1995): Managing Technology in Society: The Approach of Constructive Technology Assessment. Stamford, CT: Thomson Learning
35. Roelofsen, Anneloes, Jacqueline Broerse, Tjard de Cock Buning and Joske Bunders (2008): Exploring the future of ecological genomics: Integrating CTA with vision assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 75(3):334-355.
36. Rowe, Gene and Lynn J. Frewer (2005): A Typology of Public Engagement Mechanisms. Science, Technology & Human Values 30(2):251-290.
37. Schot, Johan and Arie Rip (1997): The Past and Future of Constructive Technology Assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 54(2-3):251-268.
38. Stirling, Andy (2008): "Opening Up" and "Closing Down": Power, Participation, and Pluralism in the Social Appraisal of Technology. Science, Technology & Human Values 33(2):262-294.
39. Torgersen, Helge and Markus Schmidt (2013): Frames and comparators: How might a debate on Synthetic Biology evolve? Futures 48(100):44-54.
40. van der Plas, Arjanna, Martijntje Smits and Caroline Wehrmann (2010): Beyond Speculative Robot Ethics: A Vision Assessment Study on the Future of the Robotic Caretaker. Accountability in Research 17(6):299-315.
41. van Eijndhoven, Josée (1997): Technology Assessment: Product or Process?. Techno logical Forecasting and Social Change 54(2-3):269-286.
42. von Schomberg, René (2012): Prospects for technology assessment in a framework of responsible research and innovation. In Marc Dusseldorp and Richard Beercroft (eds.), Technikfolgen abschätzen lehren, 39-61. Wiesbaden: VS.
43. Wilsdon, James and Rebecca Willis (2004): See-through Science: Why public engagement needs to move upstream. London: Demos.