Technology assessment for responsible innovation

Responsible Innovation 1: Innovative Solutions for Global Issues

Volumn , Issue , 2014, Pages 15-31

  Grunwald, Armin ^a  

^a KARLSRUHE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

PHILOSOPHICAL ASPECTS;

ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE; EMERGING SCIENCE; ENGINEERING ETHICS; SHAPING TECHNOLOGIES; TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCES; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTS;

INNOVATION;

EID: 84937636672     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1007/978-94-017-8956-1_2     Document Type: Chapter

References (41)

1. Aichholzer, G., A. Bora, S. Bröchler, M. Decker, and M. Latzer (eds.). 2010. Technology governance. Der Beitrag der Technikfolgenabschätzung. Berlin: Edition Sigma.
2. Bechmann, G., M. Decker, U. Fiedeler, and B.-J. Krings. 2007. Technology assessment in a complex world. International Journal on Foresight and Innovation Policy 3: 6-27.
3. Bijker, W.E., and J. Law (eds.). 1994. Shaping technology and building society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
4. Bijker, W.E., T.P. Hughes, and TJ. Pinch (eds.). 1987. The social construction of technological systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
5. Bimber, B.A. 1996. The politics of expertise in congress: The rise and fall of the office of technology assessment. Albany: State University of New York Press.
6. Collingridge, D. 1980. The social control of technology. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
7. Cruz-Castro, L., and L. Sanz-Menendez. 2004. Politics and institutions: European parliamentary technology assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 27: 79-96.
8. Decker, M., and M. Ladikas (eds.). 2004. Bridges between science, society and policy. Technology assessment - Methods and impacts. Berlin: Springer.
9. Durbin, P., and H. Lenk (eds.). 1987. Technology and responsibility. Boston: Reidel Publishing.
10. Ferrari, A., C. Coenen, A. Grunwald, and A. Sauter. 2001. Animal Enhancement. Neue technische Möglichkeiten und ethische Fragen. Bern: Bundesamt für Bauten und Logistik BBL.
11. Funtowitz, S., and J. Ravetz. 1993. The emergence of post-normal science. In Science, politics and morality, ed. R. von Schomberg, 173-188. London.
12. Gee, D., and M. Greenberg. 2002. Asbestos: From ‘magic’ to malevolent mineral. In The precautionary principle in the 20th century. Late lessons from early warnings, ed. P. Harremoes, D. Gee, M. MacGarvin, A. Stirling, J. Keys, B. Wynne, and S. Guedes Vaz, 49-63. London: Earthscan Publications.
13. Grunwald, A. 1999. Verantwortungsbegriff und Verantwortungsethik. In Rationale Technikfolgenbeurteilung, ed. A. Grunwald, 172-195. Berlin: Springer.
14. Grunwald, A. 2000. Against over-estimating the role of ethics in technology. Science and Engineering Ethics 6: 181-196.
15. Grunwald, A. 2007. Converging technologies: Visions, increased contingencies of the conditio Humana, and search for orientation. Futures 39: 380-392.
16. Grunwald, A. 2009. Technology assessment: Concepts and methods. In Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences, vol. 9, ed. A. Meijers, 1103-1146. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
17. Grunwald, A. 2012. Responsible nanobiotechnology. Ethics and philosophy. Singapore: Pan Stanford Pub.
18. Guston, D.H., and D. Sarewitz. 2002. Real-time technology assessment. Technology in Culture 24: 93-109.
19. Habermas, J. 1970. Toward a rational society. Beacon Press. First publication:
20. Habermas, J. (ed.). 1968. Technik und Wissenschaft als Ideologie. Frankfurt.
21. Habermas, J. 1973. Wahrheitstheorien. In Wirklichkeit und Reflexion, ed. H. Fahrenbach, 211-265. Pfullingen: Neske.
22. Hansson, S.O. 2006. Great uncertainty about small things. In Nanotechnology challenges -Implications for philosophy, ethics and society, ed. J. Schummer and D. Baird, 315-325. Singapore: World Scientific.
23. Harremoes, P., D. Gee, M. Mac Garvin, A. Stirling, J. Keys, B. Wynne, and S. Guedes Vaz (eds.). 2002. The precautionary principle in the 20th century. Late lessons from early warnings. London: Sage.
24. Jonas, H. 1979. Das Prinzip Verantwortung. Versuch einer Ethik für die technologische Zivilisation. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
25. Joss, S., and S. Belucci (eds.). 2002. Participatory technology assessment-European perspectives. London: Westminster University Press.
26. Lenk, H. 1992. Zwischen Wissenschaft und Ethik. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
27. National Research Council. 2006. A matter of size: Triennial review of the national nanotechnology initiative. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
28. Paslack, R., J.S. Ach, B. Luettenberg, and K. Weltring (eds.). 2011. Proceed with caution? -Concept and application of the precautionary principle in nanobiotechnology. Münster: LIT Verlag.
29. Rip, A., T. Misa, and J. Schot (eds.). 1995. Managing technology in society. London: Pinter Publishers.
30. Roco, M.C., and W.S. Bainbridge (eds.). 2001. Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology. Boston: Kluwer.
31. Selin, C. 2007. Expectations and the emergence of nanotechnology. Science, Technology and Human Values 32(2): 196-220.
32. Siune, K., E. Markus, M. Calloni, U. Felt, A. Gorski, A. Grunwald, A. Rip, V. de Semir, and S. Wyatt. 2009. Challenging futures of science in society. Report of the MASIS Expert Group. Brussels: European Commission.
33. Smits, R., and P. den Hertog. 2007. TA and the management of innovation in economy and society.International Journal on Foresight and Innovation Policy 3: 28-52.
34. van de Poel, I. 2009. Values in engineering design. In Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences, vol. 9, ed. A. Meijers, 973-1006. Boston: Elsevier.
35. VDI - Verein Deutscher Ingenieure 1991. Richtlinie 3780 Technikbewertung, Be-griffe und Grundlagen. Düsseldorf. Available also in English at: www.vdi.de.
36. Vig, N., and H. Paschen (eds.). 1999. Parliaments and technology assessment. The development of technology assessment in Europe. Albany: State University of New York Press.
37. Von Schomberg, R. (ed.). 1999. Democratizing technology. Theory and practice of a deliberative technology policy. Hengelo: ICHPA.
38. von Schomberg, R. 2005. The precautionary principle and its normative challenges. In The precautionary principle and public policy decision making, ed. E. Fisher, J. Jones, and R. von Schomberg, 141-165. Cheltenham/Northampton: Edward Elgar.
39. von Schomberg, R. 2012. Prospects for technology assessment in the 21st century: The quest fort the “right” impacts of science and technology. An outlook towards a framework for responsible research and innovation. In Technikfolgen abschätzen lehren, ed. M. Dusseldorp, et al., 43-65. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
40. Voss, J.-P., D. Bauknecht, and R. Kemp (eds.). 2006. Reflexive governance for sustainable development. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
41. Yoshinaka, Y., C. Clausen, and A. Hansen. 2003. The social shaping of technology: A new space for politics? In Technikgestaltung: zwischen Wunsch oder Wirklichkeit, ed. A. Grunwald, 117-131. Berlin: Springer.