Abstract
The mandate to the assessment of new technologies has been evolving for the last four decades according to societal and political contexts. As such, this chapter explains evolving trends towards more participatory and deliberative models of Technology Assessment (hereafter TA) and increasingly broader sets of aspects (beyond efficiency and health impacts) of ethical inquiry. It discusses in which sense TA initiatives have been criticized for a normative deficit, while bioethics councils and applied ethics approaches to the study of new technologies have been accused of a technological and sociological deficit. In addressing the question of how to integrate ethical inquiry in TA and how to account for societal contexts, the literature has focused on the importance of accounting for techno-social co-shaping and stakeholders’ conflicts while exploring the moral dimensions, framing and values inherent in new technologies or actors’ controversies. Within this enterprise, the issues of emergence, uncertainty and dynamic evolution that characterize the technologies under investigation deserve attention. The debate on “speculative ethics” is introduced as a reflection on the possibilities of knowledge concerning technologies that are still emerging and, as such, do not fully exist yet. If emerging technologies do not yet exist and we can only address them as prospective projections, how can we guarantee that an assessment of their desirability is epistemologically robust? The contribution of this book lies in addressing this question.
O most ingenious Theuth, the parent or inventor of an art is not always the best judge of the utility or inutility of his own inventions to the users of them (Plato, Phaedrus)
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
In particular, four moral norms of behavior guide the appropriate scientific practice: universalism, communism, disinterestedness and organized skepticism (Merton 1973). Science serves the social function of providing certified knowledge since scientists conform to the four norms and provide society with sincere and accurate information about the given world and future forecasts. Within this view, scientific knowledge is, on the one hand, objective and neutral with respect to interests and values and on the other hand, science is intrinsically guided by ethics with respect to the four norms.
- 2.
In 1957, the Soviet Union launched Sputnik 1, the first artificial satellite to be put into the Earth’s orbit. This event, initiating the so-called “Space Age”, triggered many reactions of the western scientific community contributing to the shift away from an “endless frontier” model in science and technology governance.
- 3.
Emblematic in this respect is the prominent role of Aerospatiale research and war technologies in the filmography of the later 1960s (see for example Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: a Space Odysseys and Dr. Strangelove). In these imaginary narratives, new technologies, supposed to celebrate the evolution of the human species and its progress, turn against human beings in a chaotic and uncontrolled way.
- 4.
Gibbons and colleagues (1994) describe a trend that emerged in the second half of the twentieth century wherein scientific research in context-driven (carried out in the context of application) and directed towards solving a problem across disciplinary boundaries. This transdisciplinary “mode 2” knowledge production (see also Nowotny et al. 2001) or post-normal science (Funtowicz and Ravetz 1993) has gone along with the need for a societal and political assessment of scientific and technological production.
- 5.
After being evaluated in 1993, the mission of the NOTA is readjusted, emphasizing the role of the organization to support decision-making and societal debate. To mark this shift, since 1994, the name of the office changes to the Rathenau Institute.
- 6.
Rinie van Est and Frans Brom are respectively research coordinator and head of the Technology Assessment division at the Rathenau Institute.
- 7.
Although van Eijndhoven (1997) points out that this goal was already embraced in the last years of the OTA.
- 8.
This was in line with the shift from an expert-based model to a participatory model in public policy (Fischer and Forester 1993).
- 9.
The executive TA communities are exemplified by non-governmental organizations.
- 10.
CTA is inspired by the extensive literature from the fields of Science and Technology Studies (STS) and innovation studies that describe how interests, power-relations, and social structures play a role in scientists and engineers’ work and how technology and society mutually shape one another. This STS-oriented TA draws on a range of studies: Bruno Latour’s reflections on the social dynamics in the laboratory (1987), Callon (1986) and Law (1986) on the roles of human and non-human “actants” in complex techno-social systems (Actor Network Theory, see also Latour 2005); the social construction of technological artifacts and the co-shaping dynamics or co-production between technology and society (Bijker 1995; Jasanoff 2004); and, research on the creative role of users in technological innovation (von Hippel 1988; Akrich 1992; Oudshoorn and Pinch 2003).
- 11.
HM Treasury/Department of Trade and Industry/Department of Education and Skills 2004 Science and innovation investment framework 2004/2014. HM Treasury, London (quoted in Kearnes and Wynne 2007).
- 12.
According to Swierstra (1997), this change in the issues to be discussed is recognizable in the media and in the political discourse on technologies and presents three elements. First, the discourse moves from questions of survival in relation to technology to good-life issues. Second, the classic dichotomy between society, values and culture, on one hand, and technology, facts and instrumental logic, on the other, is abandoned in favor of an idea of “technological culture”. Third, there is an increasing interest in attributing responsibility in the process of technological development. This trend also appears in the “outsourcing” of ethical evaluation through research funding programs (such as ELSA and RRI) discussed below.
- 13.
The distinction between ethical debates and “real world” ethics is the starting point of the EU funded project “DEEPEN”. Its declared aim is to reach an “integrated understanding of the ethical challenges posed by emerging nanotechnologies in real world circumstances” (see http://www.geography.dur.ac.uk/projects/deepen/Home/tabid/1871/Default.aspx). For an insightful discussion of this topic see Shelley-Egan (2011).
- 14.
The Nuremberg Code is available online at http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/archive/nurcode.html.
- 15.
The “Declaration of Helsinki – Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects”, originally issued by the World Medical Association in 1964 was last amended at the 64th WMA General Assembly, Fortaleza, Brazil, October 2013 (available online http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/index.html).
- 16.
The Hasting Centre – Bioethics and Public Policy http://www.thehastingscenter.org/
- 17.
More information about the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues in United States can be found online at http://bioethics.gov/cms/history
- 18.
To read about the mandate of the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies to the European Commission, see http://ec.europa.eu/bepa/european-group-ethics/archive-mandates/index_en.htm
- 19.
The mandate of the GAIEB can be accessed at http://ec.europa.eu/bepa/european-group-ethics/archive-mandates/mandate-1998-2000/gceb_en.htm
- 20.
“These rights are rooted in the principle of human dignity and shed light on the core European values, such as integrity, autonomy, privacy, equity, fairness, pluralism and solidarity” (European Group on Ethics 2007: 53)
- 21.
More about the first ELSA-research program established as part of the Human Genome project is available at http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/hgp/elsi. The establishment of ELSI programs is further described in Chap. 2 and Sect. 2.1.
- 22.
See also van Est and Brom 2012 on ELSA projects as academic activities experimenting with different “ways of doing TA upstream alongside techno-scientific research”.
- 23.
Although scenarios towards the institutionalization of ELSA in a “new breed of socio-humanistic consultants” whose need could be stated in codes of conduct or whose role would have a clearer role in decision-making processes have been outlined (Rip 2009).
- 24.
RRI is presented as the European Commission’s approach to the “Science with and for Society” funding program addressing societal and ethical challenges in scientific and innovative research (https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/science-and-society). See also the Responsible Innovation Program (MVI) established in the Netherlands since 2008 (http://www.nwo.nl/en/research-and-results/programmes/responsible+innovation)
- 25.
This brief historical overview on ethics of technology and its modes of institutionalization is of course painted with a very broad brush that does not adequately describe the substantial differences between Europe and the United States – nor the inter-European differences – in the way bioethics and ethics of S&T have been institutionalized.
- 26.
Hoeyer (2006) refers to “ethics wars” to indicate the antagonism between two different scholarly traditions involved in ELSI studies: ethics and social science. Not only do these two disciplinary fields rely on different theoretical backgrounds, they also use divergent methodological approaches. As such each of these two have differing attitudes or “ethical codes”.
- 27.
In particular, Hedgecoe and Martin (2003) analyze the role of bioethical commentators in the co-construction of future scenarios around pharmacogenetics. They conclude that bioethics debate plays a role in creating visions, mobilizing resources and “anticipatory negotiation” over what is acceptable and what should be regulated. Bioethicists “through the anticipation of social and ethical problems and a critical engagement with the process of innovation, are also helping construct and shape the future” (ibidem: 357)
- 28.
Famous in Harvard for his course in political philosophy entitled “Justice”, Sandel also co-teaches a course on “Ethics and Biotechnology” considering the ethical implications of several biotechnologies. Although he doesn’t consider himself a professional ethicist, in 2001 he was invited to join the American President’s Council of Bioethics.
- 29.
The full article is available at: http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/2004/04/sandel.htm as an html version: page references are not available on this version
- 30.
In 2001 a journal was created under the assumption that “technology assessment and ethics evaluation are to be developed into one methodologically integrated project” (Gethmann 2001): Poiesis and Praxis, the International journal on the Ethics of Science and Technology Assessment. An entire issue in 2004 addressed the need of integrating ethics in (H)TA.
- 31.
In this recent contribution, Kiran and colleagues (2015) call for the need to go beyond checklist approaches as a way of including ethical reflection in (C)TA, proposing an approach which is in line with the one described in this book.
- 32.
In line with this approach is the “Interactive” TA approach (Grin et al. 1997), which focuses on the interaction between a variety of stakeholders holding different “frames of meaning” (Grin and van de Graaf 1996) and learning from each other’s. The “Vision Assessment” approach (Grin and Grunwald 2000) more directly aims at creating spaces for deliberation by articulating the normative content of technological visions. Because of its focus on future oriented visions and projections, this approach will be discussed in the next chapter.
- 33.
Interestingly, the word ‘morality’ comes from the Latin mos-moris, custom. In ancient Rome, the mos maiorum (in English, ancestral custom or fathers’ custom) was an unwritten code of habits, principles, behavioral models and practices that affected the private, political and military life in Rome. The virtues and values prescribed by this code were accepted by the community because of the authority of the tradition. Furthermore, the written social norms were derived from this code. Despite coming from uncertain origin, the traditional values in the mos maiorum were considered as a stable basis for Roman identity. Some authors like Cato vehemently argued that observing the fathers’ custom was essential to the wellbeing of the Roman Republic. However, in later years of the Republic, the lower (plebeian) social class undermined the conservative principle of the mos in order to achieve social and political reforms. Furthermore, when the Roman Empire had to manage a large conglomerate of different populations with very different customs, practices and values, the mos regionis (regional custom) was set alongside the mos maiorum. Beside this variability in the social and geographical dimensions, the traditional custom was also challenged in the temporal dimension.
- 34.
An example of the transposition of concepts beyond their original context is provided by (Swierstra et al. 2009). The meaning of the principle of “autonomy” has changed and has been transported to different problem areas: “This principle was first coined to elucidate the precarious political status of the fifteenth century Italian city-state, played an important role in religious controversies, resurfaced in Rousseau’s political philosophy, was elevated by Kant to take central stage in morality, and has in the last decades finally reached public prominence in the field of medical ethics” (132)
- 35.
The normative purport of pragmatist ethics and its contribution to addressing the normative deficit in TA will be further discussed in Chap. 7.
- 36.
As for example Constructive Technology Assessment and Vision Assessment, but also Foresight Studies.
References
Abels, Gabriele. 2007. Citizen involvement in public policy-making: Does it improve democratic legitimacy and accountability? The case of pTA. Interdisciplinary Information Sciences 13(1): 103–116.
Akrich, M., and B. Latour. 1992. A summary of a convenient vocabulary for the semiotics of human and nonhuman assemblies. In Shaping technology, building society: Studies in sociotechnical change, ed. W. Bijker and J. Law, 259–264. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Banta, H. David (Coordinator). 1997. Report from the EUR-ASSESS project. International Journal of Technology Assessment Health Care 13: 131–340.
Banta, H. David. 2004. Foreword. Poiesis & Praxis: International Journal of Technology Assessment and Ethics of Science, 2(2–3):93–95.
Banta, H. David, and Seymour Perry. 1997. A history of ISTAHC: A personal perspective on its first 10 years. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 13(03): 430. Cambridge University Press.
Beauchamp, Tom L. 1995. Principlism and its alleged competitors. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 5(3): 181–198. doi:10.1353/ken.0.0111. The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Beauchamp, T.L., and J.F. Childress. 2009. Principles of biomedical ethics [1973] ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
Beekman, Volkert, and Frans W.A. Brom. 2007. Ethical tools to support systematic public deliberations about the ethical aspects of agricultural biotechnologies. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 20(1): 3–12.
Bijker, W.E. 1995. Of bicycles, bakelites, and bulbs: Toward a theory of sociotechnical change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Blok, Anders. 2007. Experts on public trial: On democratizing expertise through a Danish consensus conference. Public Understanding of Science 16(2): 163–182.
Brey, P. 2012. Anticipatory ethics for emerging technologies. NanoEthics 6(1): 1–13.
Broerse, J.E.W., and J.F.G. Bunders. 2000. Requirements for biotechnology development: The necessity for an interactive and participatory innovation process. International Journal of Biotechnology 2(4): 275–296.
Bush, Vannevar. 1945. Science, the endless frontier: A report to the president. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Callon, Michel. 1986. Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of St. Brieuc Bay. In Power, action, and belief: A new sociology of knowledge, vol. 32, ed. John Law, 196–223. London: Routledge.
Callon, M., J. Law, and A. Rip (eds.). 1986. Mapping the dynamics of science and technology: Sociology of science in the real world. London: Macmillan.
Calvert, Jane, and Paul Martin. 2009. The role of social scientists in synthetic biology. Science & society series on convergence research. EMBO Reports 10(3): 201–204. EMBO Press.
Chambers, Simone. 2003. Deliberative democratic theory. Annual Review of Political Science 6(1): 307–326.
Clausen, Christian und Yutaka Yoshinaka. 2004. Social shaping of technology in TA and HTA. Poiesis & Praxis: International Journal of Technology Assessment and Ethics of Science 2(2–3): 221–246.
Clouser, K. Danner. 1995. Common morality as an alternative to principlism. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 5(3): 219–236. The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Collingridge, D. 1980. The social control of technology. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Decker, Michael, and Miltos Ladikas. 2004. Bridges between science, society and policy: Technology assessment – methods and impacts. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.
Dewey, John, and Jo. Ann Boydston. 1981. The later works, 1925–1953. Carbondale/London: Southern Illinois University Press/Feffer & Simons.
Dryzek, John S. 2000. Deliberative democracy and beyond liberals, critics, contestations. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ebbesen, M., and T.G. Jensen. 2006. Nanomedicine: Techniques, potentials, and ethical implications. Journal of Biomedicine and Biotechnology 2006: 1–11.
European Group on Ethics. 2005. Ethical aspects of ICT implants in the human body. Opinion 20. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/european_group_ethics/docs/avis20_en.pdf.
European Group on Ethics. 2007. Ethical aspects of nanomedicine. Opinion 21.
Ferrari, A., and A. Grunwald. 2011. Visions and ethics in current discourses on human enhancement, third annual conference of the society for the study of nanoscience and emerging technologies (S.NET), Tempe, Arizona/USA, 07–10 Nov 2011.
Fischer, F., and J. Forester. 1993. The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning. Durham: Duke University Press.
Fisher, Erik, Roop L. Mahajan, and Carl Mitcham. 2006. Midstream modulation of technology: Governance from within. Bulletin of Science Technology Society 26(6): 485–496.
Funtowicz, Silvio O., and Jerome R. Ravetz. 1993. The emergence of post-normal science. In Science, politics and morality SE – 6, ed. Schomberg René Von, 17:85–123. Theory and Decision Library. Dordrecht: Springer.
Gethmann, Carl Friedrich. 2001. A new journal is launched. Poiesis & Praxis 1(1): 1–2.
Gibbons, Michael, Camille Limoges, Helga Nowotny, Simon Schwartzman, Peter Scott, and Martin Trow. 1994. The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.
Grin, J., and H. van de Graaf. 1996. Technology assessment as learning. Science, Technology & Human Values 21(1): 72–99.
Grin, J., and A. Grunwald. 2000. Vision assessment: Shaping technology in 21st century society. New York: Springer.
Grin, John, H. van de Graaf, and Rob Hoppe. 1997. Technology assessment through interaction. A guide. The Hague: Rathenau Institute. Available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254753158_Technology_Assessment_through_interaction._A_guide
Grunwald, A. 1999. Technology assessment or ethics of technology? Ethical Perspectives 6(2): 170.
Grunwald, Armin. 2004. The normative basis of (health) technology assessment and the role of ethical expertise. Poiesis & Praxis: International Journal of Technology Assessment and Ethics of Science 2(2–3): 175–193.
Grunwald, Armin. 2009. Technology assessment: Concepts and methods. In Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences, ed. Anthonie W.M. Meijers. North Holland: Elsevier.
Grunwald, Armin. 2010. From speculative nanoethics to explorative philosophy of nanotechnology. NanoEthics 4(2): 91–101. Springer, Netherlands.
Grunwald, Armin. 2011. Responsible innovation: Bringing together technology assessment, applied ethics, and STS research. November. IET. http://run.unl.pt/handle/10362/7944.
Guston, D.H., and D. Sarewitz. 2002. Real-time technology assessment. Technology in Society 24(1–2): 93–109.
Gutmann, Amy, and Dennis Thompson. 2002. Deliberative democracy beyond process. Journal of Political Philosophy 10(2): 153–174.
Habermas, J. 1990. Moral consciousness and communicative action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hedgecoe, A. 2010. Bioethics and the reinforcement of socio-technical expectations. Social Studies of Science 40(2): 163–186.
Hedgecoe, A., and P. Martin. 2003. The drugs don’t work: Expectations and the shaping of pharmacogenetics. Social Studies of Science 33(3): 327–364.
Hennen, Leonhard. 2012. Why do we still need participatory technology assessment? Poiesis & Praxis: International Journal of Ethics of Science and Technology Assessment 9(1–2): 27–41.
Hoeyer, Klaus. 2006. “Ethics wars”: Reflections on the antagonism between bioethicists and social science observers of biomedicine. Human Studies 29(2): 203–227.
Hofmann, Bjørn. 2005. On value-judgements and ethics in health technology assessment. Poiesis & Praxis 3(4): 277–295.
Hofmann, Bjørn Morten. 2008. Why ethics should be part of health technology assessment. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 24(4): 423–429.
Jasanoff, Sheila. 2004. States of knowledge: The co-production of science and the social order. London: Routledge.
Jensen, Casper Bruun. 2005. Citizen projects and consensus-building at the Danish board of technology. Acta Sociologica 48(2): 221–235.
Jonsen, Albert R. 1986. Casuistry and clinical ethics. Theoretical Medicine 7(1): 65–74.
Joss, Simon, and Sergio Bellucci. 2002. Participatory technology assessment: European perspectives. London: Centre for the Study of Democracy.
Kearnes, Matthew und Brian Wynne. (2007). On nanotechnology and ambivalence: The politics of enthusiasm. NanoEthics 1(2): 131–142.
Ketting, E. 2000. De Invloed van Orale Anticonceptie Op de Maatschappij. Nederlands Tijdschrift Voor Geneeskunde 144(6): 283–286.
Keulartz, J., M. Schermer, M. Korthals, and T. Swierstra (eds.). 2002. Pragmatist ethics for a technological culture. Deventer: Kluwer.
Keulartz, Jozef, Maartje Schermer, Michiel Korthals, and Tsjalling Swierstra. 2004. Ethics in technological culture: A programmatic proposal for a pragmatist approach. Science, Technology & Human Values 29(1): 3–29.
Kiran, Asle H., Nelly Oudshoorn, and Peter-Paul Verbeek. 2015. Beyond checklists: Toward an ethical-constructive technology assessment. Journal of Responsible Innovation. doi:10.1080/23299460.2014.992769, January. Routledge.
Klüver, Lars, Michael Nentwich, Walter Peissl, Hele Torgersen, Fritz Gloede, Leonhard Hennen, Josée van Eijndhoven, Rinie van Est, Simon Joss und S Belluci. 2000. European participatory technology assessment. Participatory methods in technology assessment and technology decision-making. Copenhagen: The Danish Board of Technology.
Krabbenborg, Lotte. 2013. Involvement of civil society actors in nanotechnology: Creating productive spaces for interaction. Groningen: University of Groningen.
Kuhse, H., and P. Singer. 2012. A companion to bioethics. Oxford/Malden: Blackwell.
Latour, B. 1987. Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Latour, Bruno. 2005. Reassembling the social-an introduction to actor-network-theory. In Reassembling the social-an introduction to actor-network-theory, ed. Latour Bruno, 316. Foreword by Bruno Latour. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Latour, Bruno, and Couze Venn. 2002. Morality and technology: The end of the means. Theory, Culture & Society 19(5–6): 247–260.
Law, John. 1986. On the methods of long-distance control: Vessels, navigation and the Portuguese route to India. In Power, action and belief: A new sociology of knowledge, 234–263. London: Routledge.
Lehoux, P. 2006. The problem of health technology: Policy implications for modern health care systems. London: Routledge.
Lehoux, Pascale, and Bryn Williams-Jones. 2007. Mapping the integration of social and ethical issues in health technology assessment. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 23(1): 9–16.
Lenk, C., and N. Biller Andorno. 2007. Nanomedicine-emerging or re-emerging ethical issues? A discussion of four ethical themes. Medicine, Health Care & Philosophy 10(2): 173–184.
Lucivero, Federica, and Guglielmo Tamburrini. 2007. Ethical monitoring of brain-machine interfaces. Ai & Society 22(3): 449–460.
Lucivero, Federica, Tsjalling Swierstra, and Marianne Boenink. 2011. Assessing expectations: Towards a toolbox for an ethics of emerging technologies. NanoEthics 5(2): 129–141.
Mepham, B. 2001. Novel foods. In The concise encyclopedia of the ethics of new technologies, ed. R.F. Chadwick. San Diego: Academic.
Merton, R.K. 1973. The normative structure of science (1942). In The sociology of science. Theoretical and empirical investigations, 267–278. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Michelfelder, Diane. 2011. Dirty hands, speculative minds, and smart machines. Philosophy & Technology 24(1): 55–68.
Moor, J., and J. Weckert. 2004. Nanoethics: Assessing the nanoscale from an ethical point of view. In Discovering the nanoscale, ed. D. Baird, A. Nordmann, and J. Schummer. Amsterdam/Washington, DC: Ios Press.
Nordmann, A. 2007. If and then: A critique of speculative NanoEthics. NanoEthics 1(1): 31–46.
Nordmann, A., and A. Rip. 2009. Mind the gap revisited. Nature Nanotechnology 4(5): 273–274. Nature.
Nowotny, Helga, Peter Scott, and Michael T. Gibbons. 2001. Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. London: Wiley.
Oortwijn, Wija, Rob Reuzel, and Michael Decker. 2004. Introduction. Poiesis & Praxis: International Journal of Technology Assessment and Ethics of Science 2(2–3): 97–101.
Oudshoorn, N. 2000. The co-construction of contraceptive technologies and users. In Bodies of technology. Women’s involvement in reproductive medicine, ed. A. Saetnan, N. Oudshoorn, and M. Kirejczyk. Ohio: Ohio University Press.
Oudshoorn, N., and T.J. Pinch. 2003. How users matter: The co-construction of users and technologies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Owen, R., P. Macnaghten, and J. Stilgoe. 2012. Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society. Science and Public Policy 39(6): 751–760.
Palm, E., and S.O. Hansson. 2006. The case for ethical technology assessment (eTA). Technological Forecasting & Social Change 73(5): 543–558.
Pellegrino, Edmund D. 1995. Toward a virtue-based normative ethics for the health professions. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 5(3): 253–277. The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Pinch, Trevor J., and Wiebe E. Bijker. 1984. The social construction of facts and artefacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. Social Studies of Science 14(3): 399–441.
Plato. 1973. The Phaedrus of Plato. Transl. and ed. W.H. Thompson. New York: Arno Press.
Reuzel, Rob. 2004. Interactive technology assessment of paediatric cochlear implantation. Poiesis & Praxis 2(2–3): 119–137.
Reuzel, Rob, Wija Oortwijn, Michael Decker, Christian Clausen, Pedro Gallo, John Grin, Armin Grunwald, Leo Hennen, Gert Jan van der Wilt, and Yutaka Yoshinaka. 2004. Ethics and HTA: Some lessons and challenges for the future. Poiesis & Praxis 2(2–3): 247–256.
Rip, Arie. 2009. Technology as prospective ontology. Synthese 168(3): 405–422.
Rip, Arie, and Haico te Kulve. 2008. Constructive technology assessment and socio-technical scenarios. Nanotechnology 1: 49–70.
Rip, Arie, and Pierre-Benoit Joly. 2012. Emerging spaces and governance. A position paper for Eu-SPRI forum. Available at https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Andy_Stirling/publication/263962630_Emerging_Spaces_and_Governance_A_position_paper_for_EU-SPRI/links/00b4953c67201913bd000000.pdf
Rip, A., T.J. Misa, and J. Schot. 1995. Managing technology in society: The approach of constructive technology assessment. London/New York: Pinter.
Robinson, D.K.R. 2009. Co-evolutionary scenarios: An application to prospecting futures of the responsible development of nanotechnology. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 76(9): 1222–1239.
Robinson, D.K.R. 2010. Constructive technology assessment of emerging nanotechnologies experiments in interactions. Enschede: Proefschrift Universiteit Twente.
Roelofsen, A., et al. 2008. Exploring the future of ecological genomics: Integrating CTA with vision assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 75(3): 334–355.
Sandel, M. 2004.The case against perfection, Atlantic Monthly 293(3): 51–62. Available at http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/2004/04/sandel.htm
Sandler, Ronald. 2013. Ethics and emerging technologies. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Schot, J., and A. Rip. 1997. The past and future of constructive technology assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 54(2–3): 251–268.
Sclove, R. 1995. Democracy and technology. New York: Guilford Press.
Sclove, R. 2010. Reinventing technology assessment: A 21st century model. Washington, DC: Science and Technology Innovation Program.
Shelley Egan, C. 2011. Ethics in practice: Responding to an evolving problematic situation of nanotechnology in society. Enschede: Proefschrift Universiteit Twente.
Smits, R.E.H.M., and A.J.M. Leyten. 1991. Technology assessment: Waakhond of speurhond? Naar een integraal technologiebeleid. Zeist: Kerckebosch.
Smits, Ruud, Jos Leyten, Pim Den Hertog, und Pim Hertog. 1995. Technology assessment and technology policy in Europe: New concepts, new goals, new infrastructures. Policy Sciences 28(3): 271–299.
Smits, Ruud, Rutger van Merkerk, David H. Guston, Daniel Sarewitz, and R. van Merkerk. 2008. The role of TA in systemic innovation policy. Intelligence. Innovation Studies Utrecht (ISU) Working paper series.
Stegmaier, Peter. 2009. The rock ‘N’ roll of knowledge co-production. Science & society series on convergence research. EMBO Reports 10(2): 114–119.
Swierstra, T. 1997. From critique to responsibility. Society for Philosophy and Technology 3(1): 68–74.
Swierstra, Tsjalling. 2013. Nanotechnology and technomoral change. Etica e Politica 15: 200–219.
Swierstra, Tsjalling. 2015. Identifying the normative challenges posed by technology’s ‘soft’ impacts. Etikk I Praksis – Nordic Journal of Applied Ethics 9(1): 5–20.
Swierstra, Tsjalling, and Arie Rip. 2007. Nano-ethics as NEST-ethics: Patterns of moral argumentation about new and emerging science and technology. NanoEthics 1(1): 3–20.
Swierstra, T., D. Stemerding, and M. Boenink. 2009. Exploring techno-moral change: The case of the obesity pill. In Evaluating new technologies, The international library of ethics, law and technology, vol. 3, ed. Sollie Paul and Düwell Marcus, 119–138. Dordrecht: Springer.
Swierstra, T., and H. te Molder. 2012. Risk and soft impacts. In Handbook of risk theory, ed. S. Roeser, R. Hillerbrand, M. Peterson, and P. Sandin, 1050–1066. Dordrecht: Springer.
te Kulve, H. 2011. Anticipatory interventions and the co-evolution of nanotechnology and society. Enschede: Proefschrift Universiteit Twente.
Ten Have, Henk. 2004. Ethical perspectives on health technology assessment. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 20(01): 71–76. Cambridge University Press.
Tran, Thien A., and Tugrul Daim. 2008. A taxonomic review of methods and tools applied in technology assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 75(9): 1396–1405.
Van Eijndhoven, J.C.M. 1997. Technology assessment: Product or process? Technological Forecasting and Social Change 54(2–3): 269–286.
van Est, R., and Brom, F. 2012. Technology assessment as an analytic and democratic practice. Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics, 2e Chapter 10 on “Technology assessment”.
Van Merkerk, R.O. 2007. Intervening in emerging nanotechnologies: A CTA of lab on a chip technology. Utrecht: Utrecht University, Royal Dutch Geographical Society.
van Merkerk, R., and D. Robinson. 2006. Characterizing the emergence of a technological field: Expectations, agendas and networks in lab-on-a-chip technologies. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 18(3/4): 411–428.
van Merkerk, R., and R. Smits. 2008. Tailoring CTA for emerging technologies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 75(3): 312–333.
Van Merkerk, Rutger O., and Harro van Lente. 2005. Tracing emerging irreversibilities in emerging technologies: The case of nanotubes. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 72(9): 1094–1111.
Van Oudheusden, Michiel. 2014. Where are the politics in responsible innovation? European governance, technology assessments, and beyond. Journal of Responsible Innovation 1(1): 67–86.
von Hippel, E. 1988. The sources of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Widdershoven, Guy, Tineke Abma, and Bert Molewijk. 2009. Empirical ethics as dialogical practice. Bioethics 23(4): 236–248.
Willems, Dick, and Jeannette Pols. 2010. Goodness! The empirical turn in health care ethics. Medische Antropologie 1(22): 161–170.
Winner, Langdon. 1999. Do artifacts have politics? In The social shaping of technology, vol. 29, ed. Donald MacKenzie and Wajcman Judy, 28–40. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Zwart, Hub, Laurens Landeweerd, and Arjan van Rooij. 2014. Adapt or perish? Assessing the recent shift in the European research funding arena from ‘ELSA’ to ‘RRI’. Life Sciences Society and Policy 10(1): 11.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lucivero, F. (2016). Democratic Appraisals of Future Technologies: Integrating Ethics in Technology Assessment. In: Ethical Assessments of Emerging Technologies. The International Library of Ethics, Law and Technology, vol 15. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23282-9_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23282-9_1
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-23281-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-23282-9
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)