To assess rationality before anything else. A remark on the legitimacy of Rational Technology Assessment

  • Rob P. B. Reuzel
Part of the Wissenschaftsethik und Technikfolgenbeurteilung book series (ETHICSSCI, volume 11)


This involves a comment on the chapter by Michael Decker and Armin Grunwald in this volume, that is, on what these author’s have coined “Rational Technology Assessment” (RTA). And although the richness of Decker and Grunwald’s account deserves a lot more, I will confine myself to only one aspect: the “rationality” of RTA. I believe that the kind of rationality exploited in RTA makes Technology Assessment expedient, rather than legitimate. To develop my argument, I take two steps. First, I give a brief sketch of the history of Technology Assessment until the rise of social constructivist approaches, and try to explicate the rationale of RTA on the basis of this sketch. In fact, I regard RTA as a new and courageous attempt to complement social constructivist philosophy with a feasible plan of work. Second, however, I argue that RTA simultaneously divagates from this philosophy, in that it neglects its legitimate basis by depending on expert knowledge too heavily. RTA resembles what Habermas has called a “technocratic model”.


Technology Development Technology Assessment Public Sphere Scientific Standard Normative Bias 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Banta HD, Luce BR (1993) Health care technology and its assessment: an international perspective. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  2. Carpenter SR (1983) Technoaxiology: appropriate norms for Technology Assessment. In: Durbin PT, Rapp F (eds) Philosophy and technology. D. Reidel Publishing Company, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  3. Gago JM (1998) The social science bridges. Portugese Ministry of Science and Technology, The social science bridge, Observatório das Ciências e das Tecnologias, LisbonGoogle Scholar
  4. Habermas J (1996) The scientization of politics and public opinion. In: Outhwaite W (ed) The Habermas Reader. Polity Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  5. MacKenzie D, Wajcman J (1985) The social shaping of technology — how the refrigerator got its hum. Open University Press, Milton KeynesGoogle Scholar
  6. Rapp F (1983) The prospects for Technology Assessment. In: Durbin PT, Rapp F (eds) Philosophy and technology. D. Reidel Publishing Company, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  7. Reuzel RPB, Van der Wilt GJ, Ten Have HAMJ, De Vries Robbé PF (1999) Reducing normative bias in health Technology Assessment: interactive evaluation and casuistry. Med. Health Care Philos. 2 (3): 255 – 263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Rip A, Misa ThJ, Schot J (1995) Managing technology in society: the approach of constructive Technology Assessment. Pinter, LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. Schot J (1992) Constructive Technology Assessment and technology dynamics: opportunities for the control of technology — the case of clean technologies. Science, technology and human values, 17: 36 – 56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Schot J, Rip A (1997) The past and future of constructive Technology Assessment. Technological forecasting & social change, 54 (2,3): 251 – 268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Van Eindhoven JCM (1997) Technology assessment: product or process? Technological forecasting & social change, 54 (2,3): 269 – 286CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rob P. B. Reuzel

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations