Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Role of Scientific Input and Public Participation for Technology Assessment

  • Chapter
Interdisciplinarity in Technology Assessment

Part of the book series: Wissenschaftsethik und Technikfolgenbeurteilung ((ETHICSSCI,volume 11))

Abstract

Human beings depend on technology for survival and well being. Without organizational and technological intervention in nature, humankind would never have been able to maintain the population densities encountered today or sustain an ethical claim to an individual livelihood in dignity. At the same time, however, technology creates risks and negative side effects. The extent to which risks are associated with technological development and the judgment on the balance between risks and benefits are key elements of Technological Assessment (TA). It is the task of Technology Assessment to highlight the potential for positive and negative developments and suggest possible modifications or policy options with the aim of assisting decision makers to limit negative impacts to a tolerable level and to enhance positive opportunities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Amy DJ (1987) The Politics of Environmental Mediation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron W (1995) Technikfolgenabschätzung-Ansätze zur Institutionalisierung und Chancen der Partizipation. Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck U (1992) Risk Society: Toward a New Modernity. Translated by Mark A. Ritter. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Boehmer-Christiansen S (1997) Reflections on Scientific Advice EC Transboundary Pollution Policy. Science and Public Policy 22, No. 3: 195–203

    Google Scholar 

  • Böhler D (1995) Ethik für die Zukunft erfordert Institutionalisierung von Diskurs und Verantwortung. In: Jänicke M, Bolle HJ, Carius A (eds) Umwelt Global. Veränderungen, Probleme, Lösungsansätze. Springer, Berlin, pp 239–248

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradbury JA (1989) The Policy Implications of Differing Concepts of Risk. Science, Technology, and Human Values 14, No. 4: 380–399

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burns TR, Überhorst R (1988) Creative Democracy: Systematic Conflict Resultion and Policymaking in a World of High Science and Technology. Praeger, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Charnley G (2000) Democratic Science: Enhancing the Role of Science in Stakeholder-Based Risk Management Decision-Making. Health Risk Strategies, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chess C, Dietz Th, Shannon M (1998) Who Should Deliberate When? Human Ecology Review 5, No. 1: 45–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Coppock R (1985) Interactions Between Scientists and Public Officials: A Comparison of the Use of Science in Regulatory Programs in the United States and West Germany. Policy Sciences, 18: 371–390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creighton JL, Dunning CM, Delli Priscoli J (eds) (1998) Public Involvement and Dispute Resolution: A Reader on the Second Decade of Experience at the Institute of Water Resources. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Institute of Water Resources, Fort Belvoir

    Google Scholar 

  • Dietz T, Rycroft RW (1987) The Risk Professionals. Russel Sage Foundation, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Dietz T, Stern PC, Rycroft RW (1989) Definitions of Conflict and the Legitimation of Resources: The Case of Environmental Risk. Sociological Forum 4: 47–69

    Google Scholar 

  • Dryzek JS (1990) Discursive Democracy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Evers A, Nowotny H (1987) Über den Umgang mit Unsicherheit. Die Entdeckungder Gestaltbarkeit von Gesellschaft. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiorino DJ (1989) Technical and Democratic Values in Risk Analysis. Risk Analysis 9, No. 3: 293–299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiorino DJ (1990) Citizen Participation and Environmental Risk: A Survey of Institutional Mechanisms. Science, Technology, and Human Values 15, No. 2: 226–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Folberg J, Taylor A (1984) Mediation. A Comprehensive Guide to Resolving Conflicts Without Litigation. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Forester J (1989) Planning in the Face of Power. University of California Press, Berkeley 1989

    Google Scholar 

  • Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR (1990) Uncertainty and Quality in Science for Policy. Kluwer, Dordrecht and Boston

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Giegel HJ (1992) Kommunikation und Konsens in modernen Gesellschaften. In: Giegel HJ (ed) Kommunikation und Konsens in modernen Gesellschaften. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main, pp 7–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas J (1968) Technik und Wissenschaft als `Ideologie’. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas J (1971) Vorbereitende Bemerkungen zu einer Theorie der kommunikativen Kompetenz. In: Habermas J, Luhmann N (eds) Theorie der Gesellschaft oder Sozialtechnologie. Was leistet die Systemforschung? Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main, pp 101–104

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas J (1978) Verwissenschaftlichte Politik und öffentliche Meinung. In: Habermas J (ed) Technik und Wissenschaft als `Ideologie’. 9th Edition. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas J (1981) Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. Bd. 1 2. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas J (1989) Erläuterungen zum Begriff des kommunikativen Handelns. In: Habermas J (ed) Vorstudien und Ergänzungen zur Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. 3rd Edition Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main, pp 571–606

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas J (1992) Faktizität und Geltung. Beiträge zur Diskurstheorie des Rechts und des modernen Rechtsstaates. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main

    Google Scholar 

  • Hadden S (1989) A Citizen’s Right-to-Know: Risk Communication and Public Policy. Westview Press, Boulder

    Google Scholar 

  • Harter P, Orenstein S, Dalton D (1998) Better Decisions through Consultation and Collaboration. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA ), Washington D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horlick-Jones T (1998) Meaning and Contextualization in Risk Assessment. Reliability Engineering and Systems Safety 59: 79–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasonoff S (1982) Science and the Limits of Administrative Rule-Making: Lessons from the OSHA Cancer Policy. Osgoode Hall Law Journal, 20: 536–561

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasonoff S (1986) Risk Management and Political Culture. Russell Sage Foundation, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasonoff S (1993) Bridging the Two Cultures of Risk Analysis. Risk Analysis 13, No. 2: 123–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasonoff S (1998) The Political Science of Risk Perception. Reliability Engineering and Systems Safety 59: 91–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk. Econometrica 47, No. 2: 263–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kemp R (1985) Planning, Political Hearings, and the Politics of Discourse. In: Forester J (ed) Critical Theory and Public Life. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Knoepfel P, Weidner H (1982) Formulation and Implementation of Air Quality Control Programs: Patterns of Interest Consideration. Policy and Politics 10: 85–109

    Google Scholar 

  • Kunreuther H, Slovic P (1996) Science, Values, and Risk. In: Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Special Issue. Kunreuther H, Slovic P (eds) Challenges in Risk Assessment and Risk Management. Sage, Beverly Hills and Thousand Oaks, pp 116–125

    Google Scholar 

  • Kweit MG, Kweit RW (1981) Implementing Citizen Participation in a Bureaucratic Society. Praeger, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindbloom C (1977) Politics and Markets: The World’s Political-Economic Systems. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindbloom C (1959) The Science of Muddling Through. Public Administration Review 19: 79–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lohmar U (1967) Wissenschaftsförderung und Politikberatung. Bertelsmann, Gütersloh

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N (1984) Soziale Systeme: Grundriß einer allgemeinen Theorie. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynn FM (1986) The Interplay of Science and Values in Assessing and Regulating Environmental Risks. Science, Technology and Human Values 11, No. 2: 40–50

    Google Scholar 

  • Majone G (1989) Evidence, Argument and Persuasion in the Policy Process. Yale University Press, New Haven and London

    Google Scholar 

  • Margolis H (1996) Dealing with Risk. Why the Public and the Experts Disagree on Environmental Issues. University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1996

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayntz R (1993) Policy Netzwerke und die Logik von Verhandlungssystemen. In: Heritier A (ed) Policy Analyse. Opladen, Westdeutscher Verlag, pp 38–56

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayntz R, Scharpf FW (1973) Kriterien, Voraussetzungen und Einschränkungen aktiver Politik. In: Mayntz R, Scharpf FW (eds) Planungsorganisation. Die Diskussion um die Reform von Regierung und Verwaltung des Bundes. Piper, München, pp 115–145

    Google Scholar 

  • McDaniels T (1996) The Structured Value Referendum: Eliciting Preferences for Environmental Policy Alternatives. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 15, No. 2: 227–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohr H (1994) Das Expertendilemma. In: Stifterverband für die deutsche Wissenschaft (ed) Selbstbilder und Fremdbilder der Chemie. Stifterverband, Essen, pp 194–209

    Google Scholar 

  • Mohr H (1996) Das Expertendilemma. In: Nennen HU, Garbe D (eds) Das Expertendilemma. Zur Rolle wissenschaftlicher Gutachter in der öffentlichen Meinungsbildung. Springer, Berlin, pp 3–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelkin D Technological Decisions and Democracy. Sage, Beverly Hills

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelkin D, Pollak M (1980) Problems and Procedures in the Regulation of Technological Risk. In: Weiss CH, Burton AF (eds) Making Bureaucracies Work. Sage, Beverly Hills, pp 233–253

    Google Scholar 

  • Nowotny H (1979) Kernenergie: Gefahr oder Notwendigkeit. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main

    Google Scholar 

  • Nowotny H, Eisikovic R (1990) Enstehung, Wahrnehmung und Umgang mit Risiken. Schweizerischer Wissenschaftsrat, Bern

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson M (1984) Participatory Pluralism: Political Participation and Influence in the United States and Sweden. Nelson-Hall, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Riordan T, Wynne B (1987) Regulating Environmental Risks: A Comparative Perspective. In: Kleindorfer PR, Kunreuther HC (eds) Insuring and Managing Hazardous Risks: From Seveso to Bhopal and Beyond. Springer, Berlin, pp 389410

    Google Scholar 

  • Pidgeon NF (1997) The Limits to Safety? Calture, Politics, Learning and Manmade Disasters. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management 5, No. 1: 1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollak M (1985) Public Participation. In: Otway H, Peltu M (eds) Regulating Industrial Risk. Butterworths, London, pp 76–94

    Google Scholar 

  • President’s Council on Sustainable Development (1997) Lessons Learned from Collaborative Approaches. President’s Council on Sustainable Development, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Primack J, von Hippel F (1974) Advice and Dissent: Scientists in the Political Arena. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Ravetz J (1989) The Merger of Knowledge with Power. Mansell, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Renn O (1995) Style of Using Scientific Expertise: A Comparative Framework. Science and Public Policy 22: 147–156

    Google Scholar 

  • Renn O (1998) The Role of Risk Communication and Public Dialogue for Improving Risk Management. Risk Decision and Policy 3, No. 1: 5–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renn, O (1999) Participative Technology Assessment: Meeting the Challenges of Uncertainty and Ambivalence. Futures Research Quarterly 15, No. 3: 81–97

    Google Scholar 

  • Renn O, Webler Th (1998) Der kooperative Diskurs–Theoretische Grundlagen, Anforderungen, Möglichkeiten. In: Renn O, Kastenholz H, Schild P, Wilhelm U (eds) Abfallpolitik im kooperativen Diskurs. Bürgerbeteiligung bei der Standortsuche für eine Deponie im Kanton Aargau. Hochschulverlag ETH, Zürich, pp 3–103

    Google Scholar 

  • Renn O, Webler Th, Rakel H, Dienel PC, Johnson BB (1993) Public Participation in Decision Making: A Three-Step-Procedure. Policy Sciences 26: 189–214

    Google Scholar 

  • Rip A (1985) Experts in Public Arenas. In: Otway H, Peltu M (eds) Regulating Industrial Risk. Butterworths, London, pp 94–110

    Google Scholar 

  • Rip A (1992) The Development of Restrictedness in the Sciences. In: Elias N, Martins H, Wihtley R (eds) Scientific Establishments and Hierarchies. Kluwer, Dordrecht and Boston, pp 219–238

    Google Scholar 

  • Rittel HWJ in cooperation with Webber MM (1992) Dilemmas in einer allgemeinen Theorie der Planung. In: Rittel HWJ (ed) Planen, Entwerfen, Design. Ausgewählte Schriften zu Theorie und Methodik. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart, pp 13–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowe G, Frewer LJ (2000) Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation. Science, Technology Human Values 225, No. 1: 3–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sager T (1994) Communicative Planning Theory. Aldershot, Avebury

    Google Scholar 

  • Scarcinelli U (1990) Auf dem Weg in eine kommunikative Demokratie? Demokratische Streitkultur als Element politischer Kultur. In: Scarcinelli U (ed) Demokratische Streitkultur. Theoretische Grundpositionen und Handlungsalternativen in Politikfeldern. Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen, pp 29–51

    Google Scholar 

  • Scharpf FW (1991) Die Handlungsfähigkeit des Staates am Ende des zwanzigsten Jahrhunderts. Politische Vierteljahresschrift 32, No. 4: 621–634

    Google Scholar 

  • Schimank U (1992) Spezifische Interessenkonsense trotz generellem Orientierungsdissens. In: Giegel HJ (ed) Kommunikation und Konsens in modernen Gesellschaften. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main, pp 236–275

    Google Scholar 

  • Sclove R (1995) Democracy and Technology. Guilford Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern PC, Fineberg V (1996) Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society. National Research Council, Committee on Risk Characterization. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Susskind LE, Cruishank J (1987) Breaking the Impasse: Consensual Approaches to Resolving Public Disputes. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • von Schomberg R (1992) Argumentation im Kontext wissenschaftlicher Kontroversen. In: Apel KO, Kettener M (eds) Zur Anwendung der Diskursethik in Politik, Recht, Wissenschaft. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main, pp 260–277

    Google Scholar 

  • von Schomberg R (1995) The Erosion of the Valuespheres. The Ways in which Society Copes with Scientific, Moral and Ethical Uncertainty. In: von Schomberg R (ed) Contested Technology. Ethics, Risk and Public Debate. International Centre for Human and Public Affairs, Tilburg, pp 13–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Wachlin KD, Renn O (1999) Diskurse an der Akademie für TA in Baden-Württemberg: Verständigung, Abwägung, Gestaltung, Vermittlung. In: Bröchler S, Simonis G, Sundermann K (eds) Handbuch Technikfolgenabschätzung, Vol. 2. Sigma, Berlin, pp 713–722

    Google Scholar 

  • Webler Th (1995) `Right’ Discourse in Citizen Participation. An Evaluative Yardstick. In: Renn O, Webler Th, Wiedemann P (eds) Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation. Evaluating New Models for Environmental Discourse. Kluwer, Dordrecht and Boston, pp 35–86

    Google Scholar 

  • Webler Th, Renn 0 (1995) A Brief Primer on Participation: Philosophy and Practice. In: Renn O, Webler Th, Wiedemann P (eds) Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation. Evaluating New Models for Environmental Discourse. Kluwer, Dordrecht and Boston, pp 17–34

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Weingart P (1979) Das `Harrisburg-Syndrom’ oder die De-Professionalisierung der Experten, Preface to Nowotny H (ed) Kernenergie: Gefahr oder Notwendigkeit. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main, pp 9–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Weingart P (1983) Verwissenschaftlichung der Gesellschaft–Politisierung der Wissenschaft. Zeitschrift für Soziologie 12: 225–241

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinrich H (1972) System, Diskurs, Didaktik und die Diktatur des Sitzfleisches. Merkur 8: 801–812

    Google Scholar 

  • Willke H (1995) Systemtheorie I II. Steuerungstheorie. UTB Fischer, Stuttgart und Jena

    Google Scholar 

  • Wynne B (1989) Sheepfarming after Chernobyl. Environment 31: 11–15, 33–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Zilleßen H (1993) Die Modernisierung der Demokratie im Zeichen der Umweltpolitik. In: Zilleßen H, Dienel PC, Strubelt W (eds) Die Modernisierung der Demokratie. Westdeutscher Verlag: Opladen, pp 17–39

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Ortwin Renn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Europäische Akademie GmbH, Wilhelmstraße 56, 53474, Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler, Germany

    Michael Decker  & Friederike Wütscher  & 

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2001 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Renn, O. (2001). The Role of Scientific Input and Public Participation for Technology Assessment. In: Decker, M., Wütscher, F. (eds) Interdisciplinarity in Technology Assessment. Wissenschaftsethik und Technikfolgenbeurteilung, vol 11. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-04371-4_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-04371-4_9

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-07671-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-04371-4

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation