Skip to main content

Technology Assessment for Responsible Innovation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Responsible Innovation 1

Abstract

The ideas of ‘responsible development’ in the scientific-technological advance and of ‘responsible innovation’ in the field of new products, services and systems have been discussed for some years now with increasing intensity. Some crucial ideas of Technology Assessment (TA) are an essential part of these debates which leads to the thesis is that TA is one of the main roots of Responsible Innovation. This can be seen best in the effort which has recently been spent to early and upstream engagement at the occasion of new and emerging science and technology. However, Responsible innovation adds explicit ethical reflection to TA and merges both into approaches to shaping technology and innovation: Indeed, the field of the ethics of responsibility and its many applications to the scientific and technological advance is the second major root of Responsible Innovation. Responsible Innovation brings together TA with its experiences on assessment procedures, actor involvement, foresighting and evaluation with engineering ethics, in particular under the framework of responsibility. The chapter describes both, TA and engineering ethics, as origins of ‘Responsible Innovation’.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
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

Notes

  1. 1.

    An expression of this shift was the strong role of the Societal Panel in the application phase of the MVI programme ‘Responsible Innovation’.

  2. 2.

    This is reflected by the foreseen role of the Valorisation Panels in projects the MVI programme “Responsible Innovation”.

References

  • Aichholzer, G., A. Bora, S. Bröchler, M. Decker, and M. Latzer (eds.). 2010. Technology governance. Der Beitrag der Technikfolgenabschätzung. Berlin: Edition Sigma.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bijker, W.E., and J. Law (eds.). 1994. Shaping technology and building society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bijker, W.E., T.P. Hughes, and T.J. Pinch (eds.). 1987. The social construction of technological systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collingridge, D. 1980. The social control of technology. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cruz-Castro, L., and L. Sanz-Menendez. 2004. Politics and institutions: European parliamentary technology assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 27: 79–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Decker, M., and M. Ladikas (eds.). 2004. Bridges between science, society and policy. Technology assessment – Methods and impacts. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durbin, P., and H. Lenk (eds.). 1987. Technology and responsibility. Boston: Reidel Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Funtowitz, S., and J. Ravetz. 1993. The emergence of post-normal science. In Science, politics and morality, ed. R. von Schomberg, 173–188. London.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grunwald, A. 1999. Verantwortungsbegriff und Verantwortungsethik. In Rationale Technikfolgenbeurteilung, ed. A. Grunwald, 172–195. Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Grunwald, A. 2000. Against over-estimating the role of ethics in technology. Science and Engineering Ethics 6: 181–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grunwald, A. 2007. Converging technologies: Visions, increased contingencies of the conditio Humana, and search for orientation. Futures 39: 380–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grunwald, A. 2009. Technology assessment: Concepts and methods. In Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences, vol. 9, ed. A. Meijers, 1103–1146. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Grunwald, A. 2012. Responsible nanobiotechnology. Ethics and philosophy. Singapore: Pan Stanford Pub.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Guston, D.H., and D. Sarewitz. 2002. Real-time technology assessment. Technology in Culture 24: 93–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. 1970. Toward a rational society. Beacon Press. First publication: Habermas, J. (ed.). 1968. Technik und Wissenschaft als Ideologie. Frankfurt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. 1973. Wahrheitstheorien. In Wirklichkeit und Reflexion, ed. H. Fahrenbach, 211–265. Pfullingen: Neske.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Harremoes, P., D. Gee, M. MacGarvin, 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonas, H. 1979. Das Prinzip Verantwortung. Versuch einer Ethik für die technologische Zivilisation. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joss, S., and S. Belucci (eds.). 2002. Participatory technology assessment – European perspectives. London: Westminster University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenk, H. 1992. Zwischen Wissenschaft und Ethik. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. 2006. A matter of size: Triennial review of the national nanotechnology initiative. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rip, A., T. Misa, and J. Schot (eds.). 1995. Managing technology in society. London: Pinter Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roco, M.C., and W.S. Bainbridge (eds.). 2001. Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology. Boston: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selin, C. 2007. Expectations and the emergence of nanotechnology. Science, Technology and Human Values 32(2): 196–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • VDI – Verein Deutscher Ingenieure 1991. Richtlinie 3780 Technikbewertung, Be-griffe und Grundlagen. Düsseldorf. Available also in English at: www.vdi.de.

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Schomberg, R. (ed.). 1999. Democratizing technology. Theory and practice of a deliberative technology policy. Hengelo: ICHPA.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voss, J.-P., D. Bauknecht, and R. Kemp (eds.). 2006. Reflexive governance for sustainable development. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Armin Grunwald .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Grunwald, A. (2014). Technology Assessment for Responsible Innovation. In: van den Hoven, J., Doorn, N., Swierstra, T., Koops, BJ., Romijn, H. (eds) Responsible Innovation 1. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8956-1_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics