Miltos Ladikas

Towards a Framework for Assessing the Impact of Technology Assessment

Any discussion about the mission of TA and its relationship to policy making will soon enough touch upon the question of the effects that TA might or should have on decision making as well as on the content and path of political and social debate on technology issues. TA, as an endeavour that is meant to explore the possible impact of technology on society in order to support policy making, will naturally be asked to bear witness on its own impact as an indicator as whether or not it really fulfils its ascribed mission and tasks. Discussions on impact of TA, however, usually suffer from a lack of common understanding of TA’s objectives and of what can be expected as an impact of TA. Unsurprisingly, there is also very little available information on attempts to measure or evaluate the impact of TA in Europe. This reflects the past lack of coordinating action in discussing the goals of TA and the processes by which they can be attained. The knowledge vacuum in this area could influence the ability of TA as a discipline to communicate its roles and consequently, its value in society. It was the objective of the TAMI impact group to develop a structured discussion on the objectives, functions and effects of TA and prepare the ground for future attempts to evaluate TA procedures and their impact on related decision making processes. Being aware of the complex nature of the issue of impact evaluation, the group did not aim at developing a detailed scheme or a set of criteria for future evaluation procedures. Instead, TAMI aimed to provide a frame of reference on the relationship of objectives, methods and impacts of TA. The discussion among the group members — the outcome of which is presented in this paper — evolved around the question of which kind of impact can realistically be expected from TA as a particular branch of policy consulting taking into account its mission and methods, the nature of the issues it is dealing with and the characteristics of the field of policy making it is acting in. The result of this process of self-reflection among a group of TA experts from many European countries is mainly a matrix of TA impactsthat helps to clarify the role of TA in technology policy and the related impacts thatcan be expected.

Public Perceptions of Science and Technology in Europe, China and India

This chapter provides a brief comparative analysis of public perceptions of science and technology in Europe, China and India. Although the available data is limited, and not always directly comparable, it is nevertheless sufficient to provide an impression of several issues that will be discussed and compared in this chapter, such as interest in and basic knowledge of science and technology, the image of science and technology and scientists, tensions between science and faith, and the benefits versus the potential risks of science and technology. The overview will be based on surveys on these issues conducted in the three regions.

Science and Technology Governance and Ethics - A Global Perspective from Europe, India and China

Reading is a hobby to open the knowledge windows. Besides, it can provide the inspiration and spirit to face this life. By this way, concomitant with the technology development, many companies serve the e-book or book in soft file. The system of this book of course will be much easier. No worry to forget bringing the science and technology governance and ethics a global perspective from europe india and china book. You can open the device and get the book by on-line.

Too early for global ethics

“Globalisation is the Yeti of … newspapers. Everybody knows it, but nobody has ever seen it. What does it look like? Tall, monkeyish, hairy? Or rather weasel-like? With glasses? Like a ferret or a marten?” Globalization means different things to different people, a laudable development uniting humankind or an epidemic crushing the vulnerable peoples of the earth. Whether it is something we can control remains to be seen, but it is certainly upon us. The move to “go global” is such a strong force that hardly any human activity is exempt. We have global treaties, global media, global celebrities, global bookstores, and even a global antiglobalization movement! We thank the Centre for the Study of Global Ethics, University of Birmingham, UK, for inviting one of us (DS) to present this paper at their research seminar. The subsequent discussions were most helpful. Also, thanks to Dr. Armin Schmidt for comments on an earlier draft and to Tomi Kushner for inviting us to write this paper.

Implementing Responsible Research and Innovation in Research Funding and Research Conducting Organisations—What Have We Learned so Far?

Responsible research and innovation (RRI) has emerged in recent years, especially in Europe, as a science policy framework that (a) seeks to align technological innovation with broader social values and (b) supports institutional decisions concerning the goals and trajectories of research and innovation under conditions of uncertainty, ambiguity and ignorance. Rather than relying simply on consumer choice and market mechanisms on the one hand, or risk-based regulation on the other, RRI seeks to determine what constitute the goals, purposes and trajectories of (and alternatives to) technoscience and innovation, and thus the directions towards which these should be oriented, suggesting that these should be underpinned by shared public values. In addition to this overall philosophy of RRI, the European Commission has focused on five constituent policy keys (sometimes called pillars) of RRI that have their historical roots in the Science-in-Society programme; namely societal engagement, gender in research, open access, science education, and ethics. Action on these keys is seen as integral to an RRI approach and to Europe’s ability to respond to societal challenges. A further issue in the European context concerns how to ‘federate’ the RRI community in the EU and promote institutional changes to foster RRI in research institutions (a topic addressed at the European Commission RRI conference in Rome November 2014). This implies engaging stakeholders, research organisations, universities, funding agencies and public authorities in RRI. Some European research conducting and research funding organisations have begun to make formal policy commitments to RRI; others have developed RRI programmes and others still have embedded explicit RRI elements within broader programmes of emerging technologies and innovation. The European Commission’s ‘open to the world’ agenda implies involving non-European countries in the RRI discourse. However, beyond Europe, in emerging economies in the Global South (Brazil, India and China) and also in some advanced economies (Japan, Australia), there is little awareness of the concept of RRI, although some elements of the EC’s constituent keys have been taken up as thematic priorities by national research organisations. Considerable work needs to be done before RRI is recognised as a concept that offers traction in non-European contexts and research initiatives. There is a dearth of research that has assessed the challenges, efficacy and impact of the ongoing programmes on RRI, partly due to a lack of standardised methodologies that would be required to produce comparative results, and partly because these initiatives are themselves quite new. The project Responsible Research and Innovation in Practice (RRI-Practice), funded by the European Commission Horizon 2020 Science-with-and-for-Society programme (grant no 709 637), is an attempt to respond to this situation. The RRI-Practice project intends to advance European and global awareness of RRI, support its implementation in practice and provide a solid empirical knowledge base on RRI implementation. The main aim of RRI-Practice is to analyse RRI related discourses and pathways to implementation, including barriers and drivers, in a number of research conducting and research funding organisations worldwide, in order to identify, understand, disseminate and promote RRI implementation best practices that can be scaled up at European and global levels. The project started September 2016 and has so far concentrated on mapping the national RRI discourse in the 12 partner countries. As part of this work, national workshops have been held. This paper will present the analytic concept of the project and the results from the workshops, and will reflect on challenges identified in the work so far.

Responsible development of self-learning assisted living technology for older adults with mild cognitive impairment or dementia

In this paper we present work in progress in the Assisted Living Project – responsible innovations for dignified lives at home for people with mild cognitive impairment or dementia. The project has a distinctly interdisciplinary approach and engages experts in nursing and occupational therapy, in ethics and responsible research and innovation, and in technology, in particular automation and machine learning. Our approach is to involve the end-users, their family and their care providers and develop technology responsibly together with them. The technological approach employs self-learning systems to develop solutions that provide individualised support in accordance with the user’s values, choices, and preferences. The paper presents our approach, current findings and future plans.

New Food Technologies in Europe, India and China

The use of technology and innovation in developing long-term global food security, and ensuring sustainable and adequate food production, is contextualized by values and controversies associated with food technologies. The framing and context of these technologies may impact on consumer perceptions and acceptance. In some countries this can influence policy decisions. Analysis of the public discourses on the themes of innovation, risk, power and control, and their socio-economic and ethical implications, is applied to explain the utility of novel and emerging food technologies. Potential differences in stakeholder interests are taken into account in different economic and regulatory environments, contrasting Europe with the emerging economies of China and India. In the case of India, there is considerable public debate on finding a balance between various technological choices for food production, viz transgenic, traditional breeding and organic production. In China, the debate about technological innovation is driven largely by political and scientific elites with relatively little consumer debate. European agri-technological innovation is framed by ‘post-productivism’, which informs both implementation strategies and regulatory and governance issues. Economic values cannot be dismissed as irrelevant to the European innovation process, in particular in relation to investment and scientific endeavour.

Institutionalizing Ethical Debates in Science, Technology and Innovation Policy: A Comparison of Europe, India and China

Both in Europe and in the emerging economies of China and India, the core of science, technology and innovation policy is broadly similar: stimulating science and technology as important factors in developing innovative solutions to societal needs. In Europe we have witnessed a significant increase in ethical debates on science, technology and innovation, in the sense of both greater intensity and a wider plurality of voices. Central in these debates is the fear for negative consequences of science, technology and innovation. The European debate on genetic modification in agriculture is a well-documented example of the ‘ethicization’ of the public discourse on science, technology and innovation. Nowadays, developments in science, technology and innovation are global phenomena in which scientists and technology experts from different countries cooperate in international consortia. Innovative solutions are often transferred globally and adapted locally. Against this background, we compare the institutionalisation of ethics debates in Europe with China and India: to what extent is there a global ethics in science and technology, and how are ethical debates institutionalized in science, technology and innovation policies? We found that each region has a unique structure of ethics debates involving the institutionalization of three related tasks: ethical governance, ethical deliberation and ethical reflection.

Technology Assessment in Europe; between Method and Impact — The TAMI Project

Technology Assessment (TA) is usually described as problem oriented research. This is not however a proper portrayal of TA since many research endeavours can be described as problem oriented. When, for instance, a natural scientist designs an experiment in order to verify a theory or an engineer plans the construction of a bridge, this can also be described as problem oriented research. While these examples represent scientific or technical problems, TA has to deal also with social, political or environmental problems, which are embedded outside science and technology but derive from and refer to scientific issues. Moreover, TA does research on the potential consequences of these developments, the use and the disposal of new technical artefacts or on the development, use and output of new technical production systems. TA contributes to the decision but not necessarily to the technical realisation. In the example of planning the construction of a bridge, TA would deal with the basic question “is there a need for a bridge crossing to the river?” and consider this against the alternative options (e.g. ferry). If necessary, TA would delve into technical aspects (e.g. by comparing the pros and cons of a suspension, rotating or draw bridge). The argumentative ground for these decisions refers to consequences (health, social, economic, environmental, etc.) resulting from the different options.

A Comparative Framework for Studying Global Ethics in Science and Technology

In this chapter we present a framework for a comparative analysis of developments in the field of food technology, nanotechnology and synthetic biology in Europe, China and India. The focus of this framework is on science and technology discourses relating to innovation, risk, and power and control, and on ethics and public debate as reflective and crosscutting discourses. On the basis of these five discourses, developments in the different fields can be systematically described and compared across the three different regions. To illustrate our framework, we will discuss some major findings from the comparative case descriptions presented in the next three chapters of this book. In discussing these findings, we focus on the mediating role of the crosscutting discourses of reflective ethics and lay morality in science and technology policy-making in the three regions and highlight the main governance challenges arising in this context.