Making the invisible visible: Normativities in and of technology assessment

Federica Lucivero; Pierre Delvenne; Michiel van Oudheusden

doi:10.14512/tatup.28.1.21

Authors

Federica Lucivero Ethox Centre and Wellcome Centre for Ethics and Humanities, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Old Road campus, Oxford (GB) http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1308-5846 federica.lucivero@ethox.ox.ac.uk
Pierre Delvenne University of Liège, SPIRAL Research Centre (BE) pierre.delvenne@uliege.be
Michiel van Oudheusden Belgian Nuclear Research Centre (BE) http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3748-0469 mvoudheu@sckcen.be

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.14512/tatup.28.1.21

Keywords:

deliberation, ethics, normativity, pragmatism, technology assessment

Abstract

Technology assessment (TA) is an analytic and interactive practice that produces evaluative judgments about the societal implications of technology. Despite this distinct evaluative disposition, “normativities” inherent in TA programs and practices often remain hidden. Therefore, TA practice and outcomes often overlook a range of methodological, ethical, and political issues. In an attempt to remedy this shortcoming, this article explores how TA aims to improve political decision making in science and technology (meta-normativity) and is imbued with the values, norms, and moral positions of both participants and TA practitioners (in-normativity). It provides recommendations to render these normativities in TA more visible, and thereby amenable to reconsideration and change.

References

Abels, Gabriele (2007): Citizen involvement in public policy-making. Does it improve democratic legitimacy and accountability? The case of pTA. In: Interdisciplinary Information Sciences 13 (1), pp. 103–116. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4036/iis.2007.103

Beekman, Volkert et al. (2006): Ethical bio-technology assessment tools for agriculture and food production. Final Report Ethical Bio-TA Tools. Available online at https://estframe.net/ethical_bio_ta_tools_project/content_2/text_2c81d261-b7a8-43e8-8f1e-d724b43e2ba3/1346076907647/et1_final_report_binnenwerk_59p.pdf, last accessed on 18. 02. 2019.

Blok, Aders (2007): Experts on public trial. On democratizing expertise through a Danish consensus conference. In: Public Understanding of Science 16 (2), pp. 163–182. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662507062469

Brey, Philip (2012): Anticipatory ethics for emerging technologies. In: NanoEthics 6, pp. 1–13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-012-0141-7

Bruun Jensen, Casper (2005): Citizen projects and consensus-building at the Danish Board of Technology. On experiments in democracy. In: Acta Sociologica 48 (3), pp. 221–235. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0001699305056564

Cruz-Castro, Laura; Sanz-Menendez, Luis (2005): Politics and institutions. European parliamentary technology assessment. In: Technological Forecasting and Social Change 72 (4), pp. 429–448. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2004.01.007

Decker, Michael; Ladikas, Miltos (eds.) (2004): Bridges between science, society and policy. Berlin: Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-06171-8

Delvenne, Pierre; Parotte, Celine (2019): Breaking the myth of neutrality. Technology assessment has politics, technology assessment as politics. In: Technological Forecasting and Social Change 139, pp. 64–72. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.06.026

Delvenne, Pierre; Fallon, Catherine; Brunet, Sebastien (2011): Parliamentary technology assessment institutions as indications of reflexive modernization. In: Technology in Society 33 (1–2), pp. 36–43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2011.03.004

Fiorino, Daniel (1990): Citizen participation and environmental risk. A survey of institutional mechanisms. In: Science, Technology, & Human Values 15 (2), pp. 226–243. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/016224399001500204

Grunwald, Armin (1999): Technology assessment or ethics of technology? Reflections on technology development between social sciences and philosophy. In: Ethical Perspectives 6 (2), pp 170–182. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2143/EP.6.2.505355

Grunwald, Armin (2004): The normative basis of (health) technology assessment and the role of ethical expertise. In: Poiesis & Praxis 2 (2–3), pp. 175–193. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10202-003-0050-5

Grunwald, Armin (2006): Scientific independence as a constitutive part of parliamentary technology assessment. In: Science and Public Policy 33 (2), pp. 103–113. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3152/147154306781779073

Hennen, Leonhard (1999): Participatory technology assessment. A response to technical modernity? In: Science and Public Policy 26 (5), pp. 303–312. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3152/147154399781782310

Kiran, Asle; Oudshoorn, Nelly; Verbeek, Pieter-Paul (2015): Beyond checklists. Toward an ethical-constructive technology assessment. In: Journal of Responsible Innovation 2 (1), pp. 5–19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2014.992769

Klüver, Lars et al. (2000): EUROpTA. European participatory technology assessment. Participatory methods in technology assessment and technology decision-making. Copenhagen: Danish Board of Technology. Available online at http://www.tekno.dk/pdf/projekter/europta_Report.pdf, last accessed on 18. 02. 2019.

Klüver, Lars; Nielsen, Rasmus; Jorgensen, Marie-Louise (eds.) (2016): Policy-oriented technology assessment across Europe. Expanding capacities. London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-56172-5

Lucivero, Federica; Swierstra, Tsjalling; Boenink, Marianne (2011): Assessing expectations. Towards a toolbox for an ethics of emerging technologies. In: NanoEthics 5 (2), pp. 129–141. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-011-0119-x

Lucivero, Federica (2016): Ethical assessments of emerging technologies. Appraising the moral plausibility of technological visions. Cham: Springer.

Palm, Elin; Hansson, Sven Owen (2006): The case for ethical technology assessment (eTA). In: Technological Forecasting and Social Change 73 (5), pp. 543–558. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2005.06.002

Petermann, Thomas (2000): Technology assessment units in the European parliamentary systems. In: Norman Vig and Herbert Paschen (eds.): Parliaments and technology. New York: State University Press, pp. 37–65.

Pellizzoni, Luigi (2003): Knowledge, uncertainty and the transformation of the public sphere. In: European Journal of Social Theory 52 (1), pp. 327–355. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/13684310030063004

Powell, Maria; Colin, Mathilde (2008): Meaningful citizen engagement in science and technology. What would it really take? In: Science Communication 30 (1), pp. 126–136. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547008320520

Rip, Arie (2015): Technology assessment. In: International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 125–128. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.85036-9

Robinson, Douglas (2010): Constructive technology assessment of emerging nanotechnologies experiments in interactions. Enschede: University of Twente.

Schot, Johan; Rip, Arie (1997): The past and future of constructive technology assessment. In: Technological Forecasting and Social Change 54 (2–3), pp. 251–268. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0040-1625(96)00180-1

Schot, Johan (2003): The contested rise of a modernist technology politics. In: Thomas Misa, Philip Brey and Andrew Feenberg (eds.): Modernity and technology. Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 257–278.

Sclove, Richard (2010): Reinventing technology assessment. A 21st century model. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Available online at https://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/ReinventingTechnologyAssessment1.pdf, last accessed on 18. 02. 2019.

Smits, Ruud; Leyten, Jos; Hertog, Pim (1995): Technology assessment and technology policy in Europe. New concepts, new goals, new infrastructures. In: Policy Sciences 28 (3), pp. 271–299. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01000290

Swierstra, Tsjalling; Molder, Hedwig (2012): Risk and soft impacts. In: Sabine Roeser, Rafaela Hillerbrand, Per Sandin and Martin Peterson (eds.): Handbook of Risk Theory. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 1049–1066. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1433-5_42

Torgersen, Helge (2019): Three myths of neutrality in TA. How different forms of TA imply different understandings of neutrality. In: Technological Forecasting and Social Change 139, pp. 57–63. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.06.025

van Eijndhoven, Josee (1997): Technology assessment. Product or process? In: Technological Forecasting and Social Change 54 (2–3), pp. 269–286. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0040-1625(96)00210-7

van Est, Rinie; Brom, Frans (2012): Technology assessment. Analytic and democratic practice. In: Ruth Chadwick (ed.): Encyclopedia of applied ethics. San Diego: Academic Press, pp. 306–320. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-373932-2.00010-7

van Est, Rinie (2019): Thinking parliamentary technology assessment politically. Exploring the link between democratic policy-making and parliamentary TA. In: Technological Forecasting and Social Change 139, pp. 48–56. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.07.003

van Lente, Harro; Swiestra, Tsjalling; Joly, Pierre (2015): Mobilizing technology assessment for responsible innovation. Philosophies, ethics and stakeholders. 2nd European Technology Assessment Conference. Berlin, Germany, 25.–27. 02. 2015.

van Oudheusden, Michiel; Charlier, Nathan; Rosskamp, Benedikt; Delvenne, Pierre (2015): Broadening, deepening, and governing innovation. Flemish technology assessment in historical and socio-political perspective. In: Research Policy 44 (10), pp. 1877–1886. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.06.010