Post-normal crises and technology assessment




technology assessment, crises, science advice, science communication, public engagement


Reflections on the challenges for science in crises have become an integral part of public policy and technology assessment (TA). The urgency and uncertainty of the COVID-19 pandemic brought up the question of how scientific disciplines and individual scientists can provide appropriate advice to decision makers and the public while maintaining transparency and independence. Because of the speed with which solutions had to be found, the range of questions narrowed and some topics were given priority over others. In many countries, decisions were made without broader public participation and without involving the wide variety of stakeholders. In the light of the waning COVID-19 pandemic and the surging climate crisis, it is time to consider how TA, its organizations, and networks can reasonably position themselves to achieve their goals under these conditions. This introduction presents the Special topic of this TATuP issue, in which four research articles explore the role of TA in crises from different perspectives.


Allhutter, Doris et al. (2022): Sichere Stromversorgung und Blackout-Vorsorge in Österreich. Entwicklungen, Risiken und mögliche Schutzmaßnahmen. Wien: ITA. Available online at, last accessed on 16. 05. 2023.

Baldwin, Richard; Weder di Mauro, Beatrice (2020): Mitigating the COVID economic crisis. Act fast and do whatever it takes. London: CEPR Press. Available online at, last accessed on 16. 05. 2023.

Bauer, Anja; Kastenhofer, Karen (2019): Policy advice in technology assessment. Shifting roles, principles and boundaries. In: Technological Forecasting and Social Change 139, pp. 32–41. DOI:

Bogner, Alexander; Buntfuß, Paul; Fuchs, Daniela; Sinozic-Martinez, Tanja (in print): Wissenschaftliche Politikberatung in Krisenzeiten. Eine vergleichende Analyse ihrer Prozesse, Praktiken und Probleme mit Blick auf Österreich, Deutschland und Großbritannien. Wien: ITA.

Boin, Arjen; Lodge, Martin; Luesink, Marte (2020): Learning from the COVID-19 crisis. An initial analysis of national responses. In: Policy Design and Practice 3 (3), pp. 189–204. DOI:

Brem, Alexander; Viardot, Eric; Nylund, Petra (2021): Implications of the coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak for innovation. Which technologies will improve our lives? In: Technological Forecasting and Social Change 163, p. 120451. DOI:

Cairney, Paul (2020): The UK government’s COVID-19 policy. Assessing evidence-informed policy analysis in real time. In: British Politics 16, pp. 90–116. DOI:

Cairney, Paul; Wellstead, Adam (2021): COVID-19. Effective policymaking depends on trust in experts, politicians, and the public. In: Policy Design and Practice 4 (1), pp. 1–14. DOI:

Calvert, Jonathan; Arbuthnott, George (2021): Failures of state. The inside story of Britain’s battle with Coronavirus. New York: HarperCollins.

de Vries, Annick; van Waes, Arnoud; van Est, Rinie; van der Meulen, Barend; Brom, Frans (2015): Enabling participation. A vision on public participation in decision-making about long term radioactive waste management. The Hague: Rathenau Instituut. Available online at, last accessed on 16. 05. 2023.

Douglas, Margaret; Katikireddi, Srinivasa Vittal; Taulbut, Martin; McKee, Martin; McCartney, Gerry (2020): Mitigating the wider health effects of covid-19 pandemic response. In: BMJ 369, p. m1557. DOI:

Drury, John; Reicher, Stephen; Stott, Clifford (2020): COVID-19 in context. Why do people die in emergencies? It’s probably not because of collective psychology. In: British Journal of Social Psychology 59 (3), pp. 686–693. DOI:

Farrar, Jeremy; Ahuja, Anjana (2021): Spike. The virus vs. the people – the inside story. London: Profile Books.

Frischmann, Brett; Selinger, Evan (2018): Re-engineering humanity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI:

Funtowicz, Silvio; Ravetz, Jerome (1993): Science for the post-normal age. In: Futures 25 (7), pp. 739–755. DOI:

Greenhalgh, Trisha (2020): Will COVID-19 be evidence-based medicine’s nemesis? In: PLoS Med 17 (6), p. e1003266. DOI:

Grunwald, Armin (2016): Nachhaltigkeit verstehen. Arbeiten an der Bedeutung nachhaltiger Entwicklung. München: oekom verlag.

Grunwald, Armin (2017): Technology assessment and policy advice in the field of sustainable development. In: Lech Zacher (ed.): Technology, society and sustainability. Cham: Springer, pp. 203–221. DOI:

Grunwald, Armin (2018): Diverging pathways to overcoming the environmental crisis. A critique of eco-modernism from a technology assessment perspective. In: Journal of Cleaner Production 197 (2), pp. 1854–1862. DOI:

Hahn, Julia et al. (2020): Technology assessment for a changing world. In: TATuP – Journal for Technology Assessment in Theory and Practice 29 (3), pp. 74–75.

Hilgartner, Stephen (2000): Science on stage. Expert advice as public drama. Stanford: Stanford University Press. DOI:

Hilgartner, Stephen; Hurlbut, Benjamin; Jasanoff, Sheila (2021): Was “science” on the ballot? Labelling dissent as “anti-science” is bad social science and bad politics. In: Science 371 (6532), pp. 893–894. DOI:

Jasanoff, Sheila (1990): The fifth branch. Science advisers as policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Jasanoff, Sheila (1997): Civilization and madness. The great BSE scare of 1996. In: Public Understanding of Science 6 (3), pp. 221–232. DOI:

Jasanoff, Sheila; Hilgartner, Stephen; Hurlbut, Benjamin; Özgöde, Onur; Rayzberg, Margarita (2021): Comparative Covid response. Crisis, knowledge, politics. Interim report. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Kennedy School. Available online at, last accessed on 16. 05. 2023.

Kontoangelos, Konstantinos; Economou, Marina; Papageorgiou, Charalambos (2020): Mental health effects of COVID-19 Pandemia. A Review of clinical and psychological traits. In: Psychiatry Investigation 17 (6), pp. 491–505. DOI:

Krastev, Ivan (2020): Is it tomorrow, yet? Paradoxes of the pandemic. London: Penguin Books.

McKee, Martin et al. (2022): Open science communication. The first year of the UK’s independent scientific advisory group for emergencies. In: Health Policy 126 (3), pp. 234–244. DOI:

Mena, Carlos; Karatzas, Antonios; Hansen, Carsten (2022): International trade resilience and the Covid-19 pandemic. In: Journal of Business Research 138, pp. 77–91. DOI:

Morgan, Marcus (2020): Why meaning-making matters. The case of the UK Government’s COVID-19 response. In: American Journal of Cultural Sociology 8, pp. 270–323. DOI:

Ornetzeder, Michael; Rohracher, Harald (2013): Of solar collectors, wind power, and car sharing. Comparing and understanding successful cases of grassroots innovations. In Global Environmental Change 23 (5), pp. 856–867. DOI:

Ornetzeder, Michael; Wicher, Magdalena; Suschek-Berger, Jürgen (2016): User satisfaction and well-being in energy efficient office buildings. Evidence from cutting-edge projects in Austria. In: Energy and Buildings 118, pp. 18–26. DOI:

Ornetzeder, Michael et al. (2018): Determining factors for integrated smart grid solutions. Deliverable 3.1. Alborg: Alborg University. Available online at, last accessed on 16. 05. 2023.

Pielke Jr., Roger (2007): The honest broker. Making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI:

Plohl, Nejc; Musil, Bojan (2021): Modelling compliance with COVID-19 prevention guidelines. The critical role of trust in science. In: Psychology, Health and Medicine 26 (1), pp. 1–12. DOI:

Rutter, Harry; Wolpert, Miranda; Greenhalgh, Trisha (2020): Managing uncertainty in the covid-19 era. In: BMJ 370, p. m3349. DOI:

Sampat, Bhaven; Shadlen, Kenneth (2021): The COVID-19 innovation system. In: Health Affairs 40 (3), pp. 400–409. DOI:

Sasse, Tom; Haddon, Catherine; Nice, Alex (2020): Science advice in a crisis. London: Institute for Government. Available online at, last accessed on 16. 05. 2023.

Scally, Gabriel; Jacobson, Bobbie; Abbasi, Kamran (2020): The UK’s public health response to covid-19. In: BMJ 369, p. m1932. DOI:

Smallman, Melanie (2020): ’Independent Sage’ group is an oxymoron. In: Research Professional News, Political science blog, 05. 05. 2020. Available online at, last accessed on 16. 05. 2023

Smits, Ruud; van Merkerk, Rutger; Guston, David; Sarewitz, Daniel (2010): The role of technology assessment in systemic innovation policy. In: Ruud Smits, Stefan Kuhlmann and Phillip Shapira (eds.): The theory and practice of innovation policy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. DOI:

Sotoudeh, Mahshid (2005): Links between sustainability and technology development. In: IEEE Technology and Society Magazine 24 (1), pp. 9–14. DOI:

Spinney, Laura (2017) Pale rider. The Spanish Flu of 1918 and how it changed the world. New York, NY: PublicAffairs.

Strauss, Stefan (2019): Privacy and identity in a networked society. Refining privacy impact assessment. London: Routledge. DOI:

TAB – Büro für Technikfolgen-Abschätzung beim Deutschen Bundestag (2022): Energy consumption of ICT infrastructure. Berlin: TAB.

Tan, Chianru et al. (2021): Applications of digital PCR in COVID-19 pandemic. In: VIEW 2 (2), p. 20200082. DOI:

Truffer, Bernhard; Schippl, Jens; Fleischer, Torsten (2017): Decentering technology in technology assessment. Prospects for socio-technical transitions in electric mobility in Germany. In: Technological Forecasting and Social Change 122, pp. 34–48. DOI:

van den Broek-Honingh, Nelleke; Glas, Iris; Vennekens, Alexandra (2021): Trust in science in the Netherlands (2021 survey). The Hague: Rathenau Instituut. Available online at, last accessed on 16. 05. 2023.

Weber, Max (1919): Politik als Beruf. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

Wu, Jun; Wang, Jian; Nicholas, Stephen; Maitland, Elizabeth; Fan, Qiuyan (2020): Application of big data technology for COVID-19 prevention and control in China. Lessons and recommendations. In: Journal of Medical Internet Research 22 (10), p. e21980. DOI:




How to Cite

Sinozic-Martinez T, Weinberger N, Hahn J. Post-normal crises and technology assessment. TATuP [Internet]. 2023 Jul. 6 [cited 2024 Jul. 20];32(2):11-6. Available from:

Most read articles by the same author(s)

1 2 > >>