Parliamentary technology assessment institutions as indications of reflexive modernization

Delvenne, Pierre; Fallon, Cathérine; Brunet, Sébastien

doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2011.03.004

Cited by 31 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Progressively, and largely unconsciously, welfare state societies have drifted away their central focus on the positive acquisition of 'goods' towards a negative logic bound up with the avoidance of 'bads' (Mythen 2007, 798). To counterbalance the side effects of industrial and technological progress, following Hennen (1999), I have argued elsewhere (Delvenne 2011;Delvenne, Fallon, and Brunet 2011) that TA emerged as a practicable institutional response to real-world challenges that are hard to control, such as socio-technical uncertainties, controversies and public ambivalence about technology developments. These developments played out in the context of 'reflexive modernization' (Beck 1992;Beck, Giddens, and Lash 1994;Beck and Grande 2010) in which modern societies and institutions are thrown back on themselves.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Responsible research and innovation as a travesty of technology assessment?

Delvenne

2017

Journal of Responsible Innovation

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The relation between technology assessment (TA) and responsible research and innovation (RRI) is a very topical (and controversial) issue, as TA is clearly enveloped in AQ2 ¶ broader science, technology and innovation (STI) processes, such as the EU-wide shift towards RRI. In this short response to van Lente et al AQ3 ¶.'s essay, I first stress that this contribution has several merits; for example, it points to pervasive challenges for TA communities, such as the issue of including normative concerns when assessing innovations, it opens these challenges to debate, without shying away from engaging TA communities. However, I disagree with the authors' claim that RRI would be 'a next step of TA' or even a 'form of TA'. In my essay, I explain why I believe RRI is different from TA and why, rather than a critique of TA, RRI could instead lead to a travesty of TA, threatening the vitality and the uniqueness of TA institutions in the long-term. Under the spell of RRI, TA risks being reduced to a role of mere provider of ex-ante impact assessments. I conclude that following the money attached to RRI has a price that TA institutions should carefully, critically and reflexively consider before they pay. In the early nineteenth century, the English author Mary Shelley published a novel entitled 'Frankenstein; or, the Modern Prometheus' that tells the story of Victor Frankenstein, a young scientist who creates a grotesque but intelligent monster in a scientific experiment. Two centuries later, both the nature and the space of experiments have changed drastically. While experiments are still generally thought of as actions or operations undertaken to test a scientific hypothesis in settings detached from the rest of society (e.g. in scientific laboratories), I suggest situating responsible research and innovation (RRI) in a more macro-sociological understanding of 'experiment', one that implies a process of societal self-experimentation (Gross and Krohn 2005), and with social scientists and technology assessment (TA) practitioners partaking in the experiment as observing participants. 1 RRI's origins are often attributed to René Von Schomberg, 2 a Dutch philosopher with a background in science and technology studies (STS) and TA. Rather than in a scientific lab, it is from within the European Commission that Von Schomberg imagined the world of RRI (2011aRRI ( , 2011b. Like a modern Victor Frankenstein, the inventor now has to follow his conceptual creature and to face its intended and unintended consequences, ' (Van Oudheusden 2014, 2). It is also a label 'that may intuitively feel right, but which exhibits a lack of clarity in terms of definition, practice and, at a policy level, motivation ' (Owen, Macnaghten, and Stilgoe 2012, 752). In spite of its indistinctness, RRI's 'impressive' 'career through the realms of national and European policy' (Van Lente, Swierstra, and Joly 2017) and in academia deserves due attention, especially when it meets older traditions, philosophies and practices purportedly in line wi...

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Responsible research and innovation as a travesty of technology assessment?

Delvenne

2017

Journal of Responsible Innovation

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Meyer (1999), for example, argues that (P) TA has broadened from an expert-based, parliament-oriented concept in the USA to concepts in Europe that have opened up to industry, other stakeholders and the public at large. Delvenne, Fallon, and Brunet (2011) suggest that (P)TA is evolving on an 'overall reflexivity pathway', 'on which some (P)TAs have moved farther than others'. On this pathway, (P)TA has moved away from a mainly analytical activity that is 'aimed at providing decision-makers with an objective analysis of the effects of technology on political agenda, decision-making processes and society as a whole', and has opened up more to plurality and uncertainty, thereby 'acknowledging and responding to the limitations of modern traditions'.…”

Section: A Short History Of Classifying Parliamentary Tamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The research is carried out by scientists. The STOA panel works with procurement procedures that are embedded in a framework contract, for which scientific consortia, experienced with TA, can apply on a project-to-project basis (Delvenne, Fallon, and Brunet 2011). The relatively significant involvement of the European Parliament is related to the fact that STOA projects are procedurally embedded in the parliamentary administration, the project's 'sponsorship' of individual MPs and project workshops that involve the STOA members and the external project team.…”

Section: Model 1 Mainly Parliamentary Involvement In Tamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Embracing variety: introducing the inclusive modelling of (Parliamentary) technology assessment

Ganzevles

Est²,

Nentwich

2014

Journal of Responsible Innovation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article introduces an inclusive way of modelling (Parliamentary) Technology Assessment, (P)TA as developed in the European PACITA project. It incorporates interdependencies between and diversity among existing and potential (P)TA practices in a more inclusive and fine-grained way than existing literature does. We model (P)TA as a mediating function between the spheres of parliament, government, science and technology, and society. We suggest that this mediation takes place through a set of interaction mechanisms that include institutional, organizational and project dimensions. In this way, we distinguish among 15 potential interaction models for (P)TA. Our more inclusive way of modelling may be used to map and discuss fruitful evolutionary pathways for (P)TA in countries and regions where (P)TA already exists or where the ambassadorship for (P)TA is about to take off. In the conclusion, we reflect on the relevance of our modelling for the discourse on and practice of responsible innovation.

show abstract

“…Governments are challenged to scientifically assess societal, ethical, legal and economic aspects of technology. However, Delvenne et al (2011) argues uncertainty is no longer contained within modern structures of policy making. Specifically, they argue the current challenge for policy makers is to accommodate the uncertainty and dynamics of patterns to offer the decision-making process "a contextdetermined and temporally limited orientation for action that makes learning through experience possible" [7:p. 18].…”

Section: Ict Policy Makingmentioning

confidence: 99%