Review of the International Literature


Public assessments of the societal implications of emerging technologies



Download 102.05 Kb.
Page2/3
Date29.07.2017
Size102.05 Kb.
#24148
TypeReview
1   2   3

3. Public assessments of the societal implications of emerging technologies

3a. Quantitative research


After a series of very public, and high profile, scientific controversies over agricultural biotechnologies in Europe in the 1990s (see Horlick-Jones et al 2007), there was increased interest in understanding public opinion on new and emerging technologies. Much of this took the form of quantitative survey research. Such research sought to reach demographically representative samples in order to chart a number of aspects of public opinion: knowledge of such technologies (for instance, do laypeople understand the concept of the nanoscale? Waldron et al 2006); opinions towards them (how positively they view particular technologies, for example; Bainbridge 2002); and the factors that structure or influence the formation of such opinions (for instance, the impact of religiosity; Brossard et al 2009). Many studies in the second and third categories incorporate attention to the ways in which publics assess the societal implications of emerging technologies.

This body of literature is now a substantial one, often drawing on the secondary analysis of large (sometimes transnational) datasets such as the Eurobarometer Survey (see Gaskell et al 2005) or US telephone surveys on nanotechnology (Scheufele et al 2007). This section focuses on the results of meta-analyses or reviews of this work (with a fuller bibliography given in the Appendix).1 Perceptions of risks and benefits have been a central theme in survey research. Satterfield et al, in a 2009 synthesis, found 22 risk perception surveys relating to nanotechnology, and were able to perform a meta-analysis of results from these. They found, as expected, that public knowledge was low: internationally, over 50% of respondants reported knowing ‘nothing at all’ about nanotechnology. They also found no clear trend of increasing knowledge over time. As in earlier surveys, however, they also found that in most studies lay respondants saw benefits as outweighing risks – though this was alongside 44% of respondants across the pooled surveys reporting not being sure whether this would be the case. The authors use these findings to argue that, currently, public opinion of nanotechnology is likely to be highly malleable. Publics have ‘suspended judgement’ on the technology; currently, it seems that trust (in, for example, regulatory authorities) often acts as a heuristic for assessments of benefits and risks.

Besley, in a broader review of public perceptions of nanotechnology (2010), similarly emphasises that trust has emerged as a key dynamic in public opinion formation. He focuses on what is often called the ‘familiarity hypothesis’ – the notion that low awareness correlates to high risk perception, and vice versa. While it is often anticipated that increased knowledge will lead to more positive perceptions of science, there is little evidence for this: though basic science literacy seems to slightly increase perceptions of nanotechnology, non-awareness variables (such as trust and overall worldview) seem to be more significant in shaping risk-benefit perceptions. Thus a high degree of trust in scientists, government regulators, and business leaders are all good predictors of positive views on nanotechnology. Religiosity similarly seems to be an important part of the backdrop of opinion formation, with strength of religious belief correlating with lack of support for nanotechnology funding (Brossard et al 2009).

Besley also notes that there are some demographic correlations to perceptions of nanotechnology, with men, older respondants, and those with higher relative levels of education and income all seeming to be more positive towards the technology. In contrast Siegrist (2010), in another review of public perception studies, emphasises instead that techological application area is an important factor in structuring public opinion – thus applications of nanotechnology in food and health are seen as more risky than those in, for example, construction or energy. ‘Tangible benefits’, where clear, near-term advantages to laypeople are apparent in a technology’s development, also appear to be important for positive assessments. And rather more abstractly, recent work has looked at the effects of affect and values. Kahan et al (2009) argue that where there are strong emotions towards science, additional knowledge about nanotechnology may only act to further polarise these.


3b. Qualitative research


Survey research therefore provides a good sense of the degree of familiarity of particular populations (especially well-studied North Americans and Europeans) with emerging technologies, the informal risk-benefit calculations they tend to make, and the kinds of factors (such as trust in governance) that appear to influence their assessments of it. However, there are a number of limitations to such research, including that surveys have tended to utilise a framing in which risk is the assumed key point of interest for publics with regard to new technologies (Macnaghten and Urry 1998). Qualitative research is able to circumvent at least some of these limitations in order to present a richer sense of the ways in which publics approach and assess technologies. Again, this section focuses on a number of key reviews of such research as representative of a wider literature. A 2007 report by the UK’s Nanotechnology Engagement Group (NEG) summarises the findings of key UK research on public engagement on nanotechnology up until that point. The NEG report synthesises these findings in the form of recommendations for science policy and for public engagement, suggesting that there are three key areas consistently raised by lay publics deliberating nanotechnology. First, public attitudes are formed not only in relation to the nature of particular technologies, but also to the policies and values that shape the direction of their development. Public participants were thus not only concerned with the potential benefits and risks of nanotechnologies, but also with broader questions concerning whom such benefits and risks are most likely to affect and how research priorities are set. Second, public attitudes to risk, uncertainty, and regulation were found to be interconnected with the perceived ability of regulation and regulatory authorities to manage complex risks. Publics certainly expressed concerns about risk, but these related more to the possibility of governance in the face of uncertainty, the current lack of appropriate regulation, and the ways in which benefits and risks will be distributed, both nationally and globally, than to the danger of physical hazard posed by certain forms of nanotechnology. Third, there was a consistent demand for more open discussion and public involvement in policymaking relating to the management of nanotechnology. There were thus requests for greater access to information, increased openess and transparency on the part of government and science, and for opportunities for publics to be involved in the management of nanotechnology policy through further public engagement.

Though the NEG report focuses on the UK context, these are issues that repeatedly surface within research on emerging technologies internationally (Burri and Belluci 2008; Dijkstra and Guteling 2012; Hamlett et al 2009; Pidgeon et al 2009: Priest et al 2011). In particular, a number of studies have charted a strong sense of ambivalence towards emerging technologies: participants in research, once introduced to nanotechnology and its probable applications, are often rather pragmatic regarding it (Burri and Belluci 2008). Certainly they can see potential benefits (again, medical technologies are a particular area of enthusiasm; Opinion Leader 2007), but they can also see pitfalls and risks and thereby may choose to withhold judgement until it becomes clearer how the technology is to be regulated and made accessible to all (Kearnes and Wynne 2007). For this reason public responses have been characterised as viewing (nano)technology as a double-edged sword (Kearnes et al 2007).



In addition to charting the content of public responses, more recent research has sought to understand the ways in which national or cultural imaginations structure the dynamics of public perceptions of technology. This has been framed as attention to the kinds of cultural narratives that are mobilised in the context of unfamiliar technological developments. Davies and Macnaghten (2010), for instance, analysed UK focus group discussion of nanotechnology to look at the content and expression of public responses. The content of public concerns that they describe is familiar from other studies, and includes anxieties around disruption of natural orders, the way in which the technology is to be controlled, and the unhealthy degree to which it seems to be focused on consumer products rather than ‘social needs’ (Davies et al 2009). However, they also argue that these concerns are articulated through a set of five narratives drawn from the surrounding culture. These themes, which they summarise as ‘the rich get richer and the poor get poorer’, ‘kept in the dark’, ‘opening Pandora’s box’, ‘messing with nature’, and ‘be careful what you wish for’, act as resources which laypeople can use to develop positions on unfamiliar technologies such as nano. The specific, cultural groundedness of such narrative resources is supported not only by reflection on their history and mythic character (Dupuy 2010) but also by the presence of somewhat different narratives in South America (Macnaghten and Guivant 2011). Such national differences can be related to what Jasanoff has described as civic epistemologies: characteristic forms of public knowledge regarding, for instance, the nature of the policy process or of what constitutes ‘sound science’ (Jasanoff 2005; Miller 2008). Understanding different civic epistemologies will therefore help to understand the different assumptions that both lay publics and policy makers are likely to deploy as they negotiate the nature and correct management of emerging technologies.

4. Public participation in the governance of emerging technologies


Interest in public participation in science and technology has increased in recent years, emerging from a highly localised activity in the 1980s to become an international phenomenon (Mejlgaard and Bloch 2012; Shirk et al 2012). Over this period substantive content areas deliberated have tended to track areas of science and technology currently viewed as politically or publically live. Thus early participatory processes explored agricultural biotechnologies and genetic modification, before nanotechnology became ‘the next GM’ (Randles 2008) and a focus for deliberation. Most recently, synthetic biology, climate change and geoengineering have been key topic areas for participatory processes. Formats for participation have varied widely: the consensus conference – a highly structured deliberative process, in which a representative lay panel is able to explore a particular question by interrogating expert witnesses, before producing a set of consensus-based recommendations – is often viewed as paradigmatic, but less structured activities, such as workshops, focus groups or online consultations, have also been used (Andersen and Jaeger 1999; Rowe and Frewer 2005). Similarly, what ‘participation’ means has been interpreted flexibly. A few processes have claimed to feed their results directly into scientific or political decision making in some way, but this has often invited controversy (for instance in the case of the UK’s large-scale consultation process GMNation?, which was criticised as inviting participation without actually providing any opportunity for effective political impact; Mayer 2003). ‘Participation’ and ‘engagement’ have in practice tended to mean that laypeople are given the opportunity to reflect on the implications of a particular technological area and asked to develop recommendations on its development and governance. These recommendations are then circulated and may, to a greater or lesser extent, be taken into account in decision making on science (Hagendijk and Irwin 2006).

This section lists some of the key deliberative processes that have taken place on new and emerging science and technology around the world, before discussing the results that have emerged from them.


Biotechnologies and GM


National Consensus Conference on Plant Biotechnology, 1994, UK. The first UK consensus conference, in which a lay panel spent three days (plus two preparatory weekends) evaluating and making recommendations on the then-emergent field of plant biotechnologies (Joss and Durant 1995).

GM Nation?, 2002-3, UK. A large scale public debate incorporating early citizen framing of the process, an ‘open engagement’ phase (including discussion meetings, a website, and opportunities for feedback), and a set of representative focus groups (Horlick-Jones et al 2006; 2007).

Two Public Consultations on GM Field Trials, 2007, Finland. These consultations, organised by the Board for Gene Technology, allowed individuals or groups to submit written comments to the Board (Attensuu and Siipi 2009).

Gene Technology Community Consultative Committee, ongoing, Australia. Advisory committee which aims to support public participation in biotechnology (Schebeci et al 2006).


Nanotechnology


Workshop and Citizens Panel, 2004, Australia. Mixed workshop discussions focusing on the social values surrounding nanotechnology and how these might be integrated into CSIRO research (Katz et al 2009).

Nano Jury UK, 2005, UK. A Citizens Jury of a panel of 16 lay participants, who met to discuss nanotechnology over 10 evening sessions, hearing presentations from expert witnesses and formulating recommendations to policy makers (Nano Jury UK 2005; Gavelin et al 2007).

The Nanotechnology-Biology Interface: Exploring Models for Oversight, 2005, US. A one day public workshop involving 160 stakeholders, experts and laypeople (Kuzma 2007).

Convergence Seminars on Nanobiotechnology, 2006, across Europe. Four two and a half hour workshops, in which laypeople discuss technological scenarios and make recommendations (Godman and Hansson 2009).

Nanotechnology, Health and the Environment, 2006, Switzerland. A ‘publifocus’ discussion forum (a method developed by the Swiss Technology Assessment Office) involving moderated group discussions around Switzerland. The organisers compiled a report summarising lay perspectives (Rey 2006).

Citizens Conference on Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies, 2006-7, France. A long-term engagement of a panel of 16, culminating in a public report and governance recommendations (Ile-de-France 2007).

Citizens Panel on Nanotechnology, 2007, UK. Funded by the consumer organisation Which?, a panel of 14 representative laypeople spent three days interrogating expert witnesses and discussing consumer issues around nanotechnology (Opinion Leader 2008).

Consensus Conference on a Nanomedical Device for Genetic Analysis, 2007, Canada. A consensus conference format involving 22 laypeople and the development of policy recommendations (Mehta 2009).

NanoSoc citizens’ panel on Bio-on-Chip technology, 2007, Flanders. Part of NanoSoc, a four year Flemist technology assessment project, this project involved lay participants in a workshop in which different fictive ‘nano-imaginaries’ were acted out to them (Evers and D’Silva 2009; Goorden et al 2008).

National Citizens Technology Forum: Nanotechnologies and Human Enhancement, 2008, US. A multi-site consensus conference involving both face to face and online deliberation (Hamlett et al 2009).

Nanotechnology for Healthcare, 2008, UK. Sponsored by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, this multi-site set of deliberative workshops involved representative groups of laypeople and was used to inform EPSRC funding priorities (Bhattachary et al 2008).

Consumer Monitoring Survey, 2010, Korea. “Housewives with bachelor’s degrees in science or engineering” were asked to explore nano-products they could find on the market. They submitted a number of recommendations alongside the lists they developed (Chung et al 2010).


Synthetic biology


Public Dialogue on Synthetic Biology, 2009, UK. A two-stage process sponsored by the Royal Academy of Engineering and involving an exploratory discussion, over two evenings, with 16 laypeople, and a follow-up telephone survey of 1,000 respondants (King and Webster 2009).

Synthetic Biology Dialogue, 2009-10, UK. Sponsored by a number of UK research funders, this involved a set of stakeholder interviews alongside several days of public workshops, with each workshop series held in four different locations (Bhattachary et al 2010).


Geoengineering


Experiment Earth?, 2010, UK. A multi-site, multi-stage process funded by a number of research funders and involving open access public events, deliberative workshops, and an online questionnaire. Evidence from these strands was synthesised by the organisers in a final report (Corner et al 2012; Ipsos MORI 2010).

SPICE (Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering) Deliberative Workshops, 2011, UK. Three deliberative workshops, over a day and a half, in different UK sites, and engaging a representative lay population (Parkhill and Pidgeon 2011).


Interest in the use of public deliberation in science and technology policy seems to have peaked with nanotechnology. While other initiatives are ongoing, thus far efforts around other emerging technologies have not gained as much funding as was available for nanotechnology. The above compilation of participatory and deliberative activities also indicates some changes in the kinds of formats utilised. While early processes – such as the UK National Consensus Conference on Plant Biotechnology – tended to be based wholesale on the Danish consensus conference model (Andersen and Jaeger 1999), shorter, more flexible processes (such as workshops or online consultations) are increasingly being used. While such methods undoubtedly remove some control of the deliberative process from lay participants (with reports increasingly written by academic researchers or facilitators rather than participants themselves, for instance), this is likely due to the complexities of public deliberation on emerging technologies, in which laypeople are asked to reach opinions on technologies which are personally unfamiliar and often speculative (see discussions in Corner et al 2012; Davies et al 2010).

While lay recommendations from participatory processes can relate to the specificities of the technologies under discussion or to a particular local context, it is striking how often the same concerns around societal implications recur in consensus reports and policy recommendations. These issues include:

A general, contingent enthusiasm for technological development – thus statements such as “Most of our group are in favour of nanotechnologies for a large number of reasons” (Ile-de-France 2007). Participants tend to particularly favour developments for healthcare, environmental protection, and the majority world.

A desire for increased openess and transparency in the funding and development of new technologies, and the continuation of open dialogue on and public engagement with their governance. Thus, for instance, the NanoJury UK recommendations that further public juries should be convened as nanotechnology develops and that “scientists should improve their communication skills”.

Recommendations for further regulation, though this should not stifle development or the possibility of economic growth, which is also valued highly (King and Webster 2009). Participants are often particularly concerned that any product lines containing new technology should be labelled as such.

Principles that emerging technologies are seen as potentially affecting, and which are valued highly by lay panels, include: privacy (avoiding a ‘Big Brother’ society), equity (and thus that benefits to disadvantaged populations or groups should be maximised), autonomy (freedom of choice), distrust of ‘technofixes’ for societal problems, control of technologies (as far as that is possible), and the need for trustworthy institutions (governments, companies, scientific research). Technologies that impinge in some way on ‘natural systems’ (for example, geoengineering) or the human (such as enhancement technologies) are seen as especially ethically problematic (though not necessarily for that reason wrong), and as therefore requiring more public discussion.

Most of the processes described above have focused on lay publics as the key ‘societal’ participants in science-society dialogue. Strikingly, and unlike the historical development of technologies such as nuclear power, responses from civil society organisations to emerging technologies such as nano have thus far been relatively muted (Bogner 2012; Invernizzi 2011; Plows and Weinsborough 2011; Wehling 2012). While there has been some ‘spontaneous’ activism around biotechnologies (Plows 2010; Mayer 2003) and, in the case of nanotechnology, the involvement of workers organisations in highlighting concerns regarding worker safety (Invernizzi 2011), the drive for public engagement has largely been ‘top-down’, emanating from policy rather than publics themselves (Bogner 2012). A number of NGOs have turned their attention to enabling technologies, with the ETC Group2 and Friends of the Earth Australia being particularly active in this area, and civil society organisations have been represented in a number of stakeholder engagements on new and emerging technologies (Miller and Scrinis 2012). Plows and Weinsborough (2011) argue, however, that while a critical discourse of ‘the politics of technology’ is present in civil society movements, this has not been mobilised to any great extent around emerging technologies. Thus far, they suggest, such technologies are simply too far upstream for widespread public action to ignite, speculating that it “may simply be that the complexity of nanotechnology and the lack of clarity (for publics) about where the interests of publics lie, cause publics (even protest communities) to wait for more information until their smouldering concerns are either alleviated or proven” (ibid, 104).

5. Specialist assessments of societal implications of emerging technologies


Just as there is now an extensive literature on the ways in which publics assess the societal implications of new technologies, there is also a large body of work in which specialists – such as ethicists, philosophers, policy makers, or scientists themselves – reflect on these questions. This section starts by discussing two summaries of contemporary thinking, both of which largely focus on nanotechnology, before moving on to more specific accounts relating to other technological areas.

Ronald Sandler’s assessment of the social and ethical issues associated with nanotechnology (2009) was published by the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington DC. Although he is an ethicist, and treats nanotechnological implications as first and foremost a question of ethics, his typology is useful in that it also organises wider forms of implications, including, for instance, economic, legal, justice, and environmental issues. He divides the issues that nanotechnology presents (particularly when combined with other emerging technologies, such as synthetic biology) into five categories:

‘Social context issues’ occur when technology feeds into already problematic social or institutional systems. These include unequal access to beneficial new technology or inadequate consumer safety measures.

‘Contested moral issues’ are issues more traditionally viewed as ethical. They relate to those technological activities that many people feel to be morally wrong (such as the genetic modification of humans).

‘Technoculture issues’ relate to systemic effects, such as a reliance on technological fixes rather than exploring the underlying causes of particular problems.

‘Form of life issues’ occur when technology transforms taken for granted assumptions as to what human life involves. For instance, these relate to changes in life course or to family structure, both of which would entail economic and social changes.

‘Transformational issues’ are presented by those technologies – such as artificial intelligence, molecular manufacturing, or human enhancement – that would challenge (to a greater extent than form of life issues) deeply engrained assumptions as to the human condition.

Ferrari (2010) takes a somewhat different approach to summarising the field, charting different ethical approaches that have been used to consider the implications of nanotechnology. She distinguishes between a consequentialist framework, which tends to focus on the weighing up of the risks and benefits of a technological application; deontological approaches (often used in opposition to consequentialist arguments), which assume that particular activities are simply morally wrong; prudential frameworks, which draw on a virtue ethics tradition and attempt to negotiate the uncertainty of emerging technologies by emphasising flexible notions such as responsibility or sustainability; and, finally, newer approaches which investigate the ‘metaphysical research programme’ implicit within a technology’s development to assess the implications of its cultural, historical and political context.

More specific assessments of particular technologies tend to draw on these ways of thinking about societal implications whilst looking at more concrete developments. Discussions of converging technologies, for instance, have often explored questions around human enhancement and the ethical dangers this may pose (Banse et al 2007; Mali 2009; cf Sandel 2007), though governance issues and the need for public processes of priority setting have also been a theme (Mali 2009; Malsch 2008). In contrast, there has thus far been relatively little discussion of the societal implications of enabling technologies – at least in part because such platform technologies are part of complex knowledge and product chains which mean their societal impacts may happen long after their initial development, and in ways dependent on a particular application (de Jong et al 2011). As with discussion of nanotechnology, there is general agreement that such technologies have strong transformative potential and are likely to – and indeed should – engender widespread public debate (National Enabling Technologies Strategy Expert Forum 2012; Silberglitt et al 2006). In the case of synthetic biology, attention has focused not only on the technology’s obvious potential to ‘create life’, and the ethical issues therein, but on wider issues such as the potential for bioterrorism, the dangers of ecosystem disruption if artificial organisms are widely released, equity and trade issues around the patenting of life, and the justice question of who will benefit from these developments (Balmer and Wood 2009; Lentzos 2009). As Yearley notes, there is a need for concrete discussion of such issues as well as more abstract bioethical debate (Yearley 2009). The US Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues took synthetic biology as the subject of its first report, arguing for the application of five key principles: public beneficence, responsible stewardship, intellectual freedom and responsibility, democratic deliberation, and justice and fairness (Guttman 2010). Out of these principles a number of more specific recommendations were developed, including to carry out a periodic assessment of the risks posed by synthetic biology and to develop public education programmes around it.

A number of social science studies have explored the perspectives of technical experts on the societal implications of emerging technologies. Besley et al (2008), for instance, surveyed 177 nanotechnology researchers to report that they viewed potential impacts on human health and the environment as particularly risky, and as requiring further regulation (cf Gupta et al 2012). Other research has shown that nanoscientists are in fact more concerned about the risks of some aspects of nanotechnology than laypeople (Schefeule et al 2007).


6. Conclusion: Summary of assessments of societal implications and key contrasts and differences


A number of repeated themes have thus emerged from both lay and specialist assessments of the implications of emerging technologies. Significantly, all of these go beyond the weighing up of likely benefits against potential risks to human health or the environment. The implications of new technologies should therefore be understood as including not just their direct consequences but also systemic issues such as their interaction with economies (and thereby questions of economic justice and equality), their relation to shared value systems (such as understandings of what it means to be human or of the value of nature), and impacts on social institutions such as healthcare or the family. For publics, in particular, the social context in which technologies are developed, produced and used is paramount. The questions that they ask include: why is this being funded? Do we need this, or are there other, less technological, solutions to this problem? Who will ultimately benefit? Are our societies equipped to deal with the transformations this technology may entail?

In this respect there is a high degree of homogeneity in the kinds of issues that have emerged in discussions of the societal implications of new and emerging technologies, both across scientific content areas and internationally. However, as the emphasis on the importance of context would suggest, it is also the case that understandings of societal implications are culturally grounded and tied to the way in which specific applications will unfold in practice. The rest of this section charts some key differences that have emerged in the assessment of particular technologies around the world before turning to look at results from the STEP workshop.

One central, though inevitably simplistic, contrast that has emerged as key is that between the (more) techno-optimistic US and a (more) sceptical Europe. Gaskell et al (2005), for instance, argue that people in the US are more optimistic about nanotechnology (and a number of other more familiar technologies), based on responses to survey questions about whether these technologies will improve ‘our way of life’. Emerging technologies, they suggest, are assimilated through cultural values, which in the US are more straightforwardly pro-technology while in Europe are tinged with heightened awareness and concern of, for instance, adverse environmental effects or regulatory failures (cf Jasanoff 2005; Nye 2004). Similarly, a number of studies have suggested that civic imaginations of political participation itself can be very different in different countries, such that participatory and engagement processes will be understood, and carried out, and indeed produce results, in varying ways (Dryzek and Tucker 2008; Horst and Irwin 2010). Other studies have focused on the dynamics which appear to shape public perceptions – such as trust in regulatory authorities or religiosity – and the ways in which these are present in different national contexts (Scheufele et al 2008; Terwel et al 2011). As of yet, little comparative data has emerged on the important contexts of emerging economies such as China, India and South American countries (though see Invernizzi et al 2008; Macnaghten and Guivant 2010). In the Australian context, most data indicates parallels to Europe in regard to knowledge levels, attitudes and preferences regarding research priorities, though the development of public engagement activities has been rather slower (Kyle and Dodds 2009). Given the importance of national history, geography and culture in shaping public imaginations of technology (Jasanoff 2005; Macnaghten and Guivant 2010), there is a need for further research to identify the relevant underlying factors that shape public responses to new technologies in Australia.

Pidgeon et al (2009) compare the UK and US in their study of public discussions of nanotechnology, but find only subtle differences between public responses. Instead they argue that application area is more important in shaping perceptions. Participants, they report, felt that the impacts of the technology will ultimately depend on how it used. Energy applications, for instance, were seen as “an unchallenged good”, while there was more concern regarding health technologies with human enhancement potential. Cacciatore et al (2009) report similar results, suggesting that risk perceptions are mediated by the application field (for instance medicine or computing) that respondants primarily associate nanotechnology with.


Comparisons with the STEP workshop


The STEP deliberative workshop differs from much of the research discussed in this review in that it largely involved ‘experts’ – decision makers and opinion formers rather than members of the lay public. The focus of the report, and of its recommendations, also operate at something of a meta-level in these debates, examining the process of societal assessment rather than the content of such assessments of particular enabling technologies. Discussion emphasised the complexity of such assessment and of decision making in innovation, with factors such as the global nature of the innovation process, the unpredictability of technological development, and uncertainty regarding whose responsibility assessment is all mentioned as key challenges.

Despite these contrasts, a number of themes in the report are familiar from this review. This is particularly the case for the report’s recommendations, which emphasise “more inclusive science policy and public engagement capability”, “public access to authoritative, balanced information”, and the continued responsiveness of government to stakeholder debate. These calls are mirrored both in the international literature around public perceptions and engagement (Sections 3b; 4), which has, as discussed, emphasised the need for openness, accountability and the continuation of engagement, and in more ‘expert’ assessments of the innovation process (Sections 2; 5). Both scholars of innovation and of ethics and social research have, for instance, suggested the need for more open innovation, in which stakeholders and publics are included throughout the development process (Funcowitz and Ravetz 1993; Malsch 2008; Stilgoe 2012). These emphases on the process of engagement also reflect another theme that has emerged from this review: that more detailed considerations of the content of societal implications are largely technology and application specific (Pidgeon et al 2009). While there are patterns in public preferences – for ‘useful’ technologies which help the poor, for instance, or for those with medical benefits – there are no one-size-fits-all societal implications of enabling technologies. Societal assessment therefore needs to be flexible, continual, and focused on particular developments rather than on general questions (as modelled in ‘real time technology assessment’, for instance; Guston and Sarewitz 2002. Finally, the research presented in this review has shown that assessment of societial implications also needs to be carried out in good faith. While there are considerable challenges in enabling policy structures, industry practices, and scientific institutions to be responsive to public perspectives (Davies et al 2009; Hagendijk and Irwin 2006), historically, attempting to negotiate these challenges half-heartedly has tended to backfire (Horlick-Jones et al 2007).




Download 102.05 Kb.

Share with your friends:
1   2   3



The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2024
send message
    Main page
broader context
economic structure