Abstract
Which topics is technology assessment concerned with? And when? In response to this question, David Collingridge has pointed out a dilemma between using such research at relatively early or later points in time: In the first case, one does not have enough knowledge although the scope for influencing events is still large, while in the second case knowledge for evaluating an issue is available, yet the process of technical development is already so advanced that the space for options to influence events is distinctly limited. This dilemma continues to exist but technology assessment (TA) has responded methodologically to the different challenges and in particular has developed a tool set for assessing what is called the new and emerging technologies (NEST). In this paper I will present criteria with which we can answer the question whether TA should concern itself with an emerging technology. Finally, I will derive some consequences from these criteria as to if and how TA should deal with epigenetics.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Bechmann, G., & Frederichs, G. (1996). Problemorientierte Forschung: Zwischen Politik und Wissenschaft. In: G. Bechmann (Ed.), Praxisfelder der Technikfolgenforschung. Konzepte, Methoden, Optionen (pp. 11–37). Frankfurt a.M.: Campus.
BMBF (Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung BMBF, Ed.) (2001). Innovations- und Technikanalyse. Zukunftschancen erkennen und realisieren. Bonn.
Bröchler, S., & Simonis, G. (1998). Konturen des Konzepts einer innovationsorientierten Technikfolgenabschätzung und Technikgestaltung. TA-Datenbank-Nachrichten, 7(1), 31–40.
Bütschi, D., Carius, R., Decker, M., Gram, S., Grunwald, A., Machleidt, P., et al. (2004). The practice of TA. Science, interaction and communication. In: M. Decker, & M. Ladikas (Eds.), Bridges between science, society and policy. Technology assessment-methods and impact (pp. 13–55). Berlin: Springer.
Collingridge, D. (1982). The social control of technology. New York: St. Martin’s Press/London: Pinter.
Decker, M. (2007). Angewandte interdisziplinäre Forschung in der Technikfolgenabschätzung. Bad Neuenahr, Ahrweiler: Europäische Akademie (Graue Reihe 41).
Decker, M. (2013). Robotik. In: A. Grunwald (Ed.), Handbuch Technikethik (pp. 354–358). Stuttgart/Weimar: Metzler.
Decker, M., & Fleischer, T. (2010). When should there be which kind of technology assessment? A plea for a strictly problem-oriented approach from the very outset. Poiesis & Praxis, 7, 117–133.
Decker, M., Fleischer, T., Schippl, J., & Weinberger, N. (Eds.). (2012). Zukünftige Themen der Innovations- und Technikanalyse (p. 7605). Methodik und ausgewählte Ergebnisse. Karlsruhe: KIT Scientific Publishing (KIT Scientific Reports.
Decker, M., Fleischer, T., Schippl, J., & Weinberger, N. (Eds.). (2014). Zukünftige Themen der Innovations- und Technikanalyse (p. 7668). Lessons learned und ausgewählte Ergebnisse. Karlsruhe: KIT Scientific Publishing (KIT Scientific Reports.
Defila, R., & Di Giulio, A. (1999). Evaluationskriterien für inter- und transdisziplinäre Forschung. Projektbericht. In Schwerpunktprogramm Umwelt Schweiz (Ed.), Transdisziplinarität evaluieren – aber wie? Panorama Sondernummer 99 (pp. 3–15). Bern: Interfakultäre Koordinationsstelle für Allgemeine Ökologie.
Funtowicz, S., & Ravetz, J. R. (1993). Science for the post-normal age. Futures, 25, 739–755.
Funtowicz, S., & Ravetz, J. R. (2001). Post-normal science. Science and governance and conditions of complexity. In M. Decker (Ed.), Interdisciplinarity in technology assessment: Implementation and its chances and limits (pp. 15–24). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.
Gethmann, C. F., & Sander, T. (1999). Rechtfertigungsdiskurse. In A. Grunwald & S. Saupe (Eds.), Ethik in der Technikgestaltung (pp. 117–151). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.
Gloede, F. (2007). Unfolgsame Folgen. Begründungen und Implikationen der Fokussierung auf Nebenfolgen bei TA. Technikfolgenabschätzung – Theorie und Praxis, 16(1), 45–54.
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: Dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: SAGE.
Grunwald, A. (2002). Technikfolgenabschätzung – Eine Einführung. Berlin: edition sigma (Reihe: Gesellschaft – Technik – Umwelt. Neue Folge 1).
Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-thinking science. Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity.
Ravetz, J. R., & Funtowicz, S. (1999). Post-normal-science—an insight now maturing. Futures, 31, 641–646.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Decker, M. (2017). Too Early or Too Late? The Assessment of Emerging Technology. In: Heil, R., Seitz, S., König, H., Robienski, J. (eds) Epigenetics. Technikzukünfte, Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft / Futures of Technology, Science and Society. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-14460-9_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-14460-9_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer VS, Wiesbaden
Print ISBN: 978-3-658-14459-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-658-14460-9
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)