Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 17, Issue 4, pp 691–697 | Cite as

Participating Despite Questions: Toward a More Confident Participatory Technology Assessment

Commentary on: “Questioning ‘Participation’: A Critical Appraisal of its Conceptualization in a Flemish Participatory Technology Assessment”
Commentary

Abstract

While the important challenges of public deliberations on emerging technologies are crucial to keep in mind, this paper argues that scholars and practitioners have reason to be more confident in their performance of participatory technology assessments (pTA). Drawing on evidence from the 2008 National Citizens’ Technology Forum (NCTF) conducted by the Center for Nanotechnology in Society at Arizona State University, this paper describes how pTA offers a combination of intensive and extensive qualities that are unique among modes of engagement. In the NCTF, this combination led to significant learning and opinion changes, based on what can be characterized as a high-quality deliberation. The quality of the anticipatory knowledge required to address emerging technologies is always contested, but pTAs can be designed with outcomes in mind—especially when learning is understood as an outcome.

Keywords

Nanotechnology Deliberation Participatory technology assessment Consensus conference 

References

  1. Brown, M. (2006). Citizens’ panels and the concept of representation. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 14(2), 203–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cobb, M. D. (2011). Creating informed public opinion: Citizen deliberation about nanotechnologies for human enhancements. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 13, 1533–1548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Guston, D. H. (1999). Evaluating the first US consensus conference: The impact of the citizens’ panel on telecommunications and the future of democracy. Science, Technology and Human Values, 24, 451–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hamlett, P., Cobb, M., & Guston, D.H. (2008). National citizens’ technology forum: Nanotechnologies and human enhancement. CNS-ASU report #R08-0003. Tempe, AZ: Center for nanotechnology in society as Arizona State University. Available at http://www.cns.asu.edu/cns-library/type/#report.
  5. Philbrick, M., & Barandiaran, J. (2009). The national citizens’ technology forum: Lessons for the future. Science and Public Policy, 36(5), 335–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Selin, C. (2011). Negotiating plausibility: Intervening in the future of nanotechnology. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17, this issue.Google Scholar
  7. van Oudheusden, M. (2011). Questioning ‘participation’: A critical appraisal of its conceptualization in a flemish participatory technology assessment. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17, this issue.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Consortium for Science, Policy, and Outcomes Arizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations