Prospects for technology assessment in a framework of responsible research and innovation

  • René von Schomberg

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. Bush, L. (2010): Standards, Law and Governance. Journal of Rural Social Sciences 25(3), pp. 56–78Google Scholar
  2. Bedau, M.; Parke, E.; Tangen, U. et al. (2009): Social and ethical checkpoints for bottomup synthetic biology, or protocells. Syst Synth Biol (2009) 3, pp. 65–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Commission of the European Communities (2009): Communication from the commission to the council, the European Parliament and the European Economic and Social Committee. Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies: An action plan for Europe 2005–2009. Second Implementation Report 2007–2009, Brussels, 29.10.2009, COM (2009) 607 finalGoogle Scholar
  4. Commission of the European Communities (2008): Commission Recommendation of 7 February 2008, on a code of conduct for responsible nanosciences and nanotechnologies research, 7 February 2008Google Scholar
  5. European Communities (2006): Better Regulation. Simply explained. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European CommunitiesGoogle Scholar
  6. den Boer, D.; Rip, A. & Speller, S. (2009): Scripting possible futures of nanotechnologies: A methodology that enhances reflexivity in: Technology in Society 31 (2009), pp. 295–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Forsberg, E. (2010): Safe and socially robust development of nanofood through ISO standards? In: Romeo Casabona, C.; Escajedo San Epifanio, L. & Emaldi Cirión, A. (eds.): Global food security: ethical and legal challenges. Wageningen: Academic PublishersGoogle Scholar
  8. Frodeman, R. & Holbrook, B. (2007): Science’s Social Effects. Issues in Science and Technology, Spring 2007Google Scholar
  9. Fisher, E.; Mahajan, R. & Mitcham, C. (2006): Midstream Modulation of Technology: Governance from Within. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 26(6), pp. 485–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fisher, E. (2007): Ethnographic Invention: Probing the Capacity of Laboratory Decisions. NanoEthics 1(2), pp. 155–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Grunwald, A. (2010): Technikfolgenabschätzung – Eine Einführung. 2. überarb. Auflage. Berlin: Edition SigmaGoogle Scholar
  12. Guagnin, D.; Hempel, L. & Ilten, C. (2011): Privacy Practices and the Claim for Accountability. In: von Schomberg, R. (ed.): Towards Responsible Research and Innovation in the Information and Communication Technologies and Security Technologies Fields. Luxembourg: Publication Office of the European Union, forthcomingGoogle Scholar
  13. Karinen, R. & Guston, D. (2010): Towards Anticipatory Governance. The Experience with Nanotechnology. In: Kaiser, M. (eds): Governing Future Technologies. Nanotechnology and the Rise of an Assessment Regime. : Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London, New York: SpringerGoogle Scholar
  14. MacNaghten, P.; Davies, S. & Kearnes, M. (2010): Narrative and Public Engagement. Some findings from the Deepen-Project. In: von Schomberg, R. & Davies, S. (eds.): Understanding public debate on nanotechnologies. Options for Framing Public Policy. Luxembourg: Publication office of the European UnionGoogle Scholar
  15. Mantovani E. & Procari, A. (2010): A Governance Platform to secure the Responsible Development of Nanotechnologies: the FramingNano project. In: von Schomberg, R. & Davies, S. (eds.): Understanding Public Debate on Nanotechnologies. Options for Framing Public Policy. Luxembourg: Publication office of the European UnionGoogle Scholar
  16. Mitcham, C. & Frodeman, R. (2000): Beyond the Social Contract Myth: Science should move beyond a contractual relationship with society and join in the quest for the common good. In: Issue in Science and Technology Online. Summer 2000Google Scholar
  17. Owen, R. & Goldberg, N. (2010): Responsible Innovation. A pilot study with the UK Engineering and Physical Science and Research Council. In: Risk Analysis 30(11), p. 1699CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ozalina, Z. et al. (2009): Global Governance of Science, Report of the Expert Group chaired by Zaneta Ozalina, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European CommunitiesGoogle Scholar
  19. Selin, C. (2009): Negotiating Plausibility: Intervening in the Future of Nanotechnology, Arizona State University, http://www.cspo.org/projects/plausibility/files/read_Selin-Negotiating-Plausibilty.pdf
  20. Van Est (2010): From techno-talk to social reflection and action. Lessons from public participation in converging Technologies, International workshop “Deliberating converging technologies”, IÖW, Berlin, 25–26 November 2010Google Scholar
  21. Von Schomberg, R. (2007): From the ethics of technology towards and ethics of knowledge policy. Working document of the Service of the European Commission: http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/pdf/ethicsofknowledgepolicy_en.pdf
  22. Von Schomberg, R.; Guimaraes Pereira, A. & Funtowicz, S. (2005): Deliberating Foresight Knowledge for Policy and Foresight Knowledge Assessment, Working document of the European Commission ServicesGoogle Scholar
  23. Von Schomberg, R. (ed.) (1993): “Controversies and Political Decision Making.” Science, Politics and Morality: Scientific Uncertainty and Decision Making, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic PublishersGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften | Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • René von Schomberg

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations