Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Scientific Foresight: Considering the Future of Science and Technology

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
A Bias Radar for Responsible Policy-Making

Part of the book series: St Antony's Series ((STANTS))

Abstract

This chapter focuses on the societal elements that complement scientific evidence. It explains how foresight methods give advisers insights into how scientific and technological developments may impact society, often unintendedly and offers a detailed scheme, STEEPED, for investigating all such foreseeable impacts from the widest range, 360 degrees, of perspectives. It also describes the use of future scenarios in exploring possible future impacts of today’s developments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Studies conducted for the Panel of the Future of Science and Technology (STOA).

  2. 2.

    Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats.

References

  • Banta, David. 2009. “What Is Technology Assessment?” International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 25 (Suppl. 1): 7–9. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0266462309090333.

  • Boni, Michal. 2016. Opinion of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs for the Committee on Legal Affairs with Recommendations to the Commission on Civil Law Rules on Robotics (2015/2103(INL)). Brussels: European Parliament.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boucher, Philip. 2017. How Blockchain Technology Could Change Our Lives: European Parliament. Brussels: STOA, European Parliamentary Research Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buşoi, Cristian-Silviu. 2016. Opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety for the Committee on Legal Affairs with Recommendations to the Commission on Civil Law Rules on Robotics (2015/2103(INL)). Brussels: European Parliament.

    Google Scholar 

  • Centre for Strategic Futures. 2017. Foresight: A Glossary Singapore. Singapore: Centre for Strategic Futures.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charanzová, Dita. 2016. Opinion of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection for the Committee on Legal Affairs Civil Law Rules on Robotics (2015/2103(INL)). Brussels: European Parliament.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choi, Bernard C. K., and Anita W. P. Pak. 2008. “Multidisciplinarity, Interdisciplinarity, and Transdisciplinarity in Health Research, Services, Education and Policy: 3. Discipline, Inter-discipline Distance, and Selection of Discipline.” Clinical and Investigative Medicine 31 (1). https://doi.org/10.25011/cim.v31i1.3140.

  • Civil Law Rules on Robotics P8_TA(2017)0051 C.F.R. 2017. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-8-2017-0051_EN.pdf.

  • Conway, Maree, and Chris Stewart. 2005. Creating and Sustaining Social Foresight in Australia: A Review of Government Foresight. Melbourne: Swinburne Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Decker, Michael, and Miltos Ladikas, eds. 2004. Bridges Between Science, Society and Policy: Technology Assessment—Methods and Impacts. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delvaux, Mady. 2016. Draft Report with Recommendations to the Commission on Civil Law Rules on Robotics (2015/2103(INL)). Brussels: European Parliament. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML%2BCOMPARL%2BPE-582.443%2B01%2BDOC%2BPDF%2BV0//EN.

  • Delvaux, Mady. 2017. Report with Recommendations to the Commission on Civil Law Rules on Robotics (2015/2103(INL)). Brussels: European Parliament. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2017-0005_EN.pdf?redirect.

  • EP. 2017. European Parliament Resolution of 16 February 2017 with Recommendations to the Commission on Civil Law Rules on Robotics (2015/2103(INL)). Civil Law Rules on Robotics (P8_TA(2017)0051). http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+TA+P8-TA-2017-0051+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN.

  • Fawzy, Mostafa, and Paul Componation. 2014. “Biofuel Production: Stakeholders’ Identification.” Journal of Management & Engineering Integration 7 (1): 15–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frodeman, Robert, Julie Thompson Klein, and Roberto C. S. Pacheco, eds. 2017. The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Georghiou, Luke, Jennifer Cassingena Harper, Michael Keenan, Ian Miles, and Rafael Popper, eds. 2009. The Handbook of Technology Foresight. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodin, Robert, and John Dryzek. 2006. “Deliberative Impacts: The Macro-Political Uptake of Mini-Publics.” Politics & Society 34 (2): 219–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032329206288152.

  • Government Office for Science (UK). 2017. The Futures Toolkit: Tools for Futures Thinking and Foresight Across the UK Government. London: Government Office for Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahane, Adam. 2012. Transformative Scenario Planning: Working Together to Change the Future. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kallas, Kaja. 2016. Opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy for the Committee on Legal Affairs with Recommendations to the Commission on Civil Law Rules on Robotics (2015/2103(INL)). European Parliament.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kello, Lucas. 2017. The Virtual Weapon and International Order. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kósa, Ádam. 2016. Opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs for the Committee on Legal Affairs with Recommendations to the Commission on Civil Law Rules on Robotics (2015/2103(INL)). European Parliament.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lentsch, Justus, and Peter Weingart. 2011. The Politics of Scientific Advice: Institutional Design for Quality Assurance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, Georg. 2016. Opinion of the Committee on Transport and Tourism for the Committee on Legal Affairs with Recommendations to the Commission on Civil Law Rules on Robotic (2015/2103(INL)). European Parliament.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mercier, Hugo, and Dan Sperber. 2011. “Why Do Humans Reason? Arguments for an Argumentative Theory.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34 (2): 57–74. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x10000968.

  • Mercier, Hugo, and Dan Sperber. 2017. The Enigma of Reason: A New Theory of Human Understanding. London: Allen Lane.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schomberg, René Von. 2007. From the Ethics of Technology Towards an Ethics of Knowledge Policy & Knowledge Assessment. Luxembourg: EU Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schroeder, Karl. 2011. www.kschroeder.com/weblog/after-prediction, consulted 1 January 2019.

  • Schwartz, Peter. 1998. The Art of the Long View: Planning for the Future in an Uncertain World. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shell International Ltd. 2008. Scenarios: An Explorer’s Guide. Retrieved from https://www.shell.com/.

  • Stilgoe, J., R. Owen, and P. Macnaghten. 2013. “Developing a Framework for Responsible Innovation.” Research Policy 42 (9): 1568–1580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.05.008.

  • STOA. 2016. Ethical Aspects of Cyber-Physical Systems: A Scientific Foresight Study. Edited by Lieve Van Woensel, Christian Kurrer, and Mihalis Kritikos. Brussels: STOA, European Parliamentary Research Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • STOA. 2017. The Ethics of Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS): Animated Infographics. Retrieved from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/infographics/robotics/public/index.html.

  • Swierstra, Tsjalling. 2015. “Identifying the Normative Challenges Posed by Technology’s ‘Soft’ Impacts.” Etikk i Praksis: Nordic Journal of Applied Ethics 9 (1): 5–20. https://doi.org/10.5324/eip.v9i1.1838.

  • Swierstra, Tsjalling, and Hedwig Frederica te Molder. 2012. “Risk and Soft Impacts.” In Handbook of Risk Theory: Epistemology, Decision Theory, Ethics, and Social Implications of Risk, edited by Sabine Roeser, Rafeala Hillerbrand, Martin Peterson, and Per Sandin, 1050–1066. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taleb, Nassim Nicholas. 2010. The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable. 2nd ed. New York: Random House Trade Paperbacks.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Asselt, Marjolein, Susan van ’t Klooster, Phillip van Notten, and Livia Smits. 2010. Foresight in Action: Developing Policy-Oriented Scenarios. Washington, DC: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Heijden, Kees. 2005. Scenarios: The Art of Strategic Conversation. 2nd ed. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Woensel, Lieve, and Jens Van Steerteghem. 2019. What if We Didn't Need Cows for Our Beef? Brussels: European Parliament Research Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Woensel, Lieve, and Darja Vrščaj. 2015. Towards Scientific Foresight in the European Parliament: In-Depth Analysis. Brussels: European Parliamentary Research Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson, Angela. 2017. Strategic Foresight Primer. Luxembourg: European Political Strategy Centre.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson, Angela, and Roland Kupers. 2014. The Essence of Scenarios: Learning from the Shell Experience. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Scientific Foresight Unit, European Parliamentary Research Service, Brussels, Belgium

    Lieve Van Woensel

Authors
  1. Lieve Van Woensel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lieve Van Woensel .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Van Woensel, L. (2020). Scientific Foresight: Considering the Future of Science and Technology. In: A Bias Radar for Responsible Policy-Making. St Antony's Series. Palgrave Pivot, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32126-0_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation