Abstract
This introduction to the volume “Early engagement and new technologies: Opening up the laboratory” sets out how recent policy developments have demonstrated a growing interest in early engagement with technology, and identifies the various ways in which scholars from the social sciences and humanities have responded to these policies. The five main approaches elaborated in this volume are introduced: Constructive Technology Assessment (CTA), Value Sensitive Design (VSD), Socio-Technical Integration Research (STIR), Network Approach for Moral Evaluation (NAME), and Political Technology Assessment (PTA). A range of broader issues related to technology engagement is identified and an outline of the volume chapters is presented.
Keywords
- Technology Assessment
- Synthetic Biology
- Engagement Work
- Interdisciplinary Collaboration
- Ethical Reflection
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Berloznik, R., & Van Langenhove, L. (1998). Integration of technology assessment in R&D management practices. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 58, 23–33.
Bhatti, Y. A., Khilji, S. E., & Basu, R. (2013). Frugal innovation. In S. Khilji & C. Rowley (Eds.), Globalization, change and learning in South Asia. Oxford: Chandos Publishing.
Calvert, J., & Martin, P. (2009). The role of social scientists in synthetic biology. EMBO Reports, 10, 201–204.
Collingridge, D. (1980). The social control of technology. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Connell, B. R., & Sanford, J. A. (1999). Research implications of universal design. In E. Steinfeld & G. S. Danford (Eds.), Enabling environments: Measuring the impact of environment on disability and rehabilitation. New York: Kluwer.
Consoli, L. (2008). The intertwining of ethics and methodology in science and engineering: A virtue-ethical approach. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 33, 234–243.
Doorn, N. (2012). Exploring responsibility rationales in research and development (R&D). Science, Technology & Human Values, 37, 180–209.
Doubleday, R. (2007). The laboratory revisited: Academic science and the responsible governance of nanotechnology. NanoEthics, 1, 167–176.
European Commission (2007). Work programme 2007, capacities, part 5, Science in society, C(2007) 563. Brussels: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
Fisher, E. (2007). Ethnographic invention: Probing the capacity of laboratory decisions. NanoEthics, 1, 155–165.
Fisher, E. (2011). Editorial overview: Public science and technology scholars: Engaging whom? Science and Engineering Ethics, 17, 607–620.
Fisher, E., & Mahajan, R. L. (2006). Midstream modulation of nanotechnology research in an academic laboratory. In ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition (IMECE2006) Nov 5–10, 2006, Chicago, Ill, USA (pp. 1–7).
Friedman, B., & Kahn, P. H., Jr. (2003). Human values, ethics and design. In J. Jacko & A. Sears (Eds.), Handbook of human-computer interaction. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gorman, M. E., Groves, J. F., & Shrager, J. (2004). Societal dimensions of nanotechnology as a trading zone: Results from a pilot project. In D. Baird, A. Nordmann, & J. Schummer (Eds.), Discovering at the nanoscale (pp. 63–73). Amsterdam: IOS.
Guston, D. H., & Sarewitz, D. (2002). Real-time technology assessment. Technology in Society, 24, 93–109.
Knorr Cetina, K. (1981). The manufacture of knowledge: An essay on the constructivist and contextual nature of science. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Berverly Hills: Sage.
Mitcham, C. (2003). Co-responsibility for research integrity. Science and Engineering Ethics, 9, 273–290.
Nieusma, D. (2004). Alternative design scholarship: Working towards appropriate design. Design Issues, 20(3), 13–24.
NWO. (2008). Responsible innovation: Description of thematic programme. The Hague: Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research.
Robinson, D. K. R. (2009). Co-evolutionary scenarios: An application to prospecting futures of the responsible development of nanotechnology. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76, 1222–1239.
Sarewitz, D. (2005). This won’t hurt a bit: Assessing and governing rapidly advancing technologies in a democracy. In M. Rodemeyer, D. Sarewitz, & J. Wilsdon (Eds.), The future of technology assessment (pp. 14–21). Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
Schot, J. W., & Rip, A. (1997). The past and future of constructive technology assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 54, 251–268.
Schuurbiers, D. (2011). What happens in the lab: Applying midstream modulation to enhance critical reflection in the laboratory. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17, 769–788.
Snow, C. P. (1959). The two cultures and the scientific revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stegmaier, P. (2009). The rock‘n’roll of knowledge co-production; Science and society series on convergence research. EMBO Reports, 10, 114–119.
Stokes, E. (2012). Nanotechnology and the products of inherited regulation. Journal of Law and Society, 39, 93–112.
Van de Poel, I. R., & Van Gorp, A. C. (2006). The need for ethical reflection in engineering design: The relevance of type of design and design hierarchy. Science, Technology & Human Values, 31, 333–360.
Van de Poel, I. R., & Zwart, S. D. (2010). Reflective equilibrium in R&D networks. Science, Technology & Human Values, 35, 174–199.
Van der Burg, S. (2009). Imagining the future of photoacoustic mammography. Science and Engineering Ethics, 15, 97–110.
Yoo, D., Lake, M., Nilsen, T., Utter, M. E., Alsdorf, R., Bizimana, T., Nathan, L. P., Ring, M., Utter, E. J., Utter, R. F., & Friedman, B. (2013). Envisioning across generations: A multi-lifespan information system for international justice in Rwanda. In Proceedings of CHI 2013. New York: ACM Press.
Ziman, J. M. (1998). Why must scientists become more ethically sensitive than they used to be? Science, 282, 1813–1814.
Zwart, S. D., Van de Poel, I. R., Van Mil, H., & Brumsen, M. (2006). A network approach for distinguishing ethical issues in research and development. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12, 663–684.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Schuurbiers, D., Doorn, N., van de Poel, I., Gorman, M.E. (2013). Mandates and Methods for Early Engagement. In: Doorn, N., Schuurbiers, D., van de Poel, I., Gorman, M. (eds) Early engagement and new technologies: Opening up the laboratory. Philosophy of Engineering and Technology, vol 16. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7844-3_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7844-3_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-7843-6
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-7844-3
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)