Abstract
In this concluding chapter of the volume “Early engagement and new technologies: Opening up the laboratory,” the editors take stock of the different engagement methods that have been described in this volume, i.e., Constructive Technology Assessment (CTA), Value Sensitive Design (VSD), Socio-Technical Integration Research (STIR), Network Approach for Moral Evaluation (NAME), and Political Technology Assessment (PTA). The methods are compared with respect to their aims and impacts, their type of intervention, the level and phase of technological development, and their normativity. The editors develop a tentative framework for Comprehensive Technology Engagement, identifying the major questions and challenges to advancing interdisciplinary engagements at early stages of technological development. Three theoretical and methodological challenges are addressed: (1) issues of normativity and representation, (2) moving across levels and time, and (3) dealing with uncertainty and indeterminacy.
Keywords
- Engagement Actor
- Technological Sector
- Technological Frontier
- Responsible Innovation
- Technological Researcher
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 subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
Projects might be inter-organizational, so that the levels distinguished here are not strictly embedded in each other.
- 2.
Although the term “phase” suggests a certain sequence, we would like to stress that these phases are not necessarily sequential or linear. Still, these four types seem to describe the main sets of activities that characterize technology in the making (although one might distinguish additional ones like testing or experimenting).
- 3.
Gorman worked for 2 years as a Program Director at the US NSF. He was an actor, not a modulator, but he reflected on his experience in a way consistent with a modulator (see (Gorman 2011) for some reflections on this work).
- 4.
References
Bozeman, B. (2003). Public value mapping of science outcomes: Theory and method. Washington, DC: Center for Science, Policy, and Outcomes.
Calvert, J., & Martin, P. (2009). The role of social scientists in synthetic biology. EMBO Reports, 10, 201–204.
Directorate-General for Research and Innovation EU (2012). Ethical and regulatory challenges to science and research policy at the global level. Brussel: European Commission.
Doorn, N., & Nihlén Fahlquist, J. A. (2010). Responsibility in engineering. Towards a new role for engineering ethicists. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 30, 222–230.
Doorn, N. (2012). Exploring responsibility rationales in Research and Development (R&D). Science, Technology & Human Values, 37, 180–209.
Flipse, S. M., Van der Sanden, M. C. A., & Osseweijer, P. (2013). Midstream modulation in biotechnology industry: Redefining what is ‘part of the job’ of researchers in industry. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19, 1141–1164.
Gorman, M. E. (2011). Doing science, technology and society in the national science foundation. Commentary on: “Engaged, embedded, enjoined: Science and technology studies in the national science foundation”. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17, 839–849.
Gorman, M. E., Wardak, A., Fauss, E., & Swami, N. (2008). A framework for using nanotechnology to improve water quality. In N. Savage et al. (Eds.), Nanotechnology applications for clean water. Norwich/New York: William Andrew Applied Science Publishers.
Gorman, M. E., Werhane, P. H., & Swami, N. (2009). Moral imagination, trading zones, and the role of the ethicist in nanotechnology. NanoEthics, 3, 185–195.
Kant, I. (1795). To perpetual peace: A philosophical sketch [Zum ewigen Frieden: Ein philosophischer Entwurf]. Königsberg: Friedrich Nicolovius.
Krohn, W., & Weyer, J. (1994). Society as a laboratory. The social risks of experimental research. Science and Public Policy, 21, 173–183.
Leonard-Barton, D. (1988). Implementation as mutual adaption of technology and organization. Research Policy, 17, 251–267.
Lucivero, F., Swierstra, T., & Boenink, M. (2011). Assessing expectations: Towards a toolbox for an ethics of emerging technologies. NanoEthics, 5, 129–141.
Renn, O. (2005). White paper on risk governance. Towards an integrative approach. Geneve: International Risk Governance Council.
Rip, A., & Kemp, R. (1998). Technological change. In S. Rayner & E. L. Malone (Eds.), Human choice and climate change (pp. 327–399). Columbus: Battelle.
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. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17, 769–788.
Selin, C. (2007). Expectations and the emergence of nanotechnology. Science, Technology & Human Values, 32, 196–220.
Swierstra, T., Boenink, M., & Van Est, R. (2009). Converging technologies, shifting boundaries. NanoEthics, 3, 213–216.
Van de Poel, I. R. (2008). How should we do nanoethics? A network approach to discerning ethical issues in nanotechnology. NanoEthics, 2, 25–38.
Van de Poel, I. R. (2009). The introduction of nanotechnology as a societal experiment. In S. Arnaldi, A. Lorenzet, & F. Russo (Eds.), Technoscience in progress. Managing the uncertainty of nanotechnology (pp. 129–142). Amsterdam: Ios Press.
Verbeek, P. P. (2011). Moralizing technology: Understanding and designing the morality of things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Von Schomberg, R. (Ed.). (2011). Towards responsible research and innovation in the information and communication technologies and security technologies fields. Brussels: EU Directorate General for Research and Innovation.
Von Schomberg, R. (2012). Prospects for technology assessment in a framework of responsible research and innovation. In M. Dusseldorp & R. Beecroft (Eds.), Technikfolgen abschätzen lehren: Bildungspotenziale transdisziplinärer Methoden (pp. 39–61). Wiesbaden: Springer.
Wildavsky, A. B. (1988). Searching for safety. New Brunswick: Transaction Books.
Woolgar, S., Coopmans, C., & Neyland, D. (2009). Does STS mean business? Organization, 16(1), 5–30.
Wynne, B. (1992). Uncertainty and environmental learning. Reconceiving science and policy in the preventive paradigm. Global Environmental Change, 2, 111–127.
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
Doorn, N., Schuurbiers, D., van de Poel, I., Gorman, M.E. (2013). Early Engagement and New Technologies: Towards Comprehensive Technology 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_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7844-3_12
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)