Risk and Soft Impacts

Reference work entry


Policy and technology actors seem to focus “naturally” on risk rather than on technology’s social and ethical impacts that typically constitute an important focus of concern for philosophers of technology, as well as for the broader public. There is nothing natural about this bias. It is the result of the way discourses on technology and policy are structured in technological, liberal, pluralistic societies. Risks qualify as “hard” (i.e., objective, rational, neutral, factual), other impacts as “soft” (i.e., subjective, emotional, partisan, value-laden) and are therefore dismissable. To help redress this bias, it is necessary to understand how this distinction between hard and soft impacts is construed – in practice and in theory. How are expected (desired, feared) impacts of technology played out in expert-citizen/consumer interactions? We first discuss online patient deliberations on a future pill for celiac disease (“gluten intolerance”) promising to replace patients’ lifelong diet. By “rejecting” this pill, patients displayed concerns about how the new technology would affect their identity, and the values incorporated in the way they had learned to handle their disease. Secondly, we analyze how experts construct a consumers’ concern with “naturalness” of food: as a private – and invalid – preference that requires no further debate. The point of the analysis is to make available for discussion and reflection currently dominant ways to demarcate public and private issues in relation to emerging technologies, including the accompanying distributions of tasks and responsibilities over experts and laypersons. However, the actors themselves cannot simply alter these demarcations and distributions at will. Their manoeuvring room is co-shaped by discursive structures at work in modern, technological, pluralist, liberal societies. In the third section, we therefore identify these structures, as they provide the hegemonic answers to the three key questions with regard to the possible impacts of emerging technologies: how are impacts evaluated; how are they estimated; and how are they caused? We conclude with some suggestions for further research.


Celiac Disease Technology Actor Celiac Patient Public Agenda Technological Mediation 
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.


  1. Achterhuis H (ed) (2001) American philosophy of technology: the empirical turn. Indiana University Press, Bloomington/MinneapolisGoogle Scholar
  2. Akrich M (1992) The description of technical objects. In: Bijker W, Law J (eds) Shaping technology, building society: studies in sociotechnical change. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  3. Boenink M, Swierstra T, Stemerding D (2010) Anticipating the interaction between technology and morality: a scenario study of experimenting with humans in bionanotechnology. Stud Ethics Law Technol 4(2): article 4Google Scholar
  4. Edwards D (1997) Discourse and cognition. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. Heritage J, Raymond G (2005) The terms of agreement: indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction. Soc Psychol Q 68(1):15–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hobson-West P (2007) ‘Trusting blindly can be the biggest risk of all’: organized resistance to childhood vaccination in the UK. Sociol Health Illn 29(2):198–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Idhe D (1993) Postphenomenology. Northwestern University Press, EvanstonGoogle Scholar
  8. Jaeger CJ, Renn O, Rosa EA, Webler T (2001) Risk, uncertainty, and rational action. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. Jasanoff S (2003) Technologies of humility: citizen participation in governing science. Minerva 41:223–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jasanoff S (ed) (2004) States of knowledge: the co-production of science and social order. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Jefferson G (2004) Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In: Lerner GH (ed) Conversation analysis: studies from the first generation. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp 13–31Google Scholar
  12. Lamerichs J, te Molder H (2011, frth) Reflecting on your own talk: the discursive action method at work. In: Antaki C (ed) Applied conversation analysis. Intervention and change in institutional talk. Pallgrave Macmillan, BasingstokeGoogle Scholar
  13. Latour B (1992) Where are the missing masses? In: Bijker W, Law J (eds) The sociology of the new mundane artefacts. Shaping technology, building society. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  14. Marris C (2001) Public views on GMOs: deconstructing the myths. EMBO Rep 21(7):545–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Middendorp S, te Molder H, van Woerkum C (in prep.) Responsible innovation in the food sector: what impacts of food technology may enter the public debate? Wageningen University, WageningenGoogle Scholar
  16. Mill JS (1859) On liberty. Oxford University, Oxford, pp 21–22Google Scholar
  17. Potter J (1996) Representing reality. Discourse, rhetoric and social construction. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. Ravetz JR (1975) …et augebitur scientia. In: Harré R (ed) Problems of scientific revolution. Progress and obstacles to progress in the sciences. Clarendon, Oxford, pp 42–57Google Scholar
  19. Rawls J (1993) Political liberalism. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Rip A, Kemp R (1998) Technological change. In: Rayner S, Malone EL (eds) Human choice and climate change, vol 2. Battelle, Columbus, pp 327–399Google Scholar
  21. Roesser S (ed) (2010) Emotions and risky technologies. Springer, Dordrecht/LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. Slovic P (2000) The perception of risk. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  23. Swierstra T (2002) Moral vocabularies and public debate: the cases of cloning and new reproductive technologies. In: Keulartz J, Korthals JM, Schermer M, Swierstra T (eds) Pragmatist ethics for atechnological culture. Kluwer Academic, Deventer, pp 223–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Swierstra T, Waelbers K (2010) Designing a good life: the matrix for the technological mediation of morality. Eng Ethics (Online First, 30 Nov 2010)Google Scholar
  25. Swierstra T, Stemerding D, Boenink M (2009) Exploring techno-moral change. The case of the obesity pill. In: Solllie P, Duwell M (eds) Evaluating new technologies. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 119–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. te Molder H (2008) Discursive psychology. In: Donsbach W (ed) The international encyclopedia of communication, vol IV. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, UK/Malden, pp 1370–1372Google Scholar
  27. te Molder H, Potter J (eds) (2005) Conversation and cognition. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  28. te Molder H, Bovenhoff M, Gremmen B, van Woerkum C (submitted) Talking future technologies: how celiac disease patients neither accept nor reject a ‘simple pill’Google Scholar
  29. Tenner E (1996) Why things bite back. Technology and the revenge of unintended consequences. Knopf, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. Turkle S (2010) Alone together. Why we expect more from technology and less from another. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. Van der Pot JHJ (1985) Die Bewertung des technischen Fortschritts. Eine systematische Uebersicht der Theorien. Van Gorcum, MaastrichtGoogle Scholar
  32. Veen M, Gremmen B, te Molder H, van Woerkum C (2010) Emergent technologies against the background of everyday life: discursive psychology as a technology assessment tool. Public Underst Sci. doi:10.1177/0963662510364202. Prepublished 13 Apr 2010Google Scholar
  33. Verbeek PP (2005) What things do. Philosophical reflections on technology, agency, and design. Pennsylvania State U.P, Pennsylvania, PAGoogle Scholar
  34. Waelbers K (2011) Doing good with things–taking responsibility for the social role of technologies. Springer, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wynne B (1996) Misunderstood misunderstandings. Social identities and public uptake of science. In: Irwin A, Wynne B (eds) Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 19–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wynne B (2001) Creating public alienation: expert cultures of risk and ethics on GMOs. Sci Cult 10(4):446–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wynne B (2006) Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science – hitting the notes, but missing the music? Community Genet 9:211–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philosophy DepartmentUniversity of MaastrichtMaastrichtThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Faculty of Behavioral Sciences, Science CommunicationUniversity of Twente/Wageningen UniversityEnschede/WageningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations