Advertisement

Risk and Technology Assessment

  • Rinie van Est
  • Bart Walhout
  • Frans Brom

Abstract

This chapter provides an overview of the changing relationship between risk, technology assessment (TA), and risk assessment (RA). It does so by comparing the development of the practice of parliamentary TA and RA, the way risk is interpreted in these practices, and the political role these practices play in dealing with risks. The basic argument is that originally RA and TA presented politically separate practices. Over the last decade, the conceptual gap between these two practices has been bridged to alarge extent. We start with describing the classical approaches to TA and RA, which developed in 1960s in the United States and where guided by the belief that scientific methods would improve decision making around the risks involved in science and technology. Classical parliamentary TA and RA present very distinct scientific and political practices, with different conceptions of risk and political roles. The classical approach to risk operated with anarrow mathematical definition of risk. Classical TA defined risk in amuch broader fashion; risk referred to abroad set of (potential) negative social effects of science and technology. RA was thought to help the government in managing risk, by depoliticizing risk management. In contrast, parliamentary TA aimed to enable apolitical debate within Congress, and thereby strengthening the position of Congress vis-à-vis the executive branch. Throughout the years, both practice and scientific literature have revealed basic shortcomings of the classical approach to TA and risk. Driven by the concept of uncertainty, the role of RA and TA and their interpretation of risk have changed. Modern risk approaches are expected to deal with both calculable and uncertain risk. TA is encouraged to look beyond effects, to also analyze current visions and values that drive science and technology. Based on the concept of uncertainty, attempts have been made to characterize risk or problem situations in order to clarify the limitations of the classical RA and TA approaches. The claim is that in case of scientific and regulatory uncertainties, and value dissent more participatory approaches to RA and TA are required, which seek to represent public controversy. The IRGC risk governance framework can be seen as exemplary for the new risk approach. From arisk governance perspective, RA and parliamentary TA have become complementary practices. The case of risk governance on nanotechnology in the Netherlands proofs this point. However, parliamentary TA’s role within risk governance presents aremarkable blind spot on the current research agenda.

Keywords

Risk Assessment Risk Assessment Technology Assessment Participatory Approach Risk Management Strategy 
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.

References

  1. Beck U(1992) Risk society: towards anew modernity. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. Bereano P(1997) Reflections of aparticipant-observer: the technocratic/democratic contradiction in the practice of technology assessment. Technol Forecast Soc 54(2&3):163–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bimber B, Guston DH (1997)Technology assessment – the end of OTA. Technol Forecast Soc 54(2&3):125–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Coates JF (2001)A21st century agenda for technology assessment. Technol Forecast Soc 67:303–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Decker M, Ladikas M(eds) (2004)Bridges between science, society and policy. Technology assessment – methods and impacts. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg/New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Everson M, Vos E(eds) (2009)Uncertain risks regulated. Routledge-Cavendish, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Felt U(rapporteur) (2007)Taking European knowledge society seriously. Report of the expert group on science and governance. European Commission Science, Directorate-General for Research, Directorate Science, Economy and Society, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  8. Ferrari A, Nordmann A(eds) (2009)Reconfiguring responsibility: lessons for nanoethics (Part 2 of the report on deepening debate on nanotechnology). Durham University, DurhamGoogle Scholar
  9. Fischer F, Forester J(eds) (1993)The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning. Duke University Press, DurhamGoogle Scholar
  10. Fischoff B, Lichtenstein S, Slovic P, Derby SL, Keeney RL (1981)Acceptable risk. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  11. Gezondheidsraad (2006)Betekenis van nanotechnologieën voor de gezondheid. Gezondheidsraad, Den HaagGoogle Scholar
  12. Grin J, Van de Graaf H, Hoppe R(1997) Technology assessment through interaction: aguide. Rathenau Institute, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  13. Grin J, Grunwald A(eds) (2000)Vision assessment: shaping technology in the 21st century. Towards arepertoire for technology assessment. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg/New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Grunwald A(2009) Technology assessment: concepts and methods. In: Dov M, Meijers A, Woods J(eds) Handbook of the philosophy of science. Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences, vol9. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp1103–1146Google Scholar
  15. Hanssen L, Van Walhout B, Est R(2008) Ten lessons for ananodialogue: the Dutch debate about nanotechnology thus far. Rathenau Institute, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  16. Harremoës P, Gee D, MacGarwin M, Stirling A, Keys J, Wynne B, Guedes Vaz S(2001) Late lessons from early warnings: the precautionary principle 1896–2000. European Environment Agency, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  17. Hood C, Rothstein H, Baldwin R(2001) The government of risk: understanding risk regulation regimes. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  18. Jaspers K(1965) Kleine Schule des philosophischen Denkens. R.Piper, MünchenGoogle Scholar
  19. Joss S (ed.) (1999) Special issue on public participation in science and technology. Science and Public Policy 26(5):289–380Google Scholar
  20. Joss S(2000) Participation in parliamentary technology assessment: from theory to practice. In: Vig NJ, Paschen H(eds) Parliaments and technology: the development of technology assessment in Europe. State University of New York Press, New York, pp325–364Google Scholar
  21. Joss S, Bellucci S(eds) (2002)Participatory technology assessment: European perspectives. Centre for the Study of Democracy, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. Kabinet (2006)Cabinet view on nanotechnologies. Kabinet, Den HaagGoogle Scholar
  23. Klinke A, Renn O(2002) Anew approach to risk evaluation and management: risk-based, precaution-based, and discourse-based strategies. Risk Anal 22(6):1071–1094CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Klinke A(2009) Inclusive risk governance through discourse, deliberation and participation. In: Everson M, Vos E(eds) Uncertain risks regulated. Routledge-Cavendish, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Knight FH (1921)Risk, uncertainty and profit. Houghton Mifflin, Boston/New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Kunkle GC (1995)New challenge or the past revisited? The office of technology assessment in historical context. Technol Soc 17(2):175–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lynn LE (1981)Managing the public’s business: the job of the government executive. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. Maasen S, Merz M(2006) TA Swiss broadens its perspective. Technology assessment with asocial and cultural sciences orientation. TA Swiss Centre for Technology Assessment, BernGoogle Scholar
  29. Malsch I(2006) Verslaglegging Expertmeeting milieu- en gezondheidsrisico’s van nanodeeltjes: Naar een prudent beleid. Rathenau Instituut, Den HaagGoogle Scholar
  30. National Research Council (1983)Risk assessment in the federal government: managing the process. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  31. Paschen H (2000) The technology assessment bureau of the German parliament. In: Vig NJ, Paschen H (eds) Parliaments and technology: The development of technology assessment in Europe. State University of New York Press, New York, pp 93–124Google Scholar
  32. Perrow C(1984/1999) Normal accidents: living with high-risk technologies. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  33. Renn O(1999) Participative technology assessment: meeting the challenges of uncertainty and ambivalence. Futures Res Q15(3):81–97Google Scholar
  34. Renn O(2005) IRGC White Paper No. 1: risk governance – towards an integrative approach. International Risk Governance Council (IRGC), GenevaGoogle Scholar
  35. Roszek B, De Jong WH, Geertsma RE (2005)Nanotechnology in medical applications: state of the art in materials and devices. RIVM, BilthovenGoogle Scholar
  36. Slocum N(2003) Participatory methods toolkit. Apractitioner’s manual. King Baudouin Foundation and Flemish Institute for Science and Technology Assessment (viWTA), BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  37. Slovic P(1978/2000) The perception of risk. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  38. Stern PC, Fineberg HV (eds) (1994)Understanding risk: informing decisions in ademocratic society. National Academic Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  39. Swierstra T, Van Est R, Boenink M(2009) Taking care of the symbolic order: how converging technologies challenge our concepts. JNanoethics 3(3):269–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. U.S. Congress (1972)The Technology Act of 1972. Public Law 92–484, H.R. 10243, 13 Oct 1972Google Scholar
  41. Van Asselt M, Vos E, Rooijakkers B(2009) Science, knowledge and uncertainty in EU risk regulation. In: Everson M, Vos E(eds) Uncertain risks regulated. Routledge-Cavendish, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  42. Van Eijndhoven J(1997) Technology assessment: product or process? Technol Forecast Soc 54(1997):269–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Van Est R, Malsch I, Rip A(2004) Om het kleine te waarderen: Een schets van nanotechnologie: Publiek debat, toepassingsgebieden en maatschappelijke aandachtspunten. Rathenau Instituut, Den HaagGoogle Scholar
  44. Van Est R, Walhout B(2010) Waiting for nano – very actively: along-term view on the role of the Rathenau Institute in stimulating the Dutch debate on nanotechnology. Technikfolgenabschätzung – Theorie und Praxis 2 (July) 67–74Google Scholar
  45. Van Est R, Brom F(2012). Technology assessment as an analytic and democratic practice. In: Encyclopedia of applied ethics. (2nd edition) Elsevier Science, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  46. Van Keulen I, Van Est R(2004) Gezondheids- en milieurisico’s van nanodeeltjes: achtergrondinformatie voor de Themacommissie Technologiebeleid. Rathenau Instituut, Den HaagGoogle Scholar
  47. Vig NJ, Paschen H(eds) (2000)Parliaments and technology: the development of technology assessment in Europe. State University of New York Press, NewYorkGoogle Scholar
  48. VROM (2004)Nuchter omgaan met risico’s: Beslissen met gevoel voor onzekerheden. Ministerie van VROM, Den HaagGoogle Scholar
  49. Wildavsky A(1988) Searching for safety. Transaction, New BrunswickGoogle Scholar
  50. Wilsdon J, Willis R(2004) See-through science: why public engagement needs to move upstream. Demos, LondonGoogle Scholar
  51. WRR – Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid (2008)Onzekere veiligheid: Verantwoordelijkheden rond fysieke veiligheid. Amsterdam University Press, AmsterdamCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Technology AssessmentRathenau InstituteThe HagueThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations