Why do we still need participatory technology assessment?

The paper contributes to the current discussion on the role of participatory methods in the context of technology assessment (TA) and science and technology (S&T) governance. It is argued that TA has to be understood as a form of democratic policy consulting in the sense of the Habermasian model of a “pragmatist” relation of science and politics. This notion implies that public participation is an indispensable element of TA in the context of policy advice. Against this background, participatory TA (pTA) is defended against recent criticism of procedures of lay participation which states that pTA is lacking impact on S&T decision making, that pTA instead of opening S&T policies to new perspectives is used as a means to support mainstream S&T policy and that in pTA procedure the authentic lay perspective is systematically contorted by dominant expert knowledge

Max Weber revisited: The value relation(s) of technology assessment

In der aktuellen Debatte um die normativen Grundlagen der Technikfolgenabschätzung (TA) stehen Forderungen nach einer eindeutigen Positionierung der TA in technologiepolitischen Auseinandersetzungen neben Positionen, die an der Rolle der TA als neutraler Beobachter solcher Debatten festhalten wollen. Der Beitrag versucht, durch den Rekurs auf Max Webers kritische Stellungnahmen im ähnlich gelagerten Werturteilsstreit Anfang des 20. Jahrhunderts zur Klärung der Rolle von TA beizutragen. Es wird gezeigt, dass für Max Weber, anders als oft behauptet, Werturteilsfreiheit und engagierte Wissenschaft miteinander vereinbar waren. Für Max Weber war Wissenschaft ohne einen expliziten Bezug auf Werte nicht vorstellbar. Entsprechend kann (und sollte) TA sich ihrer Wertbeziehungen vergewissern, sie auch offensiv vertreten, ohne deshalb den Anspruch werturteilsfreier wissenschaftlicher Analyse aufzugeben.In the current debate on the normative foundations of technology assessment (TA), demands for TA to explicitly take a political stance in technology policy making coexist with positions holding on to TA’s traditional role as a distanced observer of policy making. The present paper tries to clarify TA’s role by revisiting Max Weber’s critical comments in the so-called “Werturteilsstreit” (Value Judgment Dispute) at the beginning of the 20th century. It is argued that, contrary to what is often stated, for Max Weber scientific analysis refraining from value judgments and engaged scientific intervention are consistent with each other. Scientific analysis, for Weber, is impossible to conceive of without explicit reference to societal values. TA accordingly can (and should) be clear about its own value relations (Wertbeziehungen), and hold on to them in political debate, without necessarily abandoning its ambition of proper and distanced scientific analysis

Long-term and cross-sectional policy issues in European governments and parliaments. Summary

Dealing with long-term and cross-cutting issues poses a number of challenges to established routines and the organisation of governments and parliaments based on the division of labour: Long-term social development trends and long-term effects of political measures must be identified and taken into account. Political action must be coordinated between a large number of affected departments. A high degree of coordination with social interest groups is necessary if long-term political goals are to be realised. Subject and objective of the study The TAB project, which was commissioned by the Committee on Education, Research and Technology Assessment and started on 5 July 2000, pursued the question of which procedures and forms of institutionalisation (e.g. interdepartmental programmes, creation of specialised scientific institutions, commissions of enquiry, councils of experts, forums for communication between politics and society) are chosen by European parliaments and governments in dealing with long-term and cross-cutting issues in order to meet the challenges mentioned. In addition to a comparison of countries with regard to sustainability policy in Europe, TAB has compiled an inventory of the advisory institutions for technology assessment established in a number of European countries at the national parliaments

Responsibility versus sustainability, ethics, and societal engagement: The German Science, Technology, Innovation context

We examine the concept of responsible research and innovation (RRI) in Germany in the context of national science, technology and innovation (STI) as well as its legal and normative framework in relation to ethics and societal engagement and compare the results to similar international research. Our analysis shows that responsibility plays a central role in research practice guided by research ethics standards and societal grand challenges. Consequently, there is a significant increase in demands for inclusion and engagement of a wider stakeholder spectrum in STI. Compared to other countries, the concept of RRI in Germany is increasingly superseded by that of sustainability. We argue that responsibility and sustainability are conceptually close and highly interchangeable in the German national debate. We conclude with basic recommendations for greater clarity in research on responsibility and sustainability and the aims of ethics and societal engagement.Im Folgenden wird das Konzept "Responsible Research and Innovation" (RRI) im Kontext nationaler Forschung, Technologie und Innovation (FTI) sowie seiner rechtlichen und normativen Rahmen in Bezug auf Ethik und gesellschaftliche Partizipation untersucht und mit Erkenntnissen internationaler Forschung verglichen. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass Verantwortung eine zentrale Rolle in einer Forschungspraxis einnimmt, die auf forschungsethische Standards und große gesellschaftliche Herausforderungen ausgerichtet ist. Forderungen nach Einbeziehung und Partizipation eines breiteren Stakeholder-Spektrums in FTI nehmen daher deutlich zu. Im Vergleich zu anderen Ländern zeigt sich, dass das RRI-Konzept in Deutschland jedoch zunehmend durch das der Nachhaltigkeit verdrängt wird. Wir argumentieren, dass Verantwortung und Nachhaltigkeit in der deutschen Debatte konzeptionell nahe beieinander liegen und häufig austauschbar sind. Der Beitrag schließt mit grundlegenden Handlungsempfehlungen für mehr Klarheit in der Forschung zu Verantwortung und Nachhaltigkeit sowie den Zielen von Ethik und gesellschaftlicher Partizipation