Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (4):691-697 (2011)
Authors | |
Abstract |
While the important challenges of public deliberations on emerging technologies are crucial to keep in mind, this paper argues that scholars and practitioners have reason to be more confident in their performance of participatory technology assessments (pTA). Drawing on evidence from the 2008 National Citizens’ Technology Forum (NCTF) conducted by the Center for Nanotechnology in Society at Arizona State University, this paper describes how pTA offers a combination of intensive and extensive qualities that are unique among modes of engagement. In the NCTF, this combination led to significant learning and opinion changes, based on what can be characterized as a high-quality deliberation. The quality of the anticipatory knowledge required to address emerging technologies is always contested, but pTAs can be designed with outcomes in mind—especially when learning is understood as an outcome
|
Keywords | Nanotechnology Deliberation Participatory technology assessment Consensus conference |
Categories | (categorize this paper) |
ISBN(s) | |
DOI | 10.1007/s11948-011-9314-y |
Options |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Download options
References found in this work BETA
Survey Article: Citizen Panels and the Concept of Representation.Mark B. Brown - 2006 - Journal of Political Philosophy 14 (2):203-225.
Negotiating Plausibility: Intervening in the Future of Nanotechnology.Cynthia Selin - 2011 - Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (4):723-737.
Questioning 'Participation': A Critical Appraisal of its Conceptualization in a Flemish Participatory Technology Assessment.Michiel van Oudheusden - 2011 - Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (4):673-690.
Evaluating the First U.S. Consensus Conference: The Impact of the Citizens’ Panel on Telecommunications and the Future of Democracy.David H. Guston - 1999 - Science, Technology, and Human Values 24 (4):451-482.
Citations of this work BETA
Negotiating Plausibility: Intervening in the Future of Nanotechnology.Cynthia Selin - 2011 - Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (4):723-737.
Anticipatory Ethics for a Future Internet: Analyzing Values During the Design of an Internet Infrastructure.Katie Shilton - 2015 - Science and Engineering Ethics 21 (1):1-18.
Linking Platforms, Practices, and Developer Ethics: Levers for Privacy Discourse in Mobile Application Development.Katie Shilton & Daniel Greene - 2019 - Journal of Business Ethics 155 (1):131-146.
Editorial Overview: Public Science and Technology Scholars: Engaging Whom?Erik Fisher - 2011 - Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (4):607-620.
Informed Consent in Asymmetrical Relationships: An Investigation Into Relational Factors That Influence Room for Reflection.Shannon Lydia Spruit, Ibo van de Poel & Neelke Doorn - 2016 - NanoEthics 10 (2):123-138.
View all 9 citations / Add more citations
Similar books and articles
Why Do We Still Need Participatory Technology Assessment?Leonhard Hennen - 2012 - Poiesis and Praxis 9 (1-2):27-41.
One Size Fits All? On the Institutionalization of Participatory Technology Assessment and its Interconnection with National Ways of Policy-Making: The Cases of Switzerland and Austria.Erich Griessler - 2012 - Poiesis and Praxis 9 (1-2):61-80.
Legitimation Problems of Participatory Processes in Technology Assessment and Technology Policy.Thomas Saretzki - 2012 - Poiesis and Praxis 9 (1-2):7-26.
Technology Assessment and Ethics.Barbara Skorupinski & Konrad Ott - 2002 - Poiesis and Praxis 1 (2):95-122.
Putting Precaution to Debate – About the Precautionary Principle and Participatory Technology Assessment.Barbara Skorupinski - 2002 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 15 (1):87-102.
Questioning 'Participation': A Critical Appraisal of its Conceptualization in a Flemish Participatory Technology Assessment.Michiel van Oudheusden - 2011 - Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (4):673-690.
From Invited to Uninvited Participation (and Back?): Rethinking Civil Society Engagement in Technology Assessment and Development.Peter Wehling - 2012 - Poiesis and Praxis 9 (1-2):43-60.
Participatory Technology Assessment: Some Critical Questions. [REVIEW]Carl Friedrich Gethmann - 2002 - Poiesis and Praxis 1 (2):151-159.
Do We Need a Specific Kind of Technoscience Assessment? Taking the Convergence of Science and Technology Seriously.Karen Kastenhofer - 2010 - Poiesis and Praxis 7 (1-2):37-54.
A Citizens' Conference on Gene Therapy in Japan: A Feasibility Study of the Consensus Conference Method in Japan. [REVIEW]Yukio Wakamatsu - 1999 - AI and Society 13 (1-2):22-43.
Trust in Nanotechnology? On Trust as Analytical Tool in Social Research on Emerging Technologies.Trond Grønli Åm - 2011 - NanoEthics 5 (1):15-28.
Assessing Expectations: Towards a Toolbox for an Ethics of Emerging Technologies. [REVIEW]Federica Lucivero, Tsjalling Swierstra & Marianne Boenink - 2011 - NanoEthics 5 (2):129-141.
Technikbewertung Als Instrument der Politischen Gestaltung. �Ber Die Steuerbarkeit Moderner Gesellschaften.Manfred Mai - 2003 - Poiesis and Praxis 1 (3):197-209.
Democracy at its Best? The Consensus Conference in a Cross-National Perspective.Annika Porsborg Nielsen, Jesper Lassen & Peter Sandøe - 2007 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 20 (1):13-35.
Analytics
Added to PP index
2011-10-11
Total views
15 ( #694,589 of 2,498,779 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #422,193 of 2,498,779 )
2011-10-11
Total views
15 ( #694,589 of 2,498,779 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #422,193 of 2,498,779 )
How can I increase my downloads?
Downloads