Towards a prospective technology assessment: challenges and requirements for technology assessment in the age of technoscience

Abstract

The objective of this paper is to contribute to the expanding discourse on conceptual elements of TA. As a point of departure, it takes the recent transformation of the science, technology and innovation system (''technoscience''). We will show that the age of technoscience can be regarded as presenting not only a challenge, but also a chance and opportunity for TA. Embracing this opportunity, however, implies imposing several requirements on TA. In order to specify these requirements and to foster the ongoing discourse on the foundations of TA, this paper suggests a programmatic term: prospective technology assessment (ProTA). This term is intended mainly as a reflection framework, aimed at providing an extension and complement-and not a replacement-of well-established TA concepts. Three requirements for ProTA are sketched: (1) early stage orientation-the temporal dimension, (2) intention and potential orientation-the knowledge dimension, (3) shaping orientation-the power/actor dimension. Examples from fusion and nano research will illustrate the need for ProTA, as well as its specific focus. The paper concedes that ProTA is in its infancy and that there is a clear need for further clarification.Zusammenfassung Dieser Aufsatz möchte einen programmatischen Beitrag zur Theorie-Diskussion der TA leisten. Als deskriptive Basis für eine effektive TA erscheint hierfür die Berücksichtigung der derzeitigen Veränderung des Wissenschafts-, Technologie-und Innovationssystems (,,technoscience'') notwendig. Die Technoscience kann eher als eine Chance für TA denn als ein Problem

Synthetic Biology as Late-Modern Technology

“…We are experiencing a widespread momentum towards interdisciplinarity in engineering and natural sciences and their two-way convergence which also gives substance to the frequently used notion of "technoscience" (cf. Liebert and Schmidt 2010;Nordmann 2006). According to the National Science Foundation, the concept of self-organization serves as a central element towards convergence, integration, and unification within our functionally differentiated, disciplinarily organized, heterogeneous science system: "Unifying Science and Engineering" seems to become possible by "using the concepts of self-organized systems, chaos, multi-length and time-scale organizations, and complex systems" (Roco and Bainbridge 2002, 84).…”

“…ProTA pursues an early-stage approach and therefore has to deal with labels, visions and claims, programs and promises (Liebert and Schmidt 2010;Grunwald 2012). ProTA starts by posing simple but fundamental questions: What does the umbrella term "synthetic biology" mean?…”

“…For a more comprehensive characterization we should not restrict ourselves to goals (as in definition 1), objects ("ontology", as in definition 2), or methods ("methodology", as in definition 3), but also consider the underlying principles and concepts within the technoscientific field. 10 This is central to the method of prospective science and technology assessment (ProTA) (Liebert and Schmidt 2010). We need to add a further definition-fourth, the systems or self-organization definition-that is prevalent in synthetic biology research programs.…”

“…Maintaining them would mean missing opportunities to engage in a prospective science and technology assessment (ProTA) and to implement anticipatory governance regimes (Liebert and Schmidt 2010;von Gleich 2004;von Gleich et al 2012;Grunwald 2012). To accomplish such an early assessment, our late-modern society needs methods to enable a detailed analysis and assessment of what "synthetic biology" is and what it encompasses.…”

“…2 The concept of critical-synthetic interdisciplinarity has been developed in Schmidt (2011Schmidt ( /2014. 3 Methodologically, ProTA encompasses four orientation perspectives that include four dimensions relevant to any innovation process: (1) early-stage orientation-the temporal dimension, (2) intention and potential orientation-the knowledge dimension, (3) shaping orientation-the power/actor dimension, and (4) orientation to the technoscientific core-the technoscientific dimension (Liebert and Schmidt 2010). The last dimension is closely linked to what von Gleich et al (2012) refer to as "characterization of the system's type of a new innovation."…”