With the development and increasing use of diverse public involvement methods over the past decade, formal technology assessment has shifted from a largely closed, intrainstitutional tool of policy analysis and advice to a tool for the social assessment of scientific-technological issues at the interface between politics and public discourse. Through citizens’ conferences, scenario workshops, and consensus conferences, technology assessment has effectively been opened up to the public sphere: Citizens and interest group representatives are drawn into the process of assessing scientific and technological issues alongside experts, the process often takes place in public, and its outcomes are made widely available for information and debate. This article analyzes the public involvement agenda in technology assessment from the conceptual perspective of the “public sphere.” It discusses key features of public sphere–oriented technology assessment, including public access, actor involvement, and deliberation. And it considers the implications of the public sphere dimension for future developments in participatory technology assessment.
Akademie für Technikfolgenabschätzung
. (2001). Home page. Available: http://www.ta-akademie.de
2.
Andersen, I-E.
, & Jæger, B. (1999). Scenario workshops and consensus conferences: Towards more democratic decision-making. Science and Public Policy, 26(5), 331-340.
3.
Bereano, P. L.
(1997). Reflections of a participant-observer: The technocratic/democratic contradiction in the practice of technology assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 54, 163-175.
4.
Bimber, B.
, & Guston, D. H. (1995). Politics by the same means: Government and science in the United States. In S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Petersen, & T. Pinch (Eds.), Handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 554-571). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
5.
Bimber, B.
, & Guston, D. H. (Eds.). (1997). Technology assessment: The end of OTA [Special issue]. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 54(2&3).
6.
Cambrosio, A.
, & Limoges, C. (1991). Controversies as governing processes in technology assessment. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 3, 377-395.
7.
Chedd, G.
(1972). Emilio Daddario, the godfather of technology assessment. New Scientist, 58(847), 490-493.
8.
Cronberg, T.
(1991). Experiments into the future: A summary of results from Danish social experiments with information technology (Tekster Om Teknologivurdering No. 4). Lyngby: Technical University of Denmark.
9.
Cronberg, T.
(1992). Technology assessment in the Danish socio-political context (Tekster Om Teknologivurdering No. 9). Lyngby: Technical University of Denmark.
10.
Cronberg, T.
(1995). Do marginal voices shape technology? In S. Joss & J. Durant (Eds.), Public participation in science: The role of consensus conferences in Europe (pp. 125-133). London: Science Museum.
11.
deLeon, P.
(1993). Demokratie und Policy-Analyse: Ziele und Arbeitsweise. Politische Vierteljahresschrift, 34(24), 471-485.
12.
Dickson, D.
(1988). The new politics of science (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
13.
Durant, J.
(1999). Participatory technology assessment and the democratic model of the public understanding of science. Science and Public Policy, 26(5), 313-319.
14.
Dürrenberger, G.
, Kastenholz, H., & Behringer, J. (1999). Integrated assessment focus groups: Bridging the gap between science and policy?Science and Public Policy, 26(5), 341-349.
15.
Fischer, F.
(1993). Bürger, Experten und Politik nach dem Nimby-Prinzip: Ein Plädoyer für die partizipatorische Policy-Analyse. Politische Vierteljahresschrift, 34(24), 451-470.
16.
Habermas, J.
(1974). The public sphere: An encyclopedia article (1964). New German Critique, 1(3), 49-55.
17.
Herdman, R. C.
, & Jensen, J. E. (1997). The OTA story: The agency perspective. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 54, 131-143.
18.
Joss, S.
(1998). Danish consensus conferences as a model of participatory technology assessment: An impact study of consensus conferences on Danish Parliament and Danish public debate. Science and Public Policy, 25, 2-22.
19.
Joss, S.
(2000). Participation in parliamentary technology assessment: From theory to practice. In N. J. Vig & H. Paschen (Eds.), Parliaments and technology: The development of technology assessment in Europe (pp. 325-362). Albany: State University of New York Press.
20.
Joss, S.
, & Durant, J. (Eds.). (1995). Public participation in science: the role of consensus conferences in Europe. London: Science Museum.
21.
Joss, S.
, & Klüver, L. (2001). National report: Denmark (Assessing Debate and Participatory Technology Assessment [ADAPTA], Project No. BIO-CT98-0318). Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.
22.
Keane, J.
(1995). Structural transformations of the public sphere. The Communication Review, 1(1), 1-22.
23.
Keane, J.
(1998). Civil society: Old images, new visions. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
24.
Klüver, L.
(1995). Consensus conferences of the Danish Board of Technology. In S. Joss & J. Durant (Eds.), Public participation in science: The role of consensus conferences in Europe (pp. 41-49). London: Science Museum.
25.
Klüver, L.
(2000). The Danish Board of Technology. In N. J. Vig & H. Paschen (Eds.), Parliaments and technology: The development of technology assessment in Europe (pp. 173-197). Albany: State University of New York Press.
26.
The Loka Institute
. (1999). Danish-style, citizen-based deliberative “consensus conferences” on science & technology policy worldwide (as of early 1999). Available: http://www.loka.org/pages/worldpanels.html
27.
The Loka Institute
. (2002). Home page. Available: http://www.loka.org
28.
Mazur, A.
(1981). The dynamics of technical controversy. Washington: Communications Press.
29.
Mazur, A.
(1987). Scientific disputes over policy. In T. H. Engelhardt, Jr., & A. L. Caplan (Eds.), Scientific controversies: Case studies in the resolution and closure of dispute in science and technology (pp. 265-282). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
30.
Nanz, P.
(2000, August-September). L’Europa a piu’ voci: Una concezione dialogica della sfera pubblica [The multiple voices of Europe: Toward a dialogical concept of the public sphere]. Il Mulino. Rivista Bimestrale di Cultura e di Politica, 4, 641-652.
31.
People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy
. (2002). Home page. Available: http://www.pspd.org
32.
Peters, J. D.
(1995). Historical tensions in the concept of public opinion. In T. L. Glasser & C. T. Salmon (Eds.), Public opinion and the communication of consent (pp. 3-32). New York: Guilford.
33.
Shapley, D.
(1972). Office of Technology Assessment: Congress smiles, scientists wince. Science, 115, 970-973.
34.
Special issue on public participation in science and technology
[Special issue]. (1999). Science and Public Policy, 26(5).
35.
Splichal, S.
(1999). Public opinion: Developments and controversies in the twentieth century.Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
36.
Stewart, J.
, Kendall, E., & Coote, A. (1994). Citizens’juries. London: Institute for Public Policy Research.
37.
Stiftung Deutsches Hygiene-Museum
. (2001). Bürgerkonferenz Streitfall Gendiagnostik. 23-26 November 2001. Bürgervotum zur Gendiagnostik. Available: http://www.buergerkonferenz.de
38.
Swiss Science and Technology Council
. (2002). Home page. Available: http://www.ta-swiss.ch
39.
Van Eijndhoven, J.
(2000). The Netherlands: Technology assessment from academically oriented analysis to support of public debate. In N. J. Vig & H. Paschen (Eds.), Parliaments and technology: The development of technology assessment in Europe (pp. 147-172). Albany: State University of New York Press.
40.
Vig, N. J.
(1993, January). Parliamentary technology assessment in Europe: Comparative evolution. Paper presented at the Eighth National Meeting of the National Association for Science, Technology & Society, Arlington, VA.
