Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
NanoEthics
Erschienen in: NanoEthics 1/2013

01.04.2013 | Original Paper

Bridging the Gap Between Innovation and ELSA: The TA Program in the Dutch Nano-R&D Program NanoNed

Erschienen in: NanoEthics | Ausgabe 1/2013

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

The Technology Assessment (TA) Program established in 2003 as part of the Dutch R&D consortium NanoNed is interesting for what it did, but also as an indication that there are changes in how new science and technology are pursued: the nanotechnologists felt it necessary to spend part of their funding on social aspects of nanotechnology. We retrace the history of the TA program, and present the innovative work that was done on Constructive TA of emerging nanotechnology developments and on aspects of embedding of nanotechnology in society. One achievement is the provision of tools and approaches to help make the co-evolution of technology and society more reflexive. We briefly look forward by outlining its successor program, TA NanoNextNL, in place since 2011.
Vorheriger Artikel Anticipating the Societal Challenges of Nanotechnologies
Nächster Artikel Context Matters: Promises and Concerns Regarding Nanotechnologies for Water and Food Applications

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Fußnoten
1
“[European Technology Platforms] provide a framework for stakeholders, led by industry, to define research priorities and action plans on a number of technological areas (…). Since they are developed through dialogue among industrial and public researchers and national government representatives, they also contribute to create consensus and to improve alignment of investment efforts. (http://​cordis.​europa.​eu/​technology-platforms/​home_​en.​html, last visited 20 November 2012). See also Rip [19].
 
2
See Kearnes and Rip [10], who refer for examples to Roco and Bainbridge [27], and Krupp and Holliday [12].
 
3
Since then, the usual acronym in Europe and elsewhere is ELSA, Ethical, Legal and Social Aspects; and occasionally, E3LSA, Economic, Environmental, Ethical, Legal and Social Aspects.
 
4
Arie Rip has led TANanoNed, Harro van Lente is now directing TA NanoNextNL.
 
6
The TA component was included because acting director David Reinhoudt had noted what was happening in the US [27] and wanted to be pro-active (this was 2002). So he asked Rip to spend a million euro on a TA Nano program a write up of a few pages would be sufficient.
 
7
This was noted earlier [4, 27]. For general public engagement exercises the situation is still the same, but there are few attempts to create “societal panels”, e.g. to advise research councils about priorities in certain areas.
 
10
Garud and Ahlstrom [6] discuss the diagnosis in terms of ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders’, while we prefer ‘enactors’ and ‘comparative selectors’ [15] or ‘receptors. One reason is that also within the nanotechnology world one can distinguish enactors and comparative selectors, e.g. business customers buying nano-materials.
 
11
A concrete indication of credibility pressure is how external actors (government agencies, commentators, and reviewers of NanoNed) found the inclusion of TA in the NanoNed program very important.
 
12
The work on the eighth thesis [33] was funded through the Faculty of Management and Governance of the University of Twente, as part of the so-called matching budget of the TA NanoNed Program. The research questions were relevant for the TA NanoNed Program, but were not derived from the Constructive TA core diagnosis of the TA NanoNed Program.
 
14
At the programme level, such an activity helps to improve legitimacy of the consortium and its being funded with public money.
 
Literatur
1.
Den Boer D, Rip A, Speller S (2009) Scripting possible futures of nanotechnologies: a methodology which enhances reflexivity. Technol Soc 31(3):295–304CrossRef
2.
Dorbeck-Jung B, Van Amerom M (2008) The hardness of soft law in the United Kingdom: state and non-state regulatory conceptions related to nanotechnological development. In: Verschuren J, Schooten-van der Meer H (eds) The state legislature and non-state law. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 129–150
3.
Doubleday R (2007) Risk, public engagement and reflexivity: alternative framings of the public dimensions of nanotechnology. Health Risk Soc 2:211–227CrossRef
4.
Fisher E, Rip A (forthcoming) Responsible innovation: multi-level dynamics and soft intervention practices. In: Owen R, Bessant J, Heintz M (eds) Responsible innovation. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester
5.
Garud R, Ahlstrom D (1997) Technology assessment: a socio-cognitive perspective. J Eng Technol Manag 14:25–48CrossRef
6.
Gavelin K, Wilson R, Doubleday R (2007) Democratic technologies? the final report of the Nanotechnology Engagement Group (NEG). Involve, London
7.
Hanssen L (2009) From transmission toward transaction. Design requirements for successful public participation in communication and governance of science and technology. Dissertation, University of Twente
8.
Joly P-B, Rip A, Callon M (2010) Reinventing innovation. In: Arentsen M, Van Rossum W, Steenge B (eds) Governance of innovation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 19–32
9.
Kearnes M, Rip A (2009) The emergent goverance landscape of nanotechnology. In: Gammel S, Lösch A, Nordmann A (eds) Jenseits von Regulierung: Zum politischen Umgang mit der Nanotechnologie. Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft, Heidelberg, pp 97–121
10.
Krabbenborg L (forthcoming) The challenge of public-sphere type interactions between enactors of nanotechnology and civil society actors. Dissertation, University of Groningen
11.
Krupp F, Holliday C (2005) Let’s get nanotech right. Wall Street Journal, June 14. Management Supplement, B2
12.
Parandian A (2012) Constructive TA of newly emerging technologies. Stimulating learning by anticipation through bridging events. Dissertation, Technical University Delft
13.
Parandian A, Rip A, Te Kulve H (2012) Dual dynamics of promises and waiting games around emerging nanotechnologies. Tech Anal Strat Manag 24(6):565–582CrossRef
14.
Rip A (2006) Folk theories of nanotechnologists. Sci Cult 15(4):349–365CrossRef
15.
16.
Rip A (2010) De facto governance of nanotechnologies. In: Goodwin M, Koops B-J, Leenes R (eds) Dimensions of technology regulation. Wolf Legal Publishers, Nijmegen, pp 285–308
17.
Rip A (2012) Futures of technology assessment. In: Decker M, Grunwald A, Knapp M (eds) Der Systemblick auf Innovation–Technikfolgenabschätzung in der Technikgestaltung. Edition Sigma Verlag, Berlin, pp 29–39
18.
Rip A (2012) The context of innovation journeys. Creat Innov Manag 21(2):158–170CrossRef
19.
Rip A, Robinson DKR (forthcoming) Constructive technology assessment and the methodology of insertion. In: Van de Poel I, Doorn N, Schuurbiers D, Gorman ME (eds) Opening up the laboratory: approaches for early engagement with new technologies. Wiley-Blackwell
20.
Rip A, Shelley-Egan C (2010) Positions and responsibilities in the “real” world of nanotechnology. In: von Schomberg R, Davies S (eds) Understanding public debate on nanotechnologies. Options for framing public policy. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels, pp 31–38
21.
Rip A, Te Kulve H (2008) Constructive technology assessment and sociotechnical scenarios. In: Fisher E, Selin C, Wetmore JM (eds) The yearbook of nanotechnology in society, volume I: presenting futures. Springer, Berlin, pp 49–70
22.
Rip A, Van Amerom M (2010) Emerging de facto agendas around nanotechnology: two cases full of contingencies, lock-outs, and lock-ins. In: Kaiser M, Kurath M, Maasen S, Rehmann-Sutter C (eds) Governing future technologies. Nanotechnology and the rise of an assessment regime. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 131–155
23.
Robinson DKR (2009) Co-evolutionary scenarios: an application to prospecting futures of the responsible development of nanotechnology. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 76:1222–1239CrossRef
24.
Robinson DKR (2010) Constructive technology assessment of emerging nanotechnologies. Experiments in interactions. Dissertation, University of Twente
25.
Robinson DKR, Propp T (2008) Multi-path mapping as a tool for reflexive alignment in emerging S&T. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 75:517–538CrossRef
26.
27.
Ruivenkamp M (2011) Circulating images of nanotechnology. Dissertation, University of Twente
28.
Schot J, Rip A (1997) The past and future of constructive technology assessment. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 54:251–268CrossRef
29.
Shelley-Egan C (2011) Ethics in practice: responding to an evolving problematic situation of nanotechnology in society. Dissertation, University of Twente
30.
Swierstra T, Rip A (2007) Nano-ethics as NEST-ethics: patterns of moral argumentation about new and emerging science and technology. NanoEthics 1:3–20CrossRef
31.
Te Kulve H (2011) Anticipatory interventions in the co-evolution of nanotechnology and society. Dissertation, University of Twente
32.
Van der Most F (2009) Research councils facing new science and technology. The case of nanotechnology in Finland, the Netherlands, Norway, and Switzerland. Dissertation, University of Twente
33.
Van Est Q, Malsch I, Rip A (2004) Om het kleine te waarderen. Een schets van nanotechnologie: publiek debat, toepassingsgebieden en maatschappelijke aandachtspunten. Rathenau Instituut, The Hague, Werkdocument 93
34.
Van Lente H (1993) Promising technology. Dissertation, University of Twente
35.
Van Lente H, Bakker S (2010) Competing expectations: the case of hydrogen storage technologies. Tech Anal Strat Manag 22(6):693–709CrossRef
36.
Van Lente H, Van Til J (2007) A combined roadmapping-cluster approach for emerging technologies. Int J Foresight Innov Policy 3(2):121–138CrossRef
37.
Van Lente H, Van Til J (2008) Articulation of sustainability in the emerging field of nanocoatings. J Clean Prod 16:967–976CrossRef
38.
Van Merkerk RO (2007) Intervening in emerging nanotechnologies: a CTA of Lab on a chip technology. Dissertation, Utrecht University
39.
Van Merkerk RO, Van Lente H (2005) Tracing emerging irreversibilities in emerging technologies: the case of nanotubes. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 72:1094–1111CrossRef
40.
Wilsdon J, Willis R (2004) See-through science: why public engagement needs to move upstream. Demos, London
Metadaten
Titel
Bridging the Gap Between Innovation and ELSA: The TA Program in the Dutch Nano-R&D Program NanoNed
Publikationsdatum
01.04.2013
Erschienen in
NanoEthics / Ausgabe 1/2013
Print ISSN: 1871-4757
Elektronische ISSN: 1871-4765
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-013-0171-9

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2013

NanoEthics 1/2013 Zur Ausgabe

Introduction

Anticipating the Societal Challenges of Nanotechnologies

Original Paper

Wide Reflective Equilibrium as a Normative Model for Responsible Governance

Original Paper

Meta-Regulation and Nanotechnologies: The Challenge of Responsibilisation Within the European Commission’s Code of Conduct for Responsible Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies Research

Original Paper

DuPont and Environmental Defense Fund Co-Constructing a Risk Framework for Nanoscale Materials: an Occasion to Reflect on Interaction Processes in a Joint Inquiry

Original Paper

Discovering Specific Conditions for Compliance with Soft Regulation Related to Work with Nanomaterials

Original Paper

Transnational Governance Arrangements: Legitimate Alternatives to Regulating Nanotechnologies?

Premium Partner

    Bildnachweise