LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Journal: Research Policy
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: Management of Technology and Innovation, S, Management Science and Operations Research, T, H, Strategy and Management, Engineering(all)
Technology assessment (TA) has a strong history of helping to identify priorities and improve environmental sustainability, cost-effectiveness and wider benefits in the technology policies and innovation strategies of nation-states. At international levels, TA has the potential to enhance the roles of science, technology and innovation towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals, effectively implementing the UN Framework on Climate Change and fostering general global transitions to ‘green economies’. However, when effectively recommending single ostensibly ‘best’ technologies or strategies, TA practices can serve unjustifiably to ‘close down’ debate, failing adequately to address technical uncertainties and social ambiguities, reducing scope for democratic accountability and co-ordination across scales and contexts. This paper investigates ways in which contrasting processes ‘broadening out’ and ‘opening up’ TA can enhance both rigour and democratic accountability in technology policy, as well as facilitating social relevance and international cooperation. These methods allow TA to illuminate options, uncertainties and ambiguities and so inform wider political debates about how the contending questions, values and knowledges of different social interests often favour contrasting innovation pathways. In this way TA can foster both technical robustness and social legitimacy in subsequent policy-making. Drawing on three empirical case studies (at local, national and international levels), the paper discusses detailed cases and methods, where recent TA exercises have contributed to this ‘broadening out’ and ‘opening up’. It ends by exploring wider implications and challenges for national and international technology assessment processes that focus on global sustainable development challenges.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Abels, G., 2006. Forms and functions of participatory technology assessment - or: why should we be more sceptical about public participation? In: Paper Presented at the 'Participatory Approaches in Science & Technology (PATH)' Conference 4th-7th June, Edinburgh, Scotland.
    • ActionAid, 2000. ActionAid Citizens' Jury Initiative: Indian Farmers Judge GM Crops. ActionAid, London.
    • ADAPTA, 2001. Assessing Public Debate and Participation in Technology Assessment in Europe Final Report. INRA, Grenoble.
    • AEBC, 2005. What Shapes the Research Agenda in Agricultural Biotechnology? Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission, London.
    • Arnall, A.H., 2003. Future Technologies, Today's Choices: Nanotechnology, Artificial Intelligence and Robotics - A Technical, Political and Institutional Map of Emerging Technologies. Greenpeace Environmental Trust, London.
    • Arthur, W., 1994. Increasing Returns and Path Dependence in the Economy. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
    • Bora, A., 2009. Technoscientific normativity and the iron cage of law. Science, Technology & Human Values 35 (1), 3-28, http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1177/0162243908329566.
    • Braun, E., 1998. Technology in Context: Technology Assessment for Managers. Routledge, London.
    • Brooks, H., 1976. Technology Assessment in Retrospect. Newsletter on Science, Technology and Human Values 17, 17-29.
    • Brooks, S., Thompson, J., Odame, H., Kibaara, B., Nderitu, S., Karin, F., Millstone, E., 2009. Environmental Change and Maize Innovation in Kenya: Exploring Pathways In and Out of Maize, STEPS Working Paper 36. STEPS Centre, Brighton.
    • CEC, 2011. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - Rio + 20: towards the green economy and better governance, COM(2011) 363 final.
    • Chambers, R., Pacey, R., Thrupp, L.A., 1989. Farmer First: Farmer Innovation and Agricultural Research. ITDG Publishing, Rugby.
    • Chambers, R., 1993. Challenging the Professions: Frontiers for Rural Development. ITP, London.
    • Chambers, R., 1994. The origins and practice of participatory rural appraisal. World Development 22 (7), 953-969.
    • Châtel, B.H., 1979. Technology assessment and developing countries. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 13, 203-211.
    • Chen, S., Ravallion, M., 2008. The Developing World Is Poorer Than We Thought, But No Less Successful in the Fight against Poverty - World Bank Policy Research Working Paper Series 4703, World Bank, Washington DC.
    • Chen, D., Wu, C.-L., 2007. Introduction: public participation in science and technology in East Asia. East Asian Science, Technology and Society: An International Journal 1, 15-18.
    • Coghlan, A., 2008. How to kickstart an agricultural revolution. New Scientist, 5th April.
    • Collingridge, D., 1980. The Social Control of Technology. Open University Press, Milton Keynes.
    • Collingridge, D., 1983. Technology in the Policy Process: Controlling Nuclear Power. Frances Pinter, London.
    • Dosi, G., Nelson, R.R., 1994. An introduction to evolutionary theories in economics. Journal of Evolutionary Economics 4, 153-172.
    • de Finetti, N., 1974. Theory of Probability. Wiley, New York.
    • Dreyer, M., Renn, O., 2009. Food Safety Governance: Integrating Science, Precaution and Public Involvement. Springer, Berlin.
    • Dylander, B., 1980. Technology assessment: as science and as tools for policy. Acta Sociologica 23 (4), 217-236.
    • Ely, A., Scoones, I., 2009. The Global Redistribution of Innovation: Lessons from China and India, STEPS Working Paper 22. STEPS Centre, Brighton.
    • Enzing, C., Deuten, J., Rijnders-Nagle, M., van Til, J., 2012. Technology Across Borders - Exploring Perspectives for Pan-European Parliamentary Technology Assessment. European Parliament, STOA, Brussels.
    • EUROpTA, 2010. European Participatory Technology Assessment - Participatory Methods in Technology Assessment and Technology Decision-making. Danish Board of Technology, Copenhagen.
    • Faber, M., Proops, J., 1994. Evolution, Time, Production and the Environment. Springer, Berlin.
    • Felt, U., Wynne, B., Callon, M., Goncalves, M., Jasanoff, S., Jepsen, M., Joly, P.-B., Konopasek, Z., May, S., Neubauer, C., Rip, A., Siune, K., Stirling, A., Tallachini, M., 2007. Science and Governance: Taking European Knowledge Society Seriously, Report to of the Expert Group on Science and Governance to DG Research.
    • Feyerabend, P., 1978. Science in a Free Society. Verso, London.
    • Fiorino, D., 1989. Environmental risk and democratic process: a critical review. Columbia Journal of Environmental Law 14, 501-547.
    • Fiorino, D.J., 1998. Technical and democratic values in risk assessment. Risk Analysis 9 (3), 293-299.
    • Foresight, 2011. The Future of Food and Farming, Final Project Report. The Government Office for Science, London.
    • Funtowicz, S., Ravetz, J., 1990. Uncertainty and Quality in Science for Policy. Kluwer, Amsterdam.
    • Ganzevles, J., Est, R. van (Eds.), 2012. TA Practices in Europe. PACITA Project.
    • Gee, G., Harremoës, P., MacGarvin, M., Stirling, A., Keys, J., Wynne, B., Vaz, S., 2002. Introduction. In: Harremoës, P., Gee, D., MacGarvin, M., Stirling, A., Keys, J., Wynne, B., Vaz, S. (Eds.), The Precautionary Principle in the Twentieth Century: Late Lessons from Early Warnings. Earthscan, London.
    • Goonatilake, S., 1994. Technology assessment: some questions from a developing country perspective. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 45, 63-77.
    • Grabher, G., Stark, D., 1997. Organizing diversity: evolutionary theory, network analysis and postsocialism. Regional Studies 31 (5), 533-544.
    • Grimshaw, D., Stilgoe, J., Gudza, L., 2007. The Role of New Technologies in Potable Water Provision: A Stakeholder Workshop Approach. Practical Action, Rugby.
    • Grimshaw, D., 2009. Arsenic Sensor Technology Workshop , Kathmandu, Tuesday 26th May. Practical Action, Rugby.
    • Grimshaw, D., 2011a. Telephone interview with Adrian Ely, 18th March.
    • Grimshaw, D., 2011b. Email communication to Adrian Ely, 15th September.
    • Gudza, L., 2010. Interview with Adrian Ely, Practical Action Office Harare, 29th October.
    • Guston, D., Sarewitz, D., 2002. Real-time Technology Assessment. Technology in Society 24, 93-109.
    • Hendriks, C.M., Grin, J. 2006. Grounding reflexive governance in practice and context: some democratic considerations. In Governance for Sustainable Development Workshop 5-7th February 2006, Berlin.
    • Hennen, L., 2012. Why do we still need participatory technology assessment? Poiesis & Praxis: International Journal of Ethics of Science and Technology Assessment 9 (1/2), 27-41, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10202-012-0122-5.
    • Hennen, L., Ladikas, M., 2009. Embedding society in European science and technology policy advice. In: Ladikas, M. (Ed.), Embedding Society in Science and Technology Policy - European and Chinese perspectives. European Commission, Brussels, pp. 39-64, 27/223.
    • Hirakawa, H., 2010. Outline of the Project “Deliberation and Collaboration between Citizens and Scientists (DeCoCiS)”, introduction to the session on “Empowering Citizens and Scientists to engage in Deliberative Dialogue, Community-based Research and Technology Assessment. Annual Meeting of the Society for the Social Studies of Science (4S), Tokyo.
    • Hood, C., 2002. Managing risk and managing blame: a political science approach. In: Weale, A. (Ed.), Risk, Democratic Citizenship and Public Policy. OUP/British Academy Press, Oxford.
    • Hoppe, R., Grin, J., 1999. Pollution through traffic and transport: the praxis of cultural pluralism in parliamentarian technology assessment. In: Thompson, M., Grendstad, G., Selle, P. (Eds.), Cultural Theory as Political Science. Taylor & Francis, Abingdon, UK.
    • Hoppe, R., 2010. The Governance of Problems: Puzzling, Powering and Participation. The Policy Press, Bristol.
    • Houghton, A., 1995. 'In Memoriam: The Office of Technology Assessment 1972-95' Congressional Record, Extension of Remarks - September 28., pp. E1868-E1870, http://fas.org/ota/technology assessment and congress/houghton/ (accessed 09.05.11).
    • IAASTD, 2009. Agriculture at a Crossroads. International Assessment on Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development: Synthesis Report. Island Press, Washington, DC.
    • IFOAM, 2008. IFOAM Appreciates IAASTD Report on a New Agriculture Paradigm Focusing on Poor Farmers as a Step in the Right Direction. International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements, Bonn.
    • IIED, 2007. A Citizens Space for Democratic Deliberation on GMOs and the Future of Farming in Mali. International Institute for Environment and Development, London.
    • IPTS, 1999. 'On Science and Precaution in the Management of Technological Risk', final synthesis report of a project conducted for the EC Forward Studies Unit under the auspices of the ESTO Network.
    • Jaeger, C., Webler, T., Rosa, E., Renn, O., 2001. Risk Uncertainty and Rational Action. Earthscan, London.
    • Jasanoff, S., 2004. States of Knowledge: The Co-production of Science and Social Order. Routledge, London and New York.
    • Klüver, L., Nentwich, M., Peissl, W., Torgersen, H., Gloede, F., Hennen, L., Eijndhoven, J.V., Est, R.V., Joss, S., Bellucci, S., Bütschi, D., 2000. European Participatory Technology Assessment: Participatory Methods in Technology Assessment and Technology Decision-Making. Danish Board of Technology, Copenhagen.
    • Knight, F., 1921. Risk, Uncertainty and Profit. Houghton Mifflin, Boston.
    • Kuhlmann, S., 2001. Evaluation as a source of strategic intelligence. In: Shapira, P., Kuhlmann, S. (Eds.), Proceedings from the 2000 US-European Workshop on Learning from Science and Technology Policy Evaluation. Bad Herrenalb, Germany, pp. 11.21-11.59.
    • Kuruganti, K., Pimbert, M., Wakeford, T., 2008. The people's vision - UK and Indian reflections on Prajateerpu. Participatory Learning and Action 58, 12-17.
    • Ladikas, M., Decker, M. 2004. Assessing the Impact of Future-Oriented Technology Assessment. In: Proceedings of EU-US Seminar: New technology foresight, forecasting and assessment methods, Seville, 13-14 May 2004 (pp. 2-14) http://foresight.jrc.ec.europa.eu/fta/papers/Session%204%20What's%20the% 20Use/Assessing%20the%20Impact%20of%20Future-Oriented%20Technology. pdf (accessed 14.10.2013).
    • Landau, R., Taylor, T., Wright, G. (Eds.), 1996. The Mosaic of Economic Growth. Stanford University Press, Stanford.
    • Leach, M., Scoones, I., Stirling, A., 2007. Pathways to Sustainability: An Overview of the STEPS Centre Approach. STEPS Centre, Brighton.
    • Leach, M., Scoones, I., Stirling, A., 2010. Dynamic Sustainabilities: Technology, Environment and Social Justice. EarthScan, London.
    • Loasby, B., 1976. Choice Complexity and Ignorance: An Inquiry into Economic Theory and the Practice of Decision Making. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
    • Loeber, A., 2004. Method and practice of interactive technology assessment: learning from a Dutch analytic experiment on sustainable crop protection. In: European Association for the Study of Science and Technology (EASST) Conference, Paris.
    • Lux Research, 2010. Ranking the Nations on Nanotech: Hidden Havens and False Threats - State of the Market Report. Lux Research Inc., Boston, MA.
    • Martin, B.R., Johnston, R., 1999. Technology foresight for wiring up the national innovation system - a review of recent government exercises. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 60 (1), 37-54.
    • Mayer, S., Stirling, A., 2004. GM crops, for good or bad? Those who choose the questions, determine the answers. European Molecular Biology Organisation Reports 5 (1).
    • Mehta, L., Srinivasan, B., 1999. Balancing Pains and Gains. A perspective paper on gender and dams, Thematic Review 1.1, The Social Impacts of Large Dams: Equity and Distributional Issues, World Commission on Dams, www.dams.org
    • Mellado, R. (Ed.), 2010. Nanotecnología de agua y saneamiento, Perú: Memorias del seminario y taller. Practical Action and Consejo Nacional de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación Tecnológica, Lima.
    • Milanovic, B., 2010. The Haves and the Have-Nots: A Brief and Idiosyncratic History of Global Inequality. Basic Books, New York.
    • Morgan, M.G., Henrion, M., 1990. Uncertainty: A Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty in Quantitative Risk and Policy Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
    • Nature, 2008. Editorial: deserting the hungry? Nature 451, 223-224.
    • Nature Biotechnology, 2008. Editorial: off the rails. Nature Biotechnology 26, 247.
    • Nelson, R., Winter, S.G., 1982. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Belknap Press, Cambridge, MA.
    • NRC National Research Council, 1996. Understanding risk: informing decisions in a democratic society. In: National Research Council Committee on Risk Characterisation. National Academy Press, Washington.
    • OECD, 1986. Recombinant DNA Safety Considerations: Safety Considerations for Industrial, Agricultural and Environmental Applications of Organisms Derived by Recombinant DNA Techniques. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris.
    • OECD, 2009. OECD Work on the International Futures Programme: Horizons. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris.
    • Ornetzeder, M., Kastenhofer, K., 2012. Old problems, new directions and upcoming requirements in participatory technology assessment. Poiesis & Praxis, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10202-012-0116-3.
    • Parsons, A., 2008. “World Bank Poverty Figures: What Do They Mean?”, Share the World's Resources, http://www.stwr.org/globalization/world-bankpoverty-figures-what-do-theymean.html (accessed 10.09.09).
    • Pellizzoni, L., 2001. The myth of the best argument: power deliberation and reason. British Journal of Sociology 52 (1), 59-86.
    • Pellizzoni, L., 2003. Uncertainty and participatory democracy. Environmental Values 12 (2), 195-224, http://dx.doi.org/10.3197/096327103129341298.
    • Ravetz, J., 1986. Usable knowledge, usable ignorance: incomplete science with policy implications. In: Clark, W., Munn, C. (Eds.), Sustainable Development of the Biosphere. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
    • Rejeski, D., 2005. Open-source Technology Assessment or e.Technology Assessment. Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars, Washington DC.
    • Renn, O., Webler, T., Wiedemann, P., 1995. Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse. Dordrecht, Kluwer.
    • Renn, O., 1999. A model for an analytic-deliberative process in risk management. Environmental Science and Technology 33 (18), 3049-3055.
    • Rip, A., 1986. Controversies as informal technology assessment. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization 8 (2), 349-371.
    • Rip, A., Schot, J.W., Misa, T.J., 1995. Managing Technology in Society: The Approach of Constructive Technology Assessment. Pinter Publishers, New York.
    • Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, A., Chapin, F.S., Lambin, E.F., Lenton, T.M., Scheffer, M., Folke, C., Schellnhuber, H.J., Nykvist, B., De Wit, C.A., Hughes, T., Van Der Leeuw, S., Rodhe, H., Sorlin, S., Snyder, P.K., Costanza, R., Svedin, U., Falkenmark, M., Karlberg, L., Corell, R.W., Fabry, V.J., Hansen, J., Walker, B., Liverman, D., Richardson, K., Crutzen, P., Foley, J.A., 2009. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461 (7263), 472-475.
    • Rodmeyer, M., Sarewitz, D., Wilsdon, J., 2005. The Future of Technology Assessment. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington DC.
    • Rosenberg, N., 1982. Inside the Black Box: Technology and Economics. Cambridge, University Press, Cambridge.
    • Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, 1998. Setting Environmental Standards, Twenty-first Report. HMSO, London.
    • Royal Society & Royal Academy of Engineering, 2004. Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and Uncertainties. Royal Society & Royal Academy of Engineering, London.
    • Rusike, E., 2003. Izwi neTarisiro - Zimbabwe's Citizens Jury, vol. October. Seedling.
    • Saltelli, A., Ratto, M., Andres, T., Campolongo, F., 2008. Global Sensitivity Analysis: The Primer. Wiley Blackwell, Chichester.
    • Sclove, R., 2010. Reinventing Technology Assessment: a 21st Century Model. Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars, Washington, DC.
    • Scoones, I., Leach, M., Smith, A., Stagl, S., Stirling, A., Thompson, J., 2007. Dynamic Systems and the Challenge of Sustainability, STEPS Working Paper 1. STEPS Centre, Brighton.
    • Scoones, I., Thompson, J. (Eds.), 2009. Farmer First Revisited: Innovation for Agricultural Research and Development. Practical Action, Rugby.
    • Scoones, I., 2008. Global Engagements with Global Assessments: The Case of the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD), IDS Working Paper 313. Institute of Development Studies, Brighton.
    • Scoones, I., 2009. The politics of global assessments: the case of the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD). Journal of Peasant Studies 36 (3), 547-571.
    • STEPS Centre, 2010. Innovation, Sustainability, Development: A New Manifesto. STEPS Centre, Brighton.
    • Stilgoe, J., 2007. Nanodialogues: Experiments in Public Engagement with Science. DEMOS, London.
    • Stirling, A., 1998. Risk at a turning point? Journal of Risk Research 1 (2), 97-109.
    • Stirling, A., Mayer, S., 2001. A novel approach to the appraisal of technological risk: a multicriteria mapping study of a genetically modified crop. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 19 (4), 529-555.
    • Stirling, A., 2003. Risk, uncertainty and precaution: some instrumental implications from the social sciences. In: Scoones, I., Leach, M., Berkhout, F. (Eds.), Negotiating Change: Perspectives in Environmental Social Science. Edward Elgar, London.
    • Stirling, A., 2006. Precaution, foresight and sustainability: reflection and reflexivity in the governance of technology. In: Voss, J., Kemp, R. (Eds.), Sustainability and Reflexive Governance. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 225-272.
    • Stirling, A., 2007. A general framework for analyzing diversity in science, technology and society. Journal of the Royal Society Interface 4, 707-719.
    • Stirling, A., Leach, M., Mehta, L., Scoones, I., Smith, A., Stagl, S., Thompson, J., 2007. Empowering Designs: towards more progressive appraisal of sustainability, STEPS Working Paper 3. STEPS Centre, Brighton.
    • Stirling, A., 2008. 'Opening up' and 'closing down': power, participation and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Science, Technology and Human Values 33 (2), 262-294.
    • Stirling, A., Scoones, I., 2009. From risk assessment to knowledge mapping: science, precaution, and participation in disease ecology. Ecology and Society 14 (2), 14.
    • Stirling, A., 2010. Keep it complex. Nature 468, 1029-1031.
    • Stirling, A., 2012. From Sustainability, through diversity to transformation: towards more reflexive governance of technological vulnerability. In: Hommels, A., Mesman, J., Bijker, W. (Eds.), Vulnerability in Technological Cultures: New Directions in Research and Governance. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
    • Talyarkhan, S., Grimshaw, D.J., Lowe, L., 2004. Connecting the First Mile: Investigating Best Practice for ICTs and Information Sharing for Development. Intermediate Technology Development Group (now Practical Action) and Cranfield School of Management, Rugby and Cranfield.
    • Thompson, J., Brooks, S., Morgan, M., Millstone, E., Odame, H., Karin, F., Adwera, A., 2011. Orphans or Siblings? Opportunities and Constraints in Alternative Dryland Staple Crops, Project Briefing 5, 'Environmental Change & Maize Innovation in Kenya: Exploring Pathways In and Out of Maize' Project. STEPS Centre, Brighton.
    • Toni, A., Von Braun, J., 2001. Poor citizens decide on the introduction of GMOs in Brazil. Biotechnology and Development Monitor 47 (September), 7-9.
    • Tran, T.A., Daim, T., 2008. A taxonomic review of methods and tools applied in technology assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 75 (9), 1396-1405.
    • UNICEF, 2006. Diluting the Pain of Arsenic Poisoning in Nepal United Nations Childrens Fund (accessed 14.10.13) http://www.unicef.org/ infobycountry/nepal 35975.html
    • UNDP, 2011. Human Development Report 2011 - Sustainability and Equity: A Better Future for All. United Nations Development Programme, New York.
    • UNEP, 2011. Towards a Green Economy: Pathways to Sustainable Development and Poverty Eradication. www.unep.org/greeneconomy
    • UNESCO, 2010. UNESCO Science Report 2010. United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, Paris.
    • UNFCCC, 2010. Fact sheet: A technology revolution to address climate change. http://unfccc.int/files/press/news room/application/pdf/fact sheet a technology revo lution to address climate change.pdf (accessed 04.03.12).
    • United Nations, 1979. General Assembly Resolution 34/218 - Thirty-fourth Session. United Nations, New York.
    • United Nations, 2012a. The Millennium Development Goals Report 2012. United Nations, New York.
    • United Nations, 2012b. Report of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development Rio de Janeiro , Brazil, 20-22 June 2012, A/CONF.216/16. New York.
    • Van Zwanenberg, P., Ely, A., Stirling, A., 2009. Emerging Technologies and Opportunities for International Science and Technology Foresight, STEPS Working Paper 30. STEPS Centre, Brighton.
    • Van Zwanenberg, P., Arza, V., 2013. Biotechnology and its configurations: GM cotton production on large and small farms in Argentina. Technology in Society 35 (2), 105-117.
    • von Hayek, F., 1978. New Studies in Philosophy, Politics, Economics and the History of Ideas. Chicago University Press, Chicago.
    • Wager, R., 2008. Why the IAASTD Failed. Agbioworld, November 5th.
    • Wagner, C., 2008. The New Invisible College: Science for Development. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC.
    • Wakeford, T., 2001. A selection of methods used in deliberative and inclusionary processes. PLA Notes 40, 29-31.
    • Wakeford, T., 2004. Democratising Technology: Reclaiming Science for Sustainable Development. Intermediate Technology Development Group, Rugby.
    • Wilson, R., Casey, A., 2008. Teleparticipation: Engaging Millions. Involve, London.
    • Wynne, B., 1975. The rhetoric of consensus politics: a critical review of technology assessment'. Research Policy 4, 108-158.
    • Wynne, B., 1992. 'Uncertainty and environmental learning: reconceiving science and policy in the preventive paradigm'. Global Environmental Change 2 (2), 111-127.
    • Wynne, B., 2002. Risk and environment as legitimatory discourses of technology: reflexivity inside out? Current Sociology 50 (3), 459-477.
    • Yoshizawa, G., 2010. Third Generation of Technology Assessment. Annual Meeting of the Society for the Social Studies of Science (4S), Tokyo.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article