Technology Assessment in Europe

The write-up below is part of a best practice paper on technology assessment. The complete paper was written and submitted around March 2011.

4. Technology Assessment in Europe

1. Background

The field of Technology Assessment (TA) in Europe is mature, vibrant and dynamic. There are numerous TA organizations in various European countries that conduct equally numerous studies on a variety of areas including information and communication technology, green technology and nanotechnology. As a practice, TA in Europe is highly networked and collaborative. There are at least two supra-national networks of TA organizations in Europe that coordinates and facilitates knowledge- and expertise- sharing. Furthermore, TA is institutionalized in many northern and western European countries like Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, United Kingdom, Austria, Germany, Switzerland, Netherlands and Belgium. The TA institutions in these countries are well-organized and enjoy strong state-support. Moreover, they are very productive and produce practical, relevant results that their respective governments actually use in policy- and decision- making.

2. Technology Assessment Organizations

TA is institutionalized in many European countries as well as the European Union (EU) as a whole. The Science and Technology Options Assessment (STOA) panel is the official TA institution of the European Parliament (the parliamentary body of the EU). It is responsible for conducting TA and advising the European Parliament on technological issues or other issues relating to TA. The STOA itself, as a parliamentary TA institution, is a member of the European Parliamentary Technology Assessment (EPTA) network. It conducts its work in partnership with other member institutions of the EPTA network along with external experts such as research institutes, universities, laboratories, consultancies or individual researchers. Since 2005, the STOA is also advised by the European Technological Assessment Group (ETAG), which like EPTA, is a network of TA institutions.

The EPTA network was established in 1990 on the recommendation of U.K.'s Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. It is a network of TA institutions specializing on advising parliamentary bodies in Europe. The network currently has 14 full members which are as follows:

• Scientific and Technological Options Assessment (STOA), European Parliament
• Teknologirådet - Danish Board of Technology (DBT)
• Tulevaisuusvaliokunta - Committee for the Future, Finnish Parliament
• Instituut Samenleving en technologie (IST) - Institute Society and Technology, Flemish Parliament, Belgium
• Office Parlementaire d'Evaluation des Choix Scientifiques et Technologiques (OPECST) - Parliamentary Office for Evaluation of Scientific and Technological Options, Assemblée Nationale and Sénat, France
• Büro für Technikfolgen-Abschätzung beim Deutschen Bundestag (TAB) - Office of Technology Assessment at the German Parliament
• Committee on Technology Assessment, Greek Parliament
• Comitato per la Valutazione delle Scelte Scientifiche e Tecnologiche (VAST) - Committee for Science and Technology Assessment, Italian Parliament
• Rathenau Instituut, Netherlands
• Teknologirådet - Norwegian Board of Technology (NBT)
• Centre for Technology Assessment / Zentrum für Technologiefolgen-Abschätzung (TA-SWISS), Switzerland
• Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST), UK Parliament
• Consell Assessor del Parlament sobre Ciència i Tecnologia (CAPCIT) - The Advisory Board of the Parliament of Catalonia for Science and Technology
• Utvärderings- och forskningsfunktionen - The Parliamentary evaluation and research unit, Swedish Parliament

To be a full member, an institution must operate in Europe, be devoted to TA or related activities and serve a parliament. It also must have its own budget and secretariat and have an active work program including publications on issues with a scientific and technological component.

Other TA institutions that have a TA program and the resources to realize it, but do not fulfill other criteria for full membership can be granted associate membership. Aside from its 14 full members, the network also has 5 associate members which are as follows:

• Sub-Committee on Science and Ethics of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Strasbourg
• Institute of Technology Assessment (Institut für Technikfolgen-Abschätzung ITA), Austria
• Federaal Wetenschapsbeleid/Politique scientifique fédérale/Föderale Wissenschaftspolitik (BELSPO) - Federal Science Policy Office, Belgium
• Biuro Analiz Sejmowych, Kancelaria Sejmu (BAS) - The Bureau of Research, Polish Parliament
• Government Accountability Office (GAO), Center for Science, Technology and Engineering (CSTE) of the US Congress

The ETAG is a cooperative network of scientific institutions conducting studies in the field of TA. Its members, most of which are also members of EPTA, are:

• Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis (ITAS), Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT)
• Danish Board of Technology (DBT)
• Rathenau Instituut
• Institute Society and Technology (IST)
• Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI)
• Catalan Foundation for Research and Innovation (FCRI)
• Institute of Technology Assessment (ITA)
• Technology Centre AS CR

3. Nature of Technology Assessment

There are a number of TA models that have been described in TA literature. In terms of composition (of the group or team doing the TA), the two common models are the Classic TA model and the Participatory model. In terms of purpose, the common models are the Parliamentary TA model, the Constructive TA model and Discursive TA model.

In the Classic TA model, also known as the Expert TA model, the TA activities are done by a group of experts with only indirect involvement of relevant interest groups and other stakeholders. In the Participatory TA model, the TA activities are performed by a broader group composed not only of technical experts but also of lay persons, representatives of interest groups, civil society, state systems and other social groups. In the Parliamentary models, the purpose of the TA activities is to advise parliamentary and other governmental bodies and provide an objective, rational basis for policy- and decision- making. In the Constructive TA model, the goal is to influence the direction or development of a particular technology. In the Discursive TA model, TA activities are geared towards stimulating public debate and discussions on a certain technology or technological trend.

In Europe, the nature of TA is primarily participatory and parliamentary. However, most TA institutions in Europe take elements from all of the models discussed above. For instance, the Norwegian Board of Technology (NBT), which was established by the Norwegian Government in 1999 following an initiative from the Norwegian Parliament, cites the following as its purpose:

“The Board explores societal impacts and options of technology and science; stimulates public debate on technology; and advises the Norwegian Parliament (Stortinget) and other governmental bodies on technological issues. The Board furthermore monitors international technological trends and methods for technology assessment. “

Like NBT, the Danish Board of Technology (DBT) also aims to “to promote debate and inform the public about technology and advise Parliament and the government on technological questions” because it believes that:

“People shape technology – and people can set limits on the use of technology so that it will solve more problems than it creates.”

The two examples above illustrate that NBT and DBT take elements from the various models in their practice of TA (the participatory nature becomes even more evident in section 4.6 where TA methods are discussed). In this respect, many of the TA institutions mentioned in the previous section share the same ideas and philosophy with NBT and DBT with it comes to how they view TA and its role in technological and social development.

4. Approaches to Technology Assessment

According to the Institute of Technology Assessment (ITA) in Austria, there are three distinct approaches to TA: Project-induced (J), Technology-induced (T) and Problem-induced (P). Project-induced TA focuses on “possible consequence of a specific project such as power stations and highway engineering”. Technology-induced TA focuses on the “impact of a specific technology on society and the natural environment” like IT or genetic engineering. Problem-induced TA focuses on “possible solutions to an existing or future problem” like traffic, energy supply and waste disposal.

As shown in their projects, studies and publications, TA institutions in Europe utilize these approaches or a combination when appropriate. For instance, among NBT's research interests are Health, Information and Communication Technology, Green Technology, Global Warming and Nanotechnology. The following are some recent studies, projects and publications by NBT:

• eGovernment (J)
• The Future of Aging (T+P)
• Patient 2.0: Healthcare on the Internet (J+T)
• Future Forestry (P)
• The Carbon Footprint of Food (P)
• Nanomaterials: Need for Caution (T)

From the list above, it is easily recognizable which projects are motivated by a project, a technology, a problem or a combination.

5. Technology Assessment Methods

Due to the nature of technology, TA and the team conducting the TA, there are a variety of quantitative and qualitative methods used by TA institutions in Europe. Among the general methods (as enumerated by ITA) are brainstorming, literature research, document analysis, case studies, cross-impact analysis, cost/benifit analysis and computer simulations. These are general research methods that are not specific to TA but are nonetheless integral to TA. Then, there are methods that are more specific to TA like those practiced by NBT and DBT.

Among those used by NBT and DBT are:

• Expert groups (NBT) / Interdisciplinary work groups (DBT)   [Grp. 1]
• Focus groups  (NBT) / Café Seminars (DBT) [Grp. 2]

• Lay-person conferences (NBT), Consensus Conference (DBT) [Grp. 3]

• Scenario workshops (NBT, DBT) [Grp. 4]

There are four main groups of TA methods used by NBT and DBT. Though particular methods within a group vary slightly in terms of number of participants or time-length of the activity, the fundamental principles remain the same. In fact, this is true for not only for NBT and DBT but other TA institutions as well (though the method names may vary from institution to institution.)

In Grp. 1 methods, TA is undertaken by a broadly-constituted, interdisciplinary group of experts (i.e. different areas of expertise, knowledge and network). They are tasked to illuminate a certain topic or to advise on a politically relevant issue and propose possible courses of action. The participants are chosen on the basis of their technical expertise or experience (i.e. researchers, scientists, etc.) They are expected to provide a holistic and comprehensive assessment of the given topic. The typical duration of methods in this group ranges from 4-12 months and the typical outputs are reports, newsletters and future scenarios. These methods can be used on their own or together with other methods.

In Grp. 2 methods, TA is undertaken by focus groups. Focus groups are composed of individuals with special knowledge, experience or interest on a given topic or issue (i.e. parents of gifted children, young technopreneurs, etc.) In other words, they are those who are directly involved or affected by the given topic or issue. Methods in this group are usually undertaken in the form of group interviews and seminars with the idea that conversations and dialogue in these settings bring to light more information and insight than through individual interviews. These methods are useful for revealing common attitudes and gaining a profound and common understanding of a technology or a technological issue. These methods can have 10-100 participants (which may be subdivided into subgroups) and typically lasts one or two sessions.

In Grp. 3 methods, TA is undertaken by lay persons or ordinary citizens with no special knowledge on the given subject. They should not be experts or hold prominent positions in organized interest groups. Participants usually consist of both sexes with varying age, residence, educational and professional background. Basically, methods in this group are “exercise in practical democracy.” The idea behind these methods is that it is “both entirely possible and desirable for people outside of the expert fields to participate in the discussion of technological questions.” These methods are suitable for discussing issues that affect majority of the entire populace and enriches technological debate by considering the citizens’ views and recommendations. Thus, it may serve as a tool for the political decision making process.

In Grp. 4 methods, TA is undertaken by a broadly-constituted group composed of technical experts in the field under discussion, members of important user groups, members of relevant interest groups, members of affected groups and members of concerned agencies. Participants in these methods are tasked to critically assess alternative future scenarios, identify their strengths and weaknesses and rank them according to desirability. They can also identify barriers that may hinder realization of desired scenarios and formulate or outline action plans to overcome them. In some methods, the participants can also create their own scenarios.

As apparent from the previous discussions, there is no such thing as single TA method but rather a variety of methods – or method mix – that characterize a successful TA. However, according to ITA, there is a typical routine for the implementation of TA studies. The main components of which are as follows:

• Problem definition
• Description of the technology
• Prediction of future technology development
• Description of society and persons affected
• Prediction of social developments
• Identification, analysis and evaluation of consequences
• Analysis of political options
• Communication of the results in a generally accessible form

6. Conclusions

The following conclusions can be drawn about the practice of TA in Europe:

• TA is an inter-disciplinary scientific research. That is, it is rigorous, systematic and aims to create new knowledge.
• TA’s concern is not just a technical but a broad and holistic assessment of technology. It is a study on the dynamics between technology and society and seeks to assess the ethical, economic, cultural and ecological impact of technology.
• TA institutions serve multiple purposes.
• They inform decision- and policy- makers and provide rational basis for their decisions.
• They monitor international trends in technology, TA and public opinion or attitudes towards technology or technological change.
• They stimulate public debate on and enrich understanding of technology.
• They actively shape or influence technological change. They agents of technological development.
• Effective TA requires a combination of methods or a method mix. There are different approaches for different purposes.

<< The following recommendations need to be integrated with other recommendations of the group>>
<>

7. Recommendations

• Institutionalize TA in the Philippines
• Establish the legal framework for TA in the Philippines
• Form a TA expert group to design and organize a Philippine TA Institute
• Collaborate with international TA institutions

8. Bibliography

http://www.eptanetwork.org/
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/stoa/default_en.htm
http://www.itas.fzk.de/eng/etag/etag.htm
http://www.oeaw.ac.at/ita/welcome.htm
http://www.teknologiradet.no
http://www.tekno.dk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliamentary_Technology_Assessment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Technology_Assessment_Group
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_assessment