IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v139y2019icp23-31.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Governing nanosafety in Austria – Striving for neutrality in the NanoTrust project

Author

Listed:
  • Rose, Gloria
  • Gazsó, André

Abstract

New and emerging technologies such as nanotechnology and advanced materials are characterized by manifold areas of application and high uncertainty, making the anticipation of effects difficult. Since 2007, the Austrian technology assessment project “NanoTrust” is dedicated to assisting policy-makers in issues surrounding the safety of nanotechnology applications. The choice was made early on to build and maintain a governance network and to take a more active role in contributing to pre-emptive risk management and the initiation of new processes. Characterized by a dominant risk frame and a broad scope, the Austrian nanotechnology discourse places a distinct focus on scientific expertise and strong interdisciplinary efforts. Ten years into the project, the Austrian nano governance network has shown signs of undergoing an institutionalisation process and we reflect on how we have sought to maintain our neutrality and independence as TA practitioners. This exercise in reflection seeks to gain insights on the strategies employed in practice when shaping technologies at stages of high uncertainty and engaging closely with actors in governance networks over longer periods of time.

Suggested Citation

  • Rose, Gloria & Gazsó, André, 2019. "Governing nanosafety in Austria – Striving for neutrality in the NanoTrust project," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 23-31.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:139:y:2019:i:c:p:23-31
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2018.06.024
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162518300659
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.06.024?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. van Oudheusden, Michiel & Charlier, Nathan & Rosskamp, Benedikt & Delvenne, Pierre, 2015. "Broadening, deepening, and governing innovation: Flemish technology assessment in historical and socio-political perspective," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(10), pages 1877-1886.
    2. Torgersen, Helge & Bogner, Alexander & Kastenhofer, Karen, 2013. "The Power of Framing in Technology Governance: The Case of Biotechnologies (ITA-manu:script 13-01)," ITA manu:scripts 13_01, Institute of Technology Assessment (ITA).
    3. Armin Grunwald, 2006. "Scientific independence as a constitutive part of parliamentary technology assessment," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 33(2), pages 103-113, March.
    4. Wynne, B., 1975. "The rhetoric of consensus politics: a critical review of technology assessment," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 4(2), pages 108-158, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ahn, Sang-Jin & Yoon, Ho Young & Lee, Young-Joo, 2021. "Text mining as a tool for real-time technology assessment: Application to the cross-national comparative study on artificial organ technology," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kovacic, Zora & Giampietro, Mario, 2015. "Empty promises or promising futures? The case of smart grids," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 93(P1), pages 67-74.
    2. Karaulova, Maria & Edler, Jakob, 2023. "Bringing research into policy: Understanding context-specific requirements for productive knowledge brokering in legislatures," Discussion Papers "Innovation Systems and Policy Analysis" 77, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI).
    3. Duckett, Dominic George & McKee, Annie J. & Sutherland, Lee-Ann & Kyle, Carol & Boden, Lisa A. & Auty, Harriet & Bessell, Paul R. & McKendrick, Iain J., 2017. "Scenario planning as communicative action: Lessons from participatory exercises conducted for the Scottish livestock industry," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 138-151.
    4. Pereira, Cristiano Gonçalves & Lavoie, Joao Ricardo & Garces, Edwin & Basso, Fernanda & Dabić, Marina & Porto, Geciane Silveira & Daim, Tugrul, 2019. "Forecasting of emerging therapeutic monoclonal antibodies patents based on a decision model," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 185-199.
    5. Sadowski, Jathan, 2015. "Office of Technology Assessment: History, implementation, and participatory critique," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 9-20.
    6. Keishiro Hara & Iori Miura & Masanori Suzuki & Toshihiro Tanaka, 2023. "Designing research strategy and technology innovation for sustainability by adopting “imaginary future generations”—A case study using metallurgy," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(3-4), September.
    7. Umbrello, Steven & Bernstein, Michael J. & Vermaas, Pieter E. & Resseguier, Anaïs & Gonzalez, Gustavo & Porcari, Andrea & Grinbaum, Alexei & Adomaitis, Laurynas, 2023. "From speculation to reality: Enhancing anticipatory ethics for emerging technologies (ATE) in practice," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    8. Hennen, Leonhard & Nierling, Linda, 2019. "The politics of technology assessment," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 17-22.
    9. Delvenne, Pierre & Fallon, Catherine & Brunet, Sébastien, 2011. "Parliamentary technology assessment institutions as indications of reflexive modernization," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 36-43.
    10. A S Fowkes & T T Bracher & A Grubb & W C Johnson & D J Smith & S Owens & D Tiemersma & W H Berentsen & R J Bennett, 1984. "Review: The Car Market: A Study of the Statics and Dynamics of Supply-Demand Equilibrium, Transport and Public Policy Planning, Public Rights and Private Interests: The Second V K Krishna Menon Law Le," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 2(2), pages 239-248, June.
    11. Hasselbalch, Jacob Adam, 2017. "Innovation assessment: governing through periods of disruptive technological change," SocArXiv 3rj94, Center for Open Science.
    12. Christoph Kehl & Steffen Albrecht & Pauline Riousset & Arnold Sauter, 2021. "Goodbye Expert-Based Policy Advice? Challenges in Advising Governmental Institutions in Times of Transformation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-16, December.
    13. Stirling, Andrew, 1997. "Limits to the value of external costs," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(5), pages 517-540, April.
    14. Delvenne, Pierre & Parotte, Céline, 2019. "Breaking the myth of neutrality: Technology Assessment has politics, Technology Assessment as politics," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 64-72.
    15. Ely, Adrian & Van Zwanenberg, Patrick & Stirling, Andrew, 2014. "Broadening out and opening up technology assessment: Approaches to enhance international development, co-ordination and democratisation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 505-518.
    16. Gaunand, A. & Hocdé, A. & Lemarié, S. & Matt, M. & Turckheim, E.de, 2015. "How does public agricultural research impact society? A characterization of various patterns," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(4), pages 849-861.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:139:y:2019:i:c:p:23-31. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00401625 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.