IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/teinso/v42y2015icp9-20.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Office of Technology Assessment: History, implementation, and participatory critique

Author

Listed:
  • Sadowski, Jathan

Abstract

The Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), which was created by the Technology Assignment Act of 1972, was—and still remains even after its abolishment in 1995—a unique congressional agency. OTA provided members of Congress with their own means of understanding and evaluating complex science and technology matters—of which there are no shortages. It spurred an entire literature of academic research both about OTA and the idea of technology assessment more generally. Understanding the legislative history and implementation of the Technology Assessment Act is crucial not just for scholarship, though. OTA was a blueprint for institutionalizing politically accountable technology assessment. Even as technologies advance at rapid rates, OTA still offers valuable lessons that scholars and policy-makers alike ought to glean. This paper places OTA in a contemporary context of (institutionalized) technology assessment. It contributes to a better understanding of OTA's origins by tracing its lineage to a set of federal reports beginning in 1929. It then analyzes OTA's response to pragmatic implementation questions of how to strike a balance between speed, depth, scope, and temporal focus. Lastly, it uses a public values framework to critique OTA's failure to adequately incorporate participatory elements into its processes.

Suggested Citation

  • Sadowski, Jathan, 2015. "Office of Technology Assessment: History, implementation, and participatory critique," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 9-20.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:teinso:v:42:y:2015:i:c:p:9-20
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2015.01.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160791X15000135
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techsoc.2015.01.002?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. Karlsson, Rasmus, 2014. "Theorizing sustainability in a post-Concorde world," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 1-9.
    2. Foley, Rider W. & Wiek, Arnim, 2013. "Patterns of nanotechnology innovation and governance within a metropolitan area," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 233-247.
    3. Peter D. Blair, 2013. "Congress’s Own Think Tank: Learning from the Legacy of the Office of Technology Assessment (1972–1995)," Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy, Palgrave Macmillan, number 978-1-137-35905-6, February.
    4. Swierstra, Tsjalling & van de Bovenkamp, Hester & Trappenburg, Margo, 2010. "Forging a fit between technology and morality: The Dutch debate on organ transplants," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 55-64.
    5. 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).
    2. Zhang, Hao & Daim, Tugrul & Zhang, Yunqiu (Peggy), 2021. "Integrating patent analysis into technology roadmapping: A latent dirichlet allocation based technology assessment and roadmapping in the field of Blockchain," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 167(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. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Daniel Culotta & Arnim Wiek & Nigel Forrest, 2016. "Selecting and coordinating local and regional climate change interventions," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 34(7), pages 1241-1266, November.
    5. Arora, Sanjay K. & Foley, Rider W. & Youtie, Jan & Shapira, Philip & Wiek, Arnim, 2014. "Drivers of technology adoption — the case of nanomaterials in building construction," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 232-244.
    6. 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).
    7. 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.
    8. Hennen, Leonhard & Nierling, Linda, 2019. "The politics of technology assessment," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 17-22.
    9. 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.
    10. Hasselbalch, Jacob Adam, 2017. "Innovation assessment: governing through periods of disruptive technological change," SocArXiv 3rj94, Center for Open Science.
    11. 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).
    12. Amon Barros & Scott Taylor, 2020. "Think Tanks, Business and Civil Society: The Ethics of Promoting Pro-corporate Ideologies," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 162(3), pages 505-517, March.
    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. Winter, Scott R. & Crouse, Sean R. & Rice, Stephen, 2021. "The development of ‘green’ airports: Which factors influence willingness to pay for sustainability and intention to act? A structural and mediation model analysis," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).

    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:teinso:v:42:y:2015:i:c:p:9-20. 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: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/technology-in-society .

    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.