DOCSLIB.ORG

A Systematic Review of Methods for Health Care Technology Horizon Scanning

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Systematic Review of Methods for Health Care Technology Horizon Scanning AHRQ Health Care Horizon Scanning System A Systematic Review of Methods for Health Care Technology Horizon Scanning Prepared for: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 540 Gaither Road Rockville, MD 20850 Contract No. 290-2010-00006-C Prepared by: Fang Sun, M.D., Ph.D. Karen Schoelles, M.D., S.M., F.A.C.P ECRI Institute 5200 Butler Pike Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462 AHRQ Publication No. 13-EHC104-EF August 2013 This report incorporates data collected during implementation of the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Health Care Horizon Scanning System by ECRI Institute under contract to AHRQ, Rockville, MD (Contract No. 290-2010-00006-C). The findings and conclusions in this document are those of the authors, who are responsible for its content, and do not necessarily represent the views of AHRQ. No statement in this report should be construed as an official position of AHRQ or of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The information in this report is intended to identify resources and methods for improving the AHRQ Health Care Horizon Scanning System in the future. The purpose of the AHRQ Health Care Horizon Scanning System is to assist funders of research in making well-informed decisions in designing and funding comparative-effectiveness research. This report may periodically be assessed for the urgency to update. If an assessment is done, the resulting surveillance report describing the methodology and findings will be found on the Effective Health Care Program website at: www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov. Search on the title of the report. This document is in the public domain and may be used and reprinted without permission. Citation of the source is appreciated. Persons using assistive technology may not be able to fully access information in this report. For assistance, contact [email protected]. None of the individuals compiling this information has any affiliations or financial involvement that conflicts with the material presented in this report. Suggested citation: Sun F, Schoelles K. A systematic review of methods for health care technology horizon scanning. (Prepared by ECRI Institute under Contract No. 290-2010-00006- C.) AHRQ Publication No. 13-EHC104-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; August 2013. www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov. ii Preface In September 2010, the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) established the Healthcare Horizon Scanning System. Its purpose is to conduct horizon scanning of emerging health care technologies and innovations, in order to better inform patient-centered outcomes research investments at AHRQ through the Effective Health Care Program. A literature review and an expert panel meeting were conducted to identify existing best practices and effective methods for health technology horizon scanning and to provide input to AHRQ to optimize its horizon scanning program. The Health Care Horizon Scanning System gives AHRQ a systematic process to identify and monitor target technologies and innovations in health care and to create an inventory of target technologies that have the highest potential for impact on clinical care, the health care system, patient outcomes, and costs. It is also a tool for the public to identify and find information on new health care technologies and interventions. Any investigator or funder of research can use the AHRQ Health Care Horizon Scanning System to select potential topics for research. The health care technologies and innovations of interest for horizon scanning are those that have yet to diffuse into or become part of established health care practice. These health care interventions are still in the early stages of development or adoption except in the case of new applications of already-diffused technologies. Consistent with the definitions of health care interventions provided by the Institute of Medicine and the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research, AHRQ is interested in innovations in drugs and biologics, medical devices, screening and diagnostic tests, procedures, services and programs, and care delivery. Horizon scanning involves two processes. The first is the identification and monitoring of new and evolving health care interventions that are purported to or may hold potential to diagnose, treat, or otherwise manage a particular condition or to improve care delivery for a variety of conditions. The second is the analysis of the relevant health care context in which these new and evolving interventions exist in order to understand their potential impact on clinical care, the health care system, patient outcomes, and costs. It is NOT the goal of the AHRQ Health Care Horizon Scanning System to make predictions about the future utilization and costs of any health care technology. Rather, the reports will help to inform and guide the planning and prioritization of research resources. We welcome comments on this literature review and meeting summary. Send comments by mail to the Task Order Officer named in this report to: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 540 Gaither Road, Rockville, MD 20850, or by email to [email protected]. Carolyn M. Clancy, M.D. Jean Slutsky, P.A., M.S.P.H. Director Director, Center for Outcomes and Evidence Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Elise Berliner, Ph.D. Task Order Officer Center for Outcomes and Evidence Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality iii Acknowledgments The authors gratefully acknowledge the efforts of Eileen Erinoff, M.S.L.I.S., and Helen Dunn for providing literature retrieval and documentation management support; and Janice Kaczmarek, M.S., Gina Giradi, M.S., Eloise DeHaan, and Lydia Dharia for program management, editorial support, and administrative support. We would also like to thank the expert panel members and the peer reviewers for providing us with their insights on horizon scanning methods. Horizon Scanning Expert Panel Lyle Berkowitz, M.D. David Hailey, Ph.D. Medical Director of Clinical Information Senior Advisor Systems Institute of Health and Economics Northwestern Memorial Physicians Group Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Chicago, IL Rosemarie Hakim, Ph.D. George Bockosh, M.S. Senior Technical Advisor Consultant Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Baltimore, MD Atlanta, GA William Halal, Ph.D. Tammy Clifford, Ph.D. Professor of Management Science Chief Scientist The George Washington University Canadian Agency for Drugs and Washington, DC Technologies in Health Ottawa, Ontario, Canada William A. Herman Consultant Joe Cummings, Ph.D. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration Manager, UHC Technology Assessment Silver Spring, MD Program University Healthsystems Consortium Juliet Jegasothy M.D. Chicago, IL Medical Advisor, Department of Medical Management Margaret Dennis, M.S., M.B.A. UPMC Health Plan Program Manager, Washington Health Pittsburgh, PA Technology Assessment Program Washington State Healthcare Authority Peter Kolchinsky, Ph.D. Olympia, WA Managing Director RA Capital Management, LLC Iñaki Gutiérrez Ibarluzea, Ph.D. Boston, MA Knowledge Manager Basque Office for Health Technology Assessment Vitoria-Gasteiz, Basque Country, Spain iv Amy Kottler, M.A., R.N. Eduardo Ortiz, M.D., M.P.H. Director, Horizon Scanning Services Senior Medical Officer, Division for the Hayes, Inc. Application of Research Discoveries Lansdale, PA National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Bethesda, MD Jerod Loeb, Ph.D. Executive Vice President for Healthcare Claire Packer, M.D. Quality Evaluation Director The Joint Commission National Horizon Scanning Centre Oakbrook Terrace, IL Birmingham, UK Linda Mundy, M.P.H. Ted E. Palen, Ph.D., M.D., M.S.P.H. Research Officer Clinician Researcher, Institute of Health The University of Adelaide Research Adelaide, Australia Kaiser Permanente Denver, CO Anna Nachtnebel, Dr.med., M.Sc.P.H. Senior Scientist Lawrence Schott, M.D., M.S. Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Health Lead Medical Officer Technology Assessment Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Vienna, Austria Baltimore, MD Hussein Noorani, M.S. Mitchell Sugarman, M.B.A. Senior Scientist Sr. Director, Health Economics, Policy and Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association Payment Technology Evaluation Center Medtronic, Inc. Chicago, IL Minneapolis, MN Peer Reviewers Tammy Clifford, Ph.D. Claire Packer, M.D. Chief Scientist Director Canadian Agency for Drugs and National Horizon Scanning Centre Technologies in Health Birmingham, UK Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Eugene Rich, M.D. David Meltzer, M.D., Ph.D. Senior Fellow and Director, Center on Associate Professor of Medicine Health Care Effectiveness University of Chicago Mathematica Policy Research Chicago, IL Princeton, NJ v Structured Abstract Objectives. Since September 2010, under contract with the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), ECRI Institute has been establishing a national program to conduct horizon scanning of emerging health technology. The program’s main purpose is to better inform investments in patient-centered outcomes research at AHRQ by systematically identifying and monitoring target technologies to create an inventory of technologies that have the highest potential for impact on clinical care, the health care system, patient outcomes, and cost. We conducted this study to identify existing best practices and effective methods for health technology horizon scanning
Load more

Recommended publications
  • What Is That Thing Called Philosophy of Technology? - R
    HISTORY AND PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY – Vol. IV - What Is That Thing Called Philosophy of Technology? - R. J. Gómez WHAT IS THAT THING CALLED PHILOSOPHY OF TECHNOLOGY? R. J. Gómez Department of Philosophy. California State University (LA). USA Keywords: Adorno, Aristotle, Bunge, Ellul, Feenberg, Habermas, Heidegger, Horkheimer, Jonas, Latour, Marcuse, Mumford, Naess, Shrader-Frechette, artifact, assessment, determinism, ecosophy, ends, enlightenment, efficiency, epistemology, enframing, ideology, life-form, megamachine, metaphysics, method, naturalistic, fallacy, new, ethics, progress, rationality, rule, science, techno-philosophy Contents 1. Introduction 2. Locating technology with respect to science 2.1. Structure and Content 2.2. Method 2.3. Aim 2.4. Pattern of Change 3. Locating philosophy of technology 4. Early philosophies of technology 4.1. Aristotelianism 4.2. Technological Pessimism 4.3. Technological Optimism 4.4. Heidegger’s Existentialism and the Essence of Technology 4.5. Mumford’s Megamachinism 4.6. Neomarxism 4.6.1. Adorno-Horkheimer 4.6.2. Marcuse 4.6.3. Habermas 5. Recent philosophies of technology 5.1. L. Winner 5.2. A. Feenberg 5.3. EcosophyUNESCO – EOLSS 6. Technology and values 6.1. Shrader-Frechette Claims 6.2. H Jonas 7. Conclusions SAMPLE CHAPTERS Glossary Bibliography Biographical Sketch Summary A philosophy of technology is mainly a critical reflection on technology from the point of view of the main chapters of philosophy, e.g., metaphysics, epistemology and ethics. Technology has had a fast development since the middle of the 20th century , especially ©Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS) HISTORY AND PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY – Vol. IV - What Is That Thing Called Philosophy of Technology? - R.
    [Show full text]
  • Strategic Surveillance for Food Safety Designing a Surveillance Approach and Considerations for Implementation
    Strategic Surveillance for Food Safety Designing a surveillance approach and considerations for implementation Jon Freeman, Nathan Ryan, Julian Glenesk For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RR2519 Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif., and Cambridge, UK © Copyright 2019 RAND Corporation R® is a registered trademark. RAND Europe is a not-for-profit research organisation that helps to improve policy and decision making through research and analysis. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions. Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org www.randeurope.org Preface This document reports on RAND Europe’s study into the Food Standards Agency’s (FSA) strategic surveillance programme. The FSA commissioned the study in February 2018. The aim of the project is to design a high-level end-to-end approach for strategic surveillance, identify relevant analytic tools and methods, and develop an implementation plan for the programme. The report’s intended audience is the FSA, the programme’s senior responsible officer (SRO), those involved in the current practice of food surveillance and the nascent strategic surveillance team (SST).
    [Show full text]
  • Disruptive Technology Assessment Game 'DTAG' Handbook V0.1
    Disruptive Technology Assessment Game ‘DTAG’ Handbook V0.1 Executive Summary What is the DTAG? The Disruptive Technology Assessment Game (DTAG) is a table-top seminar wargame, used to assess potential future technologies and their impact on military operations and operating environment. How is it played? There are four distinct steps in executing a DTAG experiment. The first two are part of the planning process, prior to playing the game. Step 1: Identify Possible Future Technologies that are under development and are of interest to the military. Step 2 – Create Ideas of Systems (IoS) cards from the technologies identified. Specific technologies, or combinations of technologies are combined with equipment to create new systems that could be employed by the military or by an adversary. These are described on cards. Step 3 – Play the DTAG. Figure 1 summarizes the process. Red teams and Blue teams both plan courses of action in the context of a scenario & vignette. After the initial confrontation of plans, which establishes the baseline, the teams plan again with the addition of future technology from the IoS cards. The second confrontation highlights the effect that the technology has on the plans and the wargame outcome. Figure 1: The DTAG Process Step 4 – Assess the results of the wargame through questions and analysis of data captured. Who plays it? The DTAG unites Technology experts, Military and Analysts providing a broad perspective on the potential impacts of future technology on military operations. The approach allows for an element of unconstrained thinking and the wargame-like rounds encourage open communication opportunities. Why should a DTAG be played, and when? It is most useful when assessing technology that is a prototype or at early stage of development, or technology that is not in widespread use by the military.
    [Show full text]
  • Neil Postman
    Five Things We Need to Know About Technological Change by Neil Postman Talk delivered in Denver Colorado March 28, 1998 … I doubt that the 21st century will pose for us problems that are more stunning, disorienting or complex than those we faced in this century, or the 19th, 18th, 17th, or for that matter, many of the centuries before that. But for those who are excessively nervous about the new millennium, I can provide, right at the start, some good advice about how to confront it. …. Here is what Henry David Thoreau told us: “All our inventions are but improved means to an unimproved end.” Here is what Goethe told us: “One should, each day, try to hear a little song, read a good poem, see a fine picture, and, if possible, speak a few reasonable words.” Socrates told us: “The unexamined life is not worth living.” Rabbi Hillel told us: “What is hateful to thee, do not do to another.” And here is the prophet Micah: “What does the Lord require of thee but to do justly, to love mercy and to walk humbly with thy God.” And I could say, if we had the time, (although you know it well enough) what Jesus, Isaiah, Mohammad, Spinoza, and Shakespeare told us. It is all the same: There is no escaping from ourselves. The human dilemma is as it has always been, and it is a delusion to believe that the technological changes of our era have rendered irrelevant the wisdom of the ages and the sages. Nonetheless, having said this, I know perfectly well that because we do live in a technological age, we have some special problems that Jesus, Hillel, Socrates, and Micah did not and could not speak of.
    [Show full text]
  • Geoengineering in the Anthropocene Through Regenerative Urbanism
    geosciences Review Geoengineering in the Anthropocene through Regenerative Urbanism Giles Thomson * and Peter Newman Curtin University Sustainability Policy Institute, Curtin University, Perth 6102, WA, Australia; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +61-8-9266-9030 Academic Editors: Carlos Alves and Jesus Martinez-Frias Received: 26 June 2016; Accepted: 13 October 2016; Published: 25 October 2016 Abstract: Human consumption patterns exceed planetary boundaries and stress on the biosphere can be expected to worsen. The recent “Paris Agreement” (COP21) represents a major international attempt to address risk associated with climate change through rapid decarbonisation. The mechanisms for implementation are yet to be determined and, while various large-scale geoengineering projects have been proposed, we argue a better solution may lie in cities. Large-scale green urbanism in cities and their bioregions would offer benefits commensurate to alternative geoengineering proposals, but this integrated approach carries less risk and has additional, multiple, social and economic benefits in addition to a reduction of urban ecological footprint. However, the key to success will require policy writers and city makers to deliver at scale and to high urban sustainability performance benchmarks. To better define urban sustainability performance, we describe three horizons of green urbanism: green design, that seeks to improve upon conventional development; sustainable development, that is the first step toward a net zero impact; and the emerging concept of regenerative urbanism, that enables biosphere repair. Examples of green urbanism exist that utilize technology and design to optimize urban metabolism and deliver net positive sustainability performance. If mainstreamed, regenerative approaches can make urban development a major urban geoengineering force, while simultaneously introducing life-affirming co-benefits to burgeoning cities.
    [Show full text]
  • New Media & Society
    New Media & Society http://nms.sagepub.com Information and communication technology innovations: radical and disruptive? Michael Latzer New Media Society 2009; 11; 599 DOI: 10.1177/1461444809102964 The online version of this article can be found at: http://nms.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/11/4/599 Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com Additional services and information for New Media & Society can be found at: Email Alerts: http://nms.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://nms.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav Citations http://nms.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/11/4/599 Downloaded from http://nms.sagepub.com at University of Zurich on November 16, 2009 new media & society Copyright © 2009 SAGE Publications Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore and Washington DC Vol 11(4): 599–619 [DOI: 10.1177/1461444809102964] ARTICLE Information and communication technology innovations: radical and disruptive? MICHAEL LATZER University of Zurich, Switzerland Abstract Information and communication technology innovations (ICT) are considered to be of central importance to social and economic developments. Various innovation theories offer classifications to predict and assess their impact. This article reviews the usefulness of selected approaches and their application in the convergent communications sector. It focuses on the notion of disruption, the comparatively new distinction between disruptive and sustaining innovations, and examines how it is related to other innovation-theoretical typologies. According to the literature, there is a high frequency of disruptive changes in the field of internet protocol-based innovations in combination with wireless technology. A closer analysis reveals that these classifications and assessments not only differ in detail but are even contradictory.
    [Show full text]
  • Gao-20-246G, Technology Assessment Design Handbook
    HANDBOOK Technology Assessment Design Handbook Handbook for Key Steps and Considerations in the Design of Technology Assessments GAO-20-246G December 2019 Contents Preface 1 Chapter 1 The Importance of Technology Assessment Design 6 1.1 Reasons to Conduct and Uses of a Technology Assessment 6 1.2 Importance of Spending Time on Design 8 Chapter 2 Technology Assessment Scope and Design 8 2.1 Sound Technology Assessment Design 9 2.2 Phases and Considerations for Technology Assessment Design 9 2.2.1 GAO Technology Assessment Design Examples 14 Chapter 3 Approaches to Selected Technology Assessment Design and Implementation Challenges 18 3.1 Ensuring Technology Assessment Products are Useful for Congress and Others 19 3.2 Determining Policy Goals and Measuring Impact 20 3.3 Researching and Communicating Complicated Issues 20 3.4 Engaging All Relevant Stakeholders 21 Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 22 Appendix II Summary of Steps for GAO’s General Engagement Process 35 Appendix III Example Methods for Technology Assessment 38 Appendix IV GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 44 Page i GAO-20-246G Technology Assessment Handbook Tables Table 1: Summary of GAO’s Technology Assessment Process 3 Table 2: Examples for Technology Assessment Objectives that Describe Status and Challenges to Development of a Technology 15 Table 3: Examples for Technology Assessment Objectives that Assess Opportunities and Challenges that May Result from the Use of a Technology 16 Table 4: Examples for Technology Assessment Objectives that Assess Cost-Effectiveness,
    [Show full text]
  • The Fourth Industrial Revolution: How the EU Can Lead It
    EUV0010.1177/1781685818762890European ViewSchäfer 762890research-article2018 Article European View 2018, Vol. 17(1) 5 –12 The fourth industrial © The Author(s) 2018 https://doi.org/10.1177/1781685818762890DOI: 10.1177/1781685818762890 revolution: How the EU journals.sagepub.com/home/euv can lead it Matthias Schäfer Abstract The fourth industrial revolution is different from the previous three. This is because machines and artificial intelligence play a significant role in enhancing productivity and wealth creation, which directly changes and challenges the role of human beings. The fourth industrial revolution will also intensify globalisation. Therefore, technology will become much more significant, because regions and societies that cope positively with the technological impact of the fourth industrial revolution will have a better economic and social future. This article argues that the EU can play an important role in developing an environment appropriate for the fourth industrial revolution, an environment that is vibrant and open to new technologies. Member states would profit from an EU-wide coordinated framework for this area. The EU has to establish new common policies for the market-oriented diffusion and widespread use of new technologies. Keywords Fourth industrial revolution, Technology policy, Industrial policy, Leadership Introduction Historically there have been four industrial revolutions (see Schwab 2016). The first began in the early nineteenth century, when the power of steam and water dramatically increased the productivity of human (physical) labour. The second revolution started almost a hundred years later with electricity as its key driver. Mass industrial production Corresponding author: M. Schäfer, Department Politics and Consulting, Head of the Team for Economic Policy, Konrad-Adenauer- Stiftung, Berlin, Germany.
    [Show full text]
  • Horizon Scanning
    Horizon Scanning Process Updated: April 2015 Version 1.0 REVISION HISTORY Periodically, this document will be revised as part of ongoing process improvement activities. The following version control table, as well the version number and date on the cover page, is to be updated when any updates or revisions are made. Section Revision Date Description/Changes Made Number Horizon Scanning: Process 2 Effective Date: April 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS Revision History ....................................................................................................................... 2 Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................... 4 1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 5 1.1 About Horizon Scanning .............................................................................................. 5 1.2 Scope .......................................................................................................................... 5 1.3 Audience ...................................................................................................................... 5 1.3.1 Primary Audience: ............................................................................................ 5 1.3.2 Secondary Audience ........................................................................................ 5 1.4 Purpose and Application for Decision-Making .............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Technology, Development and Economic Crisis: the Schumpeterian Legacy
    CIMR Research Working Paper Series Working Paper No. 23 Technology, development and economic crisis: the Schumpeterian legacy by Rinaldo Evangelista University of Camerino Piazza Cavour, 19/F, 62032 Camerino (IT) +39-0737-403074 [email protected] June 2015 ISSN 2052-062X Abstract This contribution aims at highlighting the complex, non-linear and potentially contradictory nature of the relationships between technological progress, economic growth and social development, in particular within the context of market based economies. The main (provocative) argument put forward in the paper is that the recent neo-Schumpeterian literature, while providing fundamental contributions to our understanding of innovation, has contributed to the rising of a positivistic reading of the relationship between technology, economy and society, with technology being able to guaranty strong economic growth and (implicitly) social welfare. This is confirmed by the fact that, contrary to other influential heterodox economic schools and Schumpeter himself, in the recent neo- Schumpeterian literature technology is only rarely associated to macroeconomic market failures such as systemic crises, structural unemployment, and the growth of social and economic inequalities. It is also argued that the emergence of a “positivistic bias” in the neo-Schumpeterian literature has been associated to the dominance of a supply-side and micro-based view of the technology-economy relationships. Key words: Technology, Innovation, Schumpeter, Development, Crisis JEL codes: B52, O00, O30. 2 1. Introduction There is no doubt that the last economic crisis, with its depth, extension and length, could have, at least in principle, the potentiality of shaking at the fundamentals the dominant neo-liberal economic thinking and policy framework.
    [Show full text]
  • Horizon Scanning Why Is It So Hard?
    Horizon Scanning Why is it so hard? By Dr. Peter Bishop University of Houston September 2009 Introduction Surprise is an odd emotion. We like to be surprised–an unexpected visit from a friend, a gift from our spouse, a beautiful spring day. Sometimes we even pay to be surprised–at the fair or the cinema. But surprise is not a good thing at work. Being surprised means that we expected something to happen that didn’t or something to not happen that did. It’s just not right even when the surprise is a good thing,. We are supposed to know what is going on and what is about to happen all time--to know and be prepared for everything that occurs. We are never supposed to be surprised. Of course that is unreasonable. Everyone is surprised even at work, even though we try not to show it when it happens. So we basically cover-up--never let them see you be surprised, even when you are. But rather than just wait, we can take steps to reduce surprise even if we cannot eliminate it altogether. Horizon or environmental scanning warns us about change coming in the future. The term evokes images of lookouts on old ships or modern-day radar scanning the horizon. Lookouts and radars report sightings or signals from objects that are far off before they have the chance to harm to a vessel, a plane or a fortified encampment. It takes time for the objects to get to the lookout’s or the radar’s location, time that people can use to prepare.
    [Show full text]
  • Taking Technology Seriously: Introduction to the Special Issue on New Technologies and Global Environmental Politics • Simon Nicholson and Jesse L
    Taking Technology Seriously: Introduction to the Special Issue on New Technologies and Global Environmental Politics • Simon Nicholson and Jesse L. Reynolds* Human beings are at once makers of and made by technology. The ability to wield tools was an essential ingredient in propelling an otherwise unremarkable ape to a position of dominance over ecological and even planetary affairs. This dominance has been attained through a remaking of the physical world and has produced a planet fundamentally altered. Technology, this is to say, has been central to history and human-induced environmental change. Our earliest significant environ- mental impacts appear to have been mass extinctions of megafauna, especially in North and South America, Australia, and the Pacific Islands, enabled by hunting and trapping tools and techniques. These were followed by large-scale land use changes from the rise of agriculture, another early set of technologies that were key to Homo sapiens’ success (Boivin et al. 2016). Technology presents a paradox. Existing, emerging, and anticipated technol- ogies offer remarkable possibilities for human well-being and the environmental condition. Since 1900, global average life expectancy has more than doubled and continues to rise (Roser et al. 2013). Most people can access information and educational opportunities that in the not-too-distant past were restricted to a tiny elite. The growth of farmland—which may be the leading direct driver of change in nature (Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services 2019)—has recently been reversed through agricultural intensification (World Bank, n.d.). Ozone-depleting substances have been largely replaced by synthetic substitutes.
    [Show full text]