STIP 01 2 April 2010 by richard sclove, Ph.d. Reinventing technology Assessment a 21st Century Model using Citizen PartiCiPation, Collaboration and exPert analysis to inforM and iMProve deCision-Making on issues involving sCienCe and teChnology 3 STIP | reinventing technology Assessment Contents ii List of Boxes iii Abbreviations and Acronyms iv About the Author v Acknowledgments vi Preface vii Executive Summary 1 Introduction 2 1. Rationale for a New U.S. Technology Assessment Capability 10 2. The Former Office of Technology Assessment: Its Limitations 18 3. Technology Assessment for the U.S. Congress: Recent Political History and Context 21 4. Reflection on Post-1995 U.S. Politics of Technology Assessment 24 5. Virtues of Participatory Technology Assessment 31 6. Criteria for a New U.S. Technology Assessment Capacity 33 7. Can Existing Institutions Do the Job? 34 8. Is Participatory Technology Assessment Detrimental, Redundant or Too Costly? 37 9. Practical Options for Establishing a 21st-Century U.S. Technology Assessment Capability 42 Appendix 42 A. Additional Information about Danish Consensus Conferences 43 B. U.S. Experience with Participatory Technology Assessment: Four Examples 49 C. Ethics and Social Values in Expert vs. Participatory Technology Assessment: Two Comparative Case Studies 53 D. Experts, Laypeople and the Common Good 54 E. On Innovation in Expert and Participatory TA Concepts and Methods 57 Notes 77 References Suggested citation: Richard Sclove, Reinventing Technology Assessment: A 21st Century Model (Washington, DC: Science and Technology Innovation Program, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, April 2010). Available for download free of charge at http://wilsoncenter.org/techassessment STIP 01 i April 2010 by Richard Sclove, Ph.D. Reinventing technology Assessment a 21St CentuRy MoDel uSing Citizen PaRtiCiPation, CollaboRation anD exPeRt analySiS to infoRM anD iMPRove DeCiSion-Making on iSSueS involving SCienCe anD teChnology ii STIP | reinventing technology Assessment List of Boxes 7 1. Danish-Style Consensus Conferences – A European Participatory Technology Assessment Method 8 2. Danish Consensus Conferences: Sample Results and Public Influence 13 3. Structural Bias among Expert Analysts 14 4. Examples of Technologies’ Indirect Consequences on Political Structure 16 5. Social Consequences, Synergisms and Value-Enriched Technology Assessment 17 6. Stakeholder vs. Layperson Participation 26 7. The Berger Inquiry: An Example of Lay Knowledge Contributing to Technology Assessment 28 8. On Deliberation and Collaboration in Participatory Technology Assessment 30 9. Designing and Evaluating pTA Projects 36 10. Comparative Costs of Large-Scale pTA and Other Citizen-Deliberation Exercises 40 11. Institutional Capabilities within the Proposed ECAST Network Appendix Tables 42 A. Danish Consensus Conference Topics 46 B. Questions to Help Examine the Effects of Technologies upon a Community’s Democratic Structure reinventing technology Assessment | STIP Abbreviations & Acronyms CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention CRS Congressional Research Service CTA constructive technology assessment eCaSt Expert & Citizen Assessment of Science & Technology Network Dbt Danish Board of Technology GAO Government Accountability Office naS National Academy of Sciences nCtf National Citizens’ Technology Forum nih National Institutes of Health niSenet Nanoscale Informal Science Education Network nRC National Research Council oStP White House Office of Science and Technology Policy OTA Office of Technology Assessment pTA participatory technology assessment PTA Parliamentary Technology Assessment R&D research and development S&t science and technology StiP Science and Technology Innovation Program StS science, technology and society TA technology assessment WWviews World Wide Views on Global Warming iv STIP | reinventing technology Assessment About the Author Richard Sclove is Founder and Senior Fellow of The Loka Institute, a non- profit organization dedicated to making research, science and technology responsive to democratically decided priorities. He has been a U.S. pioneer in participatory technology assessment (pTA), having initiated the first U.S. adaptations of a Danish-style consensus conference (1997) and of a European scenario workshop (2002) – both funded in part by the National Science Foundation. He served recently as U.S. Advisor to the global secre- tariat of the World Wide Views on Global Warming project, the first globe- encompassing pTA exercise in world history. He has briefed U.S. and other national decision-makers on science and technology policy, and prepared testimony for the House Science Committee of the U.S. Congress. The American Political Science Association honored Sclove’s book, Democracy and Technology, with the Don K. Price Award as “the year’s best book on science, technology and politics.” Sclove is also the senior author of The Loka Institute’s influential 1998 report on Community- Based Research in the United States. Dr. Sclove lectures widely around the world, and has published extensively in both scholarly and popular venues, including The Washington Post, The New York Times, Science magazine,The Huffington Post, The Christian Science Monitor, The Chronicle of Higher Education, Technology Review and Science, Technology & Human Values. He is a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and he has held the Ciriacy-Wantrup Postdoctoral Fellowship in Economics at the University of California at Berkeley and the Copeland Fellowship at Amherst College. Sclove earned a B.A. in environmental studies from Hampshire College and graduate de- grees in nuclear engineering (M.S.) and political science (Ph.D.) from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Sclove lives with his family in Amherst, Massachusetts, and is active in social and environmental service projects in the ancient city of Varanasi, India. He may be contacted at [email protected]. reinventing technology Assessment | STIP v Acknowledgments The author is grateful to many people for their contributions to this study. Peer reviewers of the full report, Joanna Goven (University of Canterbury, New Zealand), David H. Guston (Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes, Arizona State University) and Paul C. Stern (National Research Council/National Academy of Sciences), offered insightful, construc- tive criticism. David Rejeski (Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars) shepherded the study toward publication and made important suggestions for improving the flow of the argument. Lars Klüver (Danish Board of Technology) reviewed a precursor document and patiently an- swered many questions about developments in European technology as- sessment. Additional reviewers of early drafts, many of whom offered de- tailed comments, critique and suggestions, include Ida-Elisabeth Andersen (Danish Board of Technology), Vary Coates (Washington Academy of Sciences), Colleen Cordes (Psychologists for Social Responsibility), Daryl Chubin (Center for Advancing Science & Engineering Capacity, American Association for the Advancement of Science), Gerald L. Epstein (Center for Science, Technology & Security Policy, American Association for the Advancement of Science ), Rachelle Hollander (Center for Engineering, Ethics and Society, National Academy of Engineering), Todd M. LaPorte (George Mason University), Ceasar McDowell (Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Dropping Knowledge, Inc.), Shawn Otto (Science Debate), Anne C. Petersen (University of Michigan), Pete Peterson (Public Agenda), John Porter (Hogan & Hartson), Andrew Pratt (ScienceProgress.org), David Rabkin (Museum of Science, Boston), Tind Shepper Ryen (University of Colorado), Doug Schuler (The Evergreen State College), Marcie Sclove (Green River Doula Network), Al Teich (Science and Policy Programs, American Association for the Advancement of Science), Frank von Hippel (Princeton University) and Rick Worthington (Pomona College and The Loka Institute). Patrick Hamlett (North Carolina State University), Daniel Lee Kleinman (University of Wisconsin-Madison), Clark A. Miller (Arizona State University) and Madeleine Kangsen Scammell (Boston University) kindly provided information about U.S. participatory technology assess- ment projects that they helped initiate and organize. Darlene Cavalier (ScienceCheerleader.com) encouraged initiation of this study, helped iden- tify key actors and institutions interested in contemporary American poli- tics of technology assessment and conducted interviews in Washington, D.C., that have informed the research. The author of course retains responsibility for the content, including all errors of fact and interpretation. vi STIP | reinventing technology Assessment Preface Five years ago, our program at the Wilson Center began the first of dozens of focus groups and national surveys to better understand public perceptions, aspirations and concerns around emerging areas of science such as nanotechnology and synthetic biology. Again and again, we found that informed groups of citizens could identify a wide and rich range of issues associated with new technologies, often adding nuances to the views of experts and the policy-making community. Over time, taking the public’s pulse became integrated into our work on understanding the risks and benefits of new technologies and convinced us that public policy can be improved through sustained and carefully crafted dialogue with laypeople. But it also became obvious that