Discursive deference in the governance of science and technology is rebalancing from expert analysis toward participatory deliberation. Linear, scientistic conceptions of innovation are giving ground to more plural, socially situated understandings. Yet, growing recognition of social agency in technology choice is countered by persistently deterministic notions of technological progress. This article addresses this increasingly stark disjuncture. Distinguishing between “appraisal” and “commitment” in technology choice, it highlights contrasting implications of normative, instrumental, and substantive imperatives in appraisal. Focusing on the role of (...) power, it identifies key commonalities transcending the analysis/participation dichotomy. Each is equally susceptible to instrumental framing for variously weak and strong forms of justification. To address the disjuncture, it is concluded that greater appreciation is required—in both analytic and participatory appraisal—to facilitating the opening up of governance commitments on science and technology. (shrink)

The purpose of this essay is to critically review the design of methods for ethically robust forms of technology appraisal in the regulation of research and innovation in synthetic biology. It will focus, in particular, on the extent to which cost‐benefit analysis offers a basis for informing decisions about which technological pathways to pursue and which to discourage. A further goal is to consider what (if anything) the precautionary principle might offer in enabling better decisions. And this, in turn, raises (...) questions about why mention of precaution can excite accusations of unscientific bias or irrational, “anti‐innovation” extremism. What does the polarized debate tell us about the politics around synthetic biology? In seeking more rigorous, timely, and practical ways to govern these remarkable new technologies, what might we be missing?The sophistication, diversity, and scope of synthetic biology may seem to make it a rather idiosyncratic area for exploring these general issues. It may seem to be a special case, with the bewildering pace of change amplifying the difficulties. But at root, some of the trickiest issues are just specific instances of familiar and long‐standing conundrums in the governance of science and technology. The basic challenge is how to weigh up, for a wide range of potential options, the various pros and cons, as viewed from divergent perspectives, and find a way to justify the best course of action on behalf of society as a whole. This is the central problem addressed by a number of techniques in CBA. On the face of it, synthetic biology seems to present just one more application of these well‐established and self‐confident prescriptive methods.But there do emerge several obstinate, even prohibitive, difficulties for CBA. Although they are well acknowledged by the scholarly literature on and around this topic, they are often sidelined in practice. Yet all are central to the case for applying the concept of precaution to a field like synthetic biology. This essay will briefly explore multicriteria mapping, an appraisal method for exploring contrasting perspectives on emerging technologies, as one practical way to address them. The essay focuses on MCM, not because it presents any sort of panacea for appraisal, but because it is illustrative of the concrete implications of precaution. Setting out even just one among potentially many practical alternative methods at least refutes the last‐ditch argument that CBA is the only operational choice. (shrink)

Digital communications technology isreconfiguring democratic governance. Federalagencies increasingly rely on Internet-basedapplications to improve citizen-governmentinteraction. Early efforts in the area ofdigital government have created newparticipatory opportunities as well asformidable governance challenges. Federalagencies are working within and across theirboundaries to find an e-rulemaking format thatis cost-effective, legally appropriate,user-friendly, and well suited to diverse modesof rulemaking activities. One of the overridingissues emerging from this process is thedefinition of meaningful public participationin rulemaking. An examination of an early caseinvolving the USDA's National Organic Programproposed rule (...) summarizes comments related togenetic engineering, biosolids, irradiation,and the role of the National Organic StandardsBoard. The USDA's experience suggests a numberof complex challenges that must be met toeffectively integrate Web-based communicationsinto the federal rulemaking process. (shrink)

We hypothesize that recent uses of the Internet as a public-participation mechanism in the United States fail to overcome the adversarial culture that characterizes the American regulatory process. Although the Internet has the potential to facilitate deliberative processes that could result in more widespread public involvement, greater transparency in government processes, and a more satisfied citizenry, we argue that efforts to implement Internet-based public participation have overlaid existing problematic government processes without fully harnessing the transformative power of information technologies. Public (...) comments submitted in two United States Department of Agriculture rulemaking processes—the National Organic Program’s organic standard and the Forest Service’s Roadless Area Conservation Rule—compose our data. We conclude that the Internet provides an arena for playing out three types of conflicts that have long plagued environmental decision-making processes: conflicts over trust of federal agencies, the use of science, and the role of public values. (shrink)

Societal evaluation of new technologies, specifically nanotechnology and genetically engineered organisms , challenges current practices of governance and science. Employing environmental risk assessment for governance and oversight assumes we have a reasonable ability to understand consequences and predict adverse effects. However, traditional ERA has come under considerable criticism for its many shortcomings and current governance institutions have demonstrated limitations in transparency, public input, and capacity. Problem Formulation and Options Assessment is a methodology founded on three key concepts in risk assessment (...) and three in governance . Developed through a series of international workshops, the PFOA process emphasizes engagement with stakeholders in iterative stages, from identification of the problem through comparison of multiple technology solutions that could be used in the future with their relative benefits, harms, and risk. It provides “upstream public engagement” in a deliberation informed by science that identifies values for improved decision making. (shrink)

Societal evaluation of new technologies, specifically nanotechnology and genetically engineered organisms, challenges current practices of governance and science. When a governing body is confronted by a technology whose use has potential environmental risks, some form of risk analysis is typically conducted to help decision makers consider the range of possible benefits and harms posed by the technology. Environmental risk assessment is a critical component in the governance of nanotechnology and genetically engineered organisms because the uncertainties and complexities surrounding these technologies (...) pose such risk potential. However, GEOs are unique technologies, and there is widespread, international recognition that many traditional forms of ERA are not well-suited for evaluating them. Nanotechnology products are also likely to need different models of risk assessment, as there is very little information on their fate, transport, and impacts in the environment. (shrink)

The precautionary principle is an emerging principle of international law but has only recently been proposed in North America as a new basis for environmental policy. On the surface it is a simple, common-sense proposition: in the face of possible harm, exercise precaution. But the enthusiasm the principle has stirred among public advocates suggests it has a deeper appeal. It is, in fact, based on values related to “forecaring for life” and the natural world. The principle cannot effectively be invoked (...) without stating these values up front. The principle makes it clear that decisions and developments in science and technology are based first of all on values and only secondarily on scientific and technological fact and process. Moreover, a precautionary approach is best carried out in the context of goals that embody the values of communities and societies. (shrink)

Regulating technologies, innovations and risks is an activity that, as much as scientific research needs proofs and evidence. It is the site of development of a distinct kind of science, regulatory science. This special issue addresses the question of the standards of knowledge governing how we test, assess and monitor technologies and their effects. This topic is relevant and timely in the light of problematics of regulation of innovation, regulatory failure and capture. Given the enormous decisions and stakes regulatory science (...) commends, it becomes crucial to ask where its standards come from and gain credibility, but also what valuations of technology and appreciations of their risks or benefits do they embed, and who controls them? This paper introduces the four contributions comprising the special issue, and outlines a perspective from which to question the construction of regulatory science or, in the terminology adopted here, the authorization and standardization of regulatory knowledge, particularly the role of networks of scientific experts therein. (shrink)