1 / 26

Assessing Technology in a Global Context

Assessing Technology in a Global Context Clinton Andrews Past President IEEE Society on Social Implications of Technology (and Rutgers University) Technology Assessment Definition : Investigate likely impacts of technology choices

oshin
Download Presentation

Assessing Technology in a Global Context

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Assessing Technology in a Global Context Clinton Andrews Past President IEEE Society on Social Implications of Technology (and Rutgers University)

  2. Technology Assessment • Definition: Investigate likely impacts of technology choices • Purpose: Avoid unintended negative consequences, plan transitions • Conducted by: Government, Industry, NGOs, Academia • Methodology: Analytic deliberation with many variations

  3. Example: Hydrogen Economy Ballard 2004

  4. DELIVERED H2 COSTS OF VARIOUS TECHNOLOGIES Current Current Current Current Future Future Hydrogen cost ($/kg) Current Future Future Future Current Current Future Current Future Future Future (GEA) • GEA = Gasoline Efficiency Adjusted – scaled to hybrid vehicle efficiency NRC 2004

  5. CARBON RELEASED DURING H2 PRODUCTION, DISPENSING & DELIVERY (FUTURE TECHNOLOGIES) Kilograms of carbon per kg of hydrogen NRC 2004

  6. Example: Hydrogen Economy • Likely impacts: reduce air pollution, diversify energy mix • Unintended consequences: increase global warming & suburban sprawl • Conducted by: NRC, DOE, APS, EPRI, EU • Methodology: Technology roadmaps, expert deliberations, advocacy science

  7. Technology Assessment: Origins • Marketing studies for new products • Governmental planning for security, economic development investments • 3rd party evaluations of business and governmental choices • Distinct national trajectories • Global approach?

  8. U.S. Experience • Laissez-faire capitalism: fix unintended consequences after the fact • Wartime technology planning (Civil War, WW I, WW II, Cold War): systems analysis • 1960s: apply systems analysis widely in government, critical science movement, environmental regulation • 1972 - 1995: Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, academic specialty • 1995 - today: pluralism, NRC, IEEE et al Andrews 2002

  9. European Experience • Mixed economies: efforts to plan • Military technology planning: long history • Post WW II: social democracies, focus on labor stability, reconstruction • 1990s: “baby” OTAs (esp. UK, Denmark, Netherlands) • Today: participatory assessments, public education, Europeanization of TA Guston & Sarewitz 2002

  10. Japanese Experience • Mixed economy, military planning • Post WW II: economic planning for reconstruction & export-led growth • 1970s: strong response to energy crisis • 1980s: MITI becomes world model for strategic economic planning & TA • Today: sophisticated industry-government collaboration on global technology roadmaps • Question: any public participation?

  11. Developing Countries’ Experience • Indigenous appropriate technology: Chinese biogas, Indian Enfields, Brazilian ethanol • Advice from bilateral & multilateral institutions: ADB, IBRD, USAID, etc. • Multinational corporations: from exploitation to mutual benefit in some cases

  12. Nations Vary Greatly • Preferences: traditional/progressive, green/brown, … • Capabilities: large/small, rich/poor, … • Circumstances: producer/consumer, urban/rural, … • Technology assessment needs and practices must also vary widely

  13. Need for a Global Approach • Global economic integration: in capital markets, product markets, factor markets • Global unintended consequences: climate change, biodiversity loss, resource competition • But when to do technology assessment in a global context?

  14. Choosing When to Globalize • Centralize responsibilities to take advantage of scale economies, enforce widespread norms, pool risks, reduce spillovers • Decentralize responsibilities to allow experimentation, match local circumstances, encourage diverse civic cultures • Not all technology assessments should adopt a global view

  15. National-Global Tensions

  16. National-Global Tensions ?

  17. Resolving National-Global Tensions #1: Allocation Logic • If national interest & scope, then nation does national-level technology assessment • If global interest and national scope, then subsidize national-level assessment • If globally-relevant public-good or pre-competitive technology, then jointly do global-level assessment • Else if commercial technology, then nations or corporations do global-level assessments

  18. Resolving National-Global Tensions #2: Institutional Models • Need a coordinating institution to assign assessment responsibilities-- funding?-- expertise?-- consensus on public-good distinctions? • Institutional models:-- federation: European Commission -- multilateral agreement: IPCC -- bilateral assistance: USAID -- Nongovernmental collaboration: IEEE 

  19. Resolving Science-Politics Tensions • Manage boundaries between science and action so as to enhance salience, credibility, legitimacy of findings. • Requires active communication between experts and decision makers • Requires better translation across boundaries, use of ‘boundary objects’ • Requires active mediation of conflicts, dual accountability Cash et al 2003

  20. Resolving Public-Private Tensions • Technology assessment = public good • Marketplace under-provides it, so government must step in • But firms know the most, so play key role • Create balanced participation, enhance salience, credibility, legitimacy • Funding: “1% for ethics”, business tax, government sponsorship

  21. Adversarial Decision Making Decision Maker Policy Position A Policy Position B Supporting Science A Supporting Science B Stakeholder A Stakeholder B Andrews 2002

  22. Conventional Advising Decision Maker Expert Policy Position A Policy Position B Supporting Science A Supporting Science B Stakeholder A Stakeholder B Andrews 2002

  23. Joint Fact Finding Decision Makers Policy Position BC Policy Position AC Stakeholder A Stakeholder B Experts A and B Policy Position B Policy Position A Supporting Science B Supporting Science A Stakeholder A Stakeholder B Andrews 2002

  24. Conclusions • Global integration changes context of TA • Need to revise “who” and “how” of TA • Satisfy criteria of salience, credibility, legitimacy--not just technical adequacy • Question: Role for IEEE? Idea: IEEE Transactions on Technology Assessment

  25. For more information • http://www.ieee.org/ssit • c.j.andrews@ieee.org • http://radburn.rutgers.edu/andrews

  26. References • Andrews, C.J. Humble Analysis: The Practice of Joint fact Finding (Praeger, 2002) at www.praeger.com. • Ballard Co. website, 2004 at www.ballard.com. • Cash, D.W., W.C. Clark, F. Alcock, N.M. Dickson, N. Eckley, D.H. Guston, J. Jager and R.B. Mitchell, “Knowledge systems for sustainable development,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100(14): 8086-8091 (July 8, 2003). • Guston, D.H., and D. Sarewitz, “Real-time technology assessment,” Technology in Society 24:93-109 (2002). • National Research Council, Committee on Alternatives and Strategies for Future Hydrogen Production and Use, The Hydrogen Economy: Opportunities, Costs, Barriers, and R&D Needs. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2004.

More Related