Technology Assessment(TA) in Japan: Experiences and Future Prospects for Institutionalization

1. Technology Assessment(TA) in Japan: Experiences and Future Prospects for Institutionalization Tatsujiro Suzuki, Go Yoshizawa, Hideaki Shiroyama I2TA (Innovation and Institutionalization of Technology Assessment in Japan) Project Graduate School of Public Policy The University of Tokyo tatsu@pp.u-tokyo.ac.jp This research project is sponsored by Research Institute for Science and Technology for Society (RISTEX), Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST). The project is coordinated by Science, Technology and Public Policy (SciTePP) Research Unit, Graduate School of Public Policy (GRASPP), the University of Tokyo

2. Objective of the Project • To review and analyze the past and current practice of technology assessment（TA), and identify the barriers of institutionalization of TA in Japan. • To develop an innovative TA technique applying the Problem Structuring Method and test its effectiveness through implementing TA for nanotechnologies. • To propose innovative approaches to, as well as techniques for, the TA that is appropriate for the 21st century and a recommendation for their institutionalization in Japan.

3. Research Approach （２)Development of an innovative TA methodology （１）Historical Analysis of so-called “TA” activities in Japan New methodology （３) Implementation of TA: Dealing with Nanotechnologies Conditions for “institutionalizing TA” in Japan We are Here!! Lessons learned from Implementation of TA （４）Recommendations for new TA methodologies and Institutionalization of TA in Japan

4. Functions of TA Present Emerging Issues and Possible options to deal with them Provide “Bird-view” of broad societal Impact of Technology Have dialogue and deliberation with diversified experts stakeholders, and citizens

5. Experts TA Activities: Objectives and Participants Analyze and present problems and issues Present future options and solutions Decision-Oriented Issue conceptualisation Stakeholders Deliberate and explore possible issues Deliberate possible options and solutions Public

6. TA Processes A B C Outreach Agenda Setting Assessment • Communication with stakeholders • Publication • Link with social decision • Sharing of knowledge • Selection of Technology • Problem(issue) definition • Identifying Stakeholders • Scoping • Identifying Options • Assessments • Present and compare possible options • Recommendations

7. I2TA Pilot Studies: Summary 0. MWCNT mini-TA project (Type B-C) • Limited scope with quick output • Nano DDS Group (type B) • “What are the issues associated with introduction of nano-DDS?” • 3 panels (experts/stakeholders) will write reports • Food Nanotechnology (type B-C) • “How to disclose and disseminate information on food nanotechnologies?” • Inventory of products, WS with consumer advisors • Nano-Green (Eco-Housing) (type A) • “What are potential needs of future housing and how can nanotechnologies meet such needs?” • “Needs meet Seeds” WS with public/experts

8. Experts TA Activities: I2TA pilot projects ＭＷＣＮＴ Nano DDS Decision-Oriented Issue conceptualisation Nano-Green Stakeholders Food Nanotech Public

9. Lessons/Experiences from Pilot TA Projects • Agenda Setting is probably the most difficult task (without having a specific client) • “Issues” in “food nanotech” project have been redefined • Choosing “addressee” is another important task • Hard to write a report without knowing “addressee” • Need independent oversight over the process • Established both internal/external auditors(advisors) • How to establish “legitimacy” of TA? • Outreach activities need to be emphasized more • Create new leaflet, Newsletter, and new web-site • Secure future funding is essential to keep expertise • Applied for government competitive funding

10. Historical Lessons :Summary • Institutional Problem: • Ad-hoc assessments (not institutionalized, not named as TA) • Sectionalism hindered TA practice with comprehensive views • Public officers attempted to establish a TA institution in the Diet, but failed by a disconnection between stakeholders’ incentives. • Methodological problem – “system” approach was dominant. • Often confused TA with technology foresight and R&D evaluation • Sticking to a hard systems (‘total system’) approach made it difficult to obtain significant outcome • Lack of efforts in involving wider stakeholders • Process problem –ineffective link with policy process. • Lack of interests in careful agenda setting and options • High quality but not well linked with policy making process • Not carefully designed how the result is used.

11. KEY QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED • How do you set the agenda (theme)? • Who will provide funding (stably)? • Who will conduct TA(who are the authors)? • How to establish legitimacy/independence? • How to enhance effectiveness of TA (link with social decision)? • What kind of institutional arrangements should work best?

12. Organizational Variations in US/Europe • Parliament – OTA: US, POST: UK, OPECST: France, TAB: German, viWTA: Flemish, STOA: European Parliament cf. Distinguishing from the parliamentary library service • Administrative body – DBT: Denmark • Private sectors (1) Academy of Sciences such as the NRC: US, the Rathenau Institute: Netherlands, TA-SWISS, ITA in Austria (2) Public interest groups such as the Woodrow Wilson Center: US (3) Universities such as the Center for Nanotechnology in Society in Arizona State University (4) Advocacy groups (5) Collaboration between private firms and NGOs – Ex. Environmental Defense - DuPont Nano Partnership Program

13. Possible Institutional Options in Japan • Government • Parliamentary Organization (including Diet library) • Governmental Agency (CSTP or Sector Ministries) • Local Governments • Quasi-Government or • Japan Science Technology Agency (RISTEX, etc.) • Independent Agency • SCJ (Science Council of Japan) • Non-governmental Institutions • University or academic institution • Business Association • NGO • Possibility of international TA?- Collaboration with international framework • Network of fragmented TA

14. Third Generation (3G) of TA?- Based on distributed governance • First Generation(70s-80s): US-OTA model • Parliamentary-centered • Expert panel with variety of stakeholders • Policy oriented, highly technical, authored by OTA • Early Warning to Strategic Assessment • Second Generation: (90s~)EU-model • Variety of institutional arrangements (but still associated with parliament and governments) • Public participation with broader agenda-setting TA (authored by citizen panel) with democratic process • Precautionary assessment to Constructive TA

15. Third Generation (3G) of TA? • Third Generation: (2000~?) already emerging.... • “Distributed Governance” with collective knowledge • Not necessarily associated with government institutions • To meet rapidly changing societal and technological change • Need both “real-time” as well as “constructive” TA with broad inputs • New digital technologies may facilitates interaction of variety of “intermediate actors” (business, NGOs, consumer groups, local governments etc.)

16. Comparison of 1st, 2nd, and 3G TA Source: G. Yoshizawa,” Third Generation of Technology Assessment (3G-TA): Expectations for Japanese activities” (2009)

17. Experts TA Activities: Objectives and Participants 3 G TA 1 G TA 2 G TA Decision-Oriented Issue conceptualisation Stakeholders 3 G TA 2 G TA Public

18. Possible 3G TA model? • “GoodGuide” web site provides product ratings of more than 70,000 consumer products online. • “GoodGuide provides the world's largest and most reliable source of information on the health, environmental, and social impacts of the products in your home.” • http://www.goodguide.com/

19. Why 3G fits with Japan (or anywhere else)? • 3G TA provides new institutional options • Not only governmental/parliamentary institutions, 3G TA can diversify institutional options • Collaborative nature of 3G TA may fit with Japan’s social and political culture • Less confrontational, mutually constructive nature • “hard system” plus “soft system” • Effective inputs into social decision making • Feedback mechanism for “agenda setting” and “social decision” with a help from ICT

20. Future Issues • How to design the process under diversified societal needs? • The process design for agenda setting needs to be further studied • How to secure stable funding? • 3G TA may provide diversified funding opportunities, but still need public/stable funding • How to secure the “independent” characteristics of TA institution? • How to design “independent” and “unbiased” TA institution? • What is the expertise of TA (with collective and collaborative knowledge base)? How to secure the human resource? • How to enhance impact of outreach activities? • Need to be recognized well with high prestige • Need to work with newly emerging policy making process in Japan

21. REFERENCES: Survey of EU/US TA Institutions

22. Sponsors • Closely corresponding to the organizational affiliation • TA organizations set in the private sector have various financial resources • The Netherlands, the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science • The U.S. 21st Century Nanotechnology R&D Act of 2003 • NRC in the US is also sponsored mainly by the federal government • Wilson Center in the US has one third of their fund coming from the Congress

23. Member of the Steering Committee • Members of parliament (MPs) only: OTA, OPECST, German committee in charge of TAB, and STOA • MPs and external experts: POST, viWTA • Only external experts: the Rathenau Institute, DBT, TA-SWISS and ITA

24. Implementing body • MPs undertake TA exercises by themselves: OPECST • Staff in TA organizations conducts TA and takes authorship of TA reports: OTA, POST, Rathenau and ITA • External experts in the committee take authorship of TA reports: NRC Cf. DBT: Various experts and stakeholders participating in the cross disciplinary working groups write report by themselves • Contracting out to external organizations: STOA, German TAB

25. Addressee • Parliament: OTA, POST, OPECST, TAB • Administrative agency: the early days of the Netherlands Office of Technology Assessment (NOTA) cf. NOTA (then Rathenau) started reporting to the parliament as well - DBT of Denmark, ITA of Austria • Citizens and general public: the Rathenau Institute in 1994, DBT, viWTA

26. Operational issues • Eyes on the political structure and culture: different attitudes toward “independence” : OTA (Congressional control) vs. Academy of Sciences (scientific independence) vs. DBT (political balance) • Process of the introduction: the utilization of Experimental periods and events • TA Methods: from early warning to participation cf. Stakeholders involvement (OTA, Rathenau) vs. joint fact finding (DBT) • TA Practitioners’ Competence and Educational Support for Them – networking capacity cf. AAAS Science & Technology Policy Fellowship • Quality control – internal/ open process vs. peer reviews