Foresight Study on the Risk Governance of New Technologies: The Case of Nanotechnology.

Technology-led innovation represents an important driver of European economic and industrial competitiveness and offers solutions to societal challenges. In order to facilitate responsible innovation and public acceptance, a need exists to identify and implement oversight approaches focused on the effective risk governance of emerging technologies. This article describes a foresight study on the governance of new technologies, using nanotechnology as a case example. Following a mapping of the governance landscape, four plausible foresight scenarios were developed, capturing critical uncertainties for nanotechnology governance. Key governance elements were then stress tested within these scenarios to see how well they might perform in a range of possible futures and to inform identification of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats for nanotechnology governance in Europe. Based on the study outcomes, recommendations are proposed regarding the development of governance associated with the responsible development of new technologies.

A collaboratively-derived science-policy research agenda.

The need for policy makers to understand science and for scientists to understand policy processes is widely recognised. However, the science-policy relationship is sometimes difficult and occasionally dysfunctional; it is also increasingly visible, because it must deal with contentious issues, or itself becomes a matter of public controversy, or both. We suggest that identifying key unanswered questions on the relationship between science and policy will catalyse and focus research in this field. To identify these questions, a collaborative procedure was employed with 52 participants selected to cover a wide range of experience in both science and policy, including people from government, non-governmental organisations, academia and industry. These participants consulted with colleagues and submitted 239 questions. An initial round of voting was followed by a workshop in which 40 of the most important questions were identified by further discussion and voting. The resulting list includes questions about the effectiveness of science-based decision-making structures; the nature and legitimacy of expertise; the consequences of changes such as increasing transparency; choices among different sources of evidence; the implications of new means of characterising and representing uncertainties; and ways in which policy and political processes affect what counts as authoritative evidence. We expect this exercise to identify important theoretical questions and to help improve the mutual understanding and effectiveness of those working at the interface of science and policy.