книги / Образ инженера XXI века социальная оценка техники и устойчивое развитие

ние с объективной информацией, с обоснованным и истинным мнением. В новой концепции науки знание производится не только в контексте открытия и фундаментального обоснования, но и в контексте оцениваемых последствий применения (социальная оценка техники). Близкими являются понятия: «социальная оценка техники / Technology assessment (TA)», «STS (Science – Technology – Society /Наука – Технологии – Общество)», «исследование рисков», «анализ технических инноваций» и другие.

Результаты теоретических исследований классической науки находили применение в практике, как правило, со значительным отставанием во времени. В современных инновационных технологиях процессы теоретических исследований и внедрения осуществляются одновременно. Например, реализация социального заказа расшифровки генома человека изначально являлась фундаментальными теоретическими исследованиями в сфере био- и информационных технологий. Разрыв между исследованием и внедрением сократился, поэтому многократно возросла вероятность появления непредвиденных негативных последствий. Повысилась опасность распространения продвинутых в техническом и естественно-научном плане, но не апробированных технологий. В связи с этим важную роль начинают играть специальные междисциплинарные исследования самих последствий. Отсюда значение социальной оценки техники и RRI (Responsible Research and Innovation).

Социальная оценка техники, если следовать соответствующей литературе, представляет собой общественную, подтвержденную наукой практику, которая отвечает потребностям общества в генерации, посредничестве и внедрении определенных типов последовательного знания в отношении науки и техники [1, с. 35–36]. Социальную оценку техники рассматривают как вид социальной практики, при этом очень важна установка на выявление нормативных правил в этой деятельности. Примечательно, что в рамках сложившейся системы классификации научного знания, в которой выделяются есте-

71

ственные, социально-гуманитарные, технические науки, технонаука не может быть отнесена ни к одному из этих типов знания. Это лишний раз указывает на необходимость осмысления феномена технонауки как в эпистемологическом, так и со- циально-культурном аспекте.

Каковы социально-культурные следствия внедрения технонауки? Переход к этапу социального развития, на котором в научном знании главная роль отводится технологиям и инновациям, сопряжен, во-первых, с возрастанием рисков внедрения NBIC-технологий, которые по своему воздействию на мир человека не сравнимы ни с какими технологиями прошлого. Во-вторых, взаимодействие с «человекоразмерными» объектами (саморазвивающимися системами) требует перехода к особому типу мышления – нелинейному или «сложностному» мышлению (Э. Морен, К. Майнцер). В-третьих, требуется осознание современных технологий не только как эффективных методов, но и как условия безопасного существования, условия выживания человечества.

Социальная оценка техники, в которой интегрированы сразу несколько типов знания: естественно-научное, научнотехническое и социально-гуманитарное, в мировоззренческом измерении приобретает значение глобальной проблемы современности. Исследования последствий современной техники, вопросы технической этики являются важнейшей составляющей социальной оценки техники и напрямую затрагивают вопросы выживания человечества, при этом сохраняется актуальность проблем онтологии и эпистемологии.

Проблематика технонауки и социальной оценки техники затрагивает очень многие серьезные вопросы эпистемологического, онтологического, аксиологического характера. Внедрение сложных технических систем, именно в силу их все возрастающей сложности, характеризуется новыми требованиями к знанию – продукту технонауки. Если в традиционной науке важнейшим критерием оценки теоретического знания на научность

72

является предсказательная способность теории, то прогнозировать функционирование сложных технических систем, конструируемых в технонауке, проблематично. Оценочный процесс не может ограничиваться профессиональной деятельностью ученых и инженеров, а предполагает участие в нем общественности и экспертного сообщества. Социальная оценка техники и техническая этика призваны способствовать как созданию механизмов самоограничения и самоконтроля в условиях неопределенности, так и разработке новых многоступенчатых механизмов принятия решений.

Список литературы

1. Грунвальд А. На пути к теории социальной оценки техники // Эпистемология и философия науки. – 2008. –№ 3. –

С. 35–56.

2.Горохов В.Г. Грюнвальд А. Каждая инновация имеет социальный характер! (Социальная оценка техники как прикладная философия техники) // Высшее образование в Рос-

сии. – 2011. – № 5. – С. 135–145.

3.Швырев В.С. О соотношении познавательной и проек- тивно-конструктивной функций в классической и современной науке // Познание, понимание, конструирование. – М.: Изд-во ИФ РАН, 2008. – С. 30–48.

4.Черникова И.В. Взаимосвязь фундаментального знания

итехнологических проектов науки // Эпистемология и филосо-

фия науки. – 2013. – № 4. – С. 177–189.

5.Latour B. From the world of science to that of research? // Science magazine. – Washington, 1998. – Vol. 280, no. 5361. – P. 209.

73

C. Scherz, P. Kulakov

(Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis, Karlsruhe)

CHALLENGES OF ADVISING

PARLIAMENTS AND SOCIETY: A BRIEF HISTORY

OF PARLIAMENTARY TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

Germany has a long standing tradition in doing Technology Assessment. The Office of Technology Assessment at the German Bundestag (TAB) which is operated from the Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis (ITAS) for more than 25 years is a best practice example for advising a parliament. By reflecting the history of TA institutionalization one could show the necessary efforts and challenges to create a mutual understanding of science and politics and different claims to advising processes. The article embeds the institutionalization of TAB (and other European TA institutions) in a broader reflection about the founding idea of TA.

Keywords: technology assessment, institutionalization, parliamentary TA, policy advice.

“Technology Assessment (TA) is a problem-oriented approach dealing with the non-technical aspects of technology development, in order to gain knowledge about the (un-) intended consequences, the (un-) desired impacts, the main and side-effects and the chances and risks of (new) technologies” [3, p. 177]. This approach is not solvable with the help of a single scientific discipline; TA covers several disciplines and methods that are mutually beneficial. Those who are doing TA today work in interdisciplinary teams in which scientists develop potential solutions to solve societal problems related to technological transformation processes or e.g. the “grand challenges”

of our time. The societal problems need to be reframed and converted into research questions tobe dealt with by interdisciplinary research. A technology, its development, risks and chances are always regarded in connection to societal integration thus as a thought

74

of singularity. How is the development of technologies influenced by society? How do technological needs evolve in society and require, for example, political regulation? To answer these questions it is helpful to look into the history of Parliamentary Technology Assessment.

First topics TA dealt with wer e.g. the Ozone hole or the unknown risks of nuclear energy plants. From the beginning TA was asking how one could provide knowledge about probable consequences and with which methods the knowledge could be transferred into political decision-making processes. Another task was to handle technological conflicts1. Even if the technologies that led to conflicts differ in the countries, the origins of the TA institutions are similar. The first country in which this development led to institutional consequences was the US.

Cradle of Parliamentarian TA:

The Office of Technology Assessment in the US

Concepts of TA were discussed in the US in the late 1960s “when tensions flared between executive and the congressional branches of the federal government about access to technical and scientific advice” [10, p. 53]. After years of debate about the conceivable methods and styles of advice, Congress created the Office

of Technology Assessment (OTA) in 1972 in order to assist and support the legislative “in the identification and consideration of existing and probable impacts of technological application [to ensure that] the consequences of technological applications be anticipated, understood, and considered in determination of public policy on existing and emerging national problems” [2, Appendix]. OTA was the first and largest parliamentary TA office, and its history has therefore often been studied [1; 6; 7]:

1 The search for a storage of highly radioactive waste materials in Germany is a prominent example for such a conflict.

75

–It’s original design was to provide a kind of “early warning” for the Congress on the potential impact of new and emerging kinds of technology1.

–Among the studies, papers, and reports that OTA provided

OTA's leadership, and the different directors stimulated self-studying of OTA's work and the methods used when carrying out a TA study [5]. When thinking about the attempts to handle the ambivalent situation of being neutral and having the Congress as its main client, it is a kind of irony of fate that OTA fell victim to political leadership.

The Heterogeneity of TA Institutions in Europe

It’s not a secret that governments are investing more and more in Research & Technology, innovations means economic growth and societal prosperity. At the same time, it is necessary to avoid sideeffects of technical developments, not intended or unpredictable effects, e.g. accidents in (nuclear) plants, impacts on the natural environment (e.g. air pollution), societal or cultural side-effects (e.g. impacts on the labor market), ethical debates (e.g. stem cell research), intended abuse of a technique.

The same approach to institutionalize TA within or close to the parliament pursued in the US was taken up by European parliamentary TA institutions. Most of them were founded in the 1980s

1 The first report addressed the viability of generic drugs. OTA – Office of Technology Assessment (1974): Drug Bioequivalence, NTIS order #PB-244862, July 1974. Washington, DC; https://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk3/1974/7401/7401.PDF

76

and 90s. Today they are connected under the umbrella of EPTA – The European Technology Assessment Association1.

– Full EPTA members: Austria (ITA), Catalonia (CAPCIT), Denmark (Danish Board of Technology Foundation), European Parliament (STOA), Finland (Committee for the Future), France (OPECST), Germany (TAB), Greece (GPCRT),The Netherlands (Rathenau Insti-

term often leads to the conclusion that TA is directly included or connected to a parliament, it is important to notice that there are indeed

methodologies and mission [12]. Ganzevles and van Est published a paper in the course of the EU-funded project Parliaments and Civil Society in Technology Assessment (PACITA)3 about TA practices in Europe. The authors point out in detail that “[…] one should be careful when equating or identifying performing Parliamentary TA with a Parliamentary TA organisation. We therefore prefer to talk about a TA organisation that has the task to perform Parliamentary TA, possibly amongst performing other tasks” [4, p. 21]. And not only this, Ganzevles and van Est distinguish five organizational types of parliamentary TA practice that are currently operational [4, p. 13–14]:

– Model 1 reflects mainly parliamentary involvement (e.g. Finland and France)

1http://eptanetwork.org/

2At the time February 2017.

3http://www.pacitaproject.eu/

77

–Model 2 reflects a shared parliament-science involvement (e.g. Catalonia, Germany, the UK)

–Model 3 entails a shared parliament-science-society involvement (e.g. Denmark)

–Model 4 reflects a shared science-government involvement (e.g. Austria)

–Model 5 reflects a shared involvement of all four spheres: parliament-government-science-society (e.g. the Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland)

As the institutional environment is on the one hand context specific (for example, based on country-specific, cultural, political and societal differences) and on the other hand changes over time, actors wanting to establish TA within their countries should become clear about the multidimensional nature of parliamentary TA. Furthermore, when looking at the countries that already have institutionalized forms of parliamentary TA, the establishment of TA has be regarded as a process. In the beginning, every institution in Europe

the proposed main function, and the planned time perspective. And as the history shows, especially the latter, the lifespan of the institutions that advise on politics, depends on the political system on the one hand and the political will on the other. Every institution has had to undergo a process of learning or, even better, “institutional learning” [8, p. 283] where the organization had to learn to play its role, to develop its own structures, processes and rules.

The Office of Technology Assessment

at the German Bundestag

To illustrate how the institutionalization processes looked in a specific case, we present the example of the Office of Technology Assessment at the German Bundestag (TAB) which is operated by

78

the Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis (ITAS). What were the reasons for institutionalizing TAB and for establishing TA in the political context in Germany?

Like in other European states, the idea of providing continuous technology assessment in support of parliament dates back to the 1970s. As mentioned, during that decade the debate on the opportunities and risks of scientific and technological developments increased. Also in Germany numerous problematic consequences for society and the environment raised the awareness of the need for an early assessment and evaluation of the development and use of technology. The German Bundestag debated the opportunities, risks, and potentials of designing new forms of technology. And the discussion focused on the question of whether and how TA might be used in support of decision-making processes. Concerning the question of institutionalization, the debate gained momentum in 1973 with a mo-

tion by the (then opposition) Christian Democratic Union parliamentary group to establish an “Office for Evaluation of Technological Development at the German Bundestag”1. Numerous proposals from other parliamentary groups followed. In 1985 there was a joint decision by the parliamentary groups set up the “Study Commission on Assessment and Evaluation of Technological Impacts”2. This Commission submitted a proposal on the “Institutionalization of an advisory body for technology assessment and evaluation at the German Bundestag” in 1986 and completed its work by the end of the electoral period with an interim report containing recommendations regarding the organization of technology assessment at the German Bundestag3.

http://dip21.bundestag.

de/dip21/btd/10/029/1002937.pdf

3 Bundestagsdrucksache 10/5844, July 14, 1986; http://dip21.bundestag.de/ dip21/btd/10/058/1005844.pdf

79

The next Bundestag again set up a Study Commission on TA in order to adopt the criticism of the institutionalization model. On November 16, 1989, the German Bundestag voted by majority of the Christian Democratic Union and the Free Democratic Party to rename the “Committee on Research and Technology” to “Committee on Research, Technology and Technology Assessment” and to authorize a scientific institution to conduct TA for the German Bundestag1. The German case shows that – despite their differences – all the parliamentary groups agreed on the need for a permanent TA institution “independent of elections and parliamentary cycles and supportive of the

Assessment and Systems Analysis (ITAS).

During the 25 years of its existence, the number of committees initiating and debating TAB studies has grown. Although the federal

and state ministries as well as research institutions, government agencies, companies, and interested members of the public follow the work of TAB with interest, the main addressee and only client is still the parliament. However, the demands of parliament or specifically of the members of the committee on Education, Research, and Technology Assessment have alsochanged. Every five years ITAS applies for confirmation to operate TAB (together with consortium partners). This recurring application process allows for the reconsideration of formats and methods. E.g., over the years TAB has started

to open to the public. From 2002 on, TAB and the committee have

1 Bundestagsdrucksache 11/5489, October 26, 1989;http://dip21.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/11/054/1105489.pdf

2 A brief history of the Office of Technology Assessment at the German Bundestag (TAB)” available on the BTAwebpage http://www.tab-beim-bunde- stag.de/en/about-tab/history.html

80