Technology Assessment in a Globalized World

[1] B. Bimber. The Politics of Expertise in Congress: The Rise and Fall of the Office of Technology Assessment. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1996.Search in Google Scholar

[2] P.D. Blair. Congress’s Own Think Tank. Learning from the Legacy of the Office of Technology Assessment (1972-1995). New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013.10.1093/scipol/sct057Search in Google Scholar

[3] A. Ely, P. van Zwanenberg and A. Stirling. (2011). New Models of Technology Assessment for Development. STEPS Working Paper 45. [Online]. Available: http://steps-centre.org/wp-content/uploads/Technology_Assessment.pdf [Nov. 7, 2018].Search in Google Scholar

[4] J. Ganzevles and R. van Est. (2012). TA Practices in Europe. Deliverable 2.2 in the collaborative project on mobilization and mutual learning actions in European Parliamentary Technology Assessment. [Online]. Available: http://www.pacitaproject.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/TA-Practices-in-Europe-final.pdf%20 [Nov. 7, 2018].Search in Google Scholar

[5] A. Grunwald. “Technology Assessment: Concepts and Methods,” in Handbook of the Philosophy of Science: Philosophy of Technology and Engineering Sciences. A. Meijers, Ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2009, pp. 1103-1146.Search in Google Scholar

[6] A. Grunwald. „Technikfolgenabschätzung und Demokratie. Notwendige oder kontingente Verbindung?“ TATuP – Journal for Technology Assessment in Theory and Practice, vol. 27, pp. 40-45, 2018.10.14512/tatup.27.1.40Search in Google Scholar

[7] D. Guston. “Insights from the Office of Technology Assessment and Other Assessment Experiences,” in: Science and Technology Advice for Congress. M.G. Morgan and J.M. Peha, Ed. Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis, 2003, pp. 77-89.Search in Google Scholar

[8] J. Hahn and M. Ladikas. Towards a Global Technology Assessment Approach. Karlsruhe: KIT Scientific Publishing, in print.Search in Google Scholar

[9] J. Hahn, Chr. Merz and C. Scherz. “Identity Shaping. Challenges of Advising Parliaments and Society. A Brief History of Parliamentary Technology Assessment.” Philosophy of Science and Technology, vol. 20, pp. 164-178, 2015.Search in Google Scholar

[10] A. Irwin. “The Politics of Talk. Coming to Terms with the ‘New’ Scientific Governance.” Social Studies of Science, vol. 36, pp. 299-320, 2006.10.1177/0306312706053350Search in Google Scholar

[11] S. Jasanoff. “Technologies of Humility: Citizen Participation in Governing Science.” Minerva, vol. 41, pp. 223-244, 2003.10.1023/A:1025557512320Search in Google Scholar

[12] A. Keiper. “Science and Congress.” The New Atlantis, vol. 7, pp. 19-50, 2004.Search in Google Scholar

[13] M. Ladikas and D. Schroeder. “Too Early for Global Ethics?” Cambridge Quarterly of Health Care Ethics, vol. 14, pp. 404-415, 2005.10.1017/S0963180105050553Search in Google Scholar

[14] M. Ladikas, S. Chaturvedi, S., Y. Zhao and D. Stemerding. Science and Technology Governance and Ethics. A Global Perspective from Europe, India and China. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2015.10.1007/978-3-319-14693-5Search in Google Scholar

[15] J. Sadowski and D. Guston. “Technology Assessment in the USA: Distributed Institutional Governance.” TATuP – Journal for Technology Assessment in Theory and Practice, vol. 15, pp. 53-59, 2015.10.14512/tatup.24.1.53Search in Google Scholar

[16] TAMI – Technology Assessment in Europe: Between Method and Impact. (2004). Final Report. [Online] Available: https://www.ta-swiss.ch/?redirect=getfile.php&cmd[getfile][uid]=944 [Nov. 7, 2018].Search in Google Scholar

[17] P.-H. Wong. “Responsible Innovation for Decent Nonliberal Peoples. A Dilemma?” Journal of Responsible Innovation, vol. 3, pp. 154-168, 2016.10.1080/23299460.2016.1216709Search in Google Scholar