Transcript 先進技術の社会影響評価

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 [email protected]
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
（１）Historical Analysis of
so-called “TA” activities
in Japan
Conditions for
“institutionalizing TA”
in Japan
（２)Development of
an innovative TA
methodology
New
methodology
（３) Implementation of
TA: Dealing with
Nanotechnologies
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
Provide “Bird-view”
of broad societal
Impact of Technology
Present Emerging
Issues and Possible
options to deal with
them
Have dialogue and
deliberation with
diversified experts
stakeholders, and
citizens
5
TA Activities: Objectives and Participants
Experts
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
Agenda Setting
Assessment
• Selection of Technology • Scoping
• Problem(issue) definition • Identifying Options
• Identifying Stakeholders • Assessments
• Present and compare
possible options
• Recommendations
C
Outreach
• Communication with
stakeholders
• Publication
• Link with social decision
• Sharing of knowledge
7
I2TA Pilot Studies: Summary
0. MWCNT mini-TA project (Type B-C)
▫
1.
▫
▫
2.
▫
▫
3.
▫
▫
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
TA Activities: I2TA pilot projects
Experts
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?
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
1. Government
▫
▫
▫
Parliamentary Organization (including Diet library)
Governmental Agency (CSTP or Sector Ministries)
Local Governments
2. Quasi-Government or
▫ Japan Science Technology Agency (RISTEX, etc.)
3. Independent Agency
▫
SCJ (Science Council of Japan)
4. Non-governmental Institutions
▫ University or academic institution
▫ Business Association
▫ NGO
▫ Possibility of international TA?- Collaboration with
international framework
5. 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
First Generation
Second Generation
Third Generation
Time
Since 1970s
Since 1990s
Since 2000 (emerging)
Leading region
United States
Europe
n/s (incl. Japan?)
Institution
Parliament-centered
Parliament-related
Collaborative
(Government)
(Governance)
(Distributed governance)
Experts
Selected citizens
Intermediate actors as
Key participants
well as general public
Guarantee of
Expertise
Democratic Process
Societal Verification
Early warning to
Precautionary to
Real-time and
Strategic
Constructive
Communicative
Methods
Technical/Analytic
Social/Deliberative
Mixed (with ICTs)
Resources
Expert
Local
Existing
legitimacy and
credibility
Approach
Source: G. Yoshizawa,” Third Generation of Technology Assessment (3G-TA):
Expectations for Japanese activities” (2009)
17
TA Activities: Objectives and Participants
Experts
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)?
1. 3G TA provides new institutional options
▫
Not only governmental/parliamentary institutions,
3G TA can diversify institutional options
2. Collaborative nature of 3G TA may fit with
Japan’s social and political culture
▫
▫
Less confrontational, mutually constructive nature
“hard system” plus “soft system”
3. 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
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
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
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
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
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