|
|
|
| Prospective Governance Characteristics to Resolve Social Risks of Emerging Technologies |
| Chen Yu1,Ma Yongchi2 |
| (1.School of Marine Law and Humanities,Dalian Ocean University, Dalian 116033, China； 2.School of Political Science and Public Administration, Shandong University, Qingdao 266237, China) |
|
|
|
|
Abstract The social risk of emerging technologies including nuclear power, nanotechnology, biology, information and cognition technology is a general term for various negative effects that may bring to human society in the process of technological development. For example, before people have reached a scientific conclusion about the cross-generational impact of genetically modified food, a large number of genetically modified crop materials on the domestic and foreign markets have entered the production and processing chain. Technology is originally neutral, and people's improper application has caused technological risks. The Collingridge dilemma brought about by the social risks of emerging technologies has begun to emerge. Some countries use expert decision-making mode or public participation to resolve technical risks. Because expert decision-making is difficult to fully consider the public interests and value demands, while public participation has problems with opinions conflict and limited decision-making efficiency, some countries and regions have begun to actively explore prospective governance. Such as the United Kingdom, the European Union, and the United States try to solve the lack of ethics and morality in the design of emerging technology products, and they launch the participatory or expected governance practices before the promotion of emerging technology products. In view of the fact that the existing prospective governance research is relatively scattered and vague, this study explores and examines the prospective governance characteristics of the social risk resolution of emerging technologies in multiple cases, and try to answer the core scientific question: what are the obvious characteristics of prospective governance for social risk reduction of emerging technologies?#br#Current research on prospective governance is still relatively scattered and vague. This study integrates prospective governance into structure-process-result factors, identifies the causal relationship between prospective governance and collective action, and constructs an analysis framework. The research data comes from the Web of Science, China Knowledge Network CSSCI and other databases, and it retrieves 10 cases of representative emerging technology governance after 2000. The study uses the text analysis method to extract the prospective governance characteristics of governance subject, governance process, governance result, and conducts expert inspection on it.#br#The research has extracted 12 prospective governance characteristics with various effects on achieving collective action. The governance structure features include science and technology committee mechanism, multi-subject collaborative decision-making mechanism, independent professional institution, and independent third-party evaluation. The characteristics of the process include official media propaganda, the stage of government decision-making information disclosure, the depth of public participation, the consistency of information transmission and acquisition, and the public setting issues, and the governance result characteristics include public participation results into the established decision-making agenda, veto power, and emerging technology public participate in laws and regulations. After two stages of empirical testing based on the analytic hierarchy process, the research results show that firstly experts agree that the most important characteristics are governance results, and governance processes characteristics are necessary conditions for collective action, but it is not a sufficient condition. Second, the study found that the characteristics of social group resistance and external causes are special variables of prospective governance in China. In the case, the characteristic of social group resistance is that experts and local governments raise objections to the central government, and public opinion strongly urges the cessation of technical project construction. At the same time, the characteristic of external cause is that the outbreak of technological risks has aggravated the public's panic about technological projects, strengthened the central government's supervision of technological projects, and led to the immediate cessation of the construction of technological projects. Meanwhile the scale of social group resistance has also played a very important role in changing technological decisions. Third, the subject-procedure-object framework proposed by Chilvers and Longhurst has been further improved. This study initially established the relationship between the prospective governance and collective action. Prospective governance influences collective actions through three factors of governance structure, process and results. There is also a certain degree of mutual influence among the three factors. Further research needs to expand the scope of emerging technologies governance cases or focus on a certain type of emerging technology governance cases, and combine quantitative research to verify the causal relationship among various factors.#br#
|
|
Received: 06 May 2021
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [1] 张乐.新兴技术风险的挑战及其适应性治理[J].上海行政学院学报,2021,22(1):13-27.[2] 新浪网.中国新批准进口美国5种进口转基因作物[EB/OL].(2019-01-09).http://finance.sina.com.cn/money/future/agri/2019-01-09/doc-ihqfskcn5364489.shtml.[3] BECK U.Risk society: towards a new modernity[M]. London: Sage Publications,1992.[4] 苏竣,郭跃,汝鹏.从精英决策到大众参与——理性视角下的科技决策模式变迁研究[J].中国行政管理,2014,345(3):90-94.[5] 宋新宁,田旭.西方民主与决策效率的张力有多大[J].人民论坛,2017(6):34.[6] FRIEDMAN B, KAHN P H.Value sensitive design: theory and methods[M].USA:Washington, University of Washington,2002. [7] SELIN C, RAWLINGS K C, RIDDER-VIGNONE K D, et al. Experiments in engagement: designing public engagement with science and technology for capacity building[J]. Public Understanding of Science,2017,26(6):634-649.[8] KUDINA O, VERBEEK P P. Ethics from within: google glass, the collingridge dilemma, and the mediated value of privacy[J]. Science, Technology and Human Values,2019,44(2):291-314.[9] KRABBENBORG L. Creating inquiry between technology developers and civil society actors: learning from experiences around nanotechnology[J].Science & Engineering Ethics, 2016,22(3):907-922.[10] GIBBONS J H, GWIN H L.Technology and governance[J].Technology in Society,1985,7(4): 333-352.[11] IRWIN A. The politics of talk: coming to terms with the 'new' scientific governance[J].Social Studies of Science: An International Review of Research in the Social Dimensions of Science and Technology,2006,36(2):299-320. [12] LATIFAH A, JAHI J M, NOR A R M. Stakeholders' attitude to genetically modified foods and medicine[J].The Scientific World Journal,2013,(58):516-742. [13] KLIJN E H, KOPPENJAN J. Public management and policy networks: foundations of a network approach to governance[J]. Public Management,2000,2(2):58-135.[14] CHILVERS J, LONGHURST N.Participation in transition(s): reconceiving public engagements in energy transitions as co-produced, emergent and diverse[J].Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning,2016,18(5):1-23.[15] GUSTON DH.Understanding 'anticipatory governance'[J].Social Studies of Science,2014，44(2):218-242. [16] OWEN R, MACNAGHTEN P, STILGOE J. Responsible research and innovation: from science in society to science for society,with society[J].Science and Public Policy,2012,39(6):751-760.[17] VOJ P, AMELUNG N. Innovating public participation methods: technoscientization and reflexive engagement[J].Social Studies of Science,2016,46(5):749-772.[18] OSTROM E. Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global environmental change[J]. Global Environmental Change,2010,20(4):550-557.[19] THYNNE I, PETERS B G. Addressing the present and the future in government and governance: three approaches to organising public action[J]. Public Administration and Development, 2015,35(2):73-85.[20] ERICH G. One size fits all? on the institutionalization of participatory technology assessment and its interconnection with national ways of policy-making: the cases of Switzerland and Austria[J]. Poiesis & Praxis International Journal of Ethics of Science & Technology Assessment,2012,9(1-2):61.[21] TAVELLA E.How to make participatory technology assessment in agriculture more "participatory": the case of genetically modified plants[J]. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 2016,103: 119-126.[22] BRAUN K, K?NNINGER S. From experiments to ecosystems? Reviewing public participation, scientific governance and the systemic turn[J]. Public Understanding of Science, 2018, 27(6): 674-689.[23] DUTRNIT G, SUREZ M. Involving stakeholders in policymaking: tensions emerging from a public dialogue with knowledge-based entrepreneurs[J]. Science & Public Policy,2018,45(3):338-350.[24] EMERY S B, MULDER H A J, FREWER L J. Maximizing the policy impacts of public engagement: a European study[J]. Science Technology & Human Values,2015,40(3): 421-444.[25] BENYEI P, PARDO-DE-SANTAYANA M, ACEITUNO-MATA L, et al. Participation in citizen science: insights from the CONECT-e case study[J]. Science, Technology & Human Values,2020,(1):1-34.[26] SAARELA S R.From pure science to participatory knowledge production? researchers' perceptions on science-policy interface in bioenergy policy[J].Science and Public Policy,2019,46(1):81-90.[27] 刘宝杰.价值敏感设计方法探析[J].自然辩证法通讯, 2015,37(2):94-98.[28] LOEBER A, VERSTEEG W, GRIESSLER E. Stop looking up the ladder: analyzing the impact of participatory technology assessment from a process perspective[J]. Science & Public Policy, 2011,38(38):599-608.[29] 齐琳,张茜岚.转基因水稻重获安全证书[N].北京商报,2015-01-07.[30] ATTAR A, GENUS A. Framing public engagement: a critical discourse analysis of GM nation[J].Technological Forecasting & Social Change,2014,88:241-250.[31] 国务院.落实发展新理念加快农业现代化实现全面小康目标的若干意见[EB/OL].中国政府网,2015-12-31.http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/2016-01/27/content_5036698.htm.[32] HORST M, IRWIN A, HEALEY P, et al. European scientific governance in a global context: resonances, implications and reflections[J]. Ids Bulletin,2007,38(5):6-20.[33] GUSTON D H. Participating despite questions: toward a more critical appraisal of its conceptualization in a Flemish participatory technology assessment[J]. Science & Engineering Ethics,2011,17(4):691-697. [34] SIMCOCK N. Procedural justice and the implementation of community wind energy projects: a case study from South Yorkshire, UK[J]. Land Use Policy, 2016,59: 467-477.[35] 彭峰,翟晨阳. 核电复兴、风险控制与公众参与——彭泽核电项目争议之政策与法律思考[J].上海大学学报,2014,31（7）:99-106.[36] 南方都市报. 彭泽核电质疑难消安全需由程序确保[N].南方都市报,2012-02-10.[37] 腾讯网.安徽望江发文要求叫停江西彭泽核电厂建设[EB/OL].2012-02-08.https://news.qq.com/a/20120208/000163.htm.[38] 陈瑜.价值前置型新兴技术治理的主体间互动关键点及路径研究[D].大连:大连理工大学,2018. |
|
|
|
