| Foreword | p. VII |
| Preface | p. IX |
| List of Authors | p. XI |
| Methodology of Technology Assessment | p. 1 |
| Participatory Technology Assessment. Some Critical Questions | p. 3 |
| The Tribalisation of Science | p. 5 |
| The Overtaxing of the Citizens' Competence | p. 7 |
| The Plebiscitarism of the Will of the People | p. 8 |
| Final Remarks | p. 11 |
| Post-Normal Science. Science and Governance under Conditions of Complexity | p. 15 |
| Introduction | p. 15 |
| Complexity | p. 16 |
| Post-Normal Science as a bridge between complex systems and policy | p. 18 |
| Conclusion | p. 23 |
| Business as Usual: On the Prospects of Normality in Scientific Research | p. 25 |
| Lack of selectivity of the suggested features | p. 25 |
| Methodological irrelevance of the listed properties | p. 27 |
| The perpetuity of Post-Normal Science | p. 29 |
| The non-existence of normal science | p. 30 |
| Rational Technology Assessment as Interdisciplinary Research | p. 33 |
| Overview | p. 33 |
| Technology Assessment as problem-oriented research | p. 33 |
| The Concept of Rationality in Technology Assessment | p. 36 |
| The pragmatic concept of rationality | p. 37 |
| Dimensions of rationality | p. 39 |
| Practical rationality for shaping the future | p. 40 |
| Quality requirements for interdisciplinary Technology Assessment | p. 42 |
| External quality assurance within interdisciplinary expert groups | p. 47 |
| Pre-Project: Pre-structuring the problem field | p. 48 |
| Project | p. 51 |
| Evaluation Loops | p. 53 |
| Discussion | p. 56 |
| The interdisciplinary procedure | p. 56 |
| Trans-disciplinary quality of TA? | p. 58 |
| To assess rationality before anything else. A remark on the legitimacy of Rational Technology Assessment | p. 61 |
| A brief history of Technology Assessment | p. 61 |
| Rational Technology Assessment and the assumption behind "rationality" | p. 64 |
| Habermas on decisionistic, technocratic and pragmatistic models | p. 65 |
| Rational Technology Assessment and its legitimacy | p. 67 |
| Technology Assessment as Policy Consulting | p. 71 |
| Parliament, Paradox and Policy | p. 73 |
| Introduction | p. 73 |
| First paradox: 'The Paradox of Parliamentary Democracy' | p. 75 |
| Second paradox: 'Science, Technology and the Public' | p. 76 |
| Policy consulting in contemporary context | p. 77 |
| Some policy consultation experiences of POST | p. 79 |
| 'Electronic' | p. 79 |
| 'Non-electronic' | p. 79 |
| Criticisms of consultative techniques | p. 81 |
| Conclusion | p. 82 |
| The Politics of Technology Assessment | p. 85 |
| Introduction | p. 85 |
| Parliamentary offices of TA: the limits | p. 85 |
| Interdisciplinarity and Consensus: possible, desirable or simply-necessary? | p. 87 |
| Trust: ubiquitous by its absence | p. 89 |
| In Conclusion | p. 91 |
| Participatory Technology Assessment | p. 93 |
| Toward "lay" participation and co-operative learning in TA, technology policy, and construction of technologies | p. 95 |
| Remarks on the historical development of TA | p. 96 |
| TA as a democratic requirement, types of democracy and "technological citizenship" | p. 108 |
| Cognitive preconditions to develop and practice "technological citizenship" | p. 113 |
| The Role of Scientific Input and Public Participation for Technology Assessment | p. 123 |
| Introduction | p. 123 |
| Forms of Legitimization for Collective Actions | p. 125 |
| Pitfalls and Illusions in the Cooperation between Experts and Policy Makers | p. 128 |
| The Challenge of Integrating Expertise into Technological Policy-Making | p. 130 |
| The ambivalent role of science for legitimizing decisions on TA | p. 130 |
| Lessons for the function of science for Technology Assessment | p. 131 |
| The Requirements for a Model Linking Expertise to Technology Assessment | p. 133 |
| The Necessity of Discursive Processes when Dealing with Technological Impacts | p. 135 |
| Classification of Discourses | p. 136 |
| Concluding Remarks | p. 137 |
| Case Studies | p. 145 |
| The Ethics of Technology Assessment in Health Care | p. 147 |
| Health Technology Assessment | p. 147 |
| The definition | p. 147 |
| The method | p. 148 |
| The health outcomes | p. 150 |
| Health systems in transition | p. 154 |
| Social change in health care | p. 154 |
| Challenges for Health Technology Assessment | p. 155 |
| Knowledge management | p. 158 |
| The knowledge based system of care | p. 158 |
| Dissemination of knowledge | p. 159 |
| Ethics and knowledge in health care | p. 161 |
| Transition Management: a promising policy perspective | p. 165 |
| Origin and nature of the concept of transition | p. 165 |
| Integrated systems and evolutionary approach | p. 168 |
| Example: energy transition in historical perspective | p. 173 |
| Transition Management | p. 176 |
| Transition Management in relation to the current policy | p. 181 |
| Actor analysis: the role of the government | p. 183 |
| Case study: the transition to a low-emissions energy infra-structure | p. 185 |
| Conclusions | p. 193 |
| The Inclusion of Stakeholder Perspectives in Integrated Assessment of Climate Change | p. 199 |
| Introduction | p. 199 |
| Motives for including stakeholder perspectives | p. 200 |
| Methods to include stakeholder perspectives | p. 202 |
| Whose perspectives have been involved? | p. 203 |
| In what phase of the process have stakeholder perspectives been involved? | p. 206 |
| How have stakeholder perspectives been included? | p. 208 |
| Who has effectively been allowed to contribute what relevant wisdom in what phase of the risk management process? | p. 211 |
| Discussion and conclusions | p. 212 |
| Acknowledgements | p. 214 |
| Table of Contents provided by Publisher. All Rights Reserved. |
