Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27465504›Full record

ArticleLife sciences, society and policy2016

Integrated assessment of emerging science and technologies as creating learning processes among assessment communities.

Ellen-Marie Forsberg, Barbara Ribeiro, Nils B Heyen, Rasmus Øjvind Nielsen, Erik Thorstensen, Erik de Bakker, Lars Klüver, Thomas Reiss, Volkert Beekman, Kate Millar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Life sciences, society and policy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Ellen-Marie ForsbergResearch Group on Responsible Innovation, Oslo and Akershus University College, P.O. Box 4 St Olavs plass, 0130, Oslo, Norway. Ellenmarie.Forsberg@hioa.no.
Barbara RibeiroCentre for Applied Bioethics, University of Nottingham, Sutton Bonington, Leicestershire, LE12 5RD, UK.
Nils B HeyenFraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research ISI, Breslauer Strasse 48, 76139, Karlsruhe, Germany.
Rasmus Øjvind NielsenDanish Board of Technology, Toldbodgade 12, 1253, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Erik ThorstensenResearch Group on Responsible Innovation, Oslo and Akershus University College, P.O. Box 4 St Olavs plass, 0130, Oslo, Norway.
Erik de BakkerAgricultural Economics Research Institute (LEI), Wageningen University and Research Centre, P.O. Box 29703, 2502LS, 'S Gravenhage, The Netherlands.
Lars KlüverDanish Board of Technology, Toldbodgade 12, 1253, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Thomas ReissFraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research ISI, Breslauer Strasse 48, 76139, Karlsruhe, Germany.
Volkert BeekmanAgricultural Economics Research Institute (LEI), Wageningen University and Research Centre, P.O. Box 29703, 2502LS, 'S Gravenhage, The Netherlands.
Kate MillarCentre for Applied Bioethics, University of Nottingham, Sutton Bonington, Leicestershire, LE12 5RD, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Emerging science and technologies are often characterised by complexity, uncertainty and controversy. Regulation and governance of such scientific and technological developments needs to build on knowledge and evidence that reflect this complicated situation. This insight is sometimes formulated as a call for integrated assessment of emerging science and technologies, and such a call is analysed in this article. The article addresses two overall questions. The first is: to what extent are emerging science and technologies currently assessed in an integrated way. The second is: if there appears to be a need for further integration, what should such integration consist in? In the article we briefly outline the pedigree of the term 'integrated assessment' and present a number of interpretations of the concept that are useful for informing current analyses and discussions of integration in assessment. Based on four case studies of assessment of emerging science and technologies, studies of assessment traditions, literature analysis and dialogues with assessment professionals, currently under-developed integration dimensions are identified. It is suggested how these dimensions can be addressed in a practical approach to assessment where representatives of different assessment communities and stakeholders are involved. We call this approach the Trans Domain Technology Evaluation Process (TranSTEP).

Indexed as

EuropeHumansSynthetic BiologyTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalAssessmentDialogueEmerging science and technologiesIntegrationTransparencyTranSTEP

Identifiers

PMID27465504
PMCPMC4963332

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.