Evaluación constructiva de la tecnología: revisión sistemática y necesidades de estudios futuros

Resumen

La ingeniería, entendida como la reunión de conocimientos científicos y tecnológicos para la innovación, creación, avance y optimización de técnicas, así como un conjunto de herramientas útiles para suplir las necesidades sociales y resolver problemas técnicos tanto de las personas como de la comunidad, hace a sus principales actores, los ingenieros, piezas clave en el desarrollo sostenible y en la creación de alternativas que minimicen los efectos negativos de la tecnología sobre la sociedad. Es en este sentido que enfoques de evaluación de la tecnología deben tomar importancia entre aquellos que gestionan el desarrollo tecnológico y las políticas de implementación. Generalmente, se actúa frente a los efectos indeseables de la intrusión de una nueva tecnología cuando estos ya ocurren, desde la evaluación tecnológica se pretende anticipar el riesgo. En este documento se presenta una revisión bibliográfica de la evaluación de la tecnología, sus enfoques y necesidades de estudio futuro. A partir de un eje articulador que posiciona el cambio tecnológico y la innovación como una necesidad imperativa para el desarrollo social, se llevó a cabo una revisión exhaustiva de artículos relacionados en bases de datos especializadas. Los resultados más importantes de este trabajo revelan que el campo de la evaluación tecnológica se ha inclinado fuertemente hacia el sector de la salud o sanitario, sin embargo, se desarrollan investigaciones en temas centrales de la ingeniería como el desarrollo de la nanotecnología, la robótica, el manejo de grandes datos donde se destaca el modelo europeo como referente para llevar procesos de evaluación tecnológica por su naturaleza incluyente y democrática. 

Palabras clave

evaluación constructiva de la tecnología, innovación responsable, ciencia, tecnología y sociedad

Biografía del autor/a

Óscar Iván Rodríguez-Cardoso, M.Sc.

Rol: Conceptualización, Investigación, Metodología, Escritura – borrador original, Escritura – revisión y edición.

Vladimir Alfonso Ballesteros-Ballesteros, Ph. D. (c)

Rol: Conceptualización, Investigación, Metodología, Escritura – borrador original, Escritura – revisión y edición.

Manuel Francisco Romero-Ospina, M.Sc.

Rol: Conceptualización, Investigación, Metodología, Escritura – borrador original, Escritura – revisión y edición.

Citas

[1] M. Decker, M. Ladikas, S. Stephan, F. Wütscher. Bridges between science, society and policy: technology assessment-methods and impacts, Springer, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-06171-8

[2] D. Banta, “What is technology assessment?,” International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, vol. 25, no. S1, pp. 7-9, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462309090333

[3] J. F. Coates, “Technology assessment: The benefits... the costs... the consequences,” IEEE Engineering Management Review, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 41-47, 1974. https://doi.org/10.1109/EMR.1974.4306353

[4] S. R. Arnstein, “Technology assessment: Opportunities and obstacles,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, vol. 7, no. 8, pp. 571-582, 1977. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMC.1977.4309782

[5] A. H. Teich, Technology and man's future, New York: St. Martin's Press, 1977

[6] A. Grunwald, “Sustainability assessment of technologies - an integrative approach,” in Sustainable Development - Energy, Engineering and Technologies – Manufacturing and Environment, InTech, 2012, pp. 35-62

[7] A. Grunwald, “Technology Assessment and Design for Values,” in Handbook of Ethics, Values, and Technological Design. Sources, Theory, Values and Application Domains, Netherlands: Springer, pp. 67-86, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6994-6_4-1

[8] A. Grunwald, “Diverging pathways to overcoming the environmental crisis: A critique of eco-modernism from a technology assessment perspective,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 197, pp. 1854-1862, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.212

[9] A. Grunwald, C. Rösch, “Sustainability assessment of energy technologies: Towards an integrative framework,” Energy, sustainability and society, vol. 1, e3, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1186/2192- 0567-1-3

[10] B. Truffer, J. Schippl, T. Fleischer, “Decentering technology in technology assessment: Prospects for socio-technical transitions in electric mobility in Germany,” Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 122, pp. 34-48, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.04.020

[11] A. Rip, “Contributions from social studies of science and constructive technology assessment,” On science and precaution in the management of technological risk, vol. 2, pp. 94-122, 2002

[12] E. Q. Daddario, “Technology Assessment,” in Statement of Emilio Q. Daddario, Chairman, Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Development of the Committee on Science and Astronautics, US House of Representatives, Ninetieth Congress, First Session (Vol. 2). US Government Printing Office, 1967

[13] M. Decker, A. Grunwald, “Rational Technology Assessment as Interdisciplinary Research,” in Interdisciplinarity in Technology Assessment. Implementation and its Chances and Limits, Berlin, pp 33-60, 2001. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-04371-4_4

[14] A. Grunwald, “Technology Assessment: Concepts and Methods,” in Philosophy of Technology and Engineering Sciences, 2009, pp. 1103-1146. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-51667-1.50044-6

[15] H. Van Lente, T. Swierstra, P. B. Joly. “Responsible innovation as a critique of technology assessment,” Journal of Responsible Innovation, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 254-261, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2017.1326261

[16] R. Smits, J. Leyten. P. Den Hertog, “Technology Assessment and Technology Policy in Europe: New Concepts, New Goals, New Infrastructures,” Policy Sciences, vol. 28, pp. 271-299, 1995. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01000290

[17] J. Grin, H. Van der Graaf, “Technology Assessment as Learning,” Science, Technology and Human Values, vol. 21, pp. 72-99, 1996. https://doi.org/10.1177/016224399602100104

[18] T. Cronberg, “Technology Assessment in the Danish Socio-Political Context”, Assessment Texts No. 9, The Unit of Technology Assessment, Technical University of Denmark, Copenhagen, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.1996.025456

[19] J. Schot, A. Rip. “The past and future of constructive technology assessment,” Technological forecasting and social change, vol. 54, no. 2-3, pp. 251-268, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0040-1625(96)00180-1

[20] A. Genus, A. M. Coles. “On constructive technology assessment and limitations on public participation in technology assessment,” Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 433-443, 2005. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537320500357251

[21] D. K. R. Robinson, “Constructive technology assessment of emerging nanotechnologies: experiments in interactions,” Doctoral Thesis, University of Twente, United Kingdom, 2010

[22] T. Versteeg, M.J. Baumann, M. Weil, A. B. Moniz, “Exploring emerging battery technology for grid-connected energy storage with Constructive Technology Assessment,” Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 115, pp. 99-110, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.09.024

[23] H. Te Kulve, K. Konrad, “The demand side of innovation governance: Demand articulation processes in the case of nano-based sensor technologies,” in Bowman D, Stokes E and Rip A (eds). Embedding and Governing New Technologies: A Regulatory, Ethical & Societal Perspective, Singapore: Pan Stanford, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315379593-8

[24] D. Schepis, S. Purchase, N. Ellis. “Understanding Constructive Technology Assessments from an IMP Perspective: The Case of Autonomous Vehicles,” in 35th IMP Conference, Paris, 2019, pp. 1-8

[25] A. H. Kiran, N. Oudshoorn, P. P. Verbeek, “Beyond checklists: toward an ethical-constructive technology assessment,” Journal of responsible innovation, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 5-19, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2014.992769

[26] A. Parandian, A. Rip, “Scenarios to explore the futures of the emerging technology of organic and large area electronics,” European journal of futures research, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 9, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40309-013-0009-2

[27] K. Konrad, A. Rip, V. C. S. Greiving-Stimberg, “Constructive Technology Assessment–STS for and with technology actors,” EASST Review, vol. 36, no. 3, 2017

[28] Z. Zhang, D. Huisingh. “Carbon dioxide storage schemes: technology, assessment and deployment,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 142, pp. 1055-1064, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.199

[29] F. B. Kristensen, D. Husereau, M. Huić, M. Drummond, M.L. Berger, K. Bond, A. Wailoo. “Identifying the need for good practices in health technology assessment: Summary of the ISPOR HTA Council Working Group Report on Good Practices in HTA,” Value in Health, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 13-20, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2018.08.010

[30] P. Delvenne, C. Parotte. “Breaking the myth of neutrality: Technology Assessment has politics, Technology Assessment as politics,” Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 139, pp. 64-72, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.06.026

[31] D. K. R Robinson, “Constructive technology assessment of emerging nanotechnologies: experiments in interactions”, Doctoral Thesis, University of Twente, United Kingdom, 2010

[32] S. Moretto, “Technology Assessment and High-Speed Trains: facing the challenge of emergent digital society”, Doctoral Thesis, Universidade Nova, Potugal, 2017

[33] A. Favier, C. De Wolf, K. Scrivener, G. Habert, A sustainable future for the European Cement and Concrete Industry: Technology assessment for full decarbonisation of the industry by 2050, ETH Zurich, 2018. https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-b-000301843

[34] M. Decker, M. Fischer, I. Ott, “Service Robotics and Human Labor: A first technology assessment of substitution and cooperation,” Robotics and Autonomous Systems, vol. 87, pp. 348-354, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2016.09.017

[35] P. K. Lorgelly, A. Adler, “Impact of a global pandemic on health technology assessment,” Applied health economics and health policy, vol. 18, pp. 339-343, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-020-00590-9

[36] B. O'Rourke, W. Oortwijn, T. Schuller, "The new definition of health technology assessment: A milestone in international collaboration," International journal of technology assessment in health care, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 187-190, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462320000215

[37] M. s. Ali, M.Y. Ichihara, L. C. Lopes, G. C. Barbosa, R. Pita, R. P. Carreiro, M. L. Barreto, “Administrative data linkage in Brazil: potentials for health technology assessment,” Frontiers in pharmacology, vol. 10, e984, 2019. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2019.00984

[38] M. Blüher, S. J. Saunders, V. Mittard, R. Torrejon Torres, R., J. A. Davis, R. Saunders, “Critical review of European health-economic guidelines for the health technology assessment of medical devices,” Frontiers in medicine, vol. 6, e278, 2019. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2019.00278

[39] Health Quality Ontario, Hyperbaric oxygen therapy for the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers: a health technology assessment," Ontario health technology assessment series, vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 1-142, 2017

[40] R. Baltussen, K. Marsh, P. Thokala, V. Diaby, H. Castro, I. Cleemput, M. Garau, G. Iskrov, A. Olyaeemanesh, A. Mirelman, M. Mobinizadeh, A. Morton, M. Tringali, J. Van Til, J. Valentim, M. Wagner, S. Youngkong, V. Zah, A. Toll, M. Jansen, L. Bijlmakers, W. Oortwijn, H. Broekhuizen, "Multicriteria decision analysis to support health technology assessment agencies: benefits, limitations, and the way forward," Value in Health, vol. 22, no. 11, pp. 1283-1288, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2019.06.014

[41] S. Tantivess, K. Chalkidou, N. Tritasavit, Y. Teerawattananon, “Health Technology Assessment capacity development in low-and middle-income countries: Experiences from the international units of HITAP and NICE,” F1000Research, vol. 6, e2119, 2017. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.13180.1

[42] G. Improta, A. Perrone, M. A. Russo, M. Triassi, “Health technology assessment (HTA) of optoelectronic biosensors for oncology by analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and Likert scale,” BMC medical research methodology, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 1-14, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0775-z