Emergent technologies, divergent frames: differences in regulator vs. developer views on innovation
| Autor: | Jeffrey M. Keisler, Benjamin D. Trump, Emily Wells, Igor Linkov |
|---|---|
| Jazyk: | angličtina |
| Rok vydání: | 2021 |
| Předmět: | |
| Zdroj: | European Journal of Futures Research, Vol 9, Iss 1, Pp 1-6 (2021) |
| Druh dokumentu: | article |
| ISSN: | 2195-4194 2195-2248 |
| DOI: | 10.1186/s40309-021-00180-5 |
| Popis: | Abstract Technology innovation is inherently uncertain. The risk–benefit divide for such innovation is a classical debate within scholarly literature and is often framed on a monetary scale where innovation approval is granted if benefit outweighs risk. However, such discussion leaves out a critical yet subjective vein of discussion within the innovation evaluation process — stakeholder context. Specifically, regulators and technology developers are often described as having respective motivations that are often at odds with one another. In theory, efforts towards balancing risk and benefit for technology evaluation should be driven by relatively efficient, inexpensive, robust methods, and processes. In practice, however, technology evaluation is often expensive, slow, and often of questionable quality for new and emerging technologies. Literature often frames the innovation-regulation tradeoff as a zero-sum game driven by regulators and developers that are inherently at odds with one another. However, we argue that such a relationship is actually worse than zero-sum and is a classic framing problem as described by Kahneman and Tversky. Specifically, the divergent frames adopted by regulators and technology developers, respectively, can drastically affect their perception of risk and tolerance for further development and commercialization of a given technology. There are known and natural solutions to such problems that can smooth the path towards realizing the societal potential of emerging technologies. |
| Databáze: | Directory of Open Access Journals |
| Externí odkaz: |
|