Nanotech 

Scenarios are a prominent method in anticipatory governance. Anticipatory governance is divided into the dimensions of foresight, engagement and integration. Scenarios are central to anticipatory governance also from this perspective because they relate to both the foresight and engagement aspects.

However, the focus in the scenario approaches can differ. Some scenario studies emphasize systematic foresight, others focus more on engagement. In other words, some scenario processes are designed to rely more on intuitive methods and participation, while others utilize more formal methods and desk research \cite{van_Notten_2003}. Wiek et al. (2009) argue for the use of rigorous scenario methodology for sustainable governance of emerging technologies, claiming that previously scenarios have been based on intuitive expert-based visions. A rigorous approach, for them, means a formalized analysis including a software-assisted cluster analysis and consistency analysis. \citet{Cummings_2017} develop an approach to evaluate synthetic biology risks using scenarios, policy Delphi and multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), a formal decision analysis method. Scenarios do not need to be constrained by forecasting; they can also account for non-linear developments and sudden, unexpected events.

In turn, the NanoFutures project created an online discussion forum and a wiki site to test and develop scenarios in an 'open source' manner (Selin 2011). Similarly, \citet{Krabbenborg_2015} presents the example of the NanoCap project where socio-technical scenarios of action-reaction patterns were used as external input to start discussion. She argues that scenarios were used as a platform for actors to articulate issues and deal with them by adapting their norms, values, roles and responsibilities \cite{Krabbenborg_2015}.

The formal and intuitive/participatory scenario approaches need not be seen as conflicting. According to \citet{Godet_2000}, the rational and heuristic scenario planning schools are actually complementary, that is, they mutually support one another.

The challenge in anticipatory governance scenarios is that the actor network is complex and there is no single focal actor whose strategy is considered.

One interesting use of scenarios is on the meta-level, to investigate the futures of technology governance itself, as in one study of nanotechnology governance \cite{Read_2015}. In this case, the scenarios were formed with the standard scenario axes approach, using focal questions and critical uncertainties (style of governance, scope of governance, perception of public perception).

As one irony, Barben et al. (2008) point out that concentrating on future scenarios rather than on current practices can signify a trade-off in investing resources in “transformative" research in the expense of addressing current ills, as an ethical burden.

Anticipation seems to share joint epistemological and normative premises with futures studies: when thinking of an anticipatory system, this seems to imply an aim where not individual agents only, but communities or societies more broadly (=societal systems), are 'futures conscious'. This is, perhaps, roughly what Poli (2009) means, when he suggests that anticipatory systems could have a capacity to even anticipate their own evolution. Anticipatory governance, which we have discussed more in detail, we can then derive, may be defined by two levels. In its inner core, perhaps less addressed in the literature, is an 'idea' or an ideal of how innovations 'should be'. Such ideals are sought, in more practical terms, with anticipatory governance.  In both senses, anticipatory governance relates to desirability and the notion of  preferred futures (Henchey  1978; Amara 1981).

Anticipatory governance explores innovation processes (or scientific discovery) by reflecting them with societal expectations, ideally in light of the (even unexpected) implications that may emerge from the uptake of emerging technologies. There is a limitation in conventional risk assessments of emerging technologies when they only address social and environmental risk and hazard. A prospective assessment should ask ‘what if’ and ‘how could’ questions (and move beyond forecasting) (Myers 2007). Problematically, many of the effects of a technology, and how innovations and  technologies come to shape ‘reality’, are only known afterwards. 

The basic issue regarding anticipatory governance of emerging technologies is how to facilitate discourse between different actors: technology developers, researchers, governments, civil society actors and citizens. There seems to be consensus that broad stakeholder participation is needed, but the practical implementation of this participation is faces many difficult challenges, including identifying possible future ethical problems, engaging the public in an appropriate manner and balancing contradictory knowledge claims about the future.

The challenges of anticipatory governance of technologies largely stem from the uncertainty that is inherent in the exercise. Future outcomes of scientific developments are uncertain, the issues that may emerge are unclear, it is unclear how to define the 'public' that should be consulted, and so on.

The appeal to Habermasian discourse ethics is promising, but what if after informed and honest discussion, we simply cannot agree on the possible future, the good future, necessary actions or all three?

As the motivation is about governing, anticipatory governance lacks a certain ‘creative’ (Yunus 2015) feel, inherent with the process of innovation and discovery, but perhaps also because it does not seem to always explicitly address complexity. As a further possible shortcoming, anticipatory governance seems to have addressed mainly the emergence of individual technologies (or groups of technologies) and engaged less with potential convergences of emerging technologies (see e.g.  Glenn et al. 2015, Song et al. 2017) and broader (even speculative) paradigm shifts. Anticipatory governance could also be adapted to address more explicitly socio-ecological resilience. In this task, anticipation should escape narrow  definitions, draw from futures studies (Boyd et al. 2015) to think how innovation can become transformation to address sustainability goals (Wiek 2012). In spite of tackling risk and uncertainty, anticipatory governance literature only sporadically mentions sustainability.  It seems that there are signs of anticipation and innovation both moving towards the with aspirations of transformativeness and sustainability (Wiek and Guston 2012; Schot and Steinmüller 2016; Wiek and Lang 2016).

One significant issue is the role that futures research could play in enabling anticipatory governance. The futures field is rarely mentioned in articles on these topics, even though the challenges, such as tackling complexity and uncertainty and ensuring fair and productive workshop practices, are similar in futures research and anticipatory governance. Could futures research play the kind of 'third party' role which authors have suggested as necessary \cite{Krabbenborg_2015,Mittelstadt_2015a}? 

Anticipatory governance is related to the grand challenges of our times, since technology plays an increasingly dominant role in our lives and in solving both large and small problems. For \citet*{Krabbenborg_2015}, creating better public engagement in technology development means nothing less than shaping our society in a more reflexive manner. Similarly, \citet{Flear_2012} argue that norms and values promoting a truly democratic European Union and a public consisting of reflexive agents need to be designed into the processes of participation.

Joni Karjalainen wrote the Introduction and the following section on the definition of anticipatory governance. This includes looking into the origins of the concept and distinguishing anticipatory governance from other fields.

Matti Minkkinen wrote the sections on the themes of participation in governance of emerging technologies.

The section on anticipatory governance of emerging technologies was written jointly. The conclusions were drawn together.

Joni Karjalainen, Brighton

Matti Minkkinen, Turku

7 June 2017

+ see what sources are missing

Amara, Roy (1981). The Futures Field. The  Futurist. April 1981

Baumol,  William J. 1996. “Entrepreneurship: Productive, Unproductive, and Destructive.”  Journal of Business Venturing 11 (1): 3–22.  doi:10.1016/0883-9026(94)00014-X.

Emily  Boyd, Björn Nykvist, Sara Borgström, Izabela A. Stacewicz, Anticipatory governance for social-ecological resilience, AMBIO 2015, 44(Suppl. 1):S149–S161, DOI  10.1007/s13280-014-0604

Chie Hoon Song, David Elvers, Jens Leker (2017) Anticipation of  converging technology areas—A refined approach for the identification of attractive fields of innovation Technological Forecasting & Social Change 116 (2017) 98–115

Foley, Rider W.; Guston, David H.; Sarewitz,  Daniel (2015): Toward the Anticipatory Governance of Geoengineering. Geoengineering Our Climate? Working Paper and Opinion Article Serie

Henchey,  Norman (1978) Making Sense of Future Studies. Alternatives: Perspectives on  Society and Environment 7: 2 Winter 1978

Sean Low Engineering imaginaries: Anticipatory foresight for solar radiation management governance Science of The Total Environment Volume 58015 February 2017 Pages 90-104 ISSN 0048-9697 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.07.200.

Lucas, David  S., and Caleb S. Fuller. 2017. “Entrepreneurship: Productive, Unproductive, and  destructive—Relative to What?” Journal of Business Venturing Insights 7  (June): 45–49. doi:10.1016/j.jbvi.2017.03.001.

Quay R (2010) Anticipatory governance: A tool for climate change adaptation. Journal of the American Planning Association 76(4): 496–511. Google Scholar CrossRef

Sarewitz D (2011) Anticipatory governance of emerging technologies. In: Marchant GE Allenby BR Herkert JR (eds) The Growing Gap between Emerging Technologies and Legal-Ethical Oversight: The Pacing Problem. New York: Springer pp. 95–106.

Silvia Serrao-Neumann , Ben P. Harman & Darryl Low  Choy (2013) The Role of Anticipatory Governance in Local Climate  Adaptation: Observations from Australia, Planning    Practice & Research, 28:4, 440-463, DOI:  10.1080/02697459.2013.795788

Steele, W., & Ruming, K. J. (2012)  Flexibility versus certainty: Unsettling the land-use planning shibboleth in Australia, Planning Practice & Research, 27, pp. 155–176.

Muhammad Yunus 2015, Challenges And Alternative Of Creativity Development In Higher Education, Journal Of Humanity Print Issn: 2302-1861, Electronic Issn: 2302-1683, Vol. 3, No. 2, July. 2015, Pp. 67–77, Indonesia, Copyright ©, Doi:10.14724/Jh.V3i2.39

Adams V Murphy M Clarke AE (2009) Anticipation: Technoscience life affect temporality. Subjectivity 28: 246–265. 

Al-Qasimi N (2011) Anticipatory governance queer difference and the Emirati post-oil generation. Presentation at the UCLA Center for Near Eastern Studies Los Angeles CA 10 January.

Callon M Lascoumes P Barthe Y (2009) Acting in an Uncertain World: An Essay on Technical Democracy. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.

Dupuy J-P (2007) Complexity and uncertainty: A prudential approach to nanotechnology. In: Allhoff F Lin P Moor J Weckert J (eds) Nanoethics: The Ethical and Social Implications of Nanotechnology. Hoboken NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc. pp. 119–131.

Irwin A (2008) STS perspectives on scientific governance. In: Hackett EJ AmsterdamskaO Lynch M Wajcman J (eds)The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press pp. 583–607.

Owen R Macnaghten P Stilgoe J (2012) Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society with society. Science and Public Policy 39(6): 751–760. Google Scholar CrossRef

Robert JS Miller CA Milleson V (2013) Introduction: Ethics and anticipatory governance of nano-neurotechnological convergence. In: Hays SA Robert JS Miller CA Bennett I (eds) The Yearbook of Nanotechnology:Nanotechnology the Brain and the Future vol. III. New York: Springer pp. 1–17. Google Scholar

Toffler A (1975) What is anticipatory democracy? The Futurist (October): 224–229