Content uploaded by Hamid Reza Khedmatgozar
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Hamid Reza Khedmatgozar on Nov 05, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Ethics in Science and Technology
Policy-Making: A Proposed Normative
Framework
Leila Namdarian,
1
, Rahman Sharifzadeh,
1
,
and Hamid Reza Khedmatgozar,
2
Abstract
In the twenty-first century, the focus of science and technology (S&T) on the human interests and the accessible interests of
society, and so the rise of some questions concerning the impact of S&Ton social norms, has led to embedding ethical debates
in S&T policy-making. The ethics of S&T policy-making, as a representation of the relationship between ethics and S&T policy-
making, is a relatively new area of applied and professional ethics that addresses the dilemmas and ethical challenges of the
S&T policy-making process. Understanding and recognizing the ethical components of S&T policy-making, one can develop a
normative framework to assist policymakers in designing and analyzing ethical policies in the S&T field. The design and devel-
opment of such a framework is the main purpose of the present study. In this study, the components of the proposed frame-
work for ethical policy-making in S&T, their ethical and policy approaches, as well as their fundamental ethical and policy
principles have been identified through studying sources and texts related to meta-ethics, normative ethics, and S&T ethics.
Then, these components have been categorized in the form of steps for ethical policy-making using the thematic analysis
method. Based on the results of this study, the ethical policy-making steps in S&T include problem identification, information
gathering and feeding of the policy process, policy advice and policy formulation, policy implementation, and policy evaluation,
which follow 9 ethical principles and 13 policy principles.
Keywords
ethics, S&T policy-making, normative framework, ethical principles, policy principles
Introduction
Today, science and technology (S&T) do play a major role in
developing innovative solutions to meet social needs. The
impacts that these innovative solutions have on our mental
performance, behavior, and lifestyle are unprecedented.
Recently, as S&T has grown and developed, we have seen
a significant increase in ethical debates on S&T so that,
besides experts, more non-experts express their views and
concerns in this regard. People are afraid of the negative con-
sequences of S&T and want to protect social values from the
influence of new values that have emerged through the
development of S&T and seem to show less respect and
attention to living beings (Bovenkerk, 2012). So ethical
questions about S&T advances are urgent and crucial.
Questions like how should we pay attention to new technol-
ogies? How should we control their effects? What should
we base our thoughts and decisions about S&T on? Who
should we trust for advice? (Van Est et al., 2014). These
and many other questions explain why ethics is (and
should be) important for S&T policy-making. Today, in
many journals, ethical S&T policy-making is discussed,
and ethical issues that are directly related to S&T policy-making
(including privacy, intellectual property rights, access, equal-
ity, etc.) are thought through by many scholars (Fishkin,
1979, 55–76; Ladikas et al., 2015). Ethics in S&T policy-
making is associated with concepts such as good and bad,
right and wrong, obligatory or non-obligatory, and seeks to
span cross-cultural and individual borders of norms and
values (Ladikas et al., 2015).
It should be noted that the practical fusion of ethics and
policy-making does not occur in isolation and automatically;
Rather, it is influenced by various factors such as culture,
values, government policy-making institutions, informal
1
Information and Society Research Department, Iranian Research Institute
for Information Science and Technology (IRANDOC), Tehran, Iran
2
Information Technology Research Department, Iranian Research Institute
for Information Science and Technology (IRANDOC), Tehran, Iran
Corresponding Author:
Hamid Reza Khedmatgozar, Information Technology Research Department,
Iranian Research Institute for Information Science and Technology
(IRANDOC), No. 1090, Enghelab Avenue, P.O. Box: 13185-1371, Tehran,
Iran.
Emails: h.khedmatgozar@gmail.com; khedmatgozar@irandoc.ac.ir
Article
Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society
2022, Vol. 42(4) 117–132
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/02704676221137307
journals.sagepub.com/home/bst
structures, ethical practices in decision-making situations,
insight toward and awareness of the effects and consequences
of S&T, etc., all of which influence the expression and orien-
tation of ethical issues (Brom et al., 2015; Burgess, 2014). It
is in this light that recognizing these components is essential
to ethical policy-making. On the other hand, with the incor-
poration of morality into policy-making, ethics experts and
policymakers need to know that they cannot enter the
formal policy-making process with the same kind of
general principles that prevail in public debate. Because
these principles are far simple in terms of value to deal
with the real complexities of policy-making such as multiple
actors, public debates, challenges of the rapid technological
change, etc., it is necessary to combine different types of
principles with new and more complex methods, concepts
and theories, or even to introduce new principles (Fishkin,
1979, 55–76). So the main questions this study seeks to
answer are: (i) what are the ethical components of ethical
policy-making in S&T? (ii) What are the principles govern-
ing ethical policy-making in S&T? Answering these ques-
tions, the present study seeks to develop a normative
framework for ethical policy-making in S&T.
Theoretical Foundations
The three main ethical theories, in normative ethics, for
guiding ethical decisions are utilitarianism, deontology, and
virtue ethics. Utilitarianism theory focuses on the conse-
quences of an action for all/most of those who are directly
or indirectly affected by it. In general, according to this
theory, moral behavior is an action that benefits the
maximum number of people who are affected by it (Mill,
1982). The deontological theory revolves around ethical
duties and determines ethical responsibilities. According to
this theory, developed originally by Immanuel Kant, moral
action is the one that the agent does according to his/her
duties, whatever the results of the action are. The duties are
derived categorically from the categorical imperative and
due to the correlation between duties and responsibilities,
identifying the latter is straightforward (Kant, 1996, 56).
Virtue ethics concentrates on the agent’s character rather
than the actions or consequences. According to this theory,
moral action is one that a virtuous person does in morally sig-
nificant situations (Russell, 2013, 9). Using moral virtue
theory, moral actions moral actions should be practiced by
agents, including professionals, to be institutionalized as
virtues in them over time.
Since these ethical theories focus on different ethical
aspects (consequences/duties/characters), in many decision-
making situations the conclusions reached through one
theory may be different from the conclusions derived with
the help of other theories. Since all those aspects are impor-
tant to consider in the process of reaching good moral deci-
sions, then policymakers exploiting an integrated approach
need to embrace the combined merits and strengths of all
three ethical theories. But it should be noted that the inte-
grated approach cannot deal with ethical issues arising
from the complexities of S&T policy-making, including mul-
tiple actors, public debates, challenges of the rapid techno-
logical change, etc., with simple principles. Instead, the
integrated approach requires different types of principles
need to be combined with new and more complex
methods, concepts and theories, or even new principles.
For this reason, in the next section, an attempt has been
made to introduce a set of methods, concepts, and theories
that, in combination with these principles and ethical theo-
ries, lead to a proposed ethical policy-making framework in
the field of S&T.
Democracy Approach
In simple terms, democratic policy-making translates to
public participation in policy-making. For democratic policy-
making, it is not enough to simply reflect public opinion or
provide a platform for verbal competition between interest
groups, but democratic representatives are needed to inte-
grate and embed the scientific, moral, and political concerns
of the general public into the policy-making process and meet
the interests of the people in the best way possible (Brown,
2006; Fukuyama, 2003, 212–215). This definition accentu-
ates and reinforces principles such as participation
(Carothers & Brechenmacher, 2014), non-maleficence and
beneficence (Ross, 1939), fallibility (Sah, 1991; Stelzer,
2016), learning (Sanderson, 2009), justice (Ross, 1939),
respect (Gillon, 1994; Landau & Osmo, 2003), equality
(Landau & Osmo, 2003), inclusion (Carothers &
Brechenmacher, 2014), openness (Aven & Renn, 2018;
Pohjola & Tuomisto, 2011; Sanderson, 2009). One of the
political ideologies that emphasizes the role of democracy
is liberal democratic. In this ideology, democracy works
under the principles of liberalism. The main characteristics
of liberal democratic are a market economy with private own-
ership and equal protection of human rights, civil rights, and
civil liberties and political freedoms for all people (Hardin,
2003). Liberal democratic ideology, since the seventeenth
century, has emphasized the role of technical expertise and
professional ethics expertise in creating effective policies
and as a means to meet the best interests of citizens
(Evans, 2002). The prevailing view, then, was that ethics
advisory committees followed principles such as account-
ability (Argyrous, 2012; Aven & Renn, 2018; Carothers &
Brechenmacher, 2014), fidelity (Brown, 2006; Meslin &
Shapiro, 2002; Ross, 1939; Welfel & Kitchener, 1992), trans-
parency (Argyrous, 2012; Aven & Renn, 2018; Carothers &
Brechenmacher, 2014), consultation (Sanderson, 2009) and
incorporating a wider range of professional and non-
technical perspectives into the S&T policy agenda resulting
in more effective and democratic representation.
So, ethics advisory committees facilitate policy-making
and increase its legitimacy (Evans, 2002). The first ethics
118 Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 42(4)
advisory committees were formed with the advent of the new
bioethics profession (Evans, 2012). Bioethicists, who wanted
to be taken seriously by policymakers, adapted their
approach, from the outset, to the needs of government advi-
sory committees. This kind of ethical committee that promotes
the ‘principled’approach focuses on a limited set of middle-
level ethical principles that provide basic guidance for policy-
making while being consistent with a variety of philosophical
foundations (Beauchamp and Childress, 2001; Evans, 2002).
So, ethics advisory agencies are formal structures created spe-
cifically to consciously reflect on ethical issues in the policy-
making system. The informal form of ethics, on the other
hand, is more about morality that revolves around the ethical
issues/values presented by non-experts in a social context.
Lay morality is an integral part of ethics in policy-making
and such membership is commonly found on many profes-
sional state boards of licensure in the Unite States. It should
be noted that ethics, both formal and informal, originates
from the dominant values of the society that are rooted in
the cultural and historical, or even biological backgrounds
(Ladikas et al., 2015). Policymakers’attention to values and
cultural context in policy-making reflects their political moral-
ity (Sládec
ek, 2018). Furthermore, the concerns of the private
sector and civil society organizations, which influence the
direction of decisions, should not be overlooked. Using
ethical arguments and conducting information campaigns,
private sector and civil society organizations influence
ethical debates (Ladikas et al., 2015).
Evidence-Based Policy-Making
Contrary to opinion-based policy-making which is based on
beliefs and ideas derived from the untested views of individ-
uals or groups, ideological views, prejudices, or speculation,
evidence-based policy-making (Arcos, 2016; Muir Gray,
1997) reinforces the principle of objectivity in policy-making
(Leir & Parkhurst, 2016), and helps to make informed deci-
sions about policies, programs, and projects by supplying
the best evidence to policy development and implementation
(Davies, 2004). Evidence from systematic research is one of
the information sources of evidence-based policy-making
(Muir Gray, 1997). In addition, policy evaluation by measur-
ing, describing, and analyzing various policy dimensions
provides the knowledge needed for effective policy-making
(Department for Business, Innovation, and Skills, 2010).
The tendency of policymakers to analyze and evaluate policies
resonates with the principles of transparency and reparation
(Plante, 2007). Policy evaluation requires consensus-based
indicators. There is a great variety of policy evaluation indica-
tors, and the type of indicators used in policy evaluation
depends on the framework and approach that evaluators and
analysts choose depending on the goals and conditions of
the policy (Arnold, 2004).
Analysts who act ethically should strive to promote results
that are good for society (Mintrom, 2010). The five most
important ethical principles that can enhance the effective
performance of policy analysts are integrity, competence,
responsibility, respect, and concern (Plante, 2007). ‘Ethical
debate’is a debate about the values of a society based on
people’s perception of right and wrong, and influenced by
cultural norms (Ladikas et al., 2015), is another important
source of information for evidence-based policy-making.
One of the most important things to do at the beginning of
an ethical discussion on a morally-related issue is to find as
many specific ethical aspects of the issue as possible.
Sometimes what appears to be a moral disagreement is a dif-
ference in facts or concepts (Bonde et al., 2013; Van de Poel
& Royakkers, 2011). For this reason, public perception study
is an integral part of the ethical debate over any S&T devel-
opment. Public opinion polls about S&T are important
sources of feedback and information (Chaturvedi et al.,
2015). Local, indigenous, and traditional knowledge is still
another source of information for evidence-based policy-
making. Today, the combination of the two concerns of
profit-risk assessment and cultural vulnerability has led the
international community to make decisions that value the
local, indigenous and traditional knowledge and preserve
the rights of indigenous and local peoples (COMEST, 2015).
In addition, evidence-based policy-making today is linked
to the concept of strategic policy intelligence thereby rein-
forcing the methodicality principle in policy-making
(Hafner-Zimmermann, 2007; Tübke et al., 2001). Strategic
policy intelligence is a continuous process of gathering
legal and ethical information and careful analysis, and there-
fore supplies a controlled injection of intelligence to policy-
makers at the operational level (Tübke et al., 2001).
Strategic policy intelligence can provide three capabilities
for policy-making: (a) understanding path dependency,
diverse motivations, as well as priorities and capacities in
policy-making situations; (b) understanding incompatible,
destructive, innovative, and possible wild cards in these situ-
ations; (c) understanding alternative strategies and perspec-
tives for managing key factors in policy situations (Kuosa,
2014). The three most important tools of strategic intelli-
gence in S&T policy-making are technology assessment,
technology forecasting, and technology foresight.
Technology assessment is ‘the process of purposeful
examination of the consequences of technological change
(Van Est & Brom, 2012). This process involves examining
the short-term benefits of technology to economics, but gen-
erally goes beyond that, identifying the affected parties and
unintended consequences of technology extensively and in
the long run; It examines both the pleasant and the unpleasant
consequences of technology because of the loss of a golden
opportunity is as detrimental to society as confronting an
unforeseen danger (Hetman, 1973). Technology assessment
emphasizes the better connection between technology assess-
ment and technology policy and helps to formulate a compre-
hensive and ethical technology policy (Hennen, 1999). In
general, the role of ethical evaluation is to help policymakers
Namdarian et al. 119
observe at-risk values more clearly, as well as to enable them
to develop policies that are more evidence-based and less
intuitive. Therefore, integrating ethical evaluation into tech-
nology assessment should clarify what is at stake, rather
than endorsing a political approach. Technology assessment
in the modern sense has a more participatory nature than its
predecessors. Participatory technology assessment means
practicing a kind of democracy for technology development.
Stakeholders who are affected by technology should be
involved in decisions about technology development and
enhancement. Participatory technology assessment reduces
inequality and injustice by taking into account the plurality
of views and values in society and incorporating them into
policies (Hennen, 1999). One of the important issues in tech-
nology assessment is to examine the implications of S&T for
social values and fundamental rights. In general, the main
purpose of assessments and analyses of the social effects of
science, technology, and innovation should be policy
reform (Finsterbusch, 1975). Technology forecasting uses
the generalization of past trends and to some extent creativity
to explore and uncover the future, thereby reducing risk and
uncertainty about upcoming events. Furthermore, it helps to
identify the features of future and local technology innova-
tions against which we need to take a stand. Technology fore-
sight, as a participatory process, is also a valuable tool to help
policymakers (Martin, 2001; Martin & Johnston, 1999). The
knowledge resulting from foresight is practical and considers
the elements influencing the future, long-term trends, devel-
opments, and dynamics (Van der Steen & Van Twist, 2013).
From what has been said, it can be inferred that stake-
holder participation is recognized as a key factor in improv-
ing policy evidence. In general, the legitimacy of evidence is
greater in cases where the conflicting views, beliefs, values,
and interests of stakeholders and policymakers are taken
into account to formulate policy advice. The role of the par-
ticipatory approach in strengthening the legitimacy of evi-
dence can be explained in several ways. First, the
participatory approach bridges the gap between the problems
defined by scientific examinations and the experiences,
values, and actions of the actors who are the key to solving
those problems. Second, participation helps to identify differ-
ences, divergences, views, and interests related to the prob-
lems. Third, participation facilitates problem definition.
Fourth, participation enhances participants’learning,
thereby helping to improve the quality of decision-making
(Evans, 2012).
Responsible Innovation
Responsible innovation, as a new approach to innovation
policy-making used in the EU Horizon 2020 program,
addresses controlling the negative effects of innovations
and directing them towards positive social and environmental
effects. The responsible innovation approach explores the
responsibilities of the various actors and stakeholders
involved in the innovation process as well as the products,
effects, and consequences of innovation (Chesbrough,
2003). In the responsible innovation approach, stakeholders
and actors share the responsibility for the results, effects,
and consequences of innovation (Hartley et al., 2017;
Schomberg, 2013). So, responsible innovation is seen as a
change in the moral work division. In general, responsible
innovation attempts to responsibly manage innovations and
pay attention to the ethical and social dimensions of innova-
tion along with their economic aspect (Owen et al., 2013).
Doing so, by forecasting the social and ethical effects of tech-
nology, responsible innovation has a preemptive and active
approach (Ribeiro et al., 2017). Attention to ethical values
and social acceptance criteria is so another requirement of
responsible innovation that should be considered at the
beginning of innovation formation otherwise the innovation,
likely, will face failure (Ladikas et al., 2015). Providing a
platform for getting feedback on developed policies to
revise them is another requirement for responsible innovation
implementation. Owen et al. (2013) refer to this as reflexiv-
ity. In addition, a code of ethics distributes the duties and
responsibilities of the innovation process among stakehold-
ers, and so stakeholders (should) feel responsible for the
ethical principles of innovation (COMEST, 2015).
These codes of conduct can influence political orientation
in specific areas of S&T. Inclusion principle, as another
requirement of responsible innovation, requires the wide-
spread use of perspectives in the processes of dialogue, col-
lective discussion, and consultation. This principle identifies
potentially controversial areas (Stilgoe et al., 2020). This
principle is also enshrined in Article 27 (1) of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). This clause
is distributive and so directly affects issues of social
justice. Not recognizing the right to participate in science
and technology, based on fair opportunities, to enjoy the ben-
efits of S&T, and also to assess their risks, is an obvious
injustice (COMEST, 2015). Furthermore, among the features
of emerging innovations and technologies, ambiguity and
uncertainty are especially important, and these features
make ethical studies of these technologies more difficult
and complicated (Brey, 2012). If the dangerous and
harmful effects of innovation are known and predictable,
then, based on the prevention principle, preventive actions
are taken to mitigate the effects. But if such effects are uncer-
tain and unpredictable, precautionary actions should be taken
to prevent them, according to the precautionary principle
(Parrott, 2017; Martuzzi, 2007). According to the precaution-
ary principle, to mitigate a possible risk, we should take reg-
ulatory actions so that the possibility of the risk is minimized
(Schomberg, 2014).
In addition, issues related to ‘dissemination’are very
important in responsible innovation, and the current debate
on open access requires careful ethical consideration. In the
face of the growing volume of information, open access
will become a key issue in the long run and its ethical
120 Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 42(4)
aspects need to be considered (COMEST, 2015). Also,
public awareness and ethics training are a constructive,
rather than a mere coincidence, element in responsible inno-
vation that helps to avoid deliberate misuses of S&T and is
undoubtedly an important ethical issue. In this regard, atten-
tion should also be paid to gaps in providing education and
training with a special focus on international coordination
and cooperation, and capacity-building in developing coun-
tries (COMEST, 2015). In addition, a strong system of poli-
cies and laws to protect intellectual property rights is
essential (UNESCO, 1971). Data protection and privacy
are other requirements of responsible innovation (Besnoy,
2013). There are international guidelines in this area. For
example, fair action on information is a set of internationally
accepted principles and practices of the OECD (1980) that
define how the information society should work fairly with
information, its storage, and dissemination, and so maintains
privacy and security (Rotenberg, 2001). Many of these prac-
tices follow the principle of confidentiality (Duncan et al.,
2011).
Sustainable Development
Due to the increasing and uncontrolled growth of resource
consumption, the emergence of harmful environmental as
well as socio-economic impacts have endangered the future
of the planet. This has led countries to engage in global par-
ticipation in mitigating these effects and has brought about
the idea of sustainable development as one of the achieve-
ments of the UN Environment Summit. In addition to devel-
opment, sustainable development emphasizes economic
efficiency and social welfare, maintaining environmental sus-
tainability and resource recovery (Trinder, 2008).
Many experts today believe that human values, as another
fundamental dimension, which can be in various cultural,
political, religious, and moral forms, should be added to
the three dimensions of sustainability, that is, environmental,
economic, and social aspects. Sustainable development is
recognized as a way to liberate people from various bond-
ages, increase environmental protection and development,
and promote an equitable world order. The ethics of sustain-
able development encourages the empowerment of commu-
nities and individuals to take responsibility for their own
lives and to be closely involved in deciding on all the prob-
lems that determine their present and desired future reality.
From this perspective, the concept of development is consid-
ered beyond economic growth and includes political, social,
technological, moral, intellectual, and other aspects of the
whole culture (Meadows, 1998). Ethical considerations of
sustainable development have interdependent dimensions
and the role of S&T is especially important in emerging
areas of convergent technologies. These considerations are
embedded in the governance of science, and the relationship
between science and society. They bring into play complex
configurations of political environments, business pressures,
and social expectations that are value-laden and potentially
value-transforming, and are so inherently moral (COMEST,
2015).
Design Science
Design science is an interdisciplinary research approach that
seeks to design and present artifacts (method, model, struc-
ture, technique) that help solve problems in the real world.
This research approach discusses what the designed artifact
should look like if it wants to achieve the supposed aims.
Design science seeks to generate new knowledge and
theory for desirable and efficient change through the con-
struction and evaluation of artifacts (March & Smith,
1995). so, practicality is one of the main characteristics of
design science because it tries to create products that serve
human purposes (Simon, 2019). Today, design science is
used in various fields, and some researchers see it as a suita-
ble approach to design methods that help managers and pol-
icymakers to make decisions in complex situations (March &
Storey, 2008). In design science, the methodology and stages
of conducting research and creating artifacts must be stated
accurately and clearly (Hevner, 2007). So far, various meth-
odological frameworks for conducting research in design
science have been proposed by researchers, among which
we can refer to the framework of Peffers et al. (2007). This
framework includes the following steps:
•Problem identification: The problem is a difficulty or a
need. In this step, we must define the problem and
show its importance and necessity. This step may
involve proposing one or more solutions.
•Defining the goals of the solution: a solution is selected
from the existing solutions and the choice is justified.
In this step, the advantages of the selected solution
over the existing solutions should be stated clearly.
•Design and development: an artifact is designed to
achieve the goals of the selected solution.
•Implementation: we show how the designed artifact
can solve the problem using it in practice.
•Evaluation: In this step, the success rate of the artifact
in solving the problem is evaluated.
•Dissemination (feedback): the artifact, its benefits, and
its effectiveness should be communicated to other rel-
evant audiences (Peffers et al., 2007).
Research Methodology
The main purpose of this study is to develop an ethical frame-
work for S&T policy-making. In this regard, an attempt has
been made, in the first step, to identify and derive the
ethical components of S&T policy-making from related
sources and documents using the qualitative method of doc-
umentary study. The documentary study method means the
analysis of those documents that contain information about
Namdarian et al. 121
the subject of the study (Bailey, 1994). Understanding the
purposes and motives of documents and texts, the researcher,
through this method, extracts and cites concepts related to the
subject of his/her research (Mogalakwe, 2006). In the second
step, to categorize the ethical components of S&T policy,
identify the relationships between them, and formulate an
ethical policy framework, the thematic analysis method,
inspired by the 7-Step Approach, has been used (Noblit
et al., 1988). Using this qualitative and interpretive method,
the collected data are analyzed and a framework for under-
standing the situation under study is derived inductively
from the data (Charmaz, 2008, 155). The thematic analysis
steps of the ethical policy components in S&T are as follows:
Step 1: the ethical components of S&T policy are identi-
fied through a careful review of related pieces of research.
In total, 29 components have been identified. To facilitate
the next analysis, each of them is assigned a code (Ci, i =
1–29).
Step 2: the ethical components of S&T policy are inter-
preted and, based on the relationship between the concepts
of the components, they are categorized into appropriate
categories. Each category represents a sub-step in S&T
ethics.
Step 3: The sub-steps of ethical policy-making are inter-
preted and based on the relationship of these steps, they
are categorized into appropriate categories. Each of the
identified categories represents the main step in S&T
ethics.
Step 4: Based on the interpretation of the main and sub-
steps, they are combined and the ethical policy framework
for S&T is developed.
Findings
Based on the policy approaches described and explained in
section 2 of the study, 29 ethical components for S&T policy-
making have been identified. Each of these 29 components
originates from the principles. These principles in the
present study are divided into two categories: policy princi-
ples and ethical principles. The policy principles may have
moral aspect, but are not fundamental in the sense that they
derive from other (ethical) principles. However, they have
explicit policy denotations. On the other hand, the ethical
principles that are related to moral theories and intuitions
are fundamental in the sense that they do not derive from
other principles. The ethical and policy principles are found
in Figure 1.
Also, the 29 components along with their policy
approaches as well as their policy and ethical principles are
shown in Table 1.
Based on the interpretation of the components of ethical
policy-making, they are classified into appropriate catego-
ries. For example, components (C9) and (C19), each of
which somehow refers to the knowledge required for
ethical policy-making, are in the same category, or (C6),
(C11), (C2), (C28), and (C13), which refer to the tools and
methods that feed the S&T ethical policy-making process
with information, are likewise in the same category. A
name is then chosen for each category, which, while incorpo-
rating the concepts implicit in each of the relevant compo-
nents, explains a sub-step in the ethical policy-making
process in S&T. After explaining the ethical policy sub-steps
in S&T, the related sub-steps are categorized into related cat-
egories. For example, information source identification and
methodological analysis of information sources that refer to
the identification and analysis of information sources are in
the same category. A name is then chosen for each category,
which, while incorporating the implicit concepts in each of
the relevant sub-steps, explains a main step in the S&T
ethical policy-making process. Finally, the main and sub-
steps are combined and the ethical policy framework in the
S&T area is developed as described in Table 2.
The ethical principles of the components are combined in
Table 2, thereby the status of ethical principles in each of the
main ethical policy-making steps in S&T has been explained.
Table 3 shows the frequency of each ethical principle in each
policy-making step.
As Table 3 shows, the ‘principle of ‘non-maleficence’and
the ‘principle of beneficence’have the highest frequency in
the main policy-making steps, and the principles of ‘fidelity,
‘respect’, and ‘equality’are in the next ranks, respectively.
Also, in the step of policy advice and formulation, all
ethical principles are applied and the principles play a
major role in this policy-making step. Furthermore, the fol-
lowing results have been obtained regarding the importance
of each ethical principle in the main policy-making steps:
Figure 1. Principles of ethical policy-making in S&T.
122 Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 42(4)
Table 1. The Components onf Ethical Policy-Making in S&T.
No.
The Components of ethical
policy-making References Ethical principles Policy approaches Policy principles
C1 Ethical evaluation of policy
options
(Peffers et al., 2007) Maleficence, Beneficence,
Fidelity, Competence, Justice,
Equality
Responsible Innovation, Design
science, Sustainable
development, Evidence-based
policy-making, Democracy
Prevention, Methodicality,
Political morality, Learning,
Inclusion, Objectivity, Fallibility,
Openness, Transparency
C2 Participatory technology
assessment
(Graves & Cook-Deegan, 2019; Tübke
et al., 2001; Hetman, 1973; Hennen,
1999; Kuosa, 2014; Owen et al., 2013;
Hartley et al., 2017; Trinder, 2008;
COMEST, 2015)
Maleficence, Respect,
Beneficence, Fidelity,
Competence, Justice,
Responsible Innovation,
Evidence-based policy-making,
Democracy, Sustainable
development
Prevention, Objectivity,
Precautionary, Inclusion,
Participation, Methodicality,
Fallibility, Transparency
C3 Acting and implementing
policies correctly and
intelligently and paying
attention to uncertainties
(Bonde et al., 2013; Peffers et al., 2007) Maleficence, Beneficence,
Fidelity, Competence, Justice,
Equality
Responsible Innovation, Design
science, Evidence-based
policy-making,
Precautionary, Transparency,
Accountability, Objectivity
C4 Taking regulatory actions in
the face of ambiguity and
uncertainty of innovation
and emerging technologies
risks
(Brey, 2012; Schomberg, 2014) Maleficence, Beneficence,
Fidelity, Competence, Equality,
Justice
Responsible Innovation,
Evidence-based policy-making
Prevention, Precautionary,
Fallibility, Objectivity, Political
morality, Transparency,
Accountability
C5 Choosing the best policy
option by taking into
account ethical
considerations
(Peffers et al., 2007) Maleficence, Beneficence,
Fidelity, Competence, Respect,
Justice, Equality
Responsible Innovation, Design
science, Evidence-based
policy-making, Sustainable
development, Democracy
Consultation, Objectivity,
Inclusion, Participation,
Openness, Transparency,
Accountability
C6 S&T foresight (Ribeiro et al., 2017; Martin, 2001) Maleficence, Beneficence,
Respect, Fidelity, Competence,
Responsible Innovation,
Evidence-based policy-making,
Sustainable development
Prevention, Precautionary,
Objectivity, Inclusion,
Participation, Methodicality,
T
ransparency, Accountability
C7 Utilizing the views, ethical
questions, and debates of
various social groups
(Meslin & Shapiro, 2002; Ladikas, et al.,
2015; COMEST, 2015)
Respect, Non-Maleficence,
Beneficence, Justice, Equality
Responsible Innovation,
Evidence-based policy-making,
Democracy
Inclusion, Fallibility, Learning,
Consultation, Participation,
Transparency
C8 Utilizing the structures of
ethical counseling
(Brown, 2006; Ladikas et al., 2015) Respect, Non-maleficence,
Beneficence
Responsible Innovation,
Democracy, Evidence-based
policy-making
Learning, Fallibility, Consultation,
Participation, Inclusion,
Transparency
C9 Utilizing evidence from
systematic researches
(Muir Gray, 1997; Davies, 2004; Arcos,
2016; Evans, 2012)
Maleficence, Beneficence, Responsible Innovation,
Evidence-based policy-making,
Objectivity, Methodicality,
Openness, Fallibility
C10 Using ethical charters and
codes of conduct
(COMEST, 2015; Chaturvedi et al.,
2015; Peffers et al. 2007; Plante, 2007)
Fidelity, Respect, Equality,
Justice, Maleficence,
Beneficence, Reparation,
Competence, Confidentiality
Responsible Innovation Political morality
C11 Technology forecasting (Ribeiro et al., 2017) Maleficence, Competence,
Beneficence, Fidelity, Respect,
Responsible Innovation,
Evidence-based policy-making,
Prevention, Precautionary,
(continued)
Namdarian et al. 123
Table 1. Continued.
No.
The Components of ethical
policy-making References Ethical principles Policy approaches Policy principles
Democracy, Sustainable
development
Objectivity, Inclusion,
Participation, Methodicality
C12 Measuring, describing, and
analyzing various aspects of
policy
(Department for business, Innovation,
and Skills, 2010; Arnold, 2004)
Equality, Justice, Fidelity,
Competence, Reparation
Evidence-based policy-making,
Design science, Sustainable
development
Learning, Objectivity,
Methodicality, Openness,
Transparency, Accountability,
Fallibility
C13 Analyzing the social effects of
science, technology, and
innovation to implement
policy reforms
(Finsterbusch, 1975; Chaturvedi et al.,
2015)
Reparation, Maleficence,
Beneficence, Fidelity
Evidence-based policy-making Learning, Methodicality,
Objectivity, Inclusion, Political
morality, Prevention, Openness,
Fallibility, Precautionary,
Transparency
C14 Paying attention to ethics
education among
professional scientists,
technicians, and S&T
policymakers
(COMEST, 2015) Competence Responsible Innovation Learning, Political morality,
Fallibility
C15 Paying attention to data
protection and privacy in
policy-making
(Besnoy, 2013; Namdarian et al., 2021) Maleficence, Confidentiality,
Respect
Responsible Innovation Political morality, Prevention
C16 Paying attention to open
access to scientific and
technological information in
policy formulation
(COMEST, 2015; Namdarian et al.,
2021)
Justice, Equality, Respect Responsible Innovation Political morality, Transparency
C17 Paying attention to the rules
and regulations of
intellectual property rights
in policy formulation
(UNESCO, 1971; Namdarian et al.,
2021)
Fidelity, Respect, Maleficence,
Beneficence, Justice, Equality,
Confidentiality
Responsible Innovation Political morality, Prevention
C18 Paying attention to the moral
values and criteria of social
acceptance
(Ladikas et al., 2015) Respect, Justice, Equality,
Maleficence, Beneficence,
Fidelity, Confidentiality
Responsible Innovation,
Democracy
Political morality, Transparency,
Inclusion, Openness
C19 Paying attention to local,
indigenous, and traditional
knowledge about S&T and
its effects
(COMEST, 2015) Respect, Equality, Justice,
Maleficence, Beneficence
Evidence-based policy-making, Objectivity, Inclusion, Openness,
Learning, Fallibility
C20 Paying attention to private
sector concerns about S&T
(Ladikas et al. 2015) Respect, Maleficence,
Beneficence, Fidelity
Evidence-based policy-making,
Democracy
Inclusion, Openness,
Participation, Accountability,
Learning, Political morality
C21 Paying attention to the
concerns of civil society
(Ladikas et al. 2015) Respect, Maleficence,
Beneficence, Fidelity
Evidence-based policy-making,
Democracy
Inclusion, Openness,
Participation, Accountability,
Learning, Political morality
(continued)
124 Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 42(4)
Table 1. Continued.
No.
The Components of ethical
policy-making References Ethical principles Policy approaches Policy principles
organizations in the field of
S&T
C22 Paying attention to cultural
norms and values
(Ladikas, et al., 2015; COMEST, 2015) Respect, Equality, Justice,
Confidentiality
Evidence-based policy-making,
Democracy
Political morality
C23 Identifying the different
individuals and groups that
may be affected by policies
or may impact the policies
(Bonde et al., 2013) Maleficence, Equality, Respect,
Beneficence, Fidelity, Justice
Evidence-based policy-making,
Democracy
Inclusion, Openness,
Participation, Accountability,
Consultation
C24 Identifying policy options and
having a look at ethical
considerations
(Peffers et al., 2007; Bonde et al., 2013) Maleficence, Beneficence,
Competence, Fidelity, Equality,
Justice
Evidence-based policy-making,
Design science
Objectivity, Learning
C25 Accurate and clear problem
formulating
(Peffers et al., 2007; Van de Poel &
Royakkers, 2011; Bonde et al., 2013)
Fidelity, Respect, Competence Design science, Responsible
Innovation, Sustainable
development
Inclusion, Participation,
Objectivity, Consultation
C26 Providing a platform for
getting feedback on
developed policies
(Owen et al., 2013; Bonde et al., 2013;
Peffers et al.,. 2007)
Fidelity, Reparation, Respect,
Equality, Maleficence,
Beneficence,
Responsible Innovation, Design
science, Democracy,
Evidence-based policy-making
Inclusion, Openness, Learning,
Fallibility, Participation,
Transparency, Accountability
C27 Reflecting the results and
consequences of policies
(Bonde et al., 2013; Peffers et al., 2007) Fidelity, Reparation, Respect Responsible Innovation, Design
science,
Learning, Openness,
Participation, Inclusion,
Transparency, Accountability,
Objectivity
C28 Public perception study (Chaturvedi et al., 2015) Respect, Equality, Beneficence,
Maleficence
Evidence-based policy-making,
Democracy
Inclusion, Openness, Learning,
Methodicality, Participation,
Political morality, Fallibility
C29 Defining policy evaluation
indicators
(Department for business, Innovation,
and Skills, 2010; Arnold, 2004;
Chaturvedi et al., 2015)
Equality, Justice, Fidelity,
Competence, Reparation
Evidence-based policy-making,
Design science, Sustainable
development
Learning, Objectivity,
Methodicality, Openness,
Transparency, Accountability
Namdarian et al. 125
•In the process of identifying and recognizing the
problem, the principles of respect, fidelity, and
accountability have the highest frequency.
•In the step of information gathering and feeding of the
policy-making process, the principles of non-
maleficence and beneficence have the highest
frequency.
•In the step of policy advice and formulation, the prin-
ciples of respect and non-maleficence are in the first
rank and the principles of equality and justice are in
the next rank, respectively.
•In the policy implementation step, the principles of
non-maleficence, fidelity, beneficence, competence,
justice, and equality have the highest frequencies.
•In the policy evaluation step, the principle of reparation
and the principle of fidelity comes first.
Also, the policy principles of the components are combined
with the information in Table 2; thereby the status of
policy principles in each of the main ethical policy-making
steps in S&T has been explained. Table 4 shows the status
of policy principles in each policy-making step in S&T.
The numbers indicate the frequency of each policy principle
in each policy-making step.
As Table 4 shows, the principles of inclusion and trans-
parency have the highest frequency in the main policy-
making steps, and the principles of ‘objectivity’,‘learn-
ing’,‘openness’,‘political morality’,and‘participation’
are in the next ranks, respectively. Also, all policy princi-
ples apply in the policy advice and formulation step. In
addition, the following results have been obtained regard-
ing the importance of each policy principle in the main
policy-making steps:
•In the step of problem identification and recognition,
the principles of inclusion and participation have the
highest frequency.
•In the step of information gathering and feeding of the
policy-making process, the principles of inclusion,
objectivity, and methodicality have the highest fre-
quency, and the principle of fallibility is in the next
rank.
•In the policy advice and formulation step, the principle
of political morality is in the first rank, followed by the
principles of learning, transparency, and inclusion
respectively.
•In the policy implementation step, the principles of
Precautionary, objectivity, and transparency are in the
first rank.
•In the policy evaluation step, the principles of transpar-
ency, learning, openness, and accountability are in the
first rank.
Discussion and Conclusion
In general, the normative framework of ethical policy-
making in S&T can be shown in Figure 2. The innermost
layer of this framework reflects the ethical policy-making
process in S&T. Nine ethical principles and 13
morally-related policy principles govern this process. All
components of this process are supported by five policy
approaches evidence-based policy-making, design science,
responsible innovation, sustainable development, and
democracy. This normative framework also advises policy-
makers to take an integrated approach to decision-making sit-
uations and to take advantage of all three virtue,
consequential, and deontological ethics theories. In this
framework, the more we move from the innermost layer to
the outermost layer, the more abstract and theoretical the
framework becomes.
The first step in ethical policy-making in S&T is ‘problem
identification and recognition’, in which specific problem
concerning the fundamental and effective issues of society
is addressed and prioritized by policymakers. In this step,
the moral nature of the problem is identified and explained
in detail concentrating on its ingredients, scope, and
Table 2. Combining the Main and sub-Steps of Policy-Making and Framework Development.
NO. Main steps Sub-steps Components
1 Problem identification Concentrating on the problem and its ethical nature C25
Identifying stakeholders and involved parties C23
2 Information gathering and information feeding
of the policy-making process
identifying information sources C9, C19
Methodical analysis of information sources C6, C11, C2, C28, C13
3 Policy advise and policy formulation Identifying policy options C24
policy options evaluation C1, C8, C7, C18, C22,C10
Decision making and choosing the best option C5, C20, C21
Policy formulation C16, C14, C17, C15
4 Policy Implementation Policy execution C3
Regulatory C4
5 Policy evaluation selecting the evaluation framework C29, C12
Publishing the results C26, C27
126 Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 42(4)
Table 3. Frequency of Ethical Principles in Steps of the Ethical S&T Policy-Making.
Steps of the ethical S&T
policy-making
Ethical principles
Respect Non-maleficence Equality Reparation Confidentiality Beneficence Competence Fidelity Justice
Total
frequency
Problem identification 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 9
Information gathering and
information feeding of the
policy-making process
57 2 1 7 3 4231
Policy advise and policy
formulation
11 11 9 1 5 10 5 8 9 69
Policy Implementation 2 2 2 2 2 2 12
Policy evaluation 2 1 3 4 1 2 4 2 19
Total frequency 20 22 17 6 5 21 13 20 16 140
Table 4. Frequency of Policy Principles in Steps of the Ethical S&T Policy-Making.
Steps of the ethical S&T
policy-making
policy principles
Transparency Inclusion Objectivity Learning Openness
Political
morality Participation Fallibility Accountability Methodically Prevention Precautionary Consultation
Total
frequency
Problem identification 2 1 1 2 1 2 9
Information gathering
and information
feeding of the
policy-making
process
46634245 1 6 4 4 49
Policy advise and policy
formulation
773751054 3 1 2 357
Policy Implementation 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 11
Policy evaluation 4 2 3 4 4 2 2 4 2 27
Total frequency 17 17 15 14 14 13 13 12 11 9 7 6 5 153
Namdarian et al. 127
implications. Recognizing and solving the moral problem(s)
helps to find the best moral action or at least the acceptable
moral action in the situation. In addition, the step must iden-
tify individuals and groups who may be affected in some way
by policies, and identify the benefits and values associated
with them. Based on the results of this study, the most impor-
tant ethical principles governing this step are respect, fidelity,
competence, non-maleficence, justice, equality, and benefi-
cence, respectively. The most important policy principles
governing this step are inclusion, Consultation, participation,
objectivity, accountability, and openness respectively.
The second step in ethical policy-making in S&T is ‘infor-
mation gathering and feeding of the policy-making process in
which the accurate information needed for policy interven-
tions is gathered from all available information sources. In
general, sources of information include formal statistics (cen-
suses, survey sampling, and registration statistics) and infor-
mal statistics, academic research results, expert opinions,
survey results, attitudes, values, and findings based on
program monitoring and evaluations. Local, indigenous,
and traditional knowledge, on the other hand, play an impor-
tant role in understanding the world in which people live -
perceptions that do not conflict with science but operate at
different levels and may become threatening when power
relations are mediated by techno-scientific worldviews are
very instrumental and unequal. In addition, it is necessary
to use some tools and methods to analyze information
resources and turn the resulting knowledge into definable
policy options for policymakers. Participatory technology
assessments, S&T foresight, technology forecasting, the
social impact analysis of science, technology, and innovation
for policy reforms, and public opinion polls on S&T are some
of the most important ones. Based on the results of this study,
the most important ethical principles governing this step are
non-maleficence, beneficence, respect, fidelity, competence,
justice, equality, and reparation, respectively. Likewise, the
most important policy principles governing this step are
inclusion, objectivity, methodicality, fallibility, transparency,
participation, prevention, precautionary, openness, learning,
political morality, and accountability, respectively.
The third ethical policy-making step in S&T is ‘policy
advice and formulation’in which the knowledge gained
from the previous steps is turned into different policy
options and scenarios. In real life, options are not often
already existent and need to be analyzed and invented. The
initiative of policymakers to build solutions is crucial.
After the identification of policy options/solutions, they are
also evaluated ethically in this step. Various sources can be
used in the ethical evaluation of these solutions, including
using the views, questions, and ethical debates of different
social groups, using ethical counseling structures, using
ethical charters and codes of conduct, paying attention to
moral values and social acceptance criteria, paying attention
to cultural norms and values. Benefiting from these
resources, the possible outcomes and consequences of each
policy solution should be forecasted and evaluated. After
evaluating the options, an attempt is made to reach a rational
choice among the various policy options, a choice that can be
discussed and argued about different ethical frameworks. On
the other hand, in this choice, the concerns of the private
sector and civil society should also be taken into account.
The result is a policy draft. The policy draft should be
reviewed by experts in the form of roundtables and formal
meetings. In the policy-making literature, this stage is
known as the policy discourse (Hajer, 2002). During this dis-
course, a team of subject-matter experts should be consulted
to make the draft more accurate and consistent. Some of the
most important areas where subject-matter experts can help
to formulate an ethical policy are Ethics training among pro-
fessional scientists, technicians, and S&T activists, data pro-
tection and privacy, free access to scientific and technological
information, and intellectual property rights laws and regula-
tions. Based on the findings of this study, the most important
ethical principles governing this step are non-maleficence,
respect, beneficence, justice, equality, fidelity, confidentiality,
competence, and reparation. In addition, the most important
policy principles governing this step are political morality,
transparency, learning, inclusion, openness, participation,
accountability, Consultation, objectivity, prevention, methodi-
cality, respectively.
The fourth ethical policy-making step in S&T, ‘policy
implementation’, refers to establishing procedures, writing
guidelines, or issuing grants to start the actualization of the
Figure 2. Normative ethical policy-making framework in S&T.
128 Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 42(4)
policies formulated in the previous step. In this step, policy
activities can be adapted to different policy bodies as well
as other organizations and companies. In addition, policy-
makers should monitor policy-related inputs, outputs, and
achievements as soon as policy implementation begins.
Careful monitoring of policies prevents deviations. It should
be noted that S&T carries several risks. Sometimes policy-
makers are aware of some potential risks in which case they
should, even are morally obliged, to take regulatory action.
One of the regulatory actions of policymakers based on the
principle of Precautionary is to issue temporary licenses to
technological and innovative products. This regulatory
action allows policymakers to minimize potential risks.
Based on the findings of this study, the most important
ethical principles governing this step are competence,
justice, fidelity, equality, non-maleficence, and beneficence,
respectively. Likewise, the most important policy principles
governing this step are accountability, transparency, precau-
tionary, objectivity, political morality, prevention, and falli-
bility, respectively.
The fifth ethical policy-making step in S&T is to evaluate
policy design, implementation, and results. In this step, to
acquire knowledge and information to improve the policy-
making process or future policy actions, policies and the
process of their formulation are evaluated. This step involves
policy learning, and the outputs of this step should provide
new input for formulating future visions and priorities. This
step requires an analytical and descriptive review of policies
and attempts to explain them. The definition of the evaluation
indicators is very important for policy evaluation. Existing pol-
icies can be evaluated from different aspects by defining appro-
priate indicators. Some of the most important aspects of policy
assessment are implementation rate, impacts, ethical consider-
ations, policy-making process, efficiency, effectiveness, etc.
Choosing these aspects depends on the framework that is
chosen for evaluation. In this step, while presenting the results
of the policy analysis to the stakeholders, the ground should
be provided for their feedback. This action demonstrates
policy transparency and Policy makers’flexibility for policy
reform. Based on the findings of this study, the most important
ethical principles governing this step are fidelity, reparation,
equality, respect, competence, justice, non-maleficence, and
beneficence. Likewise, the most important policy principles
governing this step are objectivity, fallibility, methodicality,
inclusion, and participation.
Finally, it should be stated that although there have been
good studies on the importance of ethics in policy making,
few studies are found that have integrated ethical components
in S&T policy making. So, the lack of literature on the topic
is the most important limitation of this study. This theoretical
vacuum shows the importance of further development in this
field of the study.
The proposed framework in this study is developed based
on five policy approaches including evidence-based policy
making, sustainable development, design science,
responsible innovation and democracy. Other policy
approaches that can complete and develop the proposed
framework of this paper should be studied in future research
endeavors. In addition, it is suggested that interested
researchers use the proposed framework for ethical evalua-
tion of existing policy documents or formulation of ethical
policies in their future studies.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article
ORCID iD
Hamid Reza Khedmatgozar https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2259-
9811
References
Arcos, R. (2016). Public relations strategic intelligence: Intelligence
analysis, communication, and influence. Public Relations
Review,42(2), 264-270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2015.
08.003
Argyrous, G. (2012). Evidence-based policy: Principles of transpar-
ency and accountability. Australian Journal of Public
Administration,71(4), 457-468. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1467-8500.2012.00786.x
Arnold, E. (2004). Evaluating research and innovation policy:
A systems world needs systems evaluations. Research
Evaluation,13(1), 3-17. https://doi.org/10.3152/14715440
4781776509
Aven, T., & Renn, O. (2018). Improving government policy on risk:
Eight key principles. Reliability Engineering & System Safety,
176, 230-241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2018.04.018
Bailey, K. D. (1994). Methods of Social Research. The Free Press.
Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2001). Principles of biomedi-
cal ethics. Oxford University Press.
Besnoy, A. (Ed.). (2013). Ethics and integrity in libraries.
Routledge.
Bonde, S., Firenze, P., Green, J., Grinberg, M., Korijn, J., & Levoy,
E., …Weisberg, L. (2013). Making choices: A framework for
making ethical decisions. Retrieved from Web Accessibility
Initiative website: http://www. brown. Edu.
Bovenkerk, B. (2012). The biotechnology debate: Democracy in the
face of intractable disagreement (Vol. 29, pp. 19–43). Springer
Science & Business Media.
Brey, P. A. (2012). Anticipatory ethics for emerging technologies.
NanoEthics,6(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-012-
0141-7
Brom, F. W., Chaturvedi, S., Ladikas, M., & Zhang, W. (2015).
Institutionalizing ethical debates in science, technology and
innovation policy: A comparison of Europe, India, and China.
In Science and technology governance and ethics (pp. 9-23).
Springer.
Namdarian et al. 129
Brown M. B. (2006). Ethics, politics, and the public: Shaping the
research agenda. In D. H. Guston, & D. R. Sarewitz (Eds.).
Shaping science & technology policy: The next generation of
research (pp. 10-32). University of Wisconsin Press.
Burgess, M. M. (2014). From ‘trust us’to participatory governance:
Deliberative public and science policy. Public Understanding
of Science,23(1), 48-52. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625124
72160
Carothers, T., & Brechenmacher, S. (2014). Accountability, trans-
parency, participation, and inclusion of a New Development
Consensus? Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Charmaz, K. (2008). Grounded theory as an emergent method. In S.
N. Hesse-Biber, & P. Leavy (Eds.). Handbook of emergent
methods (pp.155-172). The Guilford press.
Chaturvedi, S., Zhao, Y., Ladikas, M., & Stemerding, D. (2015).
Conclusions: incorporating ethics into science and technol-
ogy policy. In M. Ladikas, S. Chaturvedi, Y. Zhao, & D.
Stemerding (Eds.), Science and Technology Governance
and Ethics: A global perspective from Europe, India and
China (pp. 165-173). Springer.
Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative
for creating and profiting from technology. Harvard Business
Press.
COMEST (2015). Ethical Perspective on science, technology, and
society: A contribution to the post-2015 Agenda.
Davies, P. (2004). Is evidence-based government possible? Prime
Ministers Strategy Unit.
Departments for Business, Innovation, and Skills (2010). Impact
Assessment Toolkit; a guide to undertaking an impact assess-
ment and completing the IA Template. London.
Duncan, G. T., Elliot , M., & Salazar-González, J. J. (2011). Why
statistical confidentiality?. In Statistical confidentiality (pp. 1‐
26). New York, NY: Springer.
Evans, J. H. (2002). Playing god?: Human genetic engineering and
the rationalization of public bioethical debate. University of
Chicago Press.
Evans, J. H. (2012). The history and future of bioethics: A sociolo-
gical view. Oxford University Press.
Finsterbusch, K. (1975). A methodology for analyzing the social
impacts of public policies. BDM Corporation.
Fishkin, J. (1979). Moral principles and public policy. Daedalus,
108(4), 55-67.
Fukuyama, F. (2003). Our posthuman future: Consequences of the
biotechnology revolution. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Gillon, R. (1994). Medical ethics: Four principles plus attention to
scope. BMJ,309(6948), 184. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.309.
6948.184
Graves, Z., & Cook-Deegan, R. (2019). Incorporating ethics into
technology assessment. Issues in Science and Technology,
36(1), 26-29.
Hafner-Zimmermann, S. (2007). Strategic Policy Intelligence for
Regional Decision–making. Foresight Brief, (122).
Hajer, M. (2002). Discourse analysis and the study of policy
making. European Political Science,2(1), 61-65. https://doi.
org/10.1057/eps.2002.49
Hardin, R. (2003). Liberalism, constitutionalism, and democracy.
Oxford University Press on Demand.
Hartley, S., Pearce, W., & Taylor, A. (2017). Against the tide of depo-
liticization: The politics of research governance. Policy and
Politics,45(3), 361-377. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557316X
14681503832036
Hennen, L. (1999). Participatory technology assessment: A
response to technical modernity? Science and Public Policy,
26(5), 303-312. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154399781782310
Hetman, F. (1973). Society and the assessment of technology: pre-
mises, concepts, methodology, experiments, areas of applica-
tion. In Seminar on technology assessment (26–28 Jan. 1972:
Paris, FR) (No. 50.003 HET). Organization for Economic
Co-operation and Development.
Hevner, A. R. (2007). A three cycle view of design science research.
Scandinavian journal of information systems,19(2), 4.
Kant, I. (1996). Practical Philosophy. Cambridge University Press.
Kuosa, T. (2014). Towards strategic intelligence: Foresight, intelli-
gence, and policy-making (No. 1). Dynamic Futures press.
Ladikas, M., Chaturvedi, S., Zhao, Y., & Stemerding, D. (2015).
Science and Technology Governance and Ethics: A Global
Perspective from Europe, India, and China. Springer Nature.
Landau, R., & Osmo, R. (2003). Professional and personal hierarchies
of ethical principles. International Journal of Social Welfare,
12(1), 42-49. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2397.00007
Leir, S., & Parkhurst, J. (2016). Bias in the use of evidence for
policy: ‘technical bias’and ‘issue bias’https://researchonline.
lshtm.ac.uk/id/eprint/3202911/1/GRIP-Health-Brief-2.pdf.
March, S. T., & Smith, G. F. (1995). Design and natural science
research on information technology. Decision Support Systems,
15(4), 251-266. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-9236(94)00041-2
March, S. T., & Storey, V. C. (2008). Design science in the informa-
tion systems disciplines: An introduction to the special issue on
design science research. MIS Quarterly,32(4), 725-730. https://
doi.org/10.2307/25148869
Martin, B. R. (2001). Matching societal needs and technological capa-
bilities: Research foresight and the implications for social sci-
ences. In Social Sciences and Innovation (pp. 105-116). OECD.
Martin, B. R., &Johnston, R. (1999). Technology foresight for wiring
up the national innovation system: Experiences in britain,
Australia, and New Zealand. Technological Forecasting and
Social Change,60(1), 37-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0040-
1625(98)00022-5
Martuzzi, M. (2007). The precautionary principle: In action for
public health. Occupational and Environmental Medicine,
64(9), 569-570. https://doi.org/10.1136/oem.2006.030601
Meadows, D. H. (1998). Indicators and information systems for sus-
tainable development. Sustainability Institute.
Meslin, E. M., & Shapiro, H. T. (2002). Some initial reflections on
NBAC. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal,12(1), 95-102.
https://doi.org/10.1353/ken.2002.0005
Mill, J. S. (1982). Utilitarianism. An Introduction to the Principles
of Morals and Legislation. Utilitarianism, On Liberty, Essay
on Bentham, John Stuart Mill.
Mintrom, M. (2010). Doing ethical policy analysis. Why ethics
matters, 37 https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.
12657/33647/459474.pdf?sequence =1#page =51.
Mogalakwe, M. (2006). The use of documentary research methods
in social research. African Sociological Review/Revue Africaine
De Sociologie,10(1), 221-230.
Muir Gray, J. A. (1997). Evidence-based healthcare: How to
make health policy and management decisions. Churchill
Livingstone. 53.
130 Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 42(4)
Namdarian, L., Alidousti, S., & Rasuli, B. (2021). Developing a
comprehensive framework for analyzing national scientific
and technical information policy: Application of HeLICAM
in Iran. Online Information Review,45(7), 1381-1403. https://
doi.org/10.1108/OIR-11-2020-0493
Noblit, G. W., Hare, R. D., & Hare, R. D. (1988). Meta-ethnogra-
phy: Synthesizing qualitative studies (Vol. 11). Sage.
Owen, R., Stilgoe, J., Macnaghten, P., Gorman, M., Fisher, E., &
Guston, D. (2013). A framework for responsible innovation. In
Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence
of Science and Innovation in Society, (pp. 27-50). John Wiley
& Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118551424.ch2
Parrott, R. L. (2017). Health and risk policymaking, the precaution-
ary principle, and policy advocacy. Oxford Research
Encyclopedia of Communication.
Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M. A., & Chatterjee, S.
(2007). A design science research methodology for information
systems research. Journal of Management Information
Systems,24(3), 45-77. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-
1222240302
Plante, T. G. (2007). Integrating spirituality and psychotherapy:
Ethical issues and principles to consider. Journal of Clinical
Psychology,63(9), 891-902. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20383
Pohjola, M. V., & Tuomisto, J. T. (2011). Openness in participation,
assessment, and policy-making upon issues of environment and
environmental health: A review of the literature and recent
project results. Environmental Health,10(1), 1-13. https://doi.
org/10.1186/1476-069X-10-58
Ribeiro, B. E., Smith, R. D., & Millar, K. (2017). A mobilizing
concept? Unpacking academic representations of responsible
research and innovation. Science and Engineering Ethics,
23(1), 81-103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9761-6
Ross, W. D. (1939). Foundations of Ethics: The Gifford Lectures
Delivered at the University of Aberdeen, 1935–6. Clarendon Press.
Rotenberg, M. (2001). Fair information practices and the architec-
ture of privacy (What Larry doesn’t get). Stan. Tech. L. Rev.,
1https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.jour-
nals/stantlr2001&div=2&id=&page.
Russell, D. C. (2013). Virtue ethics, happiness, and the good life. In
Russell, D. C. (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to virtue ethics
(pp. 7-28). Cambridge University Press.
Sah, R. K. (1991). Fallibility in human organizations and political
systems. Journal of Economic Perspectives,5(2), 67-88.
https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.5.2.67
Sanderson, I. (2009). Intelligent policy making for a complex world:
Pragmatism, evidence, and learning. Political Studies,57(4),
699-719. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2009.00791.x
Schomberg, R. V. (2013). A vision of responsible research and
innovation, in responsible innovation: Managing the responsi-
ble emergence of science and innovation in society (pp. 51-75).
John Wiley and Sons Ltd.
Schomberg, R. V. (2014). The quest for the ‘right ‘impacts of
science and technology: A framework for responsible research
and innovation. In Responsible innovation 1 (pp. 33-50).
Springer.
Simon, H. A. (2019). The Sciences of the Artificial reissue of the
third edition with a new introduction by John Laird. MIT press.
Sládec
ek, M. (2018). Political morality and neutrality. Filozofija i
društvo,29(3), 401-414. https://doi.org/10.2298/FID1803401S
Stelzer, H. (2016). Principles and policies: What can we learn from
popper’s“piecemeal social engineering”for ideal and nonideal
theory? Philosophy of the Social Sciences,46(4), 375-391.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0048393116639226
Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., & Macnaghten, P. (2020). Developing a frame-
work for responsible innovation. In The ethics of nanotechnology,
geoengineering and clean energy (pp. 347-359). Routledge.
Trinder, J. C. (2008). Remote sensing for assessing environmental
impacts based on sustainability indicators. The International
Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sens. Spatial
Inform. Sci,8, 1421-1428.
Tübke, A. L. E. X. A. N. D. E. R., Ducatel, K., Gavigan, J.,
Moncada-Paterno-Castello, P. I. E. T. R. O., Smits, R.,
Zweck, A., & Hut, A. S. (2001). Strategic policy intelligence:
Current trends, the state of play, and perspectives. IPTS, Seville.
UNESCO (1971). UNISIST program. Paris. Available at: http://
unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0000/000033/003392eo.pdf
(Accessed on December 13, 2018).
Van de Poel, I. R., & Royakkers, L. M. (2011). Ethics, technology,
and engineering: An introduction. Wiley-Blackwell.
Van der Steen, M. A., & Van Twist, M. J. W. (2013). Foresight and
long-term policy-making: An analysis of anticipatory boundary
work in policy organizations in The Netherlands. Futures,54,
33-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2013.09.009
Van Est, Q. C., Rerimassie, V., van Keulen, I., & Dorren, G. (2014).
Intimate technology: the battle for our body and behavior.
Rathenau Institute.
Van Est, R., & Brom, F. (2012). Technology assessment: Analytic
and democratic practice. Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics,4,
306-320. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-373932-2.00010-7
Welfel, E. R., & Kitchener, K. S. (1992). Introduction to the special
section: Ethics education: An agenda for the’90 s. Professional
Psychology: Research and Practice,23(3), 179. https://doi.org/
10.1037/0735-7028.23.3.179
Author Biographies
Leila Namdarian has a PhD in science and technology policy, grad-
uated in 2014 from Tarbiat Modares University. She began her scien-
tific experience in 2015 as a faculty member in IranDoc. Now she is an
associate professor of Information Policy Research Group. Her efforts
has mainly devoted to science and technology policy and foresight. Her
research interests include scientometrics, science audit, science and
technology policy, strategic planning, national innovation system, stra-
tegic information system, IT governance, Knowledge management.
Rahman Sharifzadeh has received his PhD in Philosophy of Science
and Technology (from Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies,
2011-2015). His undergraduate and postgraduate degrees were
respectively in philosophy (from Shahid Beheshti University), and
Logic (from Tarbiat Modarres University). His fields of study and
his interests include ethics of technology, ethics and philosophy of
information, philosophy of technology, philosophy of science, and
history of science and technology. He has already done researches
and published books and papers in these fields.
Hamid Reza Khedmatgozar has a PhD in Information Technology
(IT) Management form Iranian Research Institute for Information
Science and Technology (IranDoc), Tehran, Iran. Now he is an
assistant professor of IT Management Research Group. His
Namdarian et al. 131
executive and scientific efforts has mainly devoted to IT
Management, Information Systems, Decision Science, Business
Process Reengineering, Service and Quality Management. His
research interests revolve around e-business models and strategies,
knowledge management, electronic commerce, IT service manage-
ment, information technology in organizations, human-computer
interaction, digital identifier systems and electronic resource
management.
132 Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 42(4)
