JDR Vol.6 No.5 pp. 522-527
doi: 10.20965/jdr.2011.p0522


Technology Assessment in the EU Institutions

Michael D. Rogers

Independent Consultant, Risk, Ethics and Law, Roelandsheide 55, 3080 Tervuren, Belgium

April 25, 2011
June 9, 2011
October 1, 2011
technology assessment, experts, ethics, regulatory impact, transparency
Technology Assessment (TA) is the study and evaluation of new technologies with the objective of understanding the likely impacts (costs and benefits) of these technologies on society and the environment – with the explicit aim of improving regulatory decision making concerning these technologies. This is a prospective exercise helping to ensure that “better” regulatory decisions are made by decision makers. TA and “TA like” activities are embedded within the main EU institutions. The Commission carries out Regulatory Impact Assessments on every significant regulatory proposal. It also has at its disposal a range of advisory groups which includes the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies and the Institute for Prospective Technological Studies. The European Parliament has its own TA unit – the Science and Technology Options Assessment unit. The institutions are committed to quality, transparency and effectiveness in their use of expert groups and all such assessments are published on the internet. Occasionally full citizens’ consultations are carried out but this is not a formal requirement. Recent changes in the regulatory development process have emphasised the concept of “smarter” regulations. This concept is concerned not just with prospective analyses in advance of new regulations but also with the retrospective evaluation of existing regulations asking the question “Did they meet the need that was the raison d’être for enacting the regulation under consideration.” The distinction highlighted by Churchill [2] that experts should advise but not decide is intended to ensure that regulators take account of aspects other than the expert view. Nevertheless, it is essential that expert groups have the right to introduce advice thatmight otherwise be overlooked by the regulators, as is the case in a number of expert groups in the EU institutions.
Cite this article as:
M. Rogers, “Technology Assessment in the EU Institutions,” J. Disaster Res., Vol.6 No.5, pp. 522-527, 2011.
Data files:
  1. [1] D. Collingridge, “The Social Control of Technology,” St. Martin’s Press, New York, & Pinter, London, 1980.
  2. [2] R. S. Churchill, “Twenty-One Years,” Epilogue, p. 127, published by Wiedenfield and Nicolson, London, UK, 1965.
  3. [3] O. Renn, “Risk Governance – Coping with Uncertainty in a Complex World,” Published by Earthscan, London, UK, 2008.
  4. [4] M. van Asselt and E. Vos, “The Precautionary Principle and the Uncertainty Paradox,” J. of Risk Research, 9, pp. 313-336, 2006.
  5. [5] J. D. Bernal, “Lessons of the war for science,” Reports on Progress in Physics 10, pp. 418-436, 1944.
  6. [6] L. Carroll, “Through the Looking Glass,” originally published by Macmillan Books, 1871.
  7. [7] M. D. Rogers, “Risk Analysis under Uncertainty, the Precautionary Principle, and the New EU Chemicals Strategy,” Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 37, pp. 370-381, 2003.
  8. [8] European Commission, “Communication from the European Commission on the Precautionary Principle,” COM (2000)1, Brussels, 01.02.2000,
    available at:, 2000 [accessed at 04.03.04].
  9. [9] RCEP, “Twenty-first Report – Setting Environmental Standards,” para. 4.44, HMSO October 1998, ISBN0-10-140532-4, 1998.
  10. [10] European Commission, “Communication to the Parliament and the Council – Promoting the Competitive Environment for the Industrial Activities Based on Biotechnology within the Community,” SEC(91) 629 final,
    PDF version available at website: (, 1991 [accessed at 14.04.2011].
  11. [11] EGE, List of Publications,
    available at:, 2011 [accessed at 18.04.2011].
  12. [12] IPTS, “Research Areas,” see
    website:, 2011 [accessed 15.04.2011].
  13. [13] IPTS, “Adoption and impact of the first GM crop introduced in EU agriculture: Bt maize in Spain,” EUR Number: 22778 EN, Publication date: 6/2008,
    available at:, 2008 [accessed 17.04.2011].
  14. [14] M. D. Rogers editor, “Business and the Environment,” Published by Macmillan Books, Basingstoke, UK, 1995.
  15. [15] STOA, “Human Enhancement,” PE417.483 dated May 2009,
    available at:, 2009 [accessed 15.04.2011].
  16. [16] EGE, “Opinion on the ethical aspects of ICT implants in the human body,” EGE Opinion N°20 dated 16 March 2005,
    available at en.pdf, 2005 [accessed 15.4.2011].
  17. [17] KBF, “Meeting of Minds: European Citizens’ Deliberation on Brain Science – Complete Results,” June 2006,
    available at: site.aspx?SGREF=16&CREF=6064, 2006 [accessed 19.04.2011].
  18. [18] KBF, “Summary report of the workshop ‘Connecting Brains and Society: Lessons learnt and future developments’ organised at ESOF Munich on 18 July 2006,”
    available at:, 2006 [accessed at 19.04.2011].
  19. [19] KBF, “Meeting of Minds – One Year On” p.2 of Newsletter,
    available at:, 2007 [accessed at 19.04.2011].
  20. [20] M. D. Rogers, “The European Commission and the Collection and Use of Science and Technology Advice,” Chapter 7 of “The Politics of Scientific Advice – Institutional Design for Quality Assurance,” Justus Lentsch and Peter Weingart (Eds.), published by CUP, 2011 (forthcoming August 2011).
  21. [21] European Commission, “European Governance – A White Paper,” COM (2001), Brussels, 25.07.2001,
    available at:, 2001 [accessed at 17.04.2011].
  22. [22] European Commission, Governance Working Group 1b Report “Democratising Expertise and Establishing Scientific Reference Systems,” Brussels, 02.07.2001,
    available at: /governance/areas/group2/report_en.pdf, 2001 [accessed 17.04.2011].
  23. [23] European Commission, “Communication from the Commission on the Collection and use of Expertise by the Commission: Principles and Guidelines – Improving the knowledge base for better policies,” COM (2002) Brussels, 11.12.2002,
    available at:, 2002 [accessed at 17.04.2011].
  24. [24] European Commission, “Better Regulation – Simply Explained,” Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities,
    available at:, 2006 [accessed at 21.04.2011].
  25. [25] European Commission, “Impact Assessment Board Report for 2010,” SEC(2011) 126, Brussels 24.01.2011,
    available at:, 2011 [accessed at 21.04.2011].
  26. [26] European Commission, “Towards a reinforced culture of consultation and dialogue – General principles and minimum standards for consultation of interested parties by the Commission,” COM(2002) 704, Brussels 11.12.2002,
    available at:, 2002 [accessed 21.04.2011].
  27. [27] European Commission, “Smart Regulation in the European Union,” COM(2010) 543, Brussels, 8.10.2010,
    available at: FIN:EN:PDF, 2010 [accessed 21.04.2010].
  28. [28] J. B. Wiener and M. D. Rogers, “Comparing Precaution in the US and Europe,” J. of Risk Research, 5, pp. 317-349, 2002.
  29. [29] J. B. Wiener, M. D. Rogers, J. K. Hammitt, and P. H. Sand editors, Forthcoming “The Reality of Precaution: Comparing Risk Regulation in the United States and Europe,” RFF Press / Earthscan, 2010.

*This site is desgined based on HTML5 and CSS3 for modern browsers, e.g. Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Edge, Opera.

Last updated on Jul. 19, 2024