Home Courses Technology Development and Impact Assessment Course materials Readings Framework, Reflection, Integration:

Framework, Reflection, Integration:

Course subject(s) 1. A Model for Technology Assessment

  • Van de Poel, I. R. and L. M. M. Royakkers. (2011). Ethics, Technology and Engineering. An Introduction: Wiley-Blackwell. Chapter 3, 6.3, 8 and 10.
  • Mulder, Karel. (2006). Sustainable Development for Engineers. A Handbook and Resource Guide: Greenleaf Publishing.
  • Barry, B. (1999). Sustainability and Intergenerational Justice. In Fairness and Futurity: Essays on Environmental Sustainability and Social Justice, edited by A. Dobson. New York: Oxford University Press: 93–117.
  • Beckerman, W. (1999). Sustainable Development and our Obligations to Future Generations In Fairness and Futurity: Essays on Environmental Sustainability and Social Justice, edited by A. Dobson. New York: Oxford University Press: 71-92.
  • Taebi, B. and A. C. Kadak. (2010). Intergenerational Considerations Affecting the Future of Nuclear Power: Equity as a Framework for Assessing Fuel Cycles. Risk Analysis 30 (9): 1341-1362.
  • EEA. (2013). Late lessons from early warnings: science, precaution, innovation. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency EEA Report No 1/2013.
  • EPA. (2005). Public Health and Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Yucca Mountain. 40 CFR Part 197, Part II. Washington D.C.: Office of Radiation and Indoor Air U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
  • Taebi, B. (2012). Multinational nuclear waste repositories and their complex issues of justice. Ethics, Policy & Environment 15 (1): 57–62.
  • Hansson, S. O. (2005). Seven myths of risk. Risk Management 7 (2): 7-17.
  • Taebi, B. (2011). The Morally Desirable Option for Nuclear Power Production. Philosophy & Technology 24 (2): 169-192.
  • Taebi, B. and J. L. Kloosterman. Forthcoming. Designing for nuclear safety, security & sustainability: a philosophical discourse of reactor design. In Handbook of ethics and values in technological design, edited by J. van den Hoven, I. Van de Poel andP. Vermaas. Dordrecht: Springer
  • Van de Poel, I. (2011). Nuclear energy as a social experiment. Ethics, Policy & Environment 14 (3): 285-290.
  • Clarke, R. H. (2003). Changing philosophy in ICRP: the evolution of protection ethics and principles. International Journal of Low Radiation 1 (1): 39-49.
  • Sunstein, C. R. (2005). Cost Benefit Analysis and the Environment. Ethics 115: 351-385
  • Schmidtz, D. (2001). A place for cost–benefit analysis. Philosophical Issues 11:148–171
  • Hansson, S. O. (2004). Weighting Risks and Benefits. Topoi 23: 145-152.
  • Bergmans, A. et al. (2008) WANTING THE UNWANTED: EFFECTS OF PUBLIC AND STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT IN THE LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE AND THE SITING OF REPOSITORY FACILITIES – FINAL REPORT CARL PROJECT.
  • Winner, L. (1980). Do artifacts have politics?. Daedalus, 121-136.
  • Bijker, W. E. (2007). Dikes and Dams, Thick with Politics. Isis, 98(1), 109–123.
  • Hansson, S. O. (2007). Philosophical Problems in Cost–Benefit Analysis Economics and Philosophy 23 (02): 163-183.
Creative Commons License
Technology Development and Impact Assessment by TU Delft OpenCourseWare is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at https://ocw.tudelft.nl/courses/Technology Development and Impact Assessment/.
Back to top