Department of Forest Resources, University of Minnesota, USA.
J Law Med Ethics. 2009 Winter;37(4):732-48. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-720X.2009.00444.x.
Societal evaluation of new technologies, specifically nanotechnology and genetically engineered organisms (GEOs), challenges current practices of governance and science. Employing environmental risk assessment (ERA) for governance and oversight assumes we have a reasonable ability to understand consequences and predict adverse effects. However, traditional ERA has come under considerable criticism for its many shortcomings and current governance institutions have demonstrated limitations in transparency, public input, and capacity. Problem Formulation and Options Assessment (PFOA) is a methodology founded on three key concepts in risk assessment (science-based consideration, deliberation, and multi-criteria analysis) and three in governance (participation, transparency, and accountability). Developed through a series of international workshops, the PFOA process emphasizes engagement with stakeholders in iterative stages, from identification of the problem(s) through comparison of multiple technology solutions that could be used in the future with their relative benefits, harms, and risk. It provides "upstream public engagement" in a deliberation informed by science that identifies values for improved decision making.
对新技术（特别是纳米技术和基因工程生物）的社会评估对当前的治理和科学实践提出了挑战。将环境风险评估（ERA）用于治理和监督假设我们有合理的能力来理解后果并预测不利影响。然而，传统的 ERA 因其许多缺点而受到相当多的批评，而且当前的治理机构在透明度、公众投入和能力方面表现出了局限性。问题制定和方案评估（PFOA）是一种基于风险评估中的三个关键概念（基于科学的考虑、审议和多标准分析）和治理中的三个概念（参与、透明度和问责制）的方法。该方法是通过一系列国际研讨会开发的，强调在迭代阶段与利益相关者接触，从识别问题开始，然后对未来可能使用的多种技术解决方案进行比较，评估它们的相对收益、危害和风险。它提供了一种在科学信息基础上进行的“上游公众参与”，确定了改进决策的价值观。
