AbstractThe collection of data, its analysis, and the publication of insights from data promise a range of benefits, but can carry risks for individuals and organizations. This paper sets out considerations regarding the potential role for technologies in governance of data use, and some key limitations. The paper examines the potential of Privacy Enhancing Technologies (PETs) to support organizations and institutions that handle data in governing data use, and considers their role based on their current state of development and the trajectory of technological development. This involves consideration both of how these technologies can potentially enable governments and others to unlock the value of data, and also recognition of both contingent and in principle limitations on the role of PETs in ensuring well-governed use of data.
The collection of data, its analysis and the publication of insights from data promise a range of benefits, but can carry risks for individuals and organisations. This paper sets out a way to identify the right role for technologies in governance of data use. The paper examines the potential of Privacy Enhancing Technologies to support governance of data use, and considers their role based on their current state of development and the trajectory of technological development. This involves consideration both of how these technologies can potentially enable governments and others to unlock the value of data; and also recognition of both contingent and in principle limitations on the role of PETs in ensuring well-governed use of data.
Public policy requires public support, which in turn implies a need to enable the public not just to understand policy but also to be engaged in its development. Where complex science and technology issues are involved in policy making, this takes time, so it is important to identify emerging issues of this type and prepare engagement plans. In our horizon scanning exercise, we used a modified Delphi technique [1]. A wide group of people with interests in the science and policy interface (drawn from policy makers, policy adviser, practitioners, the private sector and academics) elicited a long list of emergent policy issues in which science and technology would feature strongly and which would also necessitate public engagement as policies are developed. This was then refined to a short list of top priorities for policy makers. Thirty issues were identified within broad areas of business and technology; energy and environment; government, politics and education; health, healthcare, population and aging; information, communication, infrastructure and transport; and public safety and national security.Public policy requires public support, which in turn implies a need to enable the public not just to understand policy but also to be engaged in its development. Where complex science and technology issues are involved in policy making, this takes time, so it is important to identify emerging issues of this type and prepare engagement plans. In our horizon scanning exercise, we used a modified Delphi technique [1]. A wide group of people with interests in the science and policy interface (drawn from policy makers, policy adviser, practitioners, the private sector and academics) elicited a long list of emergent policy issues in which science and technology would feature strongly and which would also necessitate public engagement as policies are developed. This was then refined to a short list of top priorities for policy makers. Thirty issues were identified within broad areas of business and technology; energy and ...
In: Parker , M , Acland , A , Armstrong , H J , Bellingham , J R , Bland , J , Bodmer , H C , Burall , S , Castell , S , Chilvers , J , Cleevely , D D , Cope , D , Costanzo , L , Dolan , J A , Doubleday , R , Feng , W Y , Godfray , H C J , Good , D A , Grant , J , Green , N , Groen , A J , Guilliams , T T , Gupta , S , Hall , A C , Heathfield , A , Hotopp , U , Kass , G , Leeder , T , Lickorish , F A , Lueshi , L M , Magee , C , Mata , T , McBride , T , McCarthy , N , Mercer , A , Neilson , R , Ouchikh , J , Oughton , E J , Oxenham , D , Pallett , H , Palmer , J , Patmore , J , Petts , J , Pinkerton , J , Ploszek , R , Pratt , A , Rocks , S A , Stansfield , N , Surkovic , E , Tyler , C P , Watkinson , A R , Wentworth , J , Willis , R , Wollner , P K A , Worts , K & Sutherland , W J 2014 , ' Identifying the Science and Technology Dimensions of Emerging Public Policy Issues through Horizon Scanning ' PloS one , vol 9 , no. 5 , e96480 . DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0096480
Public policy requires public support, which in turn implies a need to enable the public not just to understand policy but also to be engaged in its development. Where complex science and technology issues are involved in policy making, this takes time, so it is important to identify emerging issues of this type and prepare engagement plans. In our horizon scanning exercise, we used a modified Delphi technique [1]. A wide group of people with interests in the science and policy interface (drawn from policy makers, policy adviser, practitioners, the private sector and academics) elicited a long list of emergent policy issues in which science and technology would feature strongly and which would also necessitate public engagement as policies are developed. This was then refined to a short list of top priorities for policy makers. Thirty issues were identified within broad areas of business and technology; energy and environment; government, politics and education; health, healthcare, population and aging; information, communication, infrastructure and transport; and public safety and national security.