- موسوی، آرش؛ الستی، کیوان. (1398). چارچوبی برای تحلیل نظاممند اخلاق سیاستگذاری علم و فناوری. سیاست علم و فناوری 11(2): 29-41.
- Arcos, R. (2016). Public relations strategic intelligence: Intelligence analysis, communication, and influence. Public relations review, 42(2), 264-270.
- Arnold, E. (2004). Evaluating research and innovation policy: a systems world needs systems evaluation. Research evaluation, 13(1), 3-17.
- Aven, T., & Renn, O. (2018). Improving government policy on risk: Eight key principles. Reliability engineering & system safety, 176, 230-241.
- Bailey, K.D. (1994). Methods of Social Research. New York: The Free Press.
- 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
- Brey, P. A. (2012). Anticipatory ethics for emerging technologies. NanoEthics, 6(1), 1-13.
- 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 S&T Governance and Ethics (pp. 9-23). Springer, Cham.
- Brown, M. B. (2006). Ethics, politics, and the public: Shaping the research agenda. Shaping science & technology policy: The next generation of research, 10-32.
- Burgess, M. M. (2014). From ‘trust us’ to participatory governance: deliberative public and science policy. Public understanding of science, 23(1), 48-52.
- Bovenkerk, B.)2012(. The biotechnology debate: Democracy in the face of intractable disagreement (Vol. 29). Springer Science & Business Media.
- Carothers T. and Brechenmacher S. (2014). Accountability, transparency, participation, and inclusion of a New Development Consensus? Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
- Chaturvedi, S., Zhao, Y., Ladikas, M., & Stemerding, D. (2015). Conclusions: incorporating ethics into S&T policy. S&T Governance and Ethics, 165.
- Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Harvard Business Press.
- Charmaz, K. (2008). Grounded theory as an emergent method. Handbook of emergent methods, 155, 172.
- (2015). Ethical Perspective on science, technology, and society: A contribution to the post-2015 Agenda.
- Davies, P. (2004). Is evidence-based government possible? London: Prime Ministers Strategy Unit.
- Duncan, G. T., Elliot, M., & Salazar-González, J. J. (2011). Why statistical confidentiality? In Statistical confidentiality (pp. 1-26). Springer, New York, NY.
- Evans, J. H. (2002). Playing god?: human genetic engineering and the rationalization of public bioethical debate. University of Chicago Press.
- Fishkin, J. (1979). Moral Principles and Public Policy. Daedalus, 55-67.
- Fukuyama, F. (2003). Our posthuman future: Consequences of the biotechnology revolution. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
- Hafner-Zimmermann, S. )2007(. Strategic Policy Intelligence for Regional Decision--making. Foresight Brief, (122).
- Hennen, L. )1999(. Participatory technology assessment: a response to technical modernity? Science and Public Policy, 26(5), 303-312.
- Hetman, F. )1973(. Society and the assessment of technology: premises, concepts, methodology, experiments, areas of application. In Seminar on technology assessment (26-28 Jan. 1972:
- Jobin, A., Ienca, M., & Vayena, E. (2019). The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(9), 389-399.
- Kim, S. Y., Wall, I. F., Stanczyk, A., & De Vries, R. (2009). Assessing the public's views in research ethics controversies: deliberative democracy and bioethics as natural allies. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 4(4), 3-16.
- Kuosa, T. (2014). Towards strategic intelligence: foresight, intelligence, and policy-making (No. 1). Helsinki: Dynamic Futures press.
- Ladikas, M., Chaturvedi, S., Zhao, Y., & Stemerding, D. (2015). S&T Governance and Ethics: A Global Perspective from Europe, India, and China. Springer Nature.
- Lewis, P. V. (1989). Ethical principles for decision makers: A longitudinal survey. Journal of Business Ethics, 8(4), 271-278
- 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
- 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.
- Martuzzi, M. (2007). The precautionary principle: in action for public health. Occupational and environmental medicine, 64(9), 569-570.
- Meslin, E. M., & Shapiro, H. T. (2002). Some initial reflections on NBAC. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 12(1), 95-102.
- 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. London: Churchill Livingstone 53.
- Namdarian, Leila, Sirous Alidousti, and Behrooz Rasuli. (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.
- Noblit, G. W., Hare, R. D., & Hare, R. D. (1988). Meta-ethnography: Synthesizing qualitative studies (Vol. 11). Sage.
- Owen, R., Stilgoe, J., Macnaghten, P., Gorman, M., Fisher, E., & Guston, D. (2013). A framework for responsible innovation. Responsible innovation: managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society, 31, 27-50.
- Parrott, R. L. (2017). Health and risk policymaking, the precautionary principle, and policy advocacy. In 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.
- Plante, T. G. (2007). Integrating spirituality and psychotherapy: Ethical issues and principles to consider. Journal of clinical psychology, 63(9), 891-902.
- Sanderson, I. (2009). Intelligent policy making for a complex world: pragmatism, evidence, and learning. Political Studies, 57(4), 699-719.
- Schomberg, R. V. (2014). The quest for the ‘right ‘impacts of S&T: A framework for responsible research and innovation. In Responsible Innovation 1 (pp. 33-50). Springer, Dordrecht.
- Shapiro, S. P. (2002). Tangled loyalties: conflict of interest in legal practice. University of Michigan Press.
- Sládeček, M. (2018). Political morality and neutrality. Filozofija i društvo, 29(3), 401-414.
- Spatial Inform. Sci, 8, 1421-1428.
- Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution. (2010). Iran’s Comprehensive Scientific Map. https://irimc.org/Portals/0/PDF/ScientificMap.pdf
- Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., & Macnaghten, P. (2020). Developing a framework for responsible innovation. In The ethics of nanotechnology, geoengineering, and clean energy (pp. 347-359). Routledge.
- Tarafdar, M., Pullins, E. B., & Ragu‐Nathan, T. S. (2015). Technostress: negative effect on performance and possible mitigations. Information Systems Journal, 25(2), 103-13.
- 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.
- (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.
- Van Est, Q. C., Rerimassie, V., van Keulen, I., & Dorren, G. (2014). Intimate technology: the battle for our body and behavior. Rathenau Institute.
|
