Developing an Ethical Framework for Science and Technology Policymaking and Applying It to the Analysis of Iran’s Comprehensive Scientific Map

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

1 Associate Professor of Science and Technology Policymaking, Information and Society Research Department, Iranian Research Institute for Information Science and Technology (IRANDOC), Tehran, Iran

2 Associate Professor of Information Technology Management, Information Technology Research Department, Iranian Research Institute for Information Science and Technology (IRANDOC), Tehran, Iran

10.22059/jppolicy.2026.106377

Abstract

Ethical policymaking in the field of science and technology (S&T) requires a comprehensive understanding of the scientific and technological consequences and a systematic recognition of the related ethical issues. Despite references to ethical dimensions in previous studies, their systematic integration into a coherent S&T policymaking framework has received limited attention. Addressing this gap, the present study develops a normative-analytical framework for ethical S&T policymaking. In the first stage, 29 ethical components were identified through a library-based study and content analysis of scholarly texts in the fields of meta-ethics, normative ethics, S&T ethics, and policy ethics. Using thematic analysis, these components were integrated into five key stages of policymaking: problem identification, information gathering, formulation, implementation, and evaluation. To demonstrate the practical application of the framework and enhance policymakers’ understanding of its use, a survey was conducted among 41 experts and stakeholders involved in formulating Iran’s Comprehensive Scientific Map (CSM). The findings revealed that components such as problem analysis, systematic research, and cultural values were relatively well addressed, whereas participatory technology assessment, ethical advisory mechanisms, and institutional accountability were less considered. These results confirm the applicability of the proposed framework and can contribute to improving transparency, accountability, and ethical orientation in S&T policymaking.

Keywords

References

  1. موسوی، آرش؛ الستی، کیوان. (1398). چارچوبی برای تحلیل نظام‌مند اخلاق سیاستگذاری علم و فناوری. سیاست علم و فناوری 11(2): 29-41.
  2. Arcos, R. (2016). Public relations strategic intelligence: Intelligence analysis, communication, and influence. Public relations review, 42(2), 264-270.
  3. Arnold, E. (2004). Evaluating research and innovation policy: a systems world needs systems evaluation. Research evaluation, 13(1), 3-17.
  4. Aven, T., & Renn, O. (2018). Improving government policy on risk: Eight key principles. Reliability engineering & system safety, 176, 230-241.
  5. Bailey, K.D. (1994). Methods of Social Research. New York: The Free Press.
  6. 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
  7. Brey, P. A. (2012). Anticipatory ethics for emerging technologies. NanoEthics, 6(1), 1-13.
  8. 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.
  9. Brown, M. B. (2006). Ethics, politics, and the public: Shaping the research agenda. Shaping science & technology policy: The next generation of research, 10-32.
  10. Burgess, M. M. (2014). From ‘trust us’ to participatory governance: deliberative public and science policy. Public understanding of science, 23(1), 48-52.
  11. Bovenkerk, B.)2012(. The biotechnology debate: Democracy in the face of intractable disagreement (Vol. 29). Springer Science & Business Media.
  12. Carothers T. and Brechenmacher S. (2014). Accountability, transparency, participation, and inclusion of a New Development Consensus? Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
  13. Chaturvedi, S., Zhao, Y., Ladikas, M., & Stemerding, D. (2015). Conclusions: incorporating ethics into S&T policy. S&T Governance and Ethics, 165.
  14. Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Harvard Business Press.
  15. Charmaz, K. (2008). Grounded theory as an emergent method. Handbook of emergent methods, 155, 172.
  16. (2015). Ethical Perspective on science, technology, and society: A contribution to the post-2015 Agenda.
  17. Davies, P. (2004). Is evidence-based government possible? London: Prime Ministers Strategy Unit.
  18. Duncan, G. T., Elliot, M., & Salazar-González, J. J. (2011). Why statistical confidentiality? In Statistical confidentiality (pp. 1-26). Springer, New York, NY.
  19. Evans, J. H. (2002). Playing god?: human genetic engineering and the rationalization of public bioethical debate. University of Chicago Press.
  20. Fishkin, J. (1979). Moral Principles and Public Policy. Daedalus, 55-67.
  21. Fukuyama, F. (2003). Our posthuman future: Consequences of the biotechnology revolution. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
  22. Hafner-Zimmermann, S. )2007(. Strategic Policy Intelligence for Regional Decision--making. Foresight Brief, (122).
  23. Hennen, L. )1999(. Participatory technology assessment: a response to technical modernity? Science and Public Policy, 26(5), 303-312.
  24. 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:
  25. Jobin, A., Ienca, M., & Vayena, E. (2019). The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(9), 389-399.
  26. 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.
  27. Kuosa, T. (2014). Towards strategic intelligence: foresight, intelligence, and policy-making (No. 1). Helsinki: Dynamic Futures press.
  28. Ladikas, M., Chaturvedi, S., Zhao, Y., & Stemerding, D. (2015). S&T Governance and Ethics: A Global Perspective from Europe, India, and China. Springer Nature.
  29. Lewis, P. V. (1989). Ethical principles for decision makers: A longitudinal survey. Journal of Business Ethics, 8(4), 271-278
  30. 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
  31. 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.
  32. Martuzzi, M. (2007). The precautionary principle: in action for public health. Occupational and environmental medicine, 64(9), 569-570.
  33. Meslin, E. M., & Shapiro, H. T. (2002). Some initial reflections on NBAC. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 12(1), 95-102.
  34. Mogalakwe, M. (2006). The use of documentary research methods in social research. African Sociological Review/Revue Africaine De Sociologie, 10(1), 221-230.
  35. Muir Gray, J. A. (1997). Evidence-based healthcare: how to make health policy and management decisions. London: Churchill Livingstone 53.
  36. 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.
  37. Noblit, G. W., Hare, R. D., & Hare, R. D. (1988). Meta-ethnography: Synthesizing qualitative studies (Vol. 11). Sage.
  38. 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.
  39. Parrott, R. L. (2017). Health and risk policymaking, the precautionary principle, and policy advocacy. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication
  40. 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.
  41. Plante, T. G. (2007). Integrating spirituality and psychotherapy: Ethical issues and principles to consider. Journal of clinical psychology, 63(9), 891-902.
  42. Sanderson, I. (2009). Intelligent policy making for a complex world: pragmatism, evidence, and learning. Political Studies, 57(4), 699-719.
  43. 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.
  44. Shapiro, S. P. (2002). Tangled loyalties: conflict of interest in legal practice. University of Michigan Press.
  45. Sládeček, M. (2018). Political morality and neutrality. Filozofija i društvo, 29(3), 401-414.
  46. Spatial Inform. Sci, 8, 1421-1428.
  47. Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution. (2010). Iran’s Comprehensive Scientific Map. https://irimc.org/Portals/0/PDF/ScientificMap.pdf
  48. 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.
  49. 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.
  50. 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.
  51. (1971). UNISIST program. Paris. Available at: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0000/000033/003392eo.pdf (Accessed on December 13, 2018)
  52. Van de Poel, I. R., & Royakkers, L. M. (2011). Ethics, technology, and engineering: An introduction. Wiley-Blackwell.
  53. 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.
  54. Van Est, Q. C., Rerimassie, V., van Keulen, I., & Dorren, G. (2014). Intimate technology: the battle for our body and behavior. Rathenau Institute.

 

Iranian Journal of Public Policy
Volume 12, Issue 1
March 2026
Pages 154-174

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics