1Andersen, 1 - E. and B.Jaeger. Scenario Workshops and Consensus Conferences: Towards More Democratic Decision-Making[ J ] .Science and Public Policy. 1999.26 ( 5 ) : 331 -340.
2Vig, Norman J and Herbert Paschen. Parliaments and Technology.The development of Technology Assessment in Europe[ M]. New York:State University of New York Press,2000.
3Grin, J, van de Graaf, H, Hoppe.Teehnology Assessment through interaction. A guide [ R ]. The Hague: Rathenau Insti-tte,Working Document Rathenau Institute, 1997.
4Rathenau Institute.The Rathenau Institute and the debate. Annual Report 1994 [R]. The Hague : Rathenau Institute,1994.
5Grin, John. Participation, co- production and power.Rationale and praxis of interactively performed Technology Assessment:the example of the G1DEON project. Paper at the International Conference of Evaluation: Profession, Business or Politics?[ R]. Organised by the European Evaluation Society, Rome. 29- 31.October 1998.
6Callon M, P Laredo, V Rabeharlsoa, T Gonard, and T Leray.The management and evaluation of technological programs and the dynamics of techno- economic networks: The ease of the AFME[J] .Research Policy, 1992(21) :215 - 256.
7EUROPTA.European Participatory Technology Assessment:Participatory Methods in Technology Assessment and Technology Decision - Making [ R ]. Copenhagen : The Danish Board of Technology. www. tekno. dk/europta. October 18,2000.
8Bunders,Joske and Josee van Eijndhoven. The importance of interactions in broadening the basis for decision - making on technology[ J ]. Bull Sci Tech Soc 1987, Vol. 7 : 687 - 696.
