IntroductionWhen Albert Einstein developed the Theory of Relativity, this was a remarkable achievement for astronomy and theoretical physics, and subsequent scientific discoveries. Some 40 years later, although not wished by Einstein himself, his ideas led to the invention and eventual use of the atomic bomb in World War II, and nuclear deterrence in the Cold War. But scientific progress may also run counter-wise: a fusion bomb, for instance, might be considered as an antecedent, if later there is a breakthrough in fusion energy (Kuusi 2002). Futurist Ray Kurzweil argues that people find the pace of change difficult to grasp because human nature perceives rates of progress as linear, not exponential \cite{butler_world_2016} . How can this uncertainty - an ongoing conflict in planning systems around certainty versus flexibility \cite{steele_flexibility_2012} - be tackled?In this paper, our aim is to shed light on the emerging concept of 'anticipatory governance'. Both anticipation and governance are argued to be necessary, as it is claimed that the radical character and speed of technological change can shape future societies in unpredictable ways. In comparison, in futures research, the significance of preparation - understanding megatrends, trends, and weak signals \cite{hiltunen_weak_2010} and unexpected events - has been emphasised as a basis for changing governance strategies and practice. As a method, our work is based on a literature review through three databases (ScienceDirect, Scopus, Google Scholar). Two main literature searches were conducted on Scopus using the following search strings:TITLE-ABS-KEY ( "anticipatory governance" ) AND ( LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA , "SOCI" ) OR LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA , "BUSI" ) ) (date: 30 January 2017, 34 results)TITLE-ABS-KEY ( "emerging technology" W/10 governance ) (date: 22 February 2017, 62 results)The first search yielded the central conceptual papers concerning anticipatory governance, many of which concern emerging technologies. The second search was made to broaden the scope to different aspects of the governance of emerging technologies. The omission of the term 'anticipatory' is justified in the second search because 'emerging technology' already implies a future orientation. Following these searches, supplementary searches were made on the three databases, and the reference lists of key papers were consulted for additional references.We begin with a short introduction of the origins of anticipation and governance. Next, we explore and define how we understand anticipatory governance. We then explore its significance for emerging technologies, and this is followed by a section on the means of participation. We move to draw connections of the anticipatory governance approach with foresight and scenario literature (taking note of the dedicated course literature). To conclude, we discuss how anticipatory governance, currently promoted by the likes of Riel Miller and Roberto Poli, relates with futures studies more broadly. The division of work is elaborated in Appendix 1.Background - setting the sceneAnticipation refers to anticipatory behaviour, as a process (or behaviour) that not only depends on past and present but also on predictions, expectations, or beliefs about the future, through cognitive or psychological mechanisms of looking ahead, and acting accordingly. Phenomenologists such as Edmund Husserl see anticipation as an essential feature of human action. Anticipation may provide faster adaptivity in dynamic environments with internal reflection and planning, enhance the chances of survival, and is also helpful for social interaction . Anticipation, as a scholarly approach, owes to theoretical biology and physics where anticipations are understood to contribute to complexity, life and stabilization of chaotic control processes. An anticipatory system is for \citet{rosen_anticipatory_1985} “one in which present change of state depends upon future circumstances, rather than merely on the present or past”. In almost similar vein, Nadin \cite{nadin_prolegomena:_2012}, sees an anticipatory system as “a system whose current state is determined not only by a past state, but also by possible future states”. Poli \cite{poli_complexity_2009,poli_evolution_2010} compares Rosen's and Luhmann's systemic thinking, and suggests that anticipatory systems are self-referential i.e. they have a capacity to anticipate their own evolution. Anticipation is closely linked with complexity. To measure life is different from all other forms of measurement; to understand life is to acknowledge complexity \cite{nadin_prolegomena:_2012}. Four contemporary approaches to anticipation have been identified: anticipation in biological, psychological and social systems; anticipation and resilience; anticipation and futures literacy; and anticipatory governance \cite{miller2014discipline}. Governance (Greek: Kubernân, Latin: gubernare), supposedly more than merely 'muddling through' \cite{lindblom_science_1959}, is piloting, rule-making or steering, and refers to the capacity of government to "steer the society”. The intellectual core of governance theories derives from administrative studies and political science, typically interested in how policy is formulated, implemented and evaluated \cite{nadin_prolegomena:_2012}. In many western countries, planning systems are undergoing theoretical and methodological change, shaped by a 'push' to escape top-down government approach, compartmentalized regulation \cite{lyall_new_2005}, emphasizing planning as a communicative rationality, and exploring the virtues of community-based planning \cite{serrao-neumann_role_2013}. Foresight has been considered as a tool that can enhance the ability of decision-makers to engage and shape events at a longer range and, to the best advantage of the citizens they serve.Anticipatory governanceIn the early 2000s, two strands of literature in anticipatory governance begin to emerge: one of public administration and management, and a second of environmental studies and policy \cite{Karinen_2009,Guston_2014}. The intellectual ancestor of anticipatory governance is Alvin Toffler's notion of 'anticipatory democracy' in the 1970s, a prescription against a “future shock”. For Toffler, anticipatory democracy meant a process of citizen participation coupled with future consciousness \cite{bezold_anticipatory_1978} . Thirty years later, when Bezold revisited the notion of anticipatory democracy; he described it as an aspiration of genuine, enlightened participation with foresight – a mission of overcoming populism and traditionalistic political culture \cite{bezold_anticipatory_2006}. \citet{ramos2014anticipatory} lists altogether seven traditions of anticipatory governanceincluding transition management and govthe databases reveal that term is not widely in use in these contexts, and therefore this definition is r.Anticipatory governance is distinguished from Toffler’s notion of anticipatory democracy in at least three ways: people are able to actively shape technology rather than become shaped by it; forecasting, linear and predictive models are (too) unreliable to be trusted; and rather than experts alone, broader groups of people can self-consciously reflect on the values that go into technology. Guston argues that “by deeply engaging ordinary citizens, integrating knowledge across disciplines, and cultivating a broadly anticipatory disposition, we can lessen the shock of the future.” \cite{guston_muddled_2016} . Anticipatory governance emerges out of distributed collection of social and epistemological capacities, including collective self-criticism, imagination and the disposition to learn from trial and error \cite{barben_anticipatory_2008} Anticipatory governance, motivated by risk and uncertainty, can bring forward engagement, with a whole-of-government (governance) approach to complex issues, to be cultivated as a systemic culture \cite{fuerth_foresight_2009}. It relates closely to a vision of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI). This way, anticipatory governance as part of responsible innovation may drive innovation towards 'societal desirable ends' (von Schomberg 2013) . Anticipatory governance has bwwalso \cite{quay_anticipatory_2010} been used to aswell as to think of sectoral strategies, such as what adaptive strategies are needed in land-use planning to tackle climate change \cite{serrao-neumann_role_2013}. In addition to providing strategic vision, anticipatory governance can be used as an evaluative tool \cite{foley_toward_2015}. Anticipatory governance is distinctive from adaptive governance \cite{hurlbert_adaptive_2016} , deliberative governance \cite{dryzek_foundations_2012,hendriks_deliberative_2009} , and reflexive governance \cite{vos_reflexive_2006,vos_politics_2011} .Anticipatory governance is widely in use in the field of Science and Technology Studies (STS). Anticipatory governance, in the context of emerging technologies, means the ways in which research, development, application and use of a technology are developed and steered (Read 2015) , between adapting to a coming revolution and halting development \cite{barben_anticipatory_2008} . Products of science and technology do not appear magically, they appear in the hands of people \cite{sarewitz_anticipatory_2011} and through technoscientific imaginaries \cite{diallo_nanotechnology_2012}. They may or are expected to create new industries, transform existing ones - and shape societies. But not all innovations have a positive impact on life on earth. Borrowing terminology from entrepreneurship literature, there is also ‘destructive creation’ \cite{baumol_entrepreneurship:_1996,lucas_entrepreneurship:_2017}. Prohibiting innovation altogether may not be desirable \cite{sarewitz_anticipatory_2011}, but responsible, adaptive and integrated management of the innovation process should have ‘ethics' as a design principle. Prospective assessments should (move beyond forecasting and) ask ‘what if’ and ‘how could’ questions (Myers 2007), ideally in light of (even unexpected) implications. As a particular approach of technology governance, it can be differentiated from reactive governance, including conventional risk assessments of emerging technologies that only address social and environmental risk and hazard \cite{boenink_anticipating_2013,guston_understanding_2014}.Anticipatory governance of emerging technologiesAnticipatory governance has been applied to anticipate the emergence of nanotechnology \cite{barben_anticipatory_2008,karinen_toward_2009}, and more recently, to deal with other emerging technologies such as carbon nanotubes \cite{philbrick_anticipatory_2010}, geoengineering \cite{foley_toward_2015}, synthetic biology \cite{wiek_sustainability_2012}, and solar radiation management \cite{low_engineering_2017}. Guston defines anticipatory governance as a "broad-based capacity extended through society that can act on a variety of inputs to manage emerging knowledge-based technologies while such management is still possible" \cite{Guston_2014} . \citet{barben_anticipatory_2008} (pp. 992-993) use a similar definition: "the ability of a variety of lay and expert stakeholders [...] to collectively imagine, critique, and thereby shape the issues presented by emerging technologies before they become reified in particular ways".The terms used in both definitions ("while such management is still possible", "before they become reified") refer to the so-called so-called Collingridge dilemma: first the social consequences of emerging technologies are unclear, and when they become clearer, it is already too late to act on them due to path-dependence and technological lock-in \cite{Mittelstadt_2015a} . The basic assumption is the one shared in all foresight work, that early anticipatory action is better than reacting later when problems and crises have already emerged. Therefore government agencies and technology developers are increasingly expected to anticipate possible consequences of technology development and to make informed decisions.An easy answer to the anticipatory dilemma would be that the design of an innovation itself should be safe. And indeed, emerging technologies often need safeguards from 'evident' identifiable issues. Off-road vehicles lacked rollover protection and environmentally hazardous lead was widely used in gasoline \cite{myers_anticipation_2007}. Now, the first drone accidents are seen only as a matter of time, they are 'anticipated'. Another dilemma are 'unforeseen' impacts of emerging technologies, consequences experienced only long after technological development. The harms of asbestos, DDT, or plastic waste in oceans were only realized decades later. Social media algorithms also undermine ability to focus. Diverging from our 'lock-in' to fossil fuel technologies may now be too late, if at all possible - anymore.In the following sections, we will discuss central themes which we have identified from the literature on anticipatory governance. As anticipatory governance aims to build capacities in foresight (open-ended instead of predictive), engagement and integration (of social science and humanities research with emerging technologies) \cite{guston_anticipatory_2010,guston_understanding_2014}, we have chosen participation as the overarching theme because it brings together many of the more specific issues related to anticipatory governance of emerging technologies.Participation in governance of emerging technologiesParticipation is a key theme in anticipatory governance of emerging technologies. Some level of participation is implicit already in the governance concept, and the future orientation adds another layer of participation, as foresight is usually envisioned as a participatory process. Governance of emerging technologies is an increasingly multi-actor exercise. In particular, citizens and civil society actors are expected to participate in the development of emerging technologies from an early stage ('upstream' engagement) \cite{Krabbenborg_2015} . One example of participatory co-design is that in research workshops, researchers and students align their research towards socially valuable targets \cite{Karinen_2009}. In general terms, actors can be divided into government actors, industry actors and civil society actors. \citet{Wiek_2007} expand this categorization to include 10 types of actors in the case of nanotechnology: industry, consultants, insurers, investors, public research institutes, government regulatory agencies, government research funding agencies, NGOs and media. In any case, the actor network is complex.The three pillars of anticipatory governance (foresight, engagement and integration) were mentioned earlier. This section focuses specifically on the engagement part, raising key themes and issues that were found in the literature search. Engagement is a rising trend in anticipatory governance of emerging technologies, at least on the level of discourse. In recent decades, participation in governance of technologies has evolved from increasing the public's level of knowledge, a one-way educating activity, into engaging the public in a two-way dialogue \cite{Flear_2012} . In a discussion of styles of governance, \citet{Read_2015} unite 'anticipatory' and 'open' into the same style of governance, meaning broad stakeholder participation and identifying emerging risks and opportunities. The other style of governance is formal, reactive and closed. Involving citizens early in the design process is expected to contribute new perspectives, experiences and dilemmas \cite{Krabbenborg_2015} . One key reason for conducting technology assessment in a participatory and deliberative manner is that non-experts may make sense of technology in unexpected ways \cite{Selin_2011} .However, participation is not a simple solution, and as is common with wicked problems, the solutions may raise new ethical issues. As \citet{Sturgis_2014} puts it, "as the participatory movement attempts the awkward transition from high theory to complex and messy practice, a number of dilemmas are encountered which problematise the notion of public engagement as a potential solution to the 'wicked' problems of science governance". On the general level, participatory governance of emerging technologies is 'ethical' in two senses. Firstly, the foresight exercises try to uncover possible future ethical and social issues related to the technology in question. Secondly, there are ethical questions related to the participatory methods that are used, such as unequal distribution of power. There are even arguments for challenging the exercise of anticipatory governance. For instance, critics have pointed out that the perspective of anticipatory governance may contribute to the hubris of technoscience (Boenink 2013, Guston 2014).Deep uncertainty and decision-makingThe central challenge in anticipatory governance is the uncertainty of future consequences. If outcomes were easily and accurately calculable in advance, foresight would be a kind of optimization exercise where the best course of action could be decided relatively easily. However, this is not the case. Even though technology experts are involved in the process, nobody can claim to know with certainty the long-term consequences of developing technology in a particular direction. In this context, a distinction is often made between risk, where the probabilities of possible outcomes are known or predictable, and uncertainty , where probabilities are unknown. In anticipatory governance, we are dealing with techno-scientific expectations which are future-oriented abstractions: intentions, goals, hopes and proposals \cite{Lucivero_2011} . To leap from such uncertain expectations to firm judgments and policy decisions is problematic. How can decision-makers take decisive steps based on uncertain anticipatory knowledge?Making claims about future states is problematic from an epistemological point of view, as futures researchers have acknowledged for decades. There is a kind of triple uncertainty involved: firstly, we cannot predict future outcomes; secondly, we cannot always know what is a good future; and thirdly, we do not know what actions should be taken to reach this future \cite{Mittelstadt_2015a} . These problems were already noted by Malaska, who asked to what extent futures are knowable, to what extent we can shape the course of the future, and to what extent we can choose aims and goals according to our values \cite{Malaska_2001} . Outcomes of technologies regarding culture and society are particularly uncertain. Potential societal issues are not simply 'out there' to be found, but they co-evolve in the interplay between technology development and its use by societal actors \cite{Krabbenborg_2015} . To some extent, futurists themselves are creating and promoting social issues by articulating them, that is, 'speaking them into existence'.Even though there is radical uncertainty regarding future outcomes, some steps can be taken to at least clarify currently existing future claims of those participating in future discourse. \citet{Mittelstadt_2015a} argue that uncertain normative claims must be translated in order to be comprehensible to other stakeholders in discourse, and suggest Habermas' discourse ethics as a framework that can solve the problem of uncertainty in making normative future claims. In practice, they suggest breaking normative claims into constituent parts and questioning the validity of each part in discourse. The underlying notion is similar to the epistemic implication model that Wendell Bell discusses: the evidence base for normative claims should be made explicit and questioned \cite{bell1997foundations} .In a similar manner, \citet{Lucivero_2011} argue that statements about expectations can be broken down into three types of claims: about characteristics and functioning of technology, about how technology will be adopted and integrated into practice, and about how technology will address a social problem or need. The implication is that discussion on societal aspects of technology need to assess not only technical feasibility but also usability and desirability of expected technologies. The third aspect is perhaps the most challenging, because morality evolves over time and the public perception of future technologies is difficult to assess beforehand. Nevertheless, there are suggestions that future ethical controversies can be systematically explored \cite{Lucivero_2011} .Means of participationAnother central question is the 'how' question of participation. The means of promoting participation are highly important because badly executed participation may in fact be harmful. For instance, it may produce recommendations that are not representative of the views of the public \cite{Sturgis_2014} . On the other hand, citizen participation may actually be used as a technique for regulating, co-opting and pacifying publics \cite{barben_anticipatory_2008,Flear_2012} . In this case, open dialogue is only illusory and the hidden agenda is to legitimate a development path that has already been decided. One literature source expresses this agenda rather well: "Participation is a technology to build trust and promote consumption in the marketplace, rather than regulate innovation" \cite{Flear_2012} . In addition, social science researchers themselves may be viewed as instruments of governance, raising difficult questions of reflexivity and being part of the social world that is studied \cite{barben_anticipatory_2008} . The contemporary view of scholars on public engagement in science is that it is necessary for scientists and the public to meet as directly as possible in an open and equal exchange of views, which is of course easier said than done \cite{Sturgis_2014} . Challenges regarding means of participation may arise not only from hidden agendas but also pragmatic concerns such as the availability of time and resources for participation. Under economic pressure to ensure efficient use of public participation, certain discourses about technologies are given precedence. As a consequence, contrary and pessimistic voices are easily undermined and seen as counterproductive \cite{Flear_2012} .Identifying "relevant stakeholders"Participatory and anticipatory governance requires engaging relevant stakeholders, which raises the challenge of separating relevant from irrelevant stakeholders. Who are legitimate sources of futuristic technology visions \cite{barben_anticipatory_2008}? Making these distinctions is challenging given the broad societal focus of anticipatory governance. The concept of 'the public' is particularly problematic. There is no single 'public' that is already out there to be consulted. Instead, there are multiple publics which organize around a specific issue when broad societal concerns emerge, for instance when technoscientific objectives are seen as threatening \cite{Jasanoff_2014,Krabbenborg_2015}. This perspective raises a challenge for anticipatory governance: how deep should public participation be? It is relatively easy to identify relevant NGOs and civil society organizations, but it is more difficult to identify more amorphous publics that emerge around specific concerns. In practical terms, who should be invited to a workshop on a technology that potentially concerns everyone including future generations? An added challenge is how this public can be consulted in an anticipatory manner, if the issues have not yet fully emerged and thus issue-oriented publics have not yet been formed. In theory, the workshop organizer would need to anticipate which individuals and groups may become part of the concerned group regarding a certain technology, but there is clearly a significant risk of mistakes.Assigning roles and responsibilities in the actor networkA question that is closely related to identifying stakeholders is the distribution of roles and responsibilities in the complex actor network. According to some authors, the distribution of roles between technology developers and civil society actors is currently seen in overly simple terms. Civil society actors are expected to recognize societal concerns which have in fact not yet emerged, and technology developers are expected to know factual future outcomes \cite{Krabbenborg_2015}. Nonetheless, the contemporary view is that governance of emerging technologies requires more than 'technocratic' risk management by technology experts \cite{Wiek_2007} .The actor network, like technologies and issues, is continuously evolving. Even identifying the current state of the actor network is difficult, let alone projecting future actor networks. \citet{Wiek_2007} suggest agent network analysis as an approach to identify agents, functions and roles in governance of emerging technologies.\citet{Mittelstadt_2015a} , who argue that claims about future consequences need to be 'translated' in public discourse, put a great deal of emphasis on the facilitators of this translation: ethicists, scientists, developers and other experts. This communication role is clearly necessary for these experts, but it implies new kinds of communication skills which experts need to learn. Of course, this role gives great power to experts and may lead to conflicts of interest \cite{Mittelstadt_2015a} . The translation of claims also implies that members of the public need to trust experts to truthfully translate the claims to language understandable by non-experts. In recent times, this trust in experts has been increasingly questioned.\citet{Lucivero_2011} write about the situatedness of judgments relating to futures. An expert may be in a good position to judge claims on technological feasibility, but a lay audience is better equipped to examine societal plausibility and desirability. \citet{Papilloud_2014} similarly divides the anticipatory governance issue into safety and desirability components in such a manner that scientists and industry are responsible for safety, which is innovation and product-oriented, and political authorities and civil society, in turn, are responsible for desirability, which is usage-oriented.The question of mediating between (hard) science and society is a recurring theme in the literature. \citet{Krabbenborg_2015} and \citet{Mittelstadt_2015a} both suggest that third parties such as philosophers and social scientists are useful in mediating between technology experts and the broader public. \citet{Lucivero_2011} argue that ethicists can play a mediating role by broadening discussions both horizontally, by including different sources of information and stakeholders, and vertically, by feeding the discussions with historical knowledge. \citet{barben_anticipatory_2008} mention science museums, such as the Science Museum of London, as a central intermediary actor. The idea seems to be that these third parties can be somewhat more objective in balancing different interest groups and assessing future claims.The question of roles in the anticipatory governance network is closely connected to the schools of thought identified by \citet{Tapio_2002} . We are unaware of any systematic comparisons between anticipatory governance approaches and schools of thought in futures research. However, it seems that contemporary anticipatory governance approaches are placed in the schools of "pluralistic humanism", "polling democracy" and "critical pragmatism", depending on the level of participation \cite{Tapio_2002} . The role of professionals is strong, and knowledge of possible futures is seen as relatively objective and certainly not purely relativistically.A challenge in the distribution of roles is that participation may place too much burden on citizens, some of whom may be unwilling to participate or unable to clearly articulate their values, opinions and concerns. From a critical point of view, by emphasizing citizens' agency, citizens may made to feel responsible for failures of technologies \cite{Flear_2012}.The role of scenarios in anticipatory governance of technologiesAnticipatory governance is divided into three dimensions: foresight, engagement and integration. We now turn to scenario methods, which are a prominent theme in the anticipatory governance literature (as well as futures studies). Scenarios, used as a tool for indirectly exploring the future of society and its institutions \cite{Bradfield_2005}, are central to anticipatory governance because they relate to both the foresight and engagement aspects.Roughly two kinds of scenario approaches are promoted in the anticipatory governance literature. Some scenario studies emphasize systematic and formalized foresight methods, others focus more on engagement and participation. In other words, some scenario processes are designed to rely more on formal methods and desk research, while others utilize more intuitive methods and participation, as is also noted by general discussions of different 'scenario schools' \cite{van_Notten_2003,Bradfield_2005}. Wiek et al. (2009) argue for the use of rigorous scenario methodology for sustainable governance of emerging technologies, claiming that previously scenarios have been based on intuitive expert-based visions. A rigorous approach, for them, means a formalized analysis including a software-assisted cluster analysis and consistency analysis. \citet{Cummings_2017} develop an approach to evaluate synthetic biology risks using scenarios, policy Delphi and multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), a formal decision analysis method.On the 'engagement' side, the NanoFutures project created an online discussion forum and a wiki site to test and develop scenarios in an 'open source' manner (Selin 2011) . Similarly, \citet{Krabbenborg_2015} presents the example of the NanoCap project where socio-technical scenarios of action-reaction patterns were used as external input to start discussion. She argues that scenarios were used as a platform for actors to articulate issues and deal with them by adapting their norms, values, roles and responsibilities \cite{Krabbenborg_2015} .The formal and intuitive/participatory scenario approaches need not be seen as conflicting. According to \citet{Godet_2000} , the rational and heuristic scenario planning schools are actually complementary, that is, they mutually support one another. The general point is that scenarios do not need to be constrained by forecasting; they can also account for non-linear developments and sudden, unexpected events. From a scenario planning perspective, the challenge in anticipatory governance scenarios is that the actor network is complex and there is no single focal actor whose strategy is considered. The 'focal issue' is often also a broad problem area rather than a single key decision such as whether to invest or not to invest.The use of scenarios in anticipatory governance is clearly fruitful, like the issue of participation, it carries risks and challenges. One interesting use of scenarios is on the meta-level, to investigate the futures of technology governance itself, as in one study of nanotechnology governance \cite{Read_2015} . In this case, the scenarios were formed with the standard scenario axes approach, using focal questions and critical uncertainties (style of governance, scope of governance, perception of public perception). As one irony, \citet{barben_anticipatory_2008} point out that concentrating on future scenarios rather than on current practices can signify a trade-off in investing resources in “transformative" research at the expense of addressing current ills.ConclusionAnticipation seems to share joint epistemological and normative premises with futures studies: when thinking of an anticipatory system, this seems to imply an aim where not individual agents only, but communities or societies more broadly, as societal systems, are 'futures conscious'. This seemingly relates anticipatory systems and organisational learning. This is, perhaps, roughly what \citet{poli_complexity_2009} Poli (2009) means, when he suggests that anticipatory systems have a capacity to even anticipate their own evolution. Anticipatory governance is foremost used to explore emerging technologies. Hereby, anticipatory governance implicitly explores an 'idea' or 'ideals' of how innovations 'could' or 'should be', by reflecting innovation processes (or scientific discovery) with societal expectations. In practice, the basic issue regarding anticipatory governance of emerging technologies is how to facilitate discourse around complex issues between different actors: technology developers, researchers, governments, civil society actors and citizens. In this sense, governance,like futuresresearch,isinterested in 'preferred' futuresantici\cite{henchey_making_1978,amara_futures_1981}.There are evident challenges and shortcomings to the concept. There seems to be consensus that broad stakeholder participation is needed, but the practical implementation of this participation faces many difficult challenges, including identifying possible future ethical problems, engaging the public in an appropriate manner and balancing contradictory knowledge claims about the future. The challenges of anticipatory governance of technologies largely stem from the uncertainty that is inherent in the exercise. Future outcomes of scientific developments are uncertain, the issues that may emerge are unclear, it is unclear how to define the 'public' that should be consulted, and so on. Many of the effects of a technology, and how innovations and technologies come to shape ‘reality’, are only known afterwards. Another challenge of anticipatory governance is that new science/knowledge is constantly produced. The appeal to Habermasian discourse ethics \cite{Mittelstadt_2015a} is promising, but what if after informed and honest discussion, we simply cannot agree on the possible future, the good future, necessary actions or all three?As the motivation is about governing, anticipatory governance lacks a certain ‘creative’ \cite{Yunus_2015} feel, inherent with the process of innovation and discovery, but perhaps also because it does not seem to always adequately address complexity. Anticipatory governance seems to have addressed mainly the emergence of individual technologies (or groups of technologies) and engaged less with potential convergences of emerging technologies \cite{song_anticipation_2017} (see e.g. Glenn et al. 2015, Song et al. 2017) and broader (even speculative) paradigm shifts. In spite of tackling risk and uncertainty, anticipatory governance literature unsystematically addresses sustainability.In this task, anticipatory governance should escape narrow definitions and draw from futures research \cite{Boyd_2015}. The futures field is rarely mentioned in articles on these topics, even though the challenges, such as tackling complexity and uncertainty and ensuring fair and productive workshop practices, are similar in futures research and anticipatory governance. In addition to the theoretical connections Could futures research play the kind of 'third party' role which authors have suggested as necessary \cite{Krabbenborg_2015,Mittelstadt_2015a} ?the links between the literature could be more systematically explored to enable more Anticipatory governance is related to the grand challenges of our times, since technology plays an increasingly dominant role in our lives and in solving both large and small problems. For \citet*{Krabbenborg_2015} , creating better public engagement in technology development means nothing less than shaping our society in a more reflexive manner. Similarly, \citet{Flear_2012} argue that norms and values promoting a truly democratic European Union and a public consisting of reflexive agents need to be designed into the processes of participation.Appendix: Statement describing the work divisionThe division of work was roughly as follows.Joni Karjalainen wrote Sections 1-3 consisting of introduction, background, the definition of 'anticipatory governance', and distinguishing anticipatory governance from other fields. Section 4 on anticipatory governance of emerging technologies was written jointly.Matti Minkkinen wrote the sub-sections 4.1-4.4 on the themes of participation in governance of emerging technologies.Matti Minkkinen wrote the most part of Section 5on scenarios, supplemented by Joni Karjalainen.The conclusions were drawn together.Joni Karjalainen, BrightonMatti Minkkinen, Turku7 June 2017Addition sources (keep & see if need to use, remove in the end):Adams V Murphy M Clarke AE (2009) Anticipation: Technoscience life affect temporality. Subjectivity 28: 246–265. Al-Qasimi N (2011) Anticipatory governance queer difference and the Emirati post-oil generation. Presentation at the UCLA Center for Near Eastern Studies Los Angeles CA 10 January.Callon M Lascoumes P Barthe Y (2009) Acting in an Uncertain World: An Essay on Technical Democracy. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Dupuy J-P (2007) Complexity and uncertainty: A prudential approach to nanotechnology. In: Allhoff F Lin P Moor J Weckert J (eds) Nanoethics: The Ethical and Social Implications of Nanotechnology. Hoboken NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc. pp. 119–131.Irwin A (2008) STS perspectives on scientific governance. In: Hackett EJ AmsterdamskaO Lynch M Wajcman J (eds)The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press pp. 583–607.Owen R Macnaghten P Stilgoe J (2012) Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society with society. Science and Public Policy 39(6): 751–760. Google Scholar CrossRefRobert JS Miller CA Milleson V (2013) Introduction: Ethics and anticipatory governance of nano-neurotechnological convergence. In: Hays SA Robert JS Miller CA Bennett I (eds) The Yearbook of Nanotechnology:Nanotechnology the Brain and the Future vol. III. New York: Springer pp. 1–17. Google ScholarToffler A (1975) What is anticipatory democracy? The Futurist (October): 224–229
