Health technology often moves faster than the institutions expected to oversee it. Artificial intelligence, genomic tools, connected devices and converging biological technologies can promise better care while also creating uncertainty about safety, equity, privacy, accountability and public trust.
A new technical tool developed jointly by the World Health Organization and the OECD argues that governance should begin before a technology is treated as inevitable. TArGET Health, published on 10 November 2026, is designed to help public authorities and other stakeholders examine a specific emerging-technology case and decide what kind of oversight may be appropriate.
Start with a defined technology case
The tool does not ask users to judge “AI in health” or “genomics” in the abstract. It asks them to define a concrete case: the technology or technology family, its intended use, the health problem or opportunity, the affected groups, its stage of development and the geographic and institutional setting.
That discipline matters. A clinical decision-support system used by specialists is not the same governance problem as a consumer chatbot. A gene-editing research platform is not the same as an approved therapy. Narrowing the case makes evidence gaps, responsibilities and possible harms easier to identify.
A three-step, iterative process
TArGET Health organizes the discussion into three recurring steps:
- Understand the case and clarify why governance may be needed.
- Assess it from different perspectives, including uncertainty, possible impact and the people or institutions affected.
- Consider governance interventions and decide what should be monitored or revisited as the technology changes.
The process is deliberately cyclical. An early assessment should not be treated as permanent because evidence, performance, social expectations and the technology itself can change after deployment.
Six dimensions make uncertainty visible
The WHO–OECD approach asks users to consider six dimensions: uncertainty; the likelihood and scale of impact; public concern or value conflict; the pace of technology emergence; strategic importance; and gaps in existing governance.
These are not a scoring shortcut. A “high” rating is not a validated quantitative risk score, and different assessors may reach different judgments. The value lies in recording the rationale, evidence gaps and perspectives behind each judgment.
Governance is broader than regulation
The tool lists ten categories of possible intervention. They include formal law, assessment bodies, professional standards, market assurance, public engagement, capacity building, international cooperation, innovation policy, state guidance and ways of shaping research and development.
That menu helps avoid a false choice between “approve” and “ban.” Some cases may require binding rules. Others may need monitoring, procurement standards, transparency requirements, professional training, stakeholder participation or a staged pilot with explicit stopping conditions.
What the tool does not do
The document is equally clear about its limits. It does not establish clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness. It does not replace regulatory review, health technology assessment, legal duties, ethics review or formal risk management. Its output depends on how well the case is defined, the quality of available evidence and whether affected groups and relevant expertise are represented.
For health organizations, that limitation is useful. Anticipatory governance is not a badge of safety. It is a structured way to ask better questions early, document uncertainty and revisit decisions before a promising technology becomes an unexamined dependency.
Source: WHO and OECD, TArGET Health, 10 November 2026.
Photo: National Cancer Institute / Unsplash. Used under the Unsplash License.
