Science and Technology Governance and Ethics - A Global Perspective from Europe, India and China

This book analyzes the possibilities for effective global governance of science in Europe, India and China. Authors from the three regions join forces to explore how ethical concerns over new technologies can be incorporated into global science and technology policies. The first chapter introduces the topic, offering a global perspective on embedding ethics in science and technology policy. Chapter Two compares the institutionalization of ethical debates in science, technology and innovation policy in three important regions: Europe, India and China. The third chapter explores public perceptions of science and technology in these same three regions. Chapter Four discusses public engagement in the governance of science and technology, and Chapter Five reviews science and technology governance and European values. The sixth chapter describes and analyzes values demonstrated in the constitution of the People’s Republic of China. Chapter Seven describes emerging evidence from India on the uses of science and technology for socio-economic development, and the quest for inclusive growth. In Chapter Eight, the authors propose a comparative framework for studying global ethics in science and technology. The following three chapters offer case studies and analysis of three emerging industries in India, China and Europe: new food technologies, nanotechnology and synthetic biology. Chapter 12 gathers all these threads for a comprehensive discussion on incorporating ethics into science and technology policy. The analysis is undertaken against the backdrop of different value systems and varying levels of public perception of risks and benefits. The book introduces a common analytical framework for the comparative discussion of ethics at the international level. The authors offer policy recommendations for effective collaboration among the three regions, to promote responsible governance in science and technology and a common analytical perspective in ethics

Responsible innovation: bringing together technology assessment, applied ethics, and STS research

The ideas of ‘responsible development’ in the scientific-technological advance and of ‘responsible innovation’ in the field of new products, services and systems have been discussed for some years now with increasing intensity (Siune et al. 2009) and led to the phrase of ‘Responsible Research and Innovation’ (RRI). The postulate of responsible innovation adds explicit ethical reflection to Technology Assessment (TA) and science, technology and society (STS) studies and includes all of them into integrative approaches to shaping technology and innovation. Responsible innovation brings together TA with its experiences on assessment procedures, actor involvement, foresight and evaluation with ethics, in particular under the framework of responsibility, and also builds on the body of knowledge about R&D and innovation processes provided by STS and STIS studies (science, technology, innovation and society). Ethical reflection and technology assessment are increasingly taken up as integrative part of R&D programmes (Siune et al. 2009). Science institutions, including research funding agencies, have started taking a pro-active role in promoting integrative research and development. Thus, the governance of science and of R&D processes is changing which opens up new possibilities and opportunities for involving new actors and new types of reflection. In this paper I want to demonstrate at a more conceptual level that Responsible Innovation can build on experiences and knowledge provided by the three mentioned fields of research: ethics, technology assessment, and STS respective STIS studies. To this end I will start by a brief analysis of the thematic dimensions included in the notion of responsibility and the respective disciplinary approaches to explore and investigate them (Sec. 2). The field of technology assessment is then introduced as a major origin of the Responsible Innovation movement including already some of the main ideas behind Responsible Innovation (Sec. 3). Based on the TA tradition Responsible Innovation may be characterized as a broadened extension of technology assessment complemented by ethics and STS (Sec. 4). As an illustration, the field of Synthetic Biology is introduced (Sec. 5)

Risk, responsibility, rights, regulation and representation in the value chain of nano-products

This chapter reports on a research project which addresses one key question and a number of sub-questions. The key question is, what are the salient dimensions of the commercialisation and governance of nano-enabled products, covering regulation, risks, responsibilities, consumer rights, and representations to the consumer? The sub-question, and the particular focus of this paper is, how are nano-enabled products destined for consumer markets labelled and marketed? Within this more specifically, how do producers perceive and strategically target consumers, and communicate with them (or not) about the nano-component of their products? Then, does the way that consumers are conceived of and understood by different actors along the value chain change in terms of how the product is marketed? Finally, what are the ethical, governance and regulatory implications of the answers to these questions? The chapter builds on an ongoing collaborative project between SIFO (Norway's National Institute for Consumer Research) and the Manchester Institute of Innovation Research at Manchester Business School, UK. The work is a comparison of ethical aspects in the marketing of nanoproducts in Norway and the UK. This chapter provides preliminary findings and some reflections based on empirical material; an analysis of web-based and other communications, interviews along the value chain, i.e. with producers, importers , retailers and other 'intermediaries'; and eight group discussions across the two countries focussing on cosmetics and textiles. © 2009 The authors and IOS Press. All rights reserved

On the Dual Uses of Science and Ethics Principles, Practices, and Prospects

Ethics, humanity, techonolog

Ethical Perspectives on Synthetic Biology

International audienceSynthetic biologists are extremely concerned with responsible research and innovation. This paper critically assesses their culture of responsibility. Their notion of responsibility has been so far focused on the identification of risks, and in their prudential attitude synthetic biologists consider that the major risks can be prevented with technological solutions. Therefore they are globally opposed to public interference or political regulations and tend to self-regulate by bringing a few social scientists or ethicists on board. This article emphasizes that ethics lies beyond prudence and requires a cultural evaluation of the modes of existence of the various microorganisms designed by synthetic biologists, independently of their potential applications

The Role of Science in Nanotechnology Decision-making: Toward Evidence-based Policy Making

abstract: Science can help inform policy decisions by providing information on the risks and benefits of a technology. In the field of nanotechnology, which is characterized by high degree of complexity and uncertainty, there are high demands for scientists to take an active role in policy debates with regulators, policy-makers and the public. In particular, policy-makers often rely on scientific experts to help them make decisions about regulations. However, scientists’ perceptions about policy and public engagement vary based on their individual characteristics, values, and backgrounds. Although many policy actors are involved in nanotechnology policy process, there are few empirical studies that focus on the establishment of coalitions and their impact on policy outputs, as well as the role of scientists in the coalitions. Also, while the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has regulatory authority over nanoscale materials, there is a lack of literature that describes the use of science on EPA’s decision making of nanotechnology. In this dissertation, these research gaps are addressed in three essays that explore the following research questions: (1) how are nano-scientists’ individual characteristics and values associated with their perceptions of public engagement and political involvement? (2) how can the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) can be applied to nanotechnology policy subsystem? and (3) how does the EPA utilize science when making regulatory decisions about nanotechnology? First, using quantitative data from a 2011 mail survey of elite U.S. nanoscientists, the dissertation shows that scientists are supportive of engaging with policy-makers and the public about their results. However, there are differences among scientists based on their individual characteristics. Second, qualitative interview analysis suggests that there are two opposing advocacy groups with shared beliefs in the nanotechnology policy subsystem. The lineup of coalition members is stable over time, while the EPA advocates less consistent positions. The interview data also show a significant role of scientific information in the subsystem. Third, the dissertation explains the EPA’s internal perspective about the use of science in regulatory decision making for nanotechnology. The dissertation concludes with some lessons that are applicable for policy-making for emerging technologies.Dissertation/ThesisDoctoral Dissertation Public Administration and Policy 201

The Ambivalence of Promising Technology

Issues of responsibility in the world of nanotechnology are becoming explicit with the emergence of a discourse on ‘responsible development’ of nanoscience and nanotechnologies. Much of this discourse centres on the ambivalences of nanotechnology and of promising technology in general. Actors must find means of dealing with these ambivalences. Actors’ actions and responses to ambivalence are shaped by their position and context, along with strategic games they are involved in, together with other actors. A number of interviews were conducted with industrial actors with the aim of uncovering their ethical stances towards responsible development of nanotechnology. The data shows that standard repertoires of justification of nanotechnological development were used. Thus, the industrial actors fell back on their position and associated responsibilities. Such responses reinforce a division of moral labour in which industrial actors and scientists can focus on the progress of science and technology, while other actors, such as NGOs, are expected to take care of broader considerations, such as ethical and social issues

Imagining Responsibility, Imagining Responsibly: Reflecting on Our Shared Understandings of Science

If we cannot define science using only analysis or description, then we must rely on imagination to provide us with suitable objects of philosophical inquiry. This process links our findings to the particular ways in which we philosophers idealize scientific practice and carve out an experimental space between real world practice and thought experiments. As an example, I examine Heather Douglas’ recent work on the responsibilities of scientists and contrast her account of science with that of “technoscience,” as mobilized in nanotechnology, synthetic biology, and similar control-oriented fields. The difference between the two idealizations of science reveals that one’s preferred imaginary of science, even when inspired by real practices, has real implications for the distribution of responsibility. Douglas’ account attributes moral obligations to scientists, while a framework of “technoscience” spreads responsibility across the network of practice. I use this case to call for an ethics of imagination, in which philosophers of science hold themselves accountable for their imaginaries. We ought reflect on the idiosyncrasy of the philosophical imagination and consider how our idealizations, if widely held, would affect our fellow citizens