Ibo van de Poel and David E. Goldberg (eds): Philosophy and Engineering. An Emerging Agenda: Springer, The Netherlands, 2009, ISBN 978-90-481-2803-7/e-ISBN 978-90-481-2804-4

Values and TechnologyTechnology, Policy and Managemen

Responsible innovation 2: Concepts, approaches, and applications

This book discusses issues regarding conceptualization, governance and implementation of responsible innovation. It treats different approaches to making responsible innovation a reality and it contains new case studies that illustrate challenges and solutions. Research on Responsible Innovation is by its nature highly multidisciplinary, and also pro-active, design-oriented and policy-relevant. Until a few years back, the concept of Responsible Innovation was hardly used - nowadays it is increasingly receiving attention from both researchers and policy makers. This is indispensable reading for anyone interested in or working on innovation

The concepts, approaches, and applications of responsible innovation: An introduction

‘Responsible innovation’ is an increasingly popular term, but it is by no means clear what exactly this term refers to, nor how responsible innovation can or should be approached. This chapter provides an introduction to the landscape of responsible innovation, drawing from the contributions to this volume and an emerging body of literature. First, the concept of responsible innovation is explored: what does ‘responsible innovation’ refer to? The concept can be seen as an ideal, of incorporating social and ethical values or aspects in the innovation process, and as a project, a joint enterprise of an increasingly large community of people who want to bring us closer to this ideal. Next, approaches to responsible innovation are discussed: how can we go about innovating responsibly? While all approaches seem to have in common a key role for stakeholder engagement, one can distinguish two broad types of approaches to make innovation in a certain context more responsible. There is a product approach, characterised by a focus on developing some kind of output—a method, a framework, or guidelines; and a process approach, focused on developing some kind of procedure, usually with an element of self-learning. Subsequently, the current landscape of responsible innovation is briefly sketched: who is doing what in which areas? The chapter ends with explaining the structure of this edited volume and a brief tour through the chapters, which together provide a rich body of work that anticipates, reflects, deliberates, and responds to the challenges of responsible innovation

Editorial: ICT and the capability approach

Values and TechnologyTechnology, Policy and Managemen

Morally responsible decision making in networked military operations

Introducing responsible innovations on the battlefield requires a rethinking of social and psychological aspects of moral decision making on the battlefield, and in particular, including how these aspects are influenced by technology. In this chapter, the social aspects of moral decision making are accounted for in terms of the normative practices in which soldiers do their jobs. Soldiers on the battlefield are embedded in a very specific structure, and are expected to act according to rules, norms and procedures. Their actions are inspired by a certain worldview, which influences the way in which the rules, norms and procedures are interpreted. Technology, especially ICT, connects different practices on the battlefield, thereby creating a network of different (sub-)practices. This may cause a blurring or clashing of different norative practices, which affects moral decision making. In this chapter, Remotely Piloted Aircrafts (RPAs) are used as a case in point for technologically mediated moral decision making. The normative practice model gives insights in the social aspect of decision making in networked missions, but it does not pay attention to the role of the individual soldier in an in-depth way. Therefore an addition is needed, which focusses on the individual soldiers themselves. For the individual level, we take the psychological component of moral decision making and explain how this aspect is affected by technology. The model of normative practices is thus informed by insights from empirical psychology. Moral psychologists have empirically investigated how certain cues influence moral decision making. Some of the cues can be effectuated through technology. Social cognitive theory, as developed by Bandura (Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 1986), (Personality and Social Psychology Review 3(3):193-209, 1999) and moral intensity theory developed by Jones (Academy of Management Review 16(2):366-395, 1991) are theories that explain moral decision making mechanisms in terms of respectively moral (dis)engagement mechanisms and the perceived moral intensity of a situation. From both theories we infer how visual data sharing technologies can increase or decrease morally appropriate decision making in networked enabled operations

Is Pogge a Capability Theorist in Disguise?: A Critical Examination of Thomas Pogge’s Defence of Rawlsian Resourcism

Thomas Pogge answers the question if the capability approach can be justified with a firm ‘no’. Amongst others, he ridicules capability theorists for demanding compensation for each and every possible natural difference between people, including hair types. Not only does Pogge, so this paper argues, misconstrue the difference between the capability approach and Rawlsian resourcism. Even worse: he is actually implicitly relying on the idea of capabilities in his defence of the latter. According to him the resourcist holds that the institutional order should not be biased towards the average person or the needs of some. Yet, as his own case of blind people and traffic lights can illustrate, whether or not this is the case is impossible to assess without resorting to some concept like people’s capabilities. Secondly, it is argued that the real issue at stake is not at all the best metric of justice— primary goods or capabilities—but rather the scope of theories of justice. On the surface the difference of opinion seems to be how to deal with so-called “personal heterogeneities”, yet the discussed case of interpersonal differences in metabolism and communal land-use choices hints at something else; Whereas Pogge insists that questions of justice only concern the institutional structure of society, many capability theorists support the inclusion of culture and social practices as possible sources of injustice. Unfortunately Pogge does not properly acknowledge this, as right from the start of his paper he frames the debate between both approaches in terms of institutions only.Values, Technology & InnovationTechnology, Policy and Managemen