Responsible Research and Innovation and the Governance of Human Enhancement

Abstract

This article aims to explore the debate on human enhancement (HE) from the perspective of the evolutions of responsibility paradigms, and in particular from the perspective of the so-called Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) approach. The aim is not to explore the arguments pro or contra the ethical legitimacy and/or technical feasibility of human enhancement, but rather exploring if, and how, RRI perspective can shape the debate on human enhancement (and vice-versa). In particular, the human enhancement debate will be read through the lenses of four main responsibility paradigms we sketch by examining both the historical and conceptual evolution of the responsibility idea, as well as the dynamics of its ascription. In order to provide a useful scheme for interpreting human enhancement, RRI will be characterised as a distinctive responsibility model that can subsequently be used to frame the debate on HE with a particular emphasis on its normative implications, as well as on its social and political significance.

Assessment of Responsible Innovation

“…According to , science is now developed in a "post-normal" scenario. For Gorgoni (2018), the intensification of consequences in terms of both time and space has shifted foresight exercises from dealing with uncertainty to navigating in indeterminacy. The transition from a curiosity-driven method to a problem-oriented one, where knowledge and decisions are not detachable, together with the growth of complexity, has made it difficult to exclude values and interests from scientific research (Arnaldi & Bianchi 2016;Funtowicz & Ravetz 2008;Jasanoff 2004).…”

“…The focus on soft regulations which RRI seems to encourage can be considered a weakening factor because it relies on the willingness of actors to commit, implying a concrete level of arbitrariness, which can undermine its regulatory force (Wickson & Forsberg 2015). At the same time, such openness can represent a potential strength because of the capacity to be adapted to different contexts by a larger number of actors (Gorgoni 2018).…”

Models of Anticipation Within the Responsible Research and Innovation Framework: the Two RRI Approaches and the Challenge of Human Rights

“…This implies the use of old and new tools such as agency, networking, consultations, soft law tools such as self-regulation, guidelines, codes of conduct, recommendations, certification systems, social dialogue and public fora that are alternatively (or jointly) used together with recourse to hard legislation. It develops in modes that facilitate dialogue and coordination among several levels of government by privileging, when it is feasible, the lowest possible level, in order to extend deliberation among stakeholders and provide some degree of democratic legitimacy ( [45] At least two approaches can be addressed here: a socio-empirical approach which tends to underline the role of democratic processes aimed at identifying societal values on which governance needs to be anchored; and a normative one which stresses the role of constitutional goals, among which are fundamental rights, as 'normative anchor points' of governance ( [18,19,50], 263). 6 The first approach is based on the belief that societal values, in which all governance measures are anchored, can be built bottom-up, through participatory means.…”

Retooling Techno-Moral Scenarios. A Revisited Technique for Exploring Alternative Regimes of Responsibility for Human Enhancement

“…The paradigm of safety (Bparadigm of precaution^, in Gorgoni's article for this special section [31]) is centred on the idea of precaution. The paradigm of fault assumes an identifiable author or a discernible causal chain to assign responsibilities.…”

“…This section is based on Arnaldi and Gorgoni[30]. See also Gorgoni, in this journal issue, for a very similar, but not identical, description of responsibility paradigms[31].Nanoethics (2018) 12:283-300…”