The Technolife project: an experimental approach to new ethical frameworks for emerging science and technology

Abstract

This paper presents the development of an experimental methodology for empirical and participatory ethics of science and technology. It is designed to detect, understand and mediate public concerns. Science and technology evolve rapidly as a result of their internal dynamics as well as the optimization of subsidy for research and innovation in recent times.Ethical frameworks for governing these developments are confronted with considerable tensions in mediating the velocity of new innovations while securing more robust institutional guarantees in order to manage and regulate in time. We argue that existing frameworks need to evolve to become more sensitive to the diversity of technological and societal challenges, of envisioning futures, and of what counts as legitimate concerns. For this reason, we give socio-technical imaginaries a key role in developing an ethical framework. Our experimental approach is seeking to establish criteria for mediating a wide range of public opinion in ways that can become embedded in legitimate, institutional procedures. Our methodological approach is also seeking to mediate between lay ethics and the discourse of professional ethicists, recognizing the fragmented character of both. We draw on theoretical constructs in current STS research, notably, those dealing with complex relations between communities, real or imagined, and the rise of new publics whose voices can be distilled and heard through mediating channels. This experimental methodology forms the central component of an ongoing European Union FP7-funded project, TECHNOLIFE. 1

Probing uncertainty levels of electrification in informal urban settlements: A case from South Africa

“…The choice of technology is intrinsically linked to the social organisation and structure where this technology is used. For this reason, Rommetveit and colleagues speak of socio-technical structures (Rommetveit et al, 2013). We argue that upgrading policies not only fail to address higher levels of uncertainty, but by doing so also fail to address the socio-political adjustments (Benessia & Funtowicz, 2013) required by complex transitions.…”

Methods for Practising Ethics in Research and Innovation: A Literature Review, Critical Analysis and Recommendations

“…Some sources especially focus on explicating the need to have methods for practising ethics in R&I and formulating concrete steps and criteria that should be part of such methods (Decker 2004;Palm and Hansson 2006;Skorupinski and Ott 2002;Swierstra and Rip 2007). Some of these sources especially focus on dealing with uncertainty when dealing with emerging technologies (Lucivero et al 2011;Rommetveit et al 2013;Sollie 2007) and the effects of practising ethics on R&I practices (Graffigna et al 2010). Sources also present and discuss specific methods for practising ethics in R&I, such as codes of ethics or checklist approaches (Verharen and Tharakan 2010), VSD, the ethical impact assessment (EIA) method (Wright 2011(Wright , 2014Wright and Friedewald 2013), ethical scenario methods (Boenink et al 2010;Ikonen et al 2012;Ikonen and Kaasinen 2008;Wright et al 2014), the network approach (Zwart et al 2006), the ethical matrix approach (Forsberg 2004(Forsberg , 2007Mepham et al 2006), the human practices (HP) approach (Balmer and Bulpin 2013), the anticipatory technology ethics (ATE) method (Brey 2012a, b), pro-ethical design (Floridi 2015), the walkshop approach (Wickson et al 2015) and the technological mediation approach (Verbeek 2006).…”

Imagining High-Tech Bodies

“…Large-scale research initiatives such as the European Union’s framework programs are predicated on the creation of visions and scenarios as to desired future developments, which are articulated by policy makers, entrepreneurs, and scientific visionaries. However, there is preciously little time, space, and opportunity open to wider groups and citizens for imagining alternative futures (Sardar, 2010) or for embedding ethical concerns within futures visions (Rommetveit, Gunnarsdottir, et al, in press). We think ethics debates would do wisely in considering such communicative aspects and not just the “goods” or “bads” of enhancement technologies.…”

“…Third, there is also a tendency, introduced in the early days of ethics, of maintaining a strong focus on individuals. Insofar as large-scale technological developments, such as converging technologies, also reconstruct whole communities and groups, the collective dimension should be brought to the fore (Rommetveit, Gunnarsdottir, et al, in press).…”