/
Introduction to RRI+ Introduction to RRI+

Introduction to RRI+ - PowerPoint Presentation

stefany-barnette
stefany-barnette . @stefany-barnette
Follow
379 views
Uploaded On 2016-10-13

Introduction to RRI+ - PPT Presentation

Arie Rip University of Twente Responsibility Forum Workshop Brussels 11 February 2014 Why are we here Because the European Commission is drawing on the term Responsible Research and Inovation in its activities and is pushing nudging to get it implemented ID: 475219

society responsible rri research responsible society research rri evolving arrangements level moral labour innovation discourse division agencies actors technologies

Share:

Link:

Embed:

Download Presentation from below link

Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Introduction to RRI+" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.


Presentation Transcript

Slide1

Introduction to RRI+

Arie Rip

(University of Twente)

Responsibility Forum Workshop

Brussels, 11 February 2014Slide2

Why are we here?Because the European Commission is drawing on the term ‘Responsible Research and Inovation’ in its activities and is pushing (“nudging”) to get it implemented

So a top-down dynamic ...

But a variety of actors are keen to link up with RRI

Not only philosophers and sociologists who see new intellectual business opportunitiesSlide3

A multi-level phenomenonAn umbrella term;

with

a

variety of governance arrangements and practices underneath it

So different levels:

-

policy and societal discourse;

- institutions and arrangements;

- ongoing/evolving practices (of scientists, industrialists, also civil society actors)

Interaction between

levels

Also broader contexts and secular changes

(recontextualization of science in society; unwillingness to accept every new technology)Slide4

Responsible innovation, at different levels

Macro-level: societal discourse

policy

Ideas about future world; division of moral labour

EU Code of Conduct for Responsible NanoST Research

Meso-level:

funding agencies

branch organzations consortia

[New roles/repertoires]

Dutch MVI;

extended

impact statements

code of conduct etc

ELSA as integral part; Constructive Techn. Ass’t

Micro-level:

scientists (in the lab)

Industrialists/firms

“relevance”, ‘fictive script’

Corp. Social Resp., transparencySlide5

Shaping responsible development

Nanotechnology – exploiting technoscientific opportunities while being ‘responsible’ (whatever that may mean)

Pressure from policy level to do so, but also initiatives from nanoscience consortia (TA in Dutch

NanoNed and NanoNext )

May be impression management, but this can/will have implications

Nano-labs start presenting themselves as responsibleSlide6

Thanks to Erik Fisher, STIR project, for drawing my attention to this poster.Slide7

Pan back to the 1530s

In 1531 the Italian mathematician Nicola

Tartaglia

developed a theory about the relation between the angle of the shot and where the cannon ball would come down. He thought of publishing the theory, but reconsidered: “The perfection of an art that hurts our brethren, and brings about the collapse of humanity, in particular Christians, in the wars they fight against each other, is not acceptable to God and to society.” So he burned his papers (he had told his assistant

Cardano

about his theory, and

Cardano

published it a few years later).

But he changed his position, as he described in his 1538 book

Nova

Scientia

. “The situation has changed, with the Turks threatening Vienna and also Northern Italy, and our princes and pastors joining in a common defence. I should not keep these insights hidden anymore, but communicate them to all Christians so that they can better defend themselves and attack the enemy.”

The structure of the argument (including the

topos

of powerful knowledge)

still applies,

but

is

not an individual

decision anymore.Slide8

Back to the present

In the

Journal of Infectious Diseases

, October 7, 2013,

Barash

and

Arnon

published their finding of the sequence of a newly discovered protein, but without divulging the actual sequence.

“Because no antitoxins as yet have been developed to counteract the novel

C.

Botulinum

toxin,” wrote editors at

The Journal of Infectious Diseases

, “the authors had detailed consultations with representatives from numerous appropriate US government agencies.” These agencies, which included the

Centers

for Disease Control and Prevention and the Department of Homeland Security, approved publication of the papers as long as the gene sequence that codes for the new protein was left out. According to New Scientist, the sequence will be published as soon as antibodies are identified that effectively combat the toxin.Cf. also how publication of sensitive details can be prohibited by the US National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity, as in the case of the bird flu research by the Rotterdam team led by Fouchier.Slide9

Division of moral labourThere are organisations, articulated rules, mutual dependencies

These add up to an evolving

de facto

division of moral labour (Shelley-Egan and Rip 2012)

‘Responsibility’ discourse is a way to articulate and stabilize the division-of-moral-labour aspect of our social order (Rip 1981)

The term is relatively recent (1782 in France, 1787 in Britain), and linked to emergence of bourgeois society. (‘Responsible’ is older.)Slide10

‘Responsibility’ languageAlso used to attribute praise and blame, cf. Ravetz’s aphorism:

“Scientists take credit for penicillin, but Society takes the blame for the Bomb”

And there is

prospective

responsibility, a duty to do certain things (and avoid others)

Responsibility for progress, even if the powerful knowledge can also be misused

So: various strands that can be taken up in RRISlide11

The new discourseNote the shift from ‘responsibility’ to ‘responsible’, and applied to processes of research and innovation, rather than actors

Contrast with earlier debates and actions, in particular

with the the

atomic

scientists after 1945,

and chemists and pollution

(visible

from the 1960s onward)

Thus: blaming (and praising) less important than how to arrange our handling of emerging technologies (distributed!)Slide12

Consider RRI as an attempt at social innovation

New and uncertain, distributed ...

Requires institutional changes, and sub-cultural changes. How to “push” this?

Soft command and control (EU/Member states stipulating codes of conduct for RI)

But also a business proposition: to extend ‘social licence to operate’ because of credibility pressures in/of societySlide13

The innovation is still an open propositionBut actors, at various levels, start referring to the notion of responsible development and innovation in nanotechnology,

And more generally about new technologies

Some research funding agencies (in Europe) and research consortia require project proposers to say that they will conform to the EU Code on Responsible Nano-Research Slide14

RRI becomes specified – reduced?Utilitarian ethics

(as in NNI definition): maximize technology’s positive contributions and minimize negative consequences.

A neo-liberal version: avoid causing harm, then everything is OK

Narrative of containment: keep hazards at bay, then no problem with a new technology

ELSA studies etc. as partial compensation for pushing new (“promising”) technology

What about old technologies?Slide15

A change in handling new technologies?

Not just nanotech.

Precursors: in Human Genome Project (ELSI component), but also chemical industry’s Responsible Care Program. And now consideration of synthetic biology, geo-engineering.

Will this continue? And if so, what form will it take? At the moment, we see reductions to create some tractability:

Focus on upstream (to assure acceptance!?)

Focus on risk issues (which appear to be more tractable than societal and ethical issues)

Add: evolving narratives of praise and blameSlide16

Governance arrangementsEvolving de facto

governance, outcome of ongoing struggles, and part of them

Can become settled in institutional arrangements (cf. division of moral labour)

Such arrangements need to be evaluated, because of lock-in (path dependencies) while society (and technology) change: “Is it (still) a good arrangement?”

Such governance arrangements refer

to the

de facto

Constitution of our “technology-imbued” societiesSlide17

In conclusionI’ve taken you on a journey from the new discourse of RRI to changing practices, and back up to evolving divisions of moral labour and the Constitution of our societies

A key role is played by intermediary actors (collective organisations, funding agencies, monitoring bodies)

Whatever we come up with today has to be located in these evolving multi-level developments