http://www.managingforimpact.org/sites/default/files/case/stilgoe_owen_macnaghten_2013_developing_a_framework_for_responsible_innovation.pdf

Developing a framework for responsible innovation

This publication, introduced and edited by Rene von Schomberg, consists of a series of research articles reflecting on how to proceed towards Responsible Research and Innovation in the Information and Communication Technologies and Security Technology fields. The authors who contributed to this publication are coordinators or participants to major FP7 projects funded under the Science in Society Programme. A total of 10 projects have inspired the authors to reflect and address various governance and ethics issues underlying the responsible development of these new technologies.A deliberative approach to the responsible development of these technologies implies inclusive governance, based on broad stakeholder involvement, public debate and early societal intervention in research and innovation,among other, by means of ethics assessments and various technology and privacy impact assessments.

/pdf/towards-responsible-research-and-innovation-in-the-2rk84e2vet.pdf

Towards Responsible Research and Innovation in the Information and Communication Technologies and Security Technologies Fields

Sex and Death: An Introduction to Philosophy of Biology

Uncertainty is of paramount importance in modern day decision making. In response to this, it has been suggested that policy analysts have to be more careful in communicating the uncertainties that are inherent in policy advice. To support policy analysts in identifying uncertainties and communicating these uncertainties to decision makers, an uncertainty matrix was proposed by Walker et al. (2003), which synthesised various taxonomies, frameworks and typologies of uncertainties from different decision support fields. Since its publication, this framework has been applied to different domains. As a result, the framework has undergone changes resulting in a proliferation of uncertainty frameworks. This proliferation runs counter to the purpose of the original framework. This paper presents an extensive review of the literature that builds on Walker et al. (2003). In light of this, a synthesis is presented, which can be used to assess and communicate uncertainties in model-based policy analysis studies.

Classifying and communicating uncertainties in model-based policy analysis

A broad community of independent scientific researchers and scholars challenges recent claims of a consensus over the safety of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). In the following joint statement, the claimed consensus is shown to be an artificial construct that has been falsely perpetuated through diverse fora. Irrespective of contradictory evidence in the refereed literature, as documented below, the claim that there is now a consensus on the safety of GMOs continues to be widely and often uncritically aired. For decades, the safety of GMOs has been a hotly controversial topic that has been much debated around the world. Published results are contradictory, in part due to the range of different research methods employed, an inadequacy of available procedures, and differences in the analysis and interpretation of data. Such a lack of consensus on safety is also evidenced by the agreement of policymakers from over 160 countries - in the UN’s Cartagena Biosafety Protocol and the Guidelines of the Codex Alimentarius - to authorize careful case-by-case assessment of each GMO by national authorities to determine whether the particular construct satisfies the national criteria for ‘safe’. Rigorous assessment of GMO safety has been hampered by the lack of funding independent of proprietary interests. Research for the public good has been further constrained by property rights issues, and by denial of access to research material for researchers unwilling to sign contractual agreements with the developers, which confer unacceptable control over publication to the proprietary interests. The joint statement developed and signed by over 300 independent researchers, and reproduced and published below, does not assert that GMOs are unsafe or safe. Rather, the statement concludes that the scarcity and contradictory nature of the scientific evidence published to date prevents conclusive claims of safety, or of lack of safety, of GMOs. Claims of consensus on the safety of GMOs are not supported by an objective analysis of the refereed literature.

/pdf/no-scientific-consensus-on-gmo-safety-3iornt4vfh.pdf

No scientific consensus on GMO safety

There is a rapidly expanding field of research on social and ethical interactions with nano-scaled sciences and technologies. An important question is: What does social and ethical research actually mean when it is focussed on technological applications that are largely hypothetical, and a field of science spread out across multiple disciplines and lacking unification? This paper maps early literature in the field of research as a way of answering this question. Our aim is to describe how this field is developing in response to its difficult task, and particularly, to comment on the topics of focus and where there is potential for future development. We present four topical categories, labelled Governance, Perception, Science and Philosophy, and use these as a tool to both map the field and to analyse its development. We find a majority of literature currently focused on issues of governance and perception, and offer suggestions for why this might be so. We then discuss cross-category themes of definition, novelty and interdisciplinarity, highlighting diverse positions and a problematic lack of direct debate. Our conclusion is that the field would benefit from more interaction, cross-referencing and creative research across traditional fields of inquiry.

/pdf/social-and-ethical-interactions-with-nano-mapping-the-early-97zsjrorr7.pdf

Social and Ethical Interactions with Nano: Mapping the Early Literature

In this paper we analyse scientistsʼ perspectives on the release of genetically modified (GM) crops into the environment, and the relationship between their perspectives and the context that they work within, e.g. their place of employment (university or industry), funding of their research (public or industry) and their disciplinary background (ecology, molecular biology or conventional plant breeding). We employed Q-methodology to examine these issues. Two distinct factors were identified by interviewing 62 scientists. These two fac tors included 92 per cent of the sample. Scientists in factor 1 had a moderately negative attitude to GM crops and emphasised the uncertainty and ignorance involved, while scientists in factor 2 had a positive attitude to GM crops and emphasised that GM crops are useful and do not represent any unique risks

Scientists' Perspectives on the Deliberate Release of GM Crops

There is currently a strong focus on responsible research in relation to the development of nanoscience and nanotechnology. This study presents a series of conversations with nanoresearchers, with the ‘European Commission recommendation on a code of conduct for responsible nanosciences and nanotechnologies research’ (EC-CoC) as its point of departure. Six types of reactions to the document are developed, illustrating the diversity existing within the scientific community in responses towards this kind of new approaches to governance. Three broad notions of responsible nanoresearch are presented. The article concludes by arguing that while the suggestion put forward in the EC-CoC brings the concept of responsible nanoresearch a long way, one crucial element is to be wanted, namely responsible nanoresearch as increased awareness of moral choices.

/pdf/conversations-about-responsible-nanoresearch-bkgm9pb63j.pdf

Conversations About Responsible Nanoresearch

Do uncertainty analyses reveal uncertainties? Using the introduction of DNA vaccines to aquaculture as a case

The development of converging technologies (CTs) closely interacting with the human body might become one of the great challenges for science and technology governance in the years to come. This paper compares the visions and recommendations on CT policies by Roco and Bainbridge with those of the high-level expert group in the EU (authored by Nordmann), and documents differences in their respective conceptualizations of uncertainty, complexity and the future. While Roco and Bainbridge argue for the urgency of technological development, Nordmann recommends a thorough social process of upstream public participation in the framing of the technological goals to be achieved. However, a tension is seen in the Nordmann report regarding the role of public resistance in the development of technology.

Kamilla Kjølberg

Papers

Social and Ethical Interactions with Nano: Mapping the Early Literature

Scientists' Perspectives on the Deliberate Release of GM Crops

Conversations About Responsible Nanoresearch

Do uncertainty analyses reveal uncertainties? Using the introduction of DNA vaccines to aquaculture as a case

Models of governance for converging technologies