The EEE concept of responsibility – ethical , empirical and epistemological constituents

1. The EEE concept of responsibility – ethical, empirical and epistemologicalconstituents Armin Grunwald Paris, 23.4.2013

2. Overview 1. Technology Assessment (TA) 2. The EEE concept of Responsibility 3. Constellations of Responsible Innovation 4. Summarisingconclusions

3. 1. Technology Assessment (TA) • roots of „Technology Assessment“ in the U.S. (Office of Technology Assessment at the U.S. Congress (established in 1972, abolished in 1995) • main motivation: support informed decision-making in science and technology related fields in policy-making • objectives of TA: • provide prospective knowledge about consequences of technologies • open up alternative action strategiesand options for decision-makers • contribute to solving conflicts on technologies constructively • help shaping technology for sustainable development • support and inform public debate by participation and communication

4. Situation (societal, political, scientific) TA-project TA-institution Situation appreciation I m p a c t Goal setting Methods toolbox Project design Outcome Project implementation TA as an element of ongoing technology governance at different levels Source: TAMI project

5. Three branches of TA Technology Assessment for policy advice Parliamentary TA (e.g. Office of Technology Assessment at the German Bundestag), Governmental TA – supporting political deliberation and decision-making Technology Assessment for public debate Participation of laypersons, citizens, stakeholders etc. - raising awareness, broadening perspectives … Technology Assessment accompanying R&D TA for „shaping technology“, TA „at the lab floor“ (close to Value Sensitive Design) – enrichingthedesignprocesses in cooperationwithengineers Marie-Luise Ehls, Knut Böhle, Constanze Scherz

6. Recent and Currentdevelopments in TA • shift/extensionfrom „technology“ to „innovation“ (systems) • TA regardedpart of theoverall Technology Governance • NEST (new and emergingsciences and technologies): upstreamengagement, visionassessment • TA forsupportingTransition Management • increasingconsideration of relations of TA and ethics (ethicisation of technology) • increasingexchangebetween TA, ethics and STS community (anticipatorygovernance, NEST-ethics …) • someefforttowards a theory of TA

7. 2. The EEE concept of Responsibility • debate on the responsibility of researchers and engineers since the 1950s and 1960s • ethics of responsibility (Durbin, Jonas, Ladd, Lenk et al.) • commitments of engineering associations and research organisations to social and moral responsibility • establishment of codes of conduct in many areas • emphasis on responsibilities of individuals (e.g. whistle-blowing) • questions for the limits and restrictions of individual responsibility, role of institutional designs • some relations with CTA/Value Sensitive Design

8. Thehope: shaping technology and innovationbyethicalreflection and responsibilityassignments Ideasabouttechnology-basedinnovation, New Products Scientific Agenda Modified Products Results and new options Responsibilityreflection

9. Severe criticisms against the notion of responsibility state • that responsibility would be an empty phrase without relations to concrete action, • that it would merely show the character of an appeal, exhausting itself in political rhetorics • that its usage only would lead to moralisation of conflicts instead of contributing to problem-solving, • that the subject of responsibility – future developments and impacts of science and technology – simply not exists because of high uncertainties involved, and, finally, • that an effect of “thinning” responsibility could be observed in fields with many actors resulting in a situation that nobody would feel “really” responsible • clarificationneededbeyondrhetoricwell-feeling

10. Proposal: a five -place reconstruction • someone (an actor, e.g. a synthetic biologist) assumes responsibility for • something (such as the results of actions or decisions, e.g. for avoiding bio-safety or bio-security problems) in a • social context (consisting of society, communities, professions, groups, culture etc.) relative to a • body of rules and criteria (in general the normative framework valid in the respective situation, e.g. rules given in a Code of Conduct) and relative to the • status of available knowledge (about the consequences of the actions, scenarios, mere speculative concerns, expectations …).  threedimensions of responsibility

11. Proposal: a five -place reconstruction • someone (an actor, e.g. a synthetic biologist) assumes responsibility for • something (such as the results of actions or decisions, e.g. for avoiding bio-safety or bio-security problems) in a • social context (consisting of society, communities, professions, groups, culture etc.)  empiricalconstellation of actors (highlycontext-specific)

12. Proposal: a five -place reconstruction • body of rules (in general the normative framework valid in the respective situation, e.g. rules given in a Code of Conduct)  rules and criteria of responsibility  ethicaldimension in case of normative uncertainty (moralconflicts, ambiguity, orindifference)

13. Proposal: a five-placereconstruction • status of available knowledge (about the consequences of the actions, scenarios, mere speculative concerns, expectations …).  epistemologicaldimension of responsibility: what do weknow and howreliableisourknowledge?

14. Constitutivedimensions of responsibility • Empiricaldimension of theactorconstellation: whoascribesreponsibility, whoismaderesponsible? Distribution of responsibility, relation to the „governance“ of therespectivefield, stakeholders, peopleconcernedoraffected. Questions of power and exertinginfluence. • Ethicaldimensionof thecriteriawhatisregardedresponsible: Criteria of responsibleaction, solvingmoralconflictsbyethicalreflection, reconstruction of ethicalpatterns of justification and argumentation (e.g. ethics of responsibilityby Hans Jonas) • Epistemologicaldimension: whatisknownabouttherespectivefield (chances, risks etc.) and whatcanbesaidaboutthequality and reliability of theknowledge? Knowledge, uncertainties, possiblescenarios of futuredevelopment, possiblerisks

15. Empiricaldimension • the empirical dimension of responsibility takes serious that the attribution of responsibility is an act done by specific actors and affecting others. Relevant questions are: • How are the capabilities to act and decide distributed in the field considered? • Which social groups are affected and could or should help decide about the distribution of responsibility? • Do the questions under consideration concern the “polis” or can they be delegated to groups or subsystems? • What consequences would a particular distribution of responsibility have for the governance of the respective field?

16. Ethicaldimension • the ethical dimension of responsibility is reached when the question is posed as to the body of rules according to which responsibility should be assumed. Relevant questions are: • What criteria allow distinguishing between responsible and irresponsible actions and decisions? • Is there consensus or controversy on these criteria among the relevant actors? • Is it ethically justified to weigh chances with risks? • Are human rights affected? • Can the actions and decisions in question (e.g., about the scientific agenda or about containment measures to prevent bio-safety problems) be justified with respect to the rules and values?

17. Epistemologicaldimension • the epistemological dimension asks for the quality of the knowledge about the subject of responsibility. Relevant questions are: • What is really known about prospective subjects of responsibility? • What could be known in case of more research, and which uncertainties are pertinent? • How can different uncertainties be qualified and compared to each other? And what is at stake if worse comes Example: „Fiftyyearsfromnow, syntheticbiology will be as pervasive and transformative as iselectronicstoday. And as withthat technology, theapplications and impactsareimpossible to predict in thefield’snascentstages. Nevertheless, thedecisionswemakenow will haveenormousimpact on theshape of thisfuture“ (Ilulissat Statement 2007, S. 2).

18. 3. Constellations of Responsible Innovation Whatis „responsible“ in a specificcontext • depends on normative frameworkswhichinclude all regulative partsgoverningacting and decision-making in a specificsituation (customs, values, codes of conduct, law, rules of behaviour etc.) which will bedecisiveforassessments of responsibility • will differ in „standard“ and „non-standard“ situations in moralrespect • „standardsituation“: the „normative framework“ governing a particularsituationprovides good and sufficientorientationfordecision-making and assessment of responsibility • „non-standard“ situation: thisis not thecasebutthereareconflicts, ambiguitiesorindifferences

19. „standard“ situations in moral respect may be characterised by: • Pragmatic Completeness: the normative framework has to comprehend the decision to be made adequately, and should leave no essential aspects out of consideration; • Local Consistency: there has to be a „sufficient“ degree of freedom from contradiction among the various elements of the normative framework, because otherwise, action orientation wouldn’t be possible; • Unambiguity: beyond the normative framework, there has to be a sufficient common understanding among the actors in the context of the decision under discussion; • Acceptance: the normative framework has to be accepted as the basis for the decision by those concerned; • Observance: the normative framework has to be in fact observed; lip-service, for instance, in environmental concerns, isn’t enough.  Basic challenge of ethics: distinguishing between standard and non-standard situations in moral respect

20. normative framework Themodel Standard situations innovationsmaychallengetheframework Non-standardsituation

21. normative framework Unproblematic Situation Standard situations innovationdoesnotaffecttheframework

22. Normative framework Option 1 (conservative): Innovation wouldviolatethe normative framework at place notresponsible  rejectinnovation! Standard situations) innovation

23. Normative framework Option 2 (creative): you do notwant to skipthe innovation modifyinnovation! (sustainabilitycriteria) Modifiedinnovation Standard situations Initial innovation innovationsmaychallengetheframework Non-standardsituation

24. Option 3 (mostambitious): you do notwant to skipthe innovation and youarenotable to modifyit trymodifying the normative framework! II normative frameworks I Standard situations Transformation of the non-standard situation (regarding NF I) into a standard situation (regarding NF II) Innovationschallengingthenormative framework X

25. Different tasksforresponsibleinnovation • identifythe normative frameworksgoverningtherespectivesituation • reflect on thepossiblelimitationsofthe „standardsituations“ • assesswhether a specificinnovationcouldchallengetherespective normative framework • answerwhatshouldbedone in case of „non-responsible“ innovation (a) modifyinnovationpath (in cooperationwith lab researchers) (b) developfurtherthe „normative framework“ (whichwouldhave to takeplaceoutsidethe lab) • substantial contributionsto problem-solvingprocessesarerequired as an advice • processes of communication, analysis and assessmentarerequired (TA typeapproach)

26. Summarisingconclusions • Responsible Innovation – it is necessary to clarify the basic terms (such as “responsible”) in order to avoid mere rhetorics • the EEE concept of responsibility is a proposal to the ongoing debate • it might be understood as a kind of “hermeneutical“ approach to better understand responsibility issues in given contexts instead of simply applying rules • it makes clear that Responsible Innovation grounds in different fields such as TA, STS, ethics, and philosophy of science • Responsible Innovation thus provides an opportunity to overcome earlier and fruitless struggles between social sciences and philosophy towards targeted cooperation

27. Thankyouforyourattention! Armin Grunwald