Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
No RRI without moral Innovation
The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under
grant agreement n° 321480
Sophie PELLÉ Bernard REBER
Sciences Po, (Paris), Political Research Centre
GREAT - 321480
• Innovation now
often = disruptions
• Our moral intuitions are
shaken
• What moral systems to
adopt
… in a pluralist context ?
Moral innovation
Why do we need moral innovation ?
I. Moral Responsibility
II. Political Responsibility
Outline
I. Moral Responsibility
Owen et al 2013
von Schomberg 2013
Grunwald 2011
Various approaches of RRI
• Engagement
• Gender equality
• Science education
• Open access
• Ethics
• Governance
EC 6 keys
• Transparency
• Anticipation
• Responsiveness
• Inclusion
• Reflexivity
Dimensions
• Full participation
• Science education & literacy
• Public engagement
• Economiccompetitiveness
• Etc.
NSF « Broaderimpacts »
The various meanings of responsibility
Negative
Positive
Liability
Blameworthiness
Accountability
Cause
Role
Authority
Capacity
Obligation
Responsiveness
Virtue and care
Hart 1968, van de Poel, 2011, Owen et al.
2012, 2013a ; Grinbaum & Groves 2013,
Pellé & Reber 2016, GREAT del 2.2
Combination of meanings
Existing
responsibilities
Responsiveness
Care
RRI
Task or
Authority
Accountability
• No hierarchy between the various
meanings
• They are not exclusive
Pluralist framework that make
relevant combinations
In Brief
II. Political Responsibility
1. Citizen* engagement and
participation of societal actors in R&I2. Science literacy and scientific education;
3. Gender equality and gender dimension
in R&I ;
4. Open Access to scientific knowledge,
research results and data;
5. Research and innovation governance
(including ethics)**.
* Or stake-holders. It is not the same
**With some changes
RRI key dimensions (European Commission)
• Various participatory methods: Dürrenberger, Kastenholz, and Behringer, 1999;Van Eijndhoven, 1997, Joss
and Durant, 1995; Brown, 2006; Guston, 1999; Hörning, 1999; Andersen and
Jaeger, 1999; Sclove, 1999).
• Participatory technological Assessment is
born !
More than 50 devices raise key political
questions about
� the form of participation
� different implicit social ontologies (Kahane,
2002), i.e. the relationships between
individuals and their social groups +
background normative theories.S1
Slide 11
S1 je ne sais pas comment organiser la fin de ta phrase, je te laisse faireSophie; 11/01/2016
Eleven different goals/roles for Technological Asse ssment .
1. Scientific Assessment on consequences and options.2. Extending the scope of efficacy of research and development policy.3. Evaluating the consequences of policies and laws.4. Agenda-setting.5. Social mapping in controversial environments.6. Mediation, dialogue (concertation), negotiation.7. Reframing the policy debate.8. New forms of governance and decision-making process.9. New policies.10. Tour of arguments (collection of arguments).11. Alternative to opinion poll.
Participatory technologicalassessment :
La démocratie génétiquement modifiée. Sociologies éthiques de l’évaluation des technologies controversées , collection Bioéthique critique , Québec, Presses de l’Université de Laval, 2011, (264 pages).
With Dryzek J. S., Goodin R. E. and Tucker A., « Promethean elites encounter precautionary publics : the case of GM Food », Science, Technology, & Human Values, 2009, Vol. 34, pp. 263-288.
« Technology Assessment as Policy Analysis: From Expert Advice to Participatory Approaches »,in Fischer F., Miller G., et Sidney M. (éd.), Handbook of Public Policy Analysis. Theory,Politics and Methods , New York, Public Administration and Public Policy Series, Rutgers University/CRC Press, 2006, 125, pp. 493-51 2.
« Technologies et débat démocratique en Europe. De la participation à l’évaluation pluraliste »,Revue Française de Science Politique, 2005, vol. 55, N° 5-6, pp. 811-833.
« Public Evaluation and new Rules for the« Human Park » », dans Latour B. et Weibel P., Making Things Public. Atmospheres of Democracy, Cambridge, MIT Press, 2005, pp. 314-319.
To go further
Citizen juries, consensus conferences, deliberative conferences, Delphi and Charette
methods, expert panels, focus groups,
planning teams, scenarios workshops,
perspective workshops, consumer workshops
focused on “visions of the future,” global
cafés, direct initiatives and referendums,
public surveys, public auditions, opinion polls
(with or without deliberation), multiple choice
questionnaires, discussion and negotiation
between interest groups, citizens’ councils and
committees, voting conferences, interactive
technological evaluation (TE), constructivist TE of consumers, interdisciplinary working
groups and political role-playing (Goodin and
Dryzek, 2006; Reber, 2011; Slocum, 2005).
Slide 15
S2 il faudrait rendre cette diapo un peu moins indigeste....Sophie; 11/01/2016
Background theories for the European criteria liststo assess the quality of the debates
Diskurs Ethik instrumentalized (Klüver, 2000).
Procedural Justice (Joss and Brownlea, 1999).
Theories of Democracy :
I.E. Dialogic Democracy (Callon, Lascoumes, Barthe 2001)
Slide 16
S5 revoir la phraseSophie; 11/01/2016
Respect some criteria. Rowe & Frewer (2000).
Representativeness, independence, openness, quality of arguments, early commitment,influence, transparency,accessibility of the information, relevance, definition of the tasks, structuralization of the decision, equal power to every participant, loyalty in interpersonal relations, flexibility allowing participants to make their own agenda the cost-efficiency balance of the operation.
A placebo effect ?Syncretic theoretical survey without theory
Richard Owen, Jack Stilgoe, Phil Macnaghten, Mike Gorman, Erik Fisher, Dave Guston, “A framework for Responsible Innovation” (2013) .
Four Dimensions of Responsible Innovation : 1. Anticipation, 2. Reflectivity, 3. Responsiveness
4. deliberation because RRI is a question of democracy.
inclusiveness of “diverse stake-holders”…
the “introduction of broad range of perspectives to reframe issues”,
…to “ authentically embody diverse sources of social knowledge,
values, and meanings”
….identify “areas of potential contestation”.
To manage this openness,
they propose a “collective deliberation”. Our italics.
They refer here to the works of Andrew Stirling.
It is a very vague: “processes of dialogue, engagement, and debate”.
In term of communication (communication capacities), “they only speak of listening to wider
perspectives”
Richard Owen, Jack Stilgoe, Phil Macnaghten, Mike Gorman, Erik Fisher, Dave Guston, “A framework for Responsible Innovation” (2013) .
Four Dimensions of Responsible Innovation : 4. Deliberation.
DEL 5.2. GREAT: Report on the analysis of theory and practiceof responsible innovation in research (B. Reber, reviewed by V. Ikonen and R. Gianni).
2. What Deliberation in RRI?1. Redundancy
2. More logical Ranking
3. Only a first Step towards Discussion
4. Premise towards second-order Reflectivity hidden in Heterogeneousness
5. Responsibility as a whole reduced to Responsiveness
6. Finally Capacity?
7. Responsiveness, Capacity or Care?
8. Care without Aristotle?
9. Consequentialism stays as a main Candidate
10. Consequentialism is not only local
11. A smaller or wider World?
THEORIES of DEMOCRACY
Dialogical Democracy
Participative Democracy (i. e. CONSIDER, EC with (ethics)).
Deliberative Democracy
• Bohman W. and Rehg W. Deliberative Democracy. Essays on Reason and Politics, MIT Press, 1997.
• Steiner J., Bächtiger A., Spörndli M. et Steenbergen M.R. Deliberative Politics in Action. Analysing Parliamentary Discourse, Cambridge University Press, 2004.
• Steiner J. The Foundations of Deliberative Democracy. Empirical Research and Normative Implications, Cambridge UniversityPress, 2012.
• Reber B. (dir). Vertus et limites de la démocratie délibérative, Archives de philosophie, 74/1, 2012a, (Special issue, 5 articles)
1) Arguments should be expressed in terms of “public good”. If somebody wants to
defend his/her interests, he/she should be able to show their compatibility and their
contribution to the public good.
2) Participants should truthfully and truly express their views.
3) They should listen others arguments and treat them with respect.
4) Parties should defend their claims and logical justifications, through an exchange of
information and good reasons.
5) Participants should follow the strength of the better argument, that is not a priori
given, but to be looked for in the common deliberation.
6) Everybody participates on an equal level, without constraints in an open political
process.
Rawls says « public reason.» On this point Habermas will go beyond with his belief in its
universality.
THEORIES of DEMOCRACY
Dialogical Democracy
Participative Democracy (i. e. CONSIDER, EC with(ethics)).
Deliberative Democracy (perhaps too demandingfor democracy, but useful for specific issues : controversial emerging technologies + Europeanbuilding with 28 States).
….towards Responsive/-sible Democracy
Responsibilities vs responsibilities, orhow wide should be the responsibilities of reserarcher?
1. The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity, European Science Foundation
(78 research institutions, 30 countrries) and All European Academy (53 Academies of
40 countries), en 2011
See :
http://www.esf.org/fileadmin/Public_documents/Publications/Code_Conduct_ResearchIntegrity.p
df
“A distinction should be made between two categories of issues: problems related
to science and society, emphasising the socio-ethical context of research,and
problems related to scientific integrity, emphasising standards when conducting
Research”.
2. Beyond Ethical reviews (See Pellé, Reber, ISTE-Wiley, 2016) ?
What ethics ?....
Series : Responsible Innovation and Research (13 vol.), London, ISTE-Wiley,
B. Reber (ed.), in French and English
V.G. Lenoir
Ethical Efficiency: Responsibility for the
Unprecedented01.2016
Robert GianniResponsibility and Freedom:
The Ethical Realm of RRI02.2016
Sophie Pellé et
Bernard Reber
From Ethics in Research
to responsible Innovation
03. 2015
http://www.iste.co.uk/index.php?f=a&ACTION=View&id=935
3. Individual responsibilities (roles, tasks, virtues, capacities…)
….and collective responsibilities (authorities, accountability...)
4. Ethical (part one) and political (deliberation part two)
5. Not only individuals in institutions or mini-publicsbut between institutions
(Deliberative system)
Parkinson J., Mansbridge J. (ÉD.), Deliberative Systems. Deliberative Democracy at the Large Scale, Cambridge University Press, 2012.
6. From inter-institutional deliberationtowards responsible democracy
thanks to an equilibriumin the burden of responsibilities
Series: Responsible Innovation and Research. ISTE-Wiley (Dir. Bernard Reber)
The new framework of Responsible Innovation and Research (RRI) reorganizes attempts to seriouslyconsider technological innovations consequences regarding environment and human societies.
After Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), Technological Assessment and its more inclusive and pluralistform, Participatory Technological Assessment, or the Sustainable Development, RRI aims to putresponsibility at the core of innovation and research. RRI might play an important role in the Europeanresearch financing and has already aroused a big interest in other very industrialized parts of the world.Some countries have already made a comparative advantage of this new requirement.Yet RRI needs clarifications and developments not to miss the very meaning of responsibility while makingit an asset in both domains of innovation and research. If they are often complementary,innovation and research are distinct here with their own coherence and the different logics they follow.
Responsible innovation or responsible research have not to be oxymoron, brakes clearing of any risktaking and any personal initiative, or on the contrary a simple instrument of cynical communication.
This series strives for moral innovation for making RRI operational without forgetting what constitutes itscore: the responsibility.
The authors of these series of volumes were among the first to have studied RRI after having achievedimportant research in some related important domains. All are accurate as much in the uses of themobilized concepts as in the concern of effectiveness of implementation of norms in context.
Therefore the series deals with an interdisciplinary manner of different themes(stakeholders participation, gender equity, open science, science literacy, ethics and governance)
S10
Slide 28
S10 Je supprimerai cette slide illisible. La suivante avec l'image suffit, non ?Sophie; 11/01/2016