This is how Stilgoe et. al. (2013) define responsible research and innovation. Scinetific progress is an essential part of societal progress and overcoming challenges, but it must be done in a safe, mindful and responsible way. Especially in the context of geoengineering research, where the results could impact everyone on the planet!
 |
| From The Pioneer Woman.com |
Macnaghten and Chilvers (2014) list the following lines of question that should be considered throughout any responsible research and development (R&D) process:
- How will the risks and benefits be distributed?
- What other impacts can we anticipate? How might these change in the future?
- What don't we know about?
- What might we never know about?
- How should standards be drawn up and applied?
- How should risks and benefits be defined and measured?
- Who is in control?
- Who is taking part?
- Who will take responsibility if things go wrong?
- How do we know we are right?
- Why are researchers doing it?
- Are these motivations transparent and in the public interest?
- Who will benefit?
- What are they going to gain?
- What are the alternatives?
It's a long list but that just confirms that there's a lot to consider. Responsible innovation isn't an easy task, but that doesn't mean it's not worthwhile - quite the opposite.
The questions should encourage self-awareness and self-reflection by scientists and governments involved in R&D.
Stilgoe et. al. (2013) identify four key pillars of responsible innovation which can be used as a framework within which these questions can be answered, and which should be applied to R&D in geoengineering.
These are:
Anticipation, reflexivity, inclusion and responsiveness.
Anticipation is a systematic process and encourages foresight within research. Anticipating potential problems before they arise can not only increase resilience, but further advance innovation.
Reflexivity means being able to reflect upon one's actions and intentions - at an institutional level as well as personal - to gain an appreciation of how other people in society might feel about what you're doing.
Inclusivity. This seems to be a recurring theme across the literature. Making sure people at all levels of society are included in any development process so they're able to voice opinions and air concerns. Inclusivity encourages engaging the wider public through forums, interviews, focus groups and surveys. But inclusivity on its own isn't sufficient; Callon et. al. (2009) stipulate three criteria to ensure inclusivity is worthwhile. These are: intensity (how early and consistently the public is engaged), openness (how diverse the group itself is, ensuring that all parts of society are represented) and quality (the wholeness of discussion, ensuring that every necessary aspect of the research is covered so the public has had opportunity to raise concerns with every part of the research).
The final component of Stilgoe et. al's (2013) framework is responsiveness. Acting upon issues raised during these processes and making sure that the most desired route of innovation across the whole of society is realised.
Together these four values create a framework that can help to ensure technologies are developed in a responsible way, which the whole of society finds acceptable and desirable. A tall order but the alternative is unacceptable.
It is only be following a framework like this one that geoengineering technologies could be developed in a truly ethical and considerate way.
No comments:
Post a Comment