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