Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Models of Anticipation within the Responsible Research and Innovation Framework: the Two RRI Souls and the
Challenge of Human Rights
Daniele Ruggiu CIGA, University of Padova
Trento, November 7-8, 2015
Centre for Environmental, Ethical, Legal and Social Decisions on Emerging Technologies (CIGA), University of Padua
2
Summary:
Anticipation Public participation New Governance
RRI the socio-empirical and the normative version
Two models of anticipation Shortcomings of both versions Conclusions
Anticipation state of scientific uncertainty inextricability of risks, unknown consequences,
opportunities end of unanimity in science the need to anticipate
3
How?
Public participation crisis of legitimation of public authorities (EU)
lack of transparency lack of the public involvement (e.g. biotechnology)
quest for open forms of participatory democracy
4
Distributed nature of power power is distributed at the global sphere growing importance of the private sector crisis of the state-centric conceptions of governance without the active cooperation of private actors (funding
agencies, businesses, researchers etc.) it is difficult to ensure the success of governance
alternative models of governance stressing democratization processes of governance (new and self-governance)
5
New and self-governance Governance: hetero-arranged or self-arranged New governance : public actors try to steer governance
by involving stakeholders through tools of hard and soft law
Self-governance : a sector self-arranges for anticipating the problem solving (research at its infancy or under-regulated)
6
New governancei) informality ii) lack of hierarchy iii) the presence of private actorsToolkit : networking, agency, self-regulation, guidelines,
recommendations, certification systems, social dialogue, on-line & ad hoc consultations, public fora,
alternatively or jointly used to hard legislation (soft+hard)
presence of leading public subjects
democratic legitimation7
Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI)
i) involvement (responsiveness & reflexivity)ii) anticipation iii) focus on the loss of opportunities iv)ethical acceptability
8
The two souls of RRI RRI? The socio-empirical version (stress on participation) The normative version (stress on institutional goals)
9
No unanimity on RRI definition and features
10
RRI is a transparent, interactive process by which societal actors and innovators become mutually responsive to each other with a view to the (ethical) acceptability, sustainability and societal desirability of the innovation process and its marketable products (in order to allow a proper embedding of scientific and technological advances in our society)
RRI is a collective commitment of care for the future through responsive stewardship of science and innovation in the present
The socio-empirical version democratic participation societal values bottom-up values setting movable anchorage (values vary according to the
context)Eg. SPICE project on geoengineering
11
The normative version constitutional values steering policies top-down values setting fixed anchorage
In Europe: EU goals Article 3 of the Treaty on the European Union: techno-scientific advance competitiveness sustainability social justice (fundamental rights) the protection of human health and the environment
12
Possible contaminations between the two models
same features (inclusion, anticipation, focus on opportunities, ethical acceptability)
different accents (engagement, ethical acceptability) examples of mix : e.g. René von Schomberg’s theory,
2014 report to the Commission of Richard Owen, the 2008 Code of conduct on responsible nanosciences and nanotechnologies research (EC CoC)
13
the 2008 Code of conduct on responsible nanosciences and nanotechnologies research
consultation processes (2007, 2010) aimed at identifying a set of code principles (socio-empirical interpretation)
consultation paper (EU goals) as basis of consultations
14
The conceptual justification of the socio-empirical version
gap of responsibility : no one can be deemed responsible for consequences that could not be foreseen at the moment of the action
too early/too late dilemma : at early stage best chances of controlling a growing technology but few data
innovation needs to consider also the loss of opportunities
all addressees should have the chance to say what values they want to be anchored on
negotiation must be equitable and democratic
15
Variable values values are culturally-sensitive : they differ according to
the context democratic participation
mutual process of learning responsiveness to the inputs stemming from the society reflexivity of stakeholders on the purposes and goals of
innovation risk of coinciding with the current flexible, tentative and
adaptive EU model of governance
16
Self-governance strong pole of attraction for the socio-empirical version :
self-governance self-governance = spontaneous coordination of a sector
for pursuing a common interest (quintessence of participation)
Eg. synthetic biology 2.0 conference (2006), code of conduct of IASB (2009)
17
The conceptual justification of the normative version
consequences of technological innovation are the result of collective action ethics of co-responsibility
state of scientific uncertainty end of unanimism in science in a situation of general disagreement responsibility can
be founded only on fundamental constitutional principles (procedural norms of public discourse)
The risk: a conflict between institutional goals and participation.
18
Process rationality v. goal rationality (Heydebrande)
traditional forms of regulation : goal rationality rule of law and constitutional rights are the starting point
new governance : process rationality informal and negotiated nature of the process democratic participation is the only value no value superior to participation (even constitutional
rights)
19
The model of anticipation of the socio-empirical version
all affected parties participate with their inputs reflexivity
(priorities, views, values)
responsibilisation
foresight &
resilience 20
shared visions
The model of anticipation of the normative version
fundamental constitutional principles (EU goals) as filters : selecting policies and trajectories of governance shaping governance tools (participation), allocating research funding (e.g. Horizon 2020) anticipation of impacts=identifying ‘right impacts’
21
Shortcomings of the socio-empirical model
weak dimension of fundamental rights Examples: The SPICE project on geoengineering (stage gate
architecture) risk assessment and respect of existing legislation
(fundamental rights?)project suspended for a conflict of interests the 2011 code of conduct launched by International
Association of Synthetic Biology
22
Shortcomings of the normative model
fundamental rights can be balanced with other anchor points
totally or partially sacrificed possible adverse court decisions (rights=externality)
23
Correctives for the socio-empirical model
public and independent institutions on human rights more structured organization, resources (No NGOs) capability of dealing with issues of high technical nature
24
The necessary participation of independent institutions
Heydebrande on public participation : just «getting the right people at the table, and one will get substance»
supranational and independent institutions need to participate at any stage of policy-making
25
Correctives for the normative modelEU law : balancing of rights with other EU goals (risk of
adverse decisions, e.g. Brüstle case) Council of Europe : human rights are not balanced (except
Art. 15 and margin of appreciation)the framework of decisions of the ECtHR can strengthen
that of the EU preventing fundamental rights from being balanced
26
The rights-based model of governance
integrity principle : policy decisions and regulation need to be coherent with the principles of justice of liberal-democratic societies
political decisions, rules and their administrative application are in accordance with the (legal) principles of human rights
27
Conclusions two different modes of conceptualizing anticipation democratic and broad participation (socio-empirical
version) normative filters (EU goals) for policy making shortcomings: a) the protection of individual rights
depends on just stakeholders b) fundamental rights balanceable
correctives: 1) participation of public independent institutions on human rights 2) use the framework of decisions of ECtHR for strengthening the application of fundamental rights
28
