Advertisement

NanoEthics

, Volume 12, Issue 3, pp 257–267 | Cite as

Responsible Research and Innovation and the Governance of Human Enhancement

  • Guido Gorgoni
Original Paper

Abstract

This article aims to explore the debate on human enhancement (HE) from the perspective of the evolutions of responsibility paradigms, and in particular from the perspective of the so-called Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) approach. The aim is not to explore the arguments pro or contra the ethical legitimacy and/or technical feasibility of human enhancement, but rather exploring if, and how, the RRI perspective can shape the debate on human enhancement (and vice versa).

In particular, the human enhancement debate will be read through the lenses of four main responsibility paradigms that we sketch by examining both, the historical and conceptual evolution of the responsibility idea and the dynamics of its ascription. In order to provide a useful scheme for interpreting human enhancement, RRI will be characterised as a distinctive responsibility model that can subsequently be used to frame the debate on HE with a particular emphasis on its normative implications, as well as on its social and political significance.

Keywords

Responsibility Human enhancement Human rights Governance Risk Responsible research and innovation (RRI) 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Simone Arnaldi for his precious comments on the article and for inviting me to join the research project “Responsibility and Human Enhancement. Concepts, implications and assessments”. I also wish to thank Darian Meacham, Arianna Neri, Elena Pariotti, Tsjalling Swierstra and Luigi Pellizzoni for their precious comments and suggestions on the initial draft of this text during the workshop held in Padova, on May 22, 2017, as well as two anonymous reviewers who helped me in improving the quality of the arguments. I am grateful to Clare Shelley-Egan for inviting me to the International workshop on Responsible Research and Innovation for Human Cognitive Enhancement, held in Brussels, January 13, 2017 within the framework of the HCENAT (Naturalness in Human Cognitive Enhancement) project which helped me improve the quality of the paper.

Funding

This research has been conducted within the project “Responsibility and Human Enhancement. Concepts, implications and assessments”, funded by the Independent Social Research Foundation, Flexible Grants for Small Groups 2015. http://www.isrf.org

References

  1. 1.
    Wickson F, Forsberg E-M (2015) Standardising responsibility? The significance of interstitial spaces. Sci Eng Ethics 21:1159–1180.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-014-9602-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jacques Maritain Institute (2017) What is human enhancement? What does its responsible governance look like? https://www.responsibleenhancement.eu/enhancement-rri. Accessed 3 Jul 2018
  3. 3.
    Shelley-Egan C, Hanssen AB, Landeweerd L, Hofmann B (2018) Responsible research and innovation in the context of human cognitive enhancement: some essential features. Journal of Responsible Innovation 5:65–85.  https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2017.1319034 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pellizzoni L (2004) Responsibility and environmental governance. Environmental Politics 13:541–565.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0964401042000229034 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cane P (2002) Responsibility in law and morality. Hart Publishing, PortlandGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Arnaldi S, Gorgoni G (2016) Turning the tide or surfing the wave? Responsible research and innovation, fundamental rights and neoliberal virtues. Life Sciences, Society and Policy 12:1–19.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s40504-016-0038-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ewald F (1993) Responsabilité. In: Arnaud A-J (ed) Dictionnaire encyclopédique de théorie et de sociologie du droit. L.G.D.J, ParisGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jonas H (1984) The imperative of responsibility. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (1993) Rio declaration on environment and development. United Nations, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    European Union (2016) Treaty on European Union. Off J Eur Union C202 59:13–45Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Vincent NA (2011) A structured taxonomy of responsibility concepts. In: Vincent NA, van de PI, van den HJ (eds) Moral responsibility. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 15–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    van de Poel I (2011) The relation between forward-looking and backward-looking responsibility. In: Moral Responsibility. Beyond free will and determinism. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 37–52Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Arnaldi S, Gorgoni G, Pariotti E (2016) Responsible research and innovation as a governance paradigm: what is new? In: Navigating towards shared responsibility in research and innovation. Approach, Process and Results of the Res-AGorA Project. Karlsruhe, pp 23–29Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Burget M, Bardone E, Pedaste M (2017) Definitions and conceptual dimensions of responsible research and innovation: a literature review. Sci Eng Ethics 23:1–19.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9782-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Iatridis K, Schroeder D (2016) Responsible research and innovation in industry. Springer, ChamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shaffer GC, Pollack MA (2009) Hard vs. soft law: Alternatives, complements, and antagonists in international governance. Minn L Rev 94:706Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Brey P (2009) Human enhancement and personal identity. In: Berg Olsen JK, Selinger E, Riis S (eds) New waves in philosophy of technology. Springer, Cham, pp 169–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Arnaldi S, Bianchi L (2016) Responsibility in science and technology. Elements of a social theory. Springer VS, WiesbadenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wright D, Gutwirth S, Gellert R, Friedewald M (2011) Precaution and privacy impact assessment as modes towards risk governance. In: von Schomberg R (ed) Towards responsible research and innovation in the information and communication technologies and security technologies fields. European Union, Luxembourg, pp 83–97Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Res-AGorA Project (2016) Responsibility Navigator. http://responsibility-navigator.eu/. Accessed 25 Oct 2017
  21. 21.
    European Commission (2017) Responsibility Navigator [press release]. http://cordis.europa.eu/news/rcn/124643_en.html. Accessed 26 Oct 2017
  22. 22.
    RRI Tools (2017) RRI Tools.https://www.rri-tools.eu. Accessed 26 Oct 2017
  23. 23.
    Responsible Industry (2017) RRI. http://www.responsible-industry.eu/home. Accessed 26 Oct 2017
  24. 24.
    Heirri - Higher Education Institutions & Responsible Research and Innovation (2017) Heirri - Integrating RRI into Higher Education Institutions. http://heirri.eu. Accessed 26 Oct 2017
  25. 25.
    Gorgoni G (2018) Voluntary measures, participation and fundamental rights in the governance of research and innovation. ORBIT Journal - An Online Journal for Responsible Research and Innovation in ICT 1:1–21.  https://doi.org/10.29297/orbit.v1i4.72 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Boisson de Chazournes L (2009) New technologies, the precautionary principle, and public participation. In: Murphy T (ed) New technologies and human rights. Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York, pp 161–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Jasanoff S (2003) Technologies of humility: citizen participation in governing science. Minerva: A Review of Science, Learning & Policy 41:223–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wynne B (2007) Public participation in science and technology: performing and obscuring a political–conceptual category mistake. East Asian Science, Technology and Society 1:99–110.  https://doi.org/10.1215/s12280-007-9004-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gianni R (2016) Responsibility and freedom: the ethical realm of RRI. John Wiley & Sons, HobokenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Van den Hoven J (2013) Value sensitive design and responsible innovation. In: Owen R, Bessant J, Heintz, Maggy (eds) Responsible innovation. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, pp 75–83Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    von Schomberg R (2013) A vision of responsible research and innovation. In: Owen R, Bessant J, Heintz, Maggy (eds) Responsible innovation. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, pp 51–74Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Nowotny H, Scott P, Gibbons M (2003) Introduction. ‘Mode 2’ revisited: the new production of knowledge. Minerva 41:179–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ruggiu D (2015) Anchoring European governance: two versions of responsible research and innovation and EU fundamental rights as ‘normative anchor points. NanoEthics 9:217–235.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-015-0240-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Yeung K (2004) Securing compliance: a principled approach. Hart Publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Vincent NA (2013) Neuroscience and legal responsibility. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Maslen H, Santoni de Sio F, Faber N (2015) With cognitive enhancement comes great responsibility? In: Koops B-J, Oosterlaken I, Romijn H et al (eds) Responsible innovation 2. Springer, Cham, pp 121–138Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Santoni de Sio F, Faulmüller N, Vincent NA (2014) How cognitive enhancement can change our duties. Front Syst Neurosci 8:131.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fnsys.2014.00131 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Osimani B (2013) An epistemic analysis of the precautionary principle. Dilemata: International Journal of Applied Ethics 11:149–167Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Pellizzoni L (2012) Strong will in a messy world. Ethics and the government of technoscience. Nanoethics 6:257–272.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-012-0159-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Pariotti E, Ruggiu D (2012) Governing nanotechnologies in Europe: human rights, soft law, and corporate social responsibility. In: Van Lente H, Coenen C, Fleischer T et al (eds) Little by little. Expansions of nanoscience and emerging technologies. IOS Press/AKA-Verlag, Heidelberg, pp 157–168Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political Science, Law, and International StudiesUniversity of PadovaPadovaItaly

Personalised recommendations