Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 12, Issue 4, pp 663–684 | Cite as

A network approach for distinguishing ethical issues in research and development

  • Sjoerd D. Zwart
  • Ibo van de Poel
  • Harald van Mil
  • Michiel Brumsen
Article

Abstract

In this paper we report on our experiences with using network analysis to discern and analyse ethical issues in research into, and the development of, a new wastewater treatment technology. Using network analysis, we preliminarily interpreted some of our observations in a Group Decision Room (GDR) session where we invited important stakeholders to think about the risks of this new technology. We show how a network approach is useful for understanding the observations, and suggests some relevant ethical issues. We argue that a network approach is also useful for ethical analysis of issues in other fields of research and development. The abandoning of the overarching rationality assumption, which is central to network approaches, does not have to lead to ethical relativism.

Keywords

research and development ethical parallel research network approach group decision room responsibility risks sewage treatment 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Shrader-Frechette, K. S. (1991) Risk and Rationality. Philosophical Foundations for Populist Reform, University of California Press, Berkeley etc.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hansson, S. O. (2004) Philosophical Perspectives on Risk. Techne 8: 10–35.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    van de Poel, I. R., Zwart, S. D., Brumsen, M. & van Mil, H. G. J. (2005) Risks of Aerobic Granular Sludge Technology; Ethical and Methodological Aspects, in: Bathe, S., de Kreuk, M. K., Mc Swain, B. S. & Schwarzenbeck, N. (eds.) Aerobic Granular Sludge, IWA Publishing, London, pp. 143–154Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Klijn, E. H. (1997) Policy Networks. An Overview, in: Kickert, W. J. M., Klijn, E. H. & Koppenjan, J. F. M. (eds.) Managing Complex Networks. Strategies for the Public Sector, Sage, London, pp. 14–34Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pinch, T. & Bijker, W. (1987) The Social Construction of Facts and Artifacts. Or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology Might Benefit Each Other, in: Bijker, W., Hughes, T. P. & Pinch, T. (eds.) The Social Construction of Technological Systems; New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology, MIT Press, Cambridge, pp. 17–50Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bijker, W. (1995) Of Bicycles, Bakelite, and Bulbs. Toward a Theory of Sociotechnical Change, MIT Press, Cambridge (Ma.).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Callon, M. (1986) The Sociology of an Actor-Network: The Case of the Electric Vehicle, in: Callon, M., Law, J. & Rip, A. (eds.) Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology, Sociology of Science in the Real World, Macmillan Press, Hampshire & London, pp. 72–102Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Latour, B. (1987) Science in Action. How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society, Harvard University Press, Cambridge (Ma.).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Law, J. & Callon, M. (1988) Engineering and Sociology in a Military Aircraft Project: A Network Analysis of Technological Change. Social Problems 35: 284–297.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hakansson, H. (ed.) (1989) Industrial Technological Development. A Network Approach, Routledge, London.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Elzen, B., Enserink, B. & Smit, W. A. (1996) Socio-Technical Networks. How a Technology Studies Approach May Help to Solve Problems Related to Technical Change. Social Studies of Science 26: 95–141.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Smit, W. A., Elzen, B. & Enserink, B. (1998) Coordination in Military Socio-Technical Networks: Military Needs, Requirements and Guiding Principles, in: Disco, C. & Van der Meulen, B. (eds.) Getting New Technologies Together. Studies in Making Sociotechnical Order, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 71–106Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schneider, V. (1992) The Structure of Policy Networks. A Comparison of the ‘Chemical Control’ and ‘Telecommunications’ Policy Domain in Germany. European Journal of Political Research 21: 109–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bressers, H., Huitema, D. & Kuks, S. M. M. (1994) Policy Networks in Dutch Water Policy. Environment Politics 3: 24–51.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Boudon, R. (1981) The Logic of Social Action. An Introduction to Sociological Analysis, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London etc.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R. & Wood, D. J. (1997) Towards a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience. Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts. Academy of Management Review 22: 853–896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dery, D. (1984) Problem Definition in Public Policy, University Press of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kingdon, J. W. (1984) Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies, Little, Brown and Company, Toronto.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Albert de la Bruheze, A. A. (1992) Political Construction of Technology; Nuclear Waste Disposal in the United States, Eburon, Delft.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Grin, J. & van der Graaf, H. (1996) Implementation as Communicative Action. An Interpretive Understanding of Interactions between Policy Actors and Target Groups. Policy Sciences 29: 291–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Slovic, P. (2000) The Perception of Risk, Earthscan, London.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Thompson, D. F. (1980) Moral Responsibility and Public Officials. American Political Science Review 74: 905–916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bovens, M. (1998) The Quest for Responsibility. Accountability and Citizenship in Complex Organisations, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Stern, P. C. & Feinberg, H. V. (1996) Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society, National Academy Press, Washington.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schot, J. & Rip, A. (1997) The Past and Future of Constructive Technology Assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 54: 251–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    van de Poel, I. & Zwart, S. D. (submitted) Reflective Equilibrium in R&D Networks. Science, Technology & Human Values submitted for publication.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Opragen Publications 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sjoerd D. Zwart
    • 1
  • Ibo van de Poel
    • 1
  • Harald van Mil
    • 1
  • Michiel Brumsen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Philosophy, School of Technology, Policy and ManagementDelft University of TechnologyDelftthe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations