Advertisement

How to achieve integration?

Methodological concepts and challenges for the integration of ethical, legal, social and economic aspects into technological development
  • Mone SpindlerEmail author
  • Sophia Booz
  • Helya Gieseler
  • Sebastian Runschke
  • Sven Wydra
  • Judith Zinsmaier
Chapter
  • 16 Downloads

Zusammenfassung

The idea that ethical, social, legal and economic aspects are important considerations in the development of emerging technologies is nothing new. In the 1990s, science policies in the United States began combining public funding for science with research on ethical, legal and social implications (ELSI). This inspired the ongoing development of related funding schemes in Europe such as ELSA (Ethical, Legal and Social Aspects) and RRI (Responsible Research and Innovation), the latter of which also addresses economic considerations. In addition, the academic disciplines representing these aspects – ethics, law, the social sciences and economics – have their own histories of relating to and influencing technological innovation.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. Balmer, Andrew S., Kate Bulpin, Matthew Kearnes, Adrian Mackenzie, Claire Marris, Paul Martin, et al. 2012: Towards a Manifesto for Experimental Collaborations between Social and Natural Scientists. https://experimentalcollaborations.wordpress.com. Accessed 20 October 2018.
  2. Balmer, Andrew S., Jane Calvert, Claire Marris, Susan Molyneux-Hodgson, Emma Frow, Matthew Kearnes, et al. 2015: Taking Roles in Interdisciplinary Collaborations: Reflections on Working in Post-ELSI Spaces in the UK Synthetic Biology Community. Science & Technology Studies 28(3): 3–25.Google Scholar
  3. Balmer, Andrew S., Jane Calvert, Claire Marris, Susan Molyneux-Hodgson, Emma Frow, Matthew Kearnes, et al. 2016: Five Rules of Thumb for Post-ELSI Interdisciplinary Collaborations. Journal of Responsible Innovation 3(1): 73–80.Google Scholar
  4. Bergek, Anna, Marko Hekkert, Staffan Jacobsson, Jochen Markard, Björn Sandén, Bernhard Truffer. 2016: Technological Innovation Systems in Contexts: Conceptualizing Contextual Structures and Interaction Dynamics. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 16: 51–64.Google Scholar
  5. Beyer, Hugh, Karen Holtzblatt. 1998: Contextual Design: Defining Customer-Centered Systems. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.Google Scholar
  6. BMBF. 2013: Von der Begleitforschung zur integrierten Forschung. Erkenntnisse aus dem Förderschwerpunkt »Altersgerechte Assistenzsysteme für ein gesundes und unabhängiges Leben«. Bonn: Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung.Google Scholar
  7. Boix Mansilla, Veronica, Irwin Feller, Howard Gardner. 2006: Quality Assessment in Interdisciplinary Research and Education. Research Evaluation 15(1): 69–74.Google Scholar
  8. Brey, Philip A. E. 2012: Anticipating Ethical Issues in Emerging IT. Ethics and Information Technology 14(4): 305–317.Google Scholar
  9. Cavoukian, Ann. 2011: Privacy by Design in Law, Policy and Practice: A White Paper for Regulators, Decision-makers and Policy-makers. Toronto: Information and Privacy Commissioner.Google Scholar
  10. Collingridge, David. 1982: The Social Control of Technology. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  11. David, Klaus, Kurt Geihs, Jan Marco Leimeister, Alexander Roßnagel, Ludger Schmidt, Gerd Stumme, Arno Wacker. 2014: Socio-technical Design of Ubiquitous Computing Systems. Cham: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  12. Defila, Rico, Antonietta Di Giulio. 2015: Integrating Knowledge: Challenges Raised by the »Inventory of Synthesis«. Futures 65: 123–135.Google Scholar
  13. Delgado, Ana, Kamilla Lein Kjølberg, Fern Wickson. 2011: Public Engagement Coming of Age: From Theory to Practice in STS Encounters with Nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science 20(6): 826–845.Google Scholar
  14. Durant, John. 1999: Participatory Technology Assessment and the Democratic Model of the Public Understanding of Science. Science and Public Policy 26(5): 313–319.Google Scholar
  15. Edquist, Charles. 2004: Reflections on the Systems of Innovation Approach. Science and Public Policy 31(6): 485–489.  https://doi.org/10.3152/147154304781779741.
  16. Fisher, Erik. 2005: Lessons Learned from the Ethical, Legal and Social Implications Program (ELSI): Planning Societal Implications Research for the National Nanotechnology Program. Technology in Society 27(3): 321–328.Google Scholar
  17. Fisher, Erik. 2011: Editorial Overview: Public Science and Technology Scholars: Engaging Whom? Science and Engineering Ethics 17(4): 607–620.Google Scholar
  18. Fisher, Erik, Roop L. Mahajan, Carl Mitcham. 2006: Midstream Modulation of Technology: Governance from Within. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 26(6): 485–496.Google Scholar
  19. Fisher, Erik, Michael O’Rourke, Robert Evans, Eric B. Kennedy, Michael E. Gorman, Thomas P. Seager. 2015: Mapping the Integrative Field: Taking Stock of Socio-technical Collaborations. Journal of Responsible Innovation 2(1): 39–61.Google Scholar
  20. Fisher, Erik, Daan Schuurbiers. 2013: Socio-technical Integration Research: Collaborative Inquiry at the Midstream of Research and Development. In Early Engagement and New Technologies: Opening Up the Laboratory, ed. Neelke Doorn, Daan Schuurbiers, Ibo van de Poel, Michael E. Gorman, 97–110. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  21. Freeman, Christopher. 1992: Formal Scientific and Technical Institutions in the National System of Innovation. In National Systems of Innovation: Toward a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning, ed. Bengt-Åke Lundvall, 169–187. London: Anthem Press.Google Scholar
  22. Friedman, Batya, Peter H. Kahn, Jr. 2003: Human Values, Ethics and Design. In The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook: Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies and Emerging Applications, ed. Julie A. Jacko, Andrew Sears, 1177–1201. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  23. Gehring, Petra. 2013: Technik in der Interdisziplinaritätsfalle: Anmerkungen aus Sicht der Philosophie. Journal of Technical Education 1(1): 132–146.Google Scholar
  24. Giacomin, Joseph. 2014: What Is Human Centred Design? Design Journal 17(4): 606–23.Google Scholar
  25. Grunwald, Armin. 2007: Auf dem Weg zu einer Theorie der Technikfolgenabschätzung. Technikfolgenabschätzung – Theorie und Praxis 16(1): 4–17.Google Scholar
  26. Grunwald, Armin. 2011: Responsible Innovation: Bringing Together Technology Assessment, Applied Ethics, and STS Research. Enterprise and Work Innovation Studies 7: 9–31.Google Scholar
  27. Gürses, Seda, Carmela Troncoso, Claudia Diaz. 2011: Engineering Privacy by Design. https://www.esat.kuleuven.be/cosic/publications/article-1542.pdf. Zuletzt aufgerufen: 21.12.2019.
  28. Guston, David H., Daniel Sarewitz. 2002: Real-Time Technology Assessment. Technology in Society 24: 93–109.Google Scholar
  29. Hammer, Volker, Ulrich Pordesch, Alexander Roßnagel. 1993: Betriebliche Telefon- und ISDN-Anlagen rechtsgemäß gestaltet. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  30. Hilgendorf, Eric. 2010: Bedingungen gelingender Interdisziplinarität – am Beispiel der Rechtswissenschaft. JuristenZeitung 19: 913–922.Google Scholar
  31. Hoffmann, Axel, Thomas Schulz, Julia Zirfas, Holger Hoffmann, Alexander Roßnagel, Jan Marco Leimeister. 2015: Legal Compatibility as a Characteristic of Sociotechnical Systems. Business & Information Systems Engineering 57(2): 103–13.Google Scholar
  32. Holtzblatt, Karen, Jessamyn Burns Wendell, Shelley Wood. 2005: Rapid Contextual Design: A How-To Guide to Key Techniques for User-Centered Design. Amsterdam: Elsevier Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  33. Huutoniemi, Katri. 2010: Evaluating Interdisciplinary Research. In The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity, 1st, ed. Robert Frodeman: 309–20. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Konrad, Kornelia, Peter Stegmaier, Arie Rip, Stefan Kuhlmann. 2014: Constructive Technology Assessment—Antizipation modulieren als Teil der Governance von Innovation. In Vielfalt und Zusammenhalt. Verhandlungen des 36. Kongresses der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Soziologie in Bochum und Dortmund 2012, vol. 36, ed. Martina Löw, 1–12. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.Google Scholar
  35. Krebs, David. 2013: »Privacy by Design«: Nice-to-Have or a Necessary Principle of Data Protection Law? Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and Electronic Commerce Law 4(1), para. 1.Google Scholar
  36. Kuppens, Tom, Miet van Dael, Kenny Vanreppelen, Theo Thewys, Jan Yperman, Robert Carleer, Steven van Passel. 2015: Techno-economic Assessment of Fast Pyrolysis for the Valorization of Short Rotation Coppice Cultivated for Phytoextraction. Journal of Cleaner Production 88: 336–344.Google Scholar
  37. Lange, Hellmuth, Veronika Fuest. 2015: Optionen zur Stärkung inter- und transdisziplinärer Verbundforschung. Artec-paper 201. Artec, Forschungszentrum Nachhaltigkeit, Universität Bremen.Google Scholar
  38. Lauer, Maximilian. 2008: Methodology Guideline on Techno-economic Assessment (TEA): Generated in the Framework of ThermalNet WP3B Economics. https://ec.europa.eu/energy/ intelligent/projects/sites/iee-projects/files/projects/documents/thermalnet_methodology_ guideline_on_techno_economic_assessment.pdf. Zuletzt aufgerufen: 21.12.2019.
  39. Lundvall, Bengt-Åke. 1988: Innovation as an Interactive Process: From User-Producer Interaction to the National System of Innovation. In Technical Change and Economic Theory, ed. Giovanni Dosi, 349–367. IFIAS Research Series 6. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  40. Manzeschke, Arne, Karsten Weber, Elisabeth Rother, Heiner Fangerau. 2013: Ergebnisse der Studie »Ethische Fragen im Bereich Altersgerechter Assistenzsysteme« Berlin: VDI.Google Scholar
  41. Manzeschke, Arne, Karsten Weber, Elisabeth Rother, Heiner Fangerau. 2015: Results of the Study »Ethical Questions in the Area of Age-Appropriate Assisting Systems«. Berlin: VDI.Google Scholar
  42. Matzner, Tobias, Regina Ammicht Quinn. 2015: Sicherheitsethik in der Anwendung. Ein Praxistest gesellschaftlicher Begleitforschung. In Sichere Zeiten? Gesellschaftliche Dimensionen der Sicherheitsforschung, ed. Peter Zoche, Stefan Kaufmann, Harald Arnold, 219–234. Berlin and Münster: LIT.Google Scholar
  43. McGrath, Rita, Ian MacMillan. 2000: Assessing Technology Projects Using Real Options Reasoning. Research Technology Management 43(4): 35–49.Google Scholar
  44. Mepham, Ben. 2000: A Framework for the Ethical Analysis of Novel Foods: The Ethical Matrix. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 12: 165–176.Google Scholar
  45. Myskaja, Björn Kare, Rune Nydal, Anne Ingeborg Myhr. 2014: We Have Never Been ELSI Researchers—There Is No Need for a Post-ELSI Shift. Life Sciences, Society and Policy 10(9). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4648827/. Zuletzt aufgerufen: 21.12.2019.
  46. Nelson, Richard R. 1993: National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&- scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=140859. Zuletzt aufgerufen: 21.12.2019.
  47. Palm, Elin, Sven Ove Hansson. 2006: The Case for Ethical Technology Assessment (eTA). Technological Forecasting & Social Change 73: 543–558.Google Scholar
  48. Piotrowski, Stephan, Michael Carus, Fabrizio Sibilla, Achim Raschka. 2014: New nova Methodology for Techno-Economic Evaluations of Innovative Industrial Processes (nTEE): With a Case Study Applied to a Lignocellulosic Biorefinery Concept (BIOCORE). Nova-Institute. Hürth (nova paper).Google Scholar
  49. Pohl, Christian, Lorrae van Kerkhoff, Gertrude Hirsch Hadorn, Gabriele Bammer. 2008: Integration. In Handbook of Transdisciplinary Research, ed. Gertrude Hirsch Hadorn, Jill Jäger, 411–425. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  50. Prietl, Bianca. 2016: Der Ingenieur als technisch kompetenter und sozial versierter Manager. Vergeschlechtliche Konturen eines Berufsbildes. Berliner Debatte Initial 27(1): 58–69.Google Scholar
  51. Rao, Anand B., Edward Rubin. 2002: A Technical, Economic and Environmental Assessment of Amine-Based CO2 Capture Technology for Power Plant Greenhouse Gas Control. Environmental Science & Technology 36(20): 4467–4475.Google Scholar
  52. Reijers, Wessel, David Wright, Philip Brey, Karsten Weber, Rowena Rodrigues, Declan O’Sullivan, Bert Gordijn. 2017: Methods for Practising Ethics in Research and Innovation: A Literature Review, Critical Analysis and Recommendations. Science and Engineering Ethics, 24(5): 1437–1481.Google Scholar
  53. Rip, Arie. 2007: Die Verzahnung von technologischen und sozialen Determinismen und die Ambivalenzen von Handlungsträgerschaft im »Constructive Technology Assessment«. In Gesellschaft und die Macht der Technik. Sozioökonomischer und institutioneller Wandel durch Technisierung, ed. Ulrich Dolata, Raymund Werle, 83–104. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.Google Scholar
  54. Rip, Arie, Thomas J. Misa, Johan Schot. 1995: Managing Technology in Society: The Approach of Constructive Technology Assessment, 1st edn. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  55. Rodriguez, Hannot, Erik Fisher, Daan Schuurbiers. 2013: Integrating Science and Society in European Framework Programmes: Trends in Project-Level Solicitations. Research Policy 42(5): 1126–1137.Google Scholar
  56. Rodriguez, Hannot, Mingyan Hu, Erik Fisher. 2012: Socio-technical Integration: Research Policies in the United States, European Union, and China. In Engineering, Development and Philosophy: American, Chinese and European Perspectives, ed. Steen Hyldgaard Christensen, Carl Mitcham, Bocong Li, Yanming An, 291–304. Philosophy of Engineering and Technology, 11. Dordrecht and London: Springer.Google Scholar
  57. Santosuosso, Amedeo, Oliver R. Goodenough, Marta Tomasi. 2015: The Challenge of Innovation in Law: The Impact of Technology and Science on Legal Studies and Practice. Law, Sciences and New Technologies, 1. Pavia: Pavia University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Scholz, Philip. 2003: Datenschutz beim Internet-Einkauf: Gefährdungen – Anforderungen – Gestaltungen. Der elektronische Rechtsverkehr, Bd. 8. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  59. Schot, Johan, Arne Rip. 1997: The Past and Future of Constructive Technology Assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 54(2–3): 251–268.Google Scholar
  60. Schuurbiers, Daan. 2011: What Happens in the Lab: Applying Midstream Modulation to Enhance Critical Reflection in the Laboratory. Science and Engineering Ethics 17(4): 769–788.Google Scholar
  61. Sengers, Phoebe, Kirsten Boehner, Shay David, Joseph ›Jofish‹ Kaye. 2005: Reflective Design. In Proceedings of the 4th Decennial Conference on Critical Computing: Between Sense and Sensibility, ed. Olav W. Bertelsen, 49–58. New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  62. Simić-Draws, Daniela, Stephan Neumann, Anna Kahlert, Philipp Richter, Rüdiger Grimm, Melanie Volkamer, Alexander Roßnagel. 2013: Holistic and Law-Compatible IT Security Evaluation: Integration of Common Criteria, ISO 27001/IT-Grundschutz and KORA. International Journal of Information Security and Privacy 7(3): 16–35.Google Scholar
  63. Skorupinski, Barbara, Konrad Ott. 2002: Technology Assessment and Ethics: Determining a Relationship in Theory and Practice. Poiesis & Praxis 1: 95–122.Google Scholar
  64. Stilgoe, Jack, Richard Owen, Phil Macnaghten. 2013: Developing a Framework for Responsible Innovation. Research Policy 42(9): 1568–1580.Google Scholar
  65. Stubbe, Julian. 2018: Innovationsimpuls »Integrierte Forschung«. Diskussionspapier des BMBF-Forschungsprogramms »Technik zum Menschen bringen«. https://www.technik- zum-menschen-bringen.de/dateien/service/veranstaltungen/diskussionspapier-integrierte- forschung-2018-05-25.pdf. Zuletzt aufgerufen: 21.12.2019.
  66. Tassey, Gregory. 2003: Methods for Assessing the Economic Impacts of Government R&D. NIST Planning Report #03-01. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology.Google Scholar
  67. Thompson Klein, Julie. 2008: Integration in der inter- und transdisziplinären Forschung. In Transdisziplinäre Forschung. Integrative Forschungsprozesse verstehen und bewerten, ed. Matthias Hrsg. Bergmann, 93–117. Frankfurt am Main: Campus-Verlag.Google Scholar
  68. Tran, Thien A., Tugrul Daim. 2008: A Taxonomic Review of Methods and Tools Applied in Technology Assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 75(9): 1396–1405.Google Scholar
  69. Venables, Anthony J. 2017: Incorporating Wider Economic Impacts within Cost–Benefit Appraisal. In Quantifying the Socio-economic Benefits of Transport, 109–27. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  70. Viseu, Ana. 2015a: Caring for Nanotechnology? Being an Integrated Social Scientist. Social Studies of Science 45(5): 642–664.Google Scholar
  71. Viseu, Ana. 2015b: Integration of Social Science into Research Is Crucial. Nature 525(7569): 291.Google Scholar
  72. Warnke, Philine, Bruno Gransche. 2009: Mensch-Technik-Kooperation. In Zukunftsfelder neuen Zuschnitts. Foresight-Prozess im Auftrag des BMBF, ed. Kerstin Cuhls, Walter Ganz, Philine Warnke, 15–38. Karlsruhe and Stuttgart: Fraunhofer-Institut für System- und Innovationsforschung (ISI) und Fraunhofer-Institut für Arbeitswirtschaft und Organisation (IAO).Google Scholar
  73. Webster, Andrew. 2007: Crossing Boundaries: Social Science in the Policy Room. Science, Technology & Human Values 32(4): 458–478.Google Scholar
  74. Wright, David. 2011: A Framework for the Ethical Impact Assessment of Information Technology. Ethics and Information Technology 13(3): 199–226.Google Scholar
  75. Žižlavský, Ondřej. 2014: Net Present Value Approach: Method for Economic Assessment of Innovation Projects. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences 156: 506–12.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.11.230.
  76. Zwart, Hub, Laurens Landeweerd, Arjan van Rooij. 2014: Adapt or Perish? Assessing the Recent Shift in the European Research Funding Arena from »ELSA« to »RRI«. Life Sciences, Society and Policy 10: 11.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mone Spindler
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sophia Booz
    • 2
  • Helya Gieseler
    • 6
  • Sebastian Runschke
    • 3
  • Sven Wydra
    • 4
  • Judith Zinsmaier
    • 5
  1. 1.Internationales Zentrum für Ethik in den Wissenschaften (IZEW)Universität TübingenTübingenDeutschland
  2. 2.Uni HamburgHamburgDeutschland
  3. 3.Humboldt-Universität zu BerlinBerlinDeutschland
  4. 4.Fraunhofer-Institut für System- und Innovationsforschung ISIGeschäftsfeld Bioökonomie und LebenswissenschaftenKarlsruheDeutschland
  5. 5.Institut für PhilosophiePhilipps-Universität MarburgMarburgDeutschland
  6. 6.BerlinDeutschland

Personalised recommendations