Abstract
The concept of ‘responsibility’ is part of an evolving responsibility language, in place since the late 18th century. It allows emerging and evolving, and stabilising, ‘divisions of moral labour’ to be discussed. The handling of dangerous knowledge is discussed as an example, including contemporary biosecurity issues and their regulation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Its use is widespread, for example Accor Hotels, when you book and do an online check-in, announces “For responsible tourism that respects children …” and continues: “Firmly committed to child protection […] Together, let’s not look away …” The concept is applied for other activities as well, as when Michelin, “the world’s largest buyer of natural rubber, announced a new zero-deforestation policy, setting the bar for the rest of the industry. Its goal is to produce rubber responsibly […].” Time Magazine, 25 July 2016, p. 21, in a news item written by Carter Roberts (president of WorldWild Life Fund).
- 2.
This is to some extent an artefact of European funding opportunities and the wish of academics (social scientists and humanities scholars) to be part of fashionable development (Rip 2016). But there are related activities, for example with research funding agencies, which will remain even when the fashion has run its course (Fisher and Rip 2013).
- 3.
- 4.
This story should be compared with the story of the bird flu virus engineered by the Dutch virologist Fouchier and his team in Rotterdam, who was not allowed to publish by the USA National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity, but after two high-level expert meetings on the security risks, especially infection of humans, eventually got permission, and published in Summer 2012.
- 5.
Not only the term ‘responsibility’ was invented at the time, but also the term ‘scientist’ (Ross 1962).
- 6.
- 7.
My attention was drawn to this example by Hanssen and De Vriend (2011).
- 8.
This concept was introduced by Sally Randles of Manchester University.
- 9.
There are more issues than I can discuss here. The temptation of tractability (in RRI and generally): In ongoing practices, sometimes referring explicitly to RRI, we see reductions to create some tractability: a focus on upstream (to assure acceptance!?)—while the real challenges might be downstream. And a focus on risk issues which appear to be more tractable than societal and ethical issues. These reductions can close down broader reflexivity, and definitely shape development, e.g. through evolving narratives of specific praise and blame. Also, there is the two-edged sword of due process argument (for RRI): ‘Was there upstream interaction with society? OK, enactor, then you cannot be blamed for what happens afterwards.’
- 10.
Plus the related problem of “speculative ethics”, cf. Nordmann and Rip (2009).
- 11.
The concept ‘joint inquiry’ was introduced and pushed by John Dewey, linked to his ideal of a form of democracy centered on issues. For an update, related to an analysis of nanotechnology discussions, see Krabbenborg (2013).
References
Adkins, A. H. W. (1975). Merit and responsibility. A study in Greek values. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Agamben, G. (1998). Homo sacer: Sovereign power and bare life. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Barash, J. R., & Arnon, S. S. (2013). A novel strain of Clostridium botulinum that produces type B and type H botulinum toxins. Journal of Infectious Diseases, 209(2), 183–191. https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jit449.
Charbonnier, P. (1928). Essais sur l’histoire de la ballistique. Paris: Société d’Editions Géographiques, Maritimes et Coloniales.
Evans, S. A. W., & Valdivia, W. D. (2012). Export controls and the tensions between academic freedom and national security. Minerva, 50, 169–190.
Fisher, E., & Rip, A. (2013). Responsible innovation: Multi-level dynamics and soft intervention practices. In R. Owen, J. Bessant, & M. Heintz (Eds.), Responsible innovation. Managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society (pp. 165–183). Chichester: Wiley.
Hanssen, L., & De Vriend, H. (2011). De komst van sociale media. Een Nieuwe Dynamiek in het Debat over Biotechnologie? Nijmegen: COGEM onderzoeksrapport CGM 2011-09.
Hume, D. (1955). In C. W. Hendel (Ed.), An inquiry concerning human understanding. Indianapolis: The Liberal Arts Press (Bobbs-Merrill). Originally published in 1748.
King, A. A., & Lenox, M. J. (2000). Industry self-regulation without sanctions: The chemical industry’s responsible care program. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 698–716.
Krabbenborg, L. (2013). Involvement of civil society actors in nanotechnology: Creating productive spaces for interaction (PhD thesis University of Groningen, defended 29 November 2013).
Kuhlmann, S., & Rip, A. (2018). Next generation innovation policy and grand challenges. Science and Public Policy, 45(4), 448–454.
Nordmann, A., & Rip, A. (2009). Mind the gap revisited. Nature Nanotechnology, 4(5), 273–274.
Ravetz, J. (1975). ‘… et augebitur scientia’. In R. Harré (Ed.), Problems of Scientific Revolution: Progress and Obstacles to Progress in the Sciences (pp. 42–57). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Rip, A. (1981). Maatschappelijke Verantwoordelijkheid van Chemici (PhD thesis University of Leiden; published privately).
Rip, A., & Van Lente, H. (2013). Bridging the gap between innovation and ELSA: The TA program in the Dutch nano-R&D program NanoNed. Nanoethics, 7(1), 7–16.
Rip, A. (2014). Past and Future of Responsible Research and Innovation. Life Sciences, Society and Policy, 10, 17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40504-014-0017-4 (electronic journal).
Rip, A. (2016). The clothes of the emperor: An essay on RRI in and around Brussels. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 3(3), 290–304. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23299460.2016.1255701.
Rip, A. (2017). Division of moral labour as an element in the governance of emerging technologies. In D. M. Bowman, E. Stokes, & A. Rip (Eds.), Embedding new technologies into society: A regulatory, ethical and societal perspective (pp. 115–129). Singapore: Pan Stanford.
Ross, Sydney. (1962). Scientist: The story of a word. Annals of Science, 18(2), 65–85.
Swierstra, T., & Rip, A. (2007). Nano-ethics as NEST-ethics: Patterns of moral argumentation about new and emerging science and technology. NanoEthics, 1(1), 3–20.
Tartaglia, T. (1537). Nova scientia, the preface, ed., trans: Drake & Drabkin 1969, p. 68f.
Throne-Holst, H., & Rip, A. (2011). Complexities of labelling of nano-products on the consumer markets. European Journal of Law and Technology, 2(3), 1–12.
Throne-Holst, H. (2012). Consumers, Nanotechnology and Responsibilities. Operationalizing the Risk Society (PhD thesis, University of Twente, defended 18 April 2012).
Varugese, S. S. (2012). Where are the missing masses? The Quasi-publics and non-publics of technoscience. Minerva, 50(2), 239–254.
Wiener, P. P. (Ed.). (1973). Dictionary of the history of ideas (Studies of Selected Pivotal Ideas). New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Rip, A. (2020). Technology and Evolving and Contested Division of Moral Labour. In: Beck, B., Kühler, M. (eds) Technology, Anthropology, and Dimensions of Responsibility. Techno:Phil – Aktuelle Herausforderungen der Technikphilosophie , vol 1. J.B. Metzler, Stuttgart. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-476-04896-7_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-476-04896-7_3
Published:
Publisher Name: J.B. Metzler, Stuttgart
Print ISBN: 978-3-476-04895-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-476-04896-7
eBook Packages: J.B. Metzler Humanities (German Language)