Ethics governance development: The case of the Menlo Report.

IF 2.9 2区 社会学 Q1 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE Social Studies of Science Pub Date : 2023-06-01 DOI:10.1177/03063127231151708
Megan Finn, Katie Shilton
{"title":"Ethics governance development: The case of the Menlo Report.","authors":"Megan Finn,&nbsp;Katie Shilton","doi":"10.1177/03063127231151708","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The 2012 Menlo Report was an effort in which a group of computer scientists, US government funders, and lawyers produced ethics guidelines for research in information and communications technology (ICT). Here we study Menlo as a case of what we call <i>ethics governance in the making</i>, finding that this process examines past controversies and enrols existing networks to connect the everyday practice of ethics with ethics as a form of governance. To create the Menlo Report, authors and funders relied on bricolage work with existing, available resources, which significantly shaped both the report's contents and impacts. Report authors were motivated by both forward- and backward-looking goals: enabling new data-sharing as well as addressing past controversies and their implications for the field's body of research. Authors also grappled with uncertainty about which ethical frameworks were appropriate and made the decision to classify much network data as human subjects data. Finally, the Menlo Report authors attempted to enrol multiple existing networks in governance through appeals to local research communities as well as taking steps towards federal rulemaking. The Menlo Report serves as a case study in how to study ethics governance in the making: with attention to resources, adaptation, and bricolage, and with a focus on both the uncertainties the process tries to repair, as well as the new uncertainties the process uncovers, which will become the site of future ethics work.</p>","PeriodicalId":51152,"journal":{"name":"Social Studies of Science","volume":"53 3","pages":"315-340"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/e2/b4/10.1177_03063127231151708.PMC10240629.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Studies of Science","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/03063127231151708","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The 2012 Menlo Report was an effort in which a group of computer scientists, US government funders, and lawyers produced ethics guidelines for research in information and communications technology (ICT). Here we study Menlo as a case of what we call ethics governance in the making, finding that this process examines past controversies and enrols existing networks to connect the everyday practice of ethics with ethics as a form of governance. To create the Menlo Report, authors and funders relied on bricolage work with existing, available resources, which significantly shaped both the report's contents and impacts. Report authors were motivated by both forward- and backward-looking goals: enabling new data-sharing as well as addressing past controversies and their implications for the field's body of research. Authors also grappled with uncertainty about which ethical frameworks were appropriate and made the decision to classify much network data as human subjects data. Finally, the Menlo Report authors attempted to enrol multiple existing networks in governance through appeals to local research communities as well as taking steps towards federal rulemaking. The Menlo Report serves as a case study in how to study ethics governance in the making: with attention to resources, adaptation, and bricolage, and with a focus on both the uncertainties the process tries to repair, as well as the new uncertainties the process uncovers, which will become the site of future ethics work.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
道德治理发展:以门洛报告为例。
2012年的门洛报告是一群计算机科学家、美国政府资助者和律师为信息通信技术(ICT)研究制定的道德准则。在这里,我们将门罗事件作为一个我们称之为“正在形成的伦理治理”的案例进行研究,发现这一过程考察了过去的争议,并纳入了现有的网络,将日常的伦理实践与作为治理形式的伦理联系起来。在编写《门洛报告》的过程中,作者和资助者对现有的、可用的资源进行了拼凑,这在很大程度上决定了报告的内容和影响。报告作者的动机既有前瞻目标,也有回顾目标:实现新的数据共享,同时解决过去的争议及其对该领域研究的影响。作者还努力解决关于哪种伦理框架是合适的不确定性,并决定将许多网络数据分类为人类受试者数据。最后,门洛报告的作者试图通过呼吁当地研究团体以及采取步骤制定联邦规则,将多个现有网络纳入治理。《门洛报告》是一个研究如何研究伦理治理过程的案例:关注资源、适应和拼凑,关注过程试图修复的不确定性,以及过程中发现的新的不确定性,这些不确定性将成为未来伦理工作的场所。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Social Studies of Science
Social Studies of Science 管理科学-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
6.70%
发文量
45
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Social Studies of Science is an international peer reviewed journal that encourages submissions of original research on science, technology and medicine. The journal is multidisciplinary, publishing work from a range of fields including: political science, sociology, economics, history, philosophy, psychology social anthropology, legal and educational disciplines. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
期刊最新文献
Wake effects and temperature plumes: Coping with non-knowledge in the expansion of wind and geothermal energy. Population curation: The construction of mutual obligation between individual and state in Danish precision medicine. Hearts and minds: The technopolitical role of affect in sociotechnical imaginaries. Cells and the city: The rise and fall of urban biopolitics in San Francisco, 1970-2020. What work does ‘contamination’ do? An agential realist account of oil wastewater and radium in groundwater
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1