通过恋童癖扫描防止儿童保育机构中的儿童性虐待?负责任的研究与创新》(Responsible Research and Innovation)中质疑 "协调 "概念的思想实验。

IF 3.1 Q1 Arts and Humanities Life Sciences, Society and Policy Pub Date : 2017-12-01 Epub Date: 2017-02-28 DOI:10.1186/s40504-017-0049-7
Irja Marije de Jong, Frank Kupper, Corine de Ruiter, Jacqueline Broerse
{"title":"通过恋童癖扫描防止儿童保育机构中的儿童性虐待?负责任的研究与创新》(Responsible Research and Innovation)中质疑 \"协调 \"概念的思想实验。","authors":"Irja Marije de Jong, Frank Kupper, Corine de Ruiter, Jacqueline Broerse","doi":"10.1186/s40504-017-0049-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) is a science policy concept that gained traction from 2000 onwards in the EU and US, in which alignment on purposes and values between different stakeholders is a key aspect. This thought experiment problematizes this particular notion: ethically acceptable and societally desirable outcomes are not necessarily achieved when alignment is a consequence of early closure. To argue this point, we took the example of the potential development of scanning technology for the detection of paedophilia among job applicants, for which indicators of broad societal support were found in an RRI project on neuroimaging. We analysed this case by looking through several lenses, obtained by structured and non-structured literature searches. We explored how facts and values are masked when a taboo topic is considered. This results in the black boxing of the problem definition, potential solutions and development trajectories. Complex unstructured problems can thus be perceived as manageable structured problems, which can in turn lead to irresponsible policies surrounding technology development. Responsible processes of research and technology development thus require the involvement of a critical reflector who is alert to signs of early closure and who prevents foreclosure of ongoing reflexive deliberation. There is an important role for ethical, legal and societal aspect studies within the framework of RRI. This paper shows that the concepts of \"value/fact diversity masking\" and \"early discursive closure\" are new avenues for RRI research.</p>","PeriodicalId":37861,"journal":{"name":"Life Sciences, Society and Policy","volume":"13 1","pages":"2"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2017-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5330990/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A paedophile scan to prevent child sexual abuse in child care? A thought experiment to problematize the notion of alignment in Responsible Research and Innovation.\",\"authors\":\"Irja Marije de Jong, Frank Kupper, Corine de Ruiter, Jacqueline Broerse\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s40504-017-0049-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) is a science policy concept that gained traction from 2000 onwards in the EU and US, in which alignment on purposes and values between different stakeholders is a key aspect. This thought experiment problematizes this particular notion: ethically acceptable and societally desirable outcomes are not necessarily achieved when alignment is a consequence of early closure. To argue this point, we took the example of the potential development of scanning technology for the detection of paedophilia among job applicants, for which indicators of broad societal support were found in an RRI project on neuroimaging. We analysed this case by looking through several lenses, obtained by structured and non-structured literature searches. We explored how facts and values are masked when a taboo topic is considered. This results in the black boxing of the problem definition, potential solutions and development trajectories. Complex unstructured problems can thus be perceived as manageable structured problems, which can in turn lead to irresponsible policies surrounding technology development. Responsible processes of research and technology development thus require the involvement of a critical reflector who is alert to signs of early closure and who prevents foreclosure of ongoing reflexive deliberation. There is an important role for ethical, legal and societal aspect studies within the framework of RRI. This paper shows that the concepts of \\\"value/fact diversity masking\\\" and \\\"early discursive closure\\\" are new avenues for RRI research.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":37861,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Life Sciences, Society and Policy\",\"volume\":\"13 1\",\"pages\":\"2\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5330990/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Life Sciences, Society and Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40504-017-0049-7\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2017/2/28 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Life Sciences, Society and Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40504-017-0049-7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2017/2/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

负责任的研究与创新(Responsible Research and Innovation,RRI)是一个科学政策概念,从 2000 年起在欧盟和美国逐渐流行起来。本思想实验对这一特定概念提出了质疑:如果一致性是提前结束的结果,那么就不一定能取得道德上可接受、社会上理想的结果。为了论证这一点,我们以潜在的用于检测求职者恋童癖的扫描技术开发为例,在一个关于神经成像的 RRI 项目中,我们发现了得到广泛社会支持的指标。我们通过结构化和非结构化的文献检索,从多个角度对这一案例进行了分析。我们探讨了在考虑一个禁忌话题时,事实和价值观是如何被掩盖的。这导致了问题定义、潜在解决方案和发展轨迹的黑箱化。因此,复杂的非结构化问题可能被视为可管理的结构化问题,进而导致围绕技术开发的不负责任的政策。因此,负责任的研究和技术开发过程需要批判性反思者的参与,这种反思者应警惕提前结束的迹象,并防止正在进行的反思性讨论遭到破坏。在 RRI 框架内,伦理、法律和社会方面的研究可以发挥重要作用。本文表明,"价值/事实多样性掩蔽 "和 "早期话语封闭 "的概念是 RRI 研究的新途径。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

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
A paedophile scan to prevent child sexual abuse in child care? A thought experiment to problematize the notion of alignment in Responsible Research and Innovation.

Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) is a science policy concept that gained traction from 2000 onwards in the EU and US, in which alignment on purposes and values between different stakeholders is a key aspect. This thought experiment problematizes this particular notion: ethically acceptable and societally desirable outcomes are not necessarily achieved when alignment is a consequence of early closure. To argue this point, we took the example of the potential development of scanning technology for the detection of paedophilia among job applicants, for which indicators of broad societal support were found in an RRI project on neuroimaging. We analysed this case by looking through several lenses, obtained by structured and non-structured literature searches. We explored how facts and values are masked when a taboo topic is considered. This results in the black boxing of the problem definition, potential solutions and development trajectories. Complex unstructured problems can thus be perceived as manageable structured problems, which can in turn lead to irresponsible policies surrounding technology development. Responsible processes of research and technology development thus require the involvement of a critical reflector who is alert to signs of early closure and who prevents foreclosure of ongoing reflexive deliberation. There is an important role for ethical, legal and societal aspect studies within the framework of RRI. This paper shows that the concepts of "value/fact diversity masking" and "early discursive closure" are new avenues for RRI research.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Life Sciences, Society and Policy
Life Sciences, Society and Policy Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊介绍: The purpose of Life Sciences, Society and Policy (LSSP) is to analyse social, ethical and legal dimensions of the most dynamic branches of life sciences and technologies, and to discuss ways to foster responsible innovation, sustainable development and user-driven social policies. LSSP provides an academic forum for engaged scholarship at the intersection of life sciences, philosophy, bioethics, science studies and policy research, and covers a broad area of inquiry both in emerging research areas such as genomics, bioinformatics, biophysics, molecular engineering, nanotechnology and synthetic biology, and in more applied fields such as translational medicine, food science, environmental science, climate studies, research on animals, sustainability, science education and others. The goal is to produce insights, tools and recommendations that are relevant not only for academic researchers and teachers, but also for civil society, policy makers and industry, as well as for professionals in education, health care and the media, thus contributing to better research practices, better policies, and a more sustainable global society.
期刊最新文献
Biobanking and risk assessment: a comprehensive typology of risks for an adaptive risk governance. "Data is the new oil": citizen science and informed consent in an era of researchers handling of an economically valuable resource. Investigating the effectiveness of nanotechnologies in environmental health with an emphasis on environmental health journals. Limits of data anonymity: lack of public awareness risks trust in health system activities. The use of digital twins in healthcare: socio-ethical benefits and socio-ethical risks.
×
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