Manchester feb 2013 small
Download as pptx, pdf1 like224 views
A field trial testing a climate engineering technique was recently cancelled due to concerns about intellectual property rights, public engagement, and the overall governance regime. While solutions to governing controversial climate engineering research are challenging, frameworks to ensure safety, compliance, and inclusive public participation need to be established to prevent further setbacks and build public trust. Lessons from past controversies over emerging technologies show the importance of addressing governance challenges proactively.
Manchester feb 2013 small
- 1. Balloon debate: Responsible innovation in geoengineering j.stilgoe@ucl.ac.uk @jackstilgoe Manchester, Feb 2013
- 10. ¡®Research Councils have a responsibility to scrutinize the potential impacts and risks of emerging technologies, and encourage the researchers we fund to do likewise.... The challenge will be to define an approach that promotes creativity and innovation in research underpinned by a commitment to its responsible development.¡¯ David Delpy, ESPRC CEO
- 11. The what, the how and the why of innovation Products Processes Purposes ? What are the likely risks ? How should research ? Why should this and benefits ? and innovation take research be ? How will the risks and place? undertaken? benefits be distributed? ? How should standards ? Who will benefit ? ? What other impacts can be drawn up and ? What are the we predict ? applied? alternatives? ? How might these ? How should risks and ? Who gets to decide? change in the future? benefits be defined and ? What don¡¯t we know measured? about? ? Who is in control? ? What might we never ? Who will take know about? responsibility if things go wrong? ? What if we are wrong?
- 12. Pathologies of innovation ¨C Late lessons from early warnings (EEA) ¨C The dilemma of control (David Collingridge) ¨C Systemic risk and normal accidents (Charles Perrow) ¨C Technological lock-in (Paul David) ¨C Myths of techno-fixes (Dan Sarewitz) ¨C Altered nature of human action (Hans Jonas) ¨C Organised irresponsibility (Ulrich Beck) ¨C Expectations and Imaginaries (Brown, Hedgecoe, Jasanoff, Wynne et al.) ¨C Deficit models of publics (Brian Wynne) ¨C Society as a laboratory (Krohn and Weyer)
- 13. On responsibility ? From retrospective¡ (accountability and liability) ? ¡ to prospective (care and responsiveness) ? ¡ and collective ? Role responsibilities and general responsibilities ? Second-order (or meta-)responsibilities
- 14. On innovation ? Non-linear ? Socio-technical ? Systemic Responsible innovation is ¡®collective care for the future through the stewardship of innovation in the present¡¯
- 15. Four characteristics of responsible innovation Reflexive Anticipatory Responsive Inclusive
- 16. Mechanisms for responsible innovation ? Life-cycle analysis ? Risk assessment ? Ethics committees ? Public dialogue ? Foresight ? Codes of conduct ? Multidisciplinary collaboration and technology appraisal ? Training and capacity-building ? Institutional structures ? Systems of reward and recognition, intellectual property, standards, publication, peer review ? ¡ and more
- 17. ¡°The imaginary made °ù±ð²¹±ô¡±
- 18. Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering (SPICE)
- 19. Naturally produced Four large balloons particles from large supporting very strong volcanoes reduce pipes carrying particle earths temperature by 0.5 material could cool the C over 2 ¨C 3 years planet by 2 C
- 21. Human actions that Climate Climate impact change climate System on human welfare Mitigation Geoengineering Adaptation
- 32. Conditions for acceptance (Macnaghten and Szerszynski, 2013, GEC) 1. Confidence in the scientific consensus on climate 2. Conviction that SRM will be effective, cost effective and operational 3. Trust in science to identify and mitigate side-effects before deployment 4. Consensus that mitigation policies are flawed 5. Confidence that geoengineering deployment would complement rather than replace mitigation 6. Guarantee that ¡®benign¡¯ intent can be separated from others 7. Belief that SRM geoengineering can be governed democratically
- 36. Stage gate criteria 1. Safety 2. Compliance 3. Framing and Communication (reflexive) 4. Imagination of applications and implications (anticipatory, reflexive) 5. Hearing public and stakeholder views (inclusive)
- 37. Naturally produced Four large balloons particles from large supporting very strong volcanoes reduce pipes carrying particle earths temperature by 0.5 material could cool the C over 2 ¨C 3 years planet by 2 C
- 38. Naturally produced Four large balloons particles from large supporting very strong volcanoes reduce pipes carrying particle earths temperature by 0.5 material could cool the C over 2 ¨C 3 years planet by 2 C
- 39. THISWEEK W A SThe lunge feeding of H LE W R V WRio meeting O LD IE B IT LES A SBilateral R T TR E IT R LS D O IA greatest ocean predators explained p.416 must not rush to set planetary boundaries p.417 steps of the five- legged groove machine p.41 9 A charter for geoengineering A controversial field trial of technology to mitigate climate change has been cancelled, but research continues. A robust governance framework is sorely needed to prevent further setbacks. G e ngine ring re a ha aproble Tha much s oe e se rch s m. t hould gove rnme to ¡°whe ne s a cre tene me nis for the nts n ce s ry, a w cha ms becle r followingla t we k?sca lla a s e nce tion of afie tria for ld l gove ncea ove ight of la -s leclima e rna nd rs rge ca te ngine ringre e rch e sa theS tos ricP rticleInje tra phe a ction for Clima E te ngine ring e activities¡±. (S ICE proje Thes P ) ct. olutionstothisproble a not s obvious but m re o , TheS ICEfia co s rkly de P s ta mons te thene d for s me - tra s e uch cha they must be found ¡ª and fast. nis . F aproje of s high profileto founde on proble of ms or ct uch r ms TheS ICEfie tria wa s P ld l s uppos d to involves yingwa r into e pra te inte ctual prope re lle rty, gula tion or public thea tmos rea a a phe t n ltitudeof 1?kilome us aba tre ing lloon a hos -nd e ¡° Problemswill prote t would be bad e s nough. Tha it ra t n pipe, aspart of a host of work exploring whether it is possibleto miti- persist until into difficultie in all thre a a s s e re s howsa n gate global warming by introducing particles into the stratosphere to geoengineers underlying problem. reflect some of the S energy away from Earth. un?s grasp thenettle Of theis ue ra e inte ctua prope s s is d, lle l rty But the field trial ¡ª which is only a small part of the overall SPICE of regulation ma turn out to bethee s s to re olve(s e y a ie t s e proje ¡ªbe mebogge down in prote tsa de ysa ct ca d s nd la lmos a s t s oon and oversight.¡± pa 429). S nceha alonga ge ra ge cie s nd ne lly a it wa a s s nnounce La t we k, a firs re d. s e s t porte by Nature thepro- d , ha re tions with pa nts including ppy la hip te , je le d inve tiga a ct?s a s tor nnounce tha it wa be a ndone citing d t s ing ba d, thos for te e chnologywith thea bilitytodriveworldwidecha . Like nge - conce a rns bout inte ctua lle l-prope rights publice ge nt a rty , nga me nd wis , le s on publice ge nt a de lingwith prote tsca be e s ons nga me nd a s n the overall governance regime for such work. ta n frome rlie rowsove ge ticmodifica ke a r r ne tion, s mce , fe te lls rtility
Editor's Notes
- #2: Me¡ Governance of emerging technologies ¨C Emerging ¨C in the absence of rules, regulations, sometimes even normsBio, nano etc. Trying to learn lessons across all of these areas. better or worse governanceResponsible innovationOne example where we¡¯re tried to apply this framework (EPSRC)STORY about a balloon
- #3: balloonOn the groundIt wants to be in the sky
- #4: One way of framing this experiment¡ Mundane Nothing newNo riskNo ethical concerns
- #5: Another way¡Controversial Entangled (Latour, also Sheila) ¨C unavoidably soIn a set of social and political questionsThe experiment is a social one - fascinatingGoverning it¡ From the governance of risk to the governance of innovation
- #6: Back to GMConcerns about risk¡Politics¡ Direction of technologyNeed for Early, upstream debate
- #8: Public dialogue
- #9: From Claire Marris at King¡¯s London
- #10: Sites for experiments in governancePublic dialogueWant answersGet questions
- #11: This what I¡¯ve been working on Advising EPSRCWorking on a particular case
- #12: Sites for experiments in governancePublic dialogueWant answersGet questions
- #13: Addressing some pathologies that have been indentified from various perspectives ¨C philosophy, STS, economic history
- #14: FrameworkFollowing the work of people like Hans Jonas, Luigi Pellizoni
- #15: ±·´Ç²Ô-±ô¾±²Ô±ð²¹°ù±·²¹²Ô´Ç³¦´Ç»å±ð¡
- #16: Four dimensionsThree are familiarReflexive ¨C thinking about commitments and assumptionsAnticipatory ¨C not predictiveInclusive ¨C Responsive
- #17: Add ¨C constructive technology assessment, upstream engagement, in the US ¨C midstream modulation, STIR and other forms of anticipatory governance.
- #18: This is whyThe visionGovernance processStage gate ¨C sailed through university ethics committees. Everyone agrees it is benignIntent matters
- #20: This is whyThe visionGovernance processStage gate ¨C sailed through university ethics committees. Everyone agrees it is benignIntent matters
- #26: ETC group single most important TA organisation in the world
- #33: Robock points out the scientific reasons¡ We can also look at what we might call the social constitution of the imagined technology¡.
- #36: Since the SPICE project was fundedComing to terms with what was at stakeRetrofitting of various processes and requirementsStage gate ¨C sailed through university ethics committees. Everyone agrees it is benignIntent mattersImperfect, but useful¡
- #37: Stage gate processA forum for the explicit discussion of these issuesSurfacing of assumptions and reflecting on theseAdvice of the stage gate panel was that the SPICE project should do more work on 3-5, postponing the testbed
- #38: Taken by surpriseA patent
- #39: A rather unequivocal statement of intentPossible conflict of interestRESPONSIVENESS