VERA – Forward Visions on the European Research Area

VERA is funded by the European Union's FP7 programme for research,
technological development and demonstration under grant agreement no 290705

TECHNOLIFE a Transdisciplinary approach to the emerging challenges of novel technologies: Lifeworld and imaginaries in foresight and ethics

Code: D14

Primary project information

Lead: University of Bergen
Additional project partners: Univ. of Copenhagen, Lancaster Univ., Univ. of Manchester, Univ. de Versailles-St.Quentin-en-Yvelines, Univ. of Tartu, Univ. Autònoma de Barcelona and EC-Joint Research Centre (Ispra, Italy)
Type of activity: FLA
Date conducted: 2009 - 2011
Date of Publication: 2011
Duration: 3 YEARS
Summary: TECHNOLIFE is an interdisciplinary research project on the ethics of emerging science and technology, coordinated by the University of Bergen. The Technolife team has experimented with social media and films in order to develop methods to better represent citizens' concerns and imaginations of technological and social development to policy makers and researchers. In our online forums we have invited interested and concerned parties to discuss ethical and social aspects of biometrics, human enhancement and geographic imaging systems (GIS).
Financed by: European Commission FP7-SIS
Budget: 809, 343 EURO
Research area/market/industry/sector: society, security, human enhancement and body modification; justice; equality and power; imagination; Trust in technology and in government; biometrics, converging technologies; participation
Main report (full title): 1. Citizens as Informed Debaters about Human Enhancement and Body Modification TECHNOLIFE: Ethics with People Key Results;
2. Citizens as Neo-Geographers: the Challenge of Responsible GIS TECHNOLIFE: Ethics with People Key Results;
3. Connected to the System? Biometrics and Mobility in the EU TECHNOLIFE: Ethics with People Key Results;
4. TECHNOLIFE: Ethics with People Integration of participation and dialogue into ethical frameworks for emerging science and technology Key Results;
5. Report: the TECHNOLIFE approach: Integration of participation and dialogue into ethicalframeworks for emerging science and technology

GRAND CHALLENGES

Technical Challenges: Human enhancement: Citizens want to be involved. Many see a noncommercial “open source” pathway as an interesting and viable option for enhancements, also as a counterweight to the power of corporate and state actors. Biometrics: seperate meaningful utilization of biometrics systems from the centralization of data; the use of biometrics may not impede personal privacy from government; the transparency of the process and inclusion of the public is important for securing the trust of the public in the technology and its governance. GIS: Geographic Imaging System: For Europe, the policy challenge is to develop institutional arrangements that can accommodate the transformation from a centralised and reactive mode to a truly participatory and proactive mode as GIS provides the possibilities to citizens to map space in new ways, create new forms of meaning and culture and thereby change the space in real time.
Technical Challenges Shortlist: Human enhancement: Citizens want to be involved in noncommercial “open source” pathway as an interesting and viable option for enhancements; Biometrics: seperate transparent, inclusive and meaningful utilization of biometrics systems from the centralization of data; GIS: Geographic Imaging System: develop institutional arrangements to transform centralised GIS to a truly participatory and proactive mode as GIS provides the possibilities to citizens to map space in new ways;

Summary of relevant aspects

Aspects of RTI Governance: Human enhancement: For European authorities, the policy challenge is to develop institutional arrangements that can accommodate the transformation from a centralised and reactive mode of governance to a truly participatory and proactive mode. In the case of enhancement this means more than debate: Citizens should be engaged as co-producers of enhancement. knowledge and technologies.
Background information: The context for the TECHNOLIFE Project was the admitted challenges and shortcomings to existing ethical frameworks for new and emerging sciences and technologies.
The TECHNOLIFE project sought to develop new frameworks for the early identification, characterization and deliberation upon ethical issues arising from a broad range of information and communication technologies (ICTs), including their convergence with other scientific and technological fields (such as bio-nano). Providing multi-layered descriptions and normative analyses through inter- and trans-disciplinary research, the project worked to improve existing conceptual frameworks and procedures for implementing and representing the social needs and interests of citizens at early stages of policy-making and research.

Scenarios

Actions/solutions implied: Biometrics: For distributed systems, such as biometrics, ICTs may provide valuable tools for communication and dialogue. The
best way of promoting sustainable innovation in biometric technologies is a precautionary attitude oriented towards openness, transparency and the safeguarding of civil rights. But biometrics may also be used to give rights to people: If the state does not know who you are, it cannot grant you access to social services and basic human rights, such as voting.
Who benefits from the actions taken?: European society as a whole, no specific groups indicated

Meta information

Time horizon: N/A
Methods: The TECHNOLIFE method maps ethical issues at early stages of S&T and represents social imaginaries relating to these issues. It is a suite of exploratory, qualitative and quantitative steps:
1. A scoping exercise that defines hot topics in relation to the technological fields. Hot topics are issues of concern that involve unsolved social, moral or political tensions and that are immature for regulatory definition and resolution.
2. Deliberation within KerTechno, our specially designed online open-source software in which citizens and stakeholders discuss the hot topics. The purpose of the deliberation exercise is to elicit arguments, concerns, imaginaries and alternative frames of understanding with respect to central policy issues seen in the light of broader cultural developments.
3. An online KerTechno voting system, allowing for quantitative analysis of results.
4. A qualitative, analytical procedure that identifies the arguments, concerns, imaginaries and alternative frames of understanding elicited by the participatory exercise and defines their relation and relevance to early stages of S&T and policy development.
Target Group: EU policy makers for science, technology, innovation, society and ethics
Objectives: The overall objective of the project was accordingly to address the need to develop ethical analysis and practices at what we may call a societal mid-range level, i.e. pertaining to the actions and concerns of groups as mediators between single individuals and levels of EU or state governance.. Citizens are concerned with social justice, equality and power when discussing emerging science and technology. This is important for ethical frameworks. Not only issues but also the frame of social justice, equality and power should be given be more importance when discussing “conventional” ethical issues such as autonomy, privacy and beneficence. Furthermore, if institutions are perceived not to address concerns of social justice – if people feel blocked, discouraged or obstructed by governments, authorities or private companies – they will find other ways of addressing their concerns and needs in may be called an “ethics of reciprocity”. When the young and technologically proficient perceive current legal and ethical regimes of IPRs to be obsolete, they will develop creative ways around them.
Countries covered: EU countries in general
ERA actors/stakeholders mentioned: - Centre for the Study of the Sciences and the Humanities, University of Bergen (coordinator) Inst. of Environmental Science and Technology, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (Person in charge: Louis Lemkow Zetterling)
- Centre for Ethics, Universityof Tartu (Person in charge: Margit Sutrop)
- Centre for Social Ethics and Policy, School of Law, University of Manchester (Person in
charge: Søren Holm)
- Laboratoire de recherche en économie-écologie, éco-innovation et ingénierie dudéveloppement soutenable (REEDS), Univ. Versailles St. Quentin-en-Yvelines (Person in charge: Jean-Paul Vanderlinden)
- Department of sociology, University of Copenhagen (Person in charge: Margareta Bertilsson)
- CESAGEN, Lancaster University (Person in charge: Adrian MacKenzie, Brian Wynne)
- Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen, EC Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy (Person in charge: Ângela Guimarães Pereira)
- Moreover, the scientific work was supervised by a Scientific Advisory Board: Sheila Jasanoff(Chair; Harvard University), Alan Irwin (Copenhagen Business School) and Silvio Funtowicz (EC Joint Research Centre).
Geographic scope:

Entry Details

Rapporteur: Susanne Giesecke
Rapporteur's organization: AIT
Entry Date: 11.06.2012