SS
S. Spruit
info
Please Note
<p>This page displays the records of the person named above and is not linked to a unique person identifier. This record may need to be merged to a profile.</p>
12 records found
1
Conference paper
(2023)
-
Christine Boshuijzen Van Burken, Shannon Spruit, Lotte Fillerup, Niek Mouter
We use Value Sensitive Design for the development of an ethical framework for autonomous systems in Defence in the Australian context. Two novel empirical data gathering methods are deployed for mining stakeholder's values, namely Group Decision Room (GDR) and Participatory Value Evaluation (PVE). GDR findings reveal a general concern for environmental values, geo-political and economic stability. A PVE based on these and other values is designed around an autonomous mine counter underwater vessel and an autonomous drone that drops bombs.
...
We use Value Sensitive Design for the development of an ethical framework for autonomous systems in Defence in the Australian context. Two novel empirical data gathering methods are deployed for mining stakeholder's values, namely Group Decision Room (GDR) and Participatory Value Evaluation (PVE). GDR findings reveal a general concern for environmental values, geo-political and economic stability. A PVE based on these and other values is designed around an autonomous mine counter underwater vessel and an autonomous drone that drops bombs.
Including young people, cutting time and producing useful outcomes
Participatory value evaluation as a new practice of public participation in the Dutch energy transition
To achieve a successful energy transition, it is vital to integrate citizens’ needs into government policies through participatory processes. However, offline participatory approaches can be overly intensive which leads to an over-representation of citizens who think that the issue is in their immediate interest. Hence, elected officials often question the extent to which participants’ priorities are a good proxy to represent “the public”. Participatory Value Evaluation (PVE) potentially circumvents this by allowing a large and diverse group of citizens to advise their government in an accessible manner. In an online environment, citizens step into the shoes of a policy maker and see which policy options the government considers, while being informed about the impacts. Next, they are asked to provide advice. Because PVE was originally designed as an economic evaluation method, it is unclear whether it can be deployed for effective participation. This study investigates how PVE could be deployed for effective participation of citizens in the energy transition through a real-world experiment in the Netherlands. We aimed to conduct the PVE in line with goals of stakeholders which is the most important requirement for effective participation. We fully achieved three goals that were defined by stakeholders: PVE enables participation of people that normally do not participate (particularly young people); low time investment of civil servants; outcomes of a PVE should be useful for decision-making. We partly achieved two goals: PVE raises awareness among citizens about decisions and implications of the energy transition; participation should be meaningful for citizens.
...
To achieve a successful energy transition, it is vital to integrate citizens’ needs into government policies through participatory processes. However, offline participatory approaches can be overly intensive which leads to an over-representation of citizens who think that the issue is in their immediate interest. Hence, elected officials often question the extent to which participants’ priorities are a good proxy to represent “the public”. Participatory Value Evaluation (PVE) potentially circumvents this by allowing a large and diverse group of citizens to advise their government in an accessible manner. In an online environment, citizens step into the shoes of a policy maker and see which policy options the government considers, while being informed about the impacts. Next, they are asked to provide advice. Because PVE was originally designed as an economic evaluation method, it is unclear whether it can be deployed for effective participation. This study investigates how PVE could be deployed for effective participation of citizens in the energy transition through a real-world experiment in the Netherlands. We aimed to conduct the PVE in line with goals of stakeholders which is the most important requirement for effective participation. We fully achieved three goals that were defined by stakeholders: PVE enables participation of people that normally do not participate (particularly young people); low time investment of civil servants; outcomes of a PVE should be useful for decision-making. We partly achieved two goals: PVE raises awareness among citizens about decisions and implications of the energy transition; participation should be meaningful for citizens.
Risk Personalization
Governing Uncertain Collective Risk Through Individual Decisions
Individuals are regularly made responsible for risks they wish to take: one can consent to processing of personal data, and decide what to buy based on risk information on product labels. However, both large-scale processing of personal data and aggregated product choices may carry collective risks for society. In such situations, governance arrangements implying individual responsibility are at odds with uncertain collective risks from new technologies. We, therefore, investigate the governance challenges of what we call risk personalization: a form of governance for dealing with uncertain collective risks that allocates responsibility for governing those risks to individuals. We situate risk personalization at the intersection of two trends: governance of uncertain risk, and emphasis on individual responsibility. We then analyze three cases selected based on diversity: social media, nanomaterials, and Uber. Cross-case comparison highlights issues of risk personalization pertaining to (i) the nature of the risk, (ii) governance arrangements in place, and (iii) mechanisms for allocating responsibility to individuals. We identify governance challenges in terms of (i) meaningful choice, (ii) effectiveness in mitigating risk, and (iii) collective decision making capacity. We conclude that the risk personalization lens stimulates reflection on the effectiveness and legitimacy of risk governance in light of individual agency.
...
Individuals are regularly made responsible for risks they wish to take: one can consent to processing of personal data, and decide what to buy based on risk information on product labels. However, both large-scale processing of personal data and aggregated product choices may carry collective risks for society. In such situations, governance arrangements implying individual responsibility are at odds with uncertain collective risks from new technologies. We, therefore, investigate the governance challenges of what we call risk personalization: a form of governance for dealing with uncertain collective risks that allocates responsibility for governing those risks to individuals. We situate risk personalization at the intersection of two trends: governance of uncertain risk, and emphasis on individual responsibility. We then analyze three cases selected based on diversity: social media, nanomaterials, and Uber. Cross-case comparison highlights issues of risk personalization pertaining to (i) the nature of the risk, (ii) governance arrangements in place, and (iii) mechanisms for allocating responsibility to individuals. We identify governance challenges in terms of (i) meaningful choice, (ii) effectiveness in mitigating risk, and (iii) collective decision making capacity. We conclude that the risk personalization lens stimulates reflection on the effectiveness and legitimacy of risk governance in light of individual agency.
Most literature on community engagement (CE) focuses on why and how local communities respond to energy projects or technologies. There has been very limited attention to project developers and the way they shape CE in the literature. We address this gap by focusing on the work of professionals active within or for energy companies, who are responsible for engaging communities in the development of energy projects: so-called ‘community engagement professionals’ (CEPs). Using Q methodology, we explore how CEPs see their role as front-line workers operating on the boundary between their own organization and the local community.
Our analysis results in three perspectives of their own work amongst CEPs. Perspective 1 views CE as co-creation and their position as one of an intermediary between their organization and the community. Perspective 2 sees CE as an inherent part of project management, using it to remain in control of the process. Perspective 3 is all about project development, with CE as something that must be done as part of compliance with laws and regulations.
We show that CEPs have heterogeneous perspectives on community engagement. We discuss differences between these perspectives: 1) mode of engagement; 2) the position of the CEP between their organization and the community; 3) how conflict is viewed and dealt with; 4) the extent to which CEPs see themselves as responsible for the representation of communities; and 5) interaction with internal stakeholders. We end by discussing the implications of this study for project developers and the governance of energy infrastructures. ...
Our analysis results in three perspectives of their own work amongst CEPs. Perspective 1 views CE as co-creation and their position as one of an intermediary between their organization and the community. Perspective 2 sees CE as an inherent part of project management, using it to remain in control of the process. Perspective 3 is all about project development, with CE as something that must be done as part of compliance with laws and regulations.
We show that CEPs have heterogeneous perspectives on community engagement. We discuss differences between these perspectives: 1) mode of engagement; 2) the position of the CEP between their organization and the community; 3) how conflict is viewed and dealt with; 4) the extent to which CEPs see themselves as responsible for the representation of communities; and 5) interaction with internal stakeholders. We end by discussing the implications of this study for project developers and the governance of energy infrastructures. ...
Most literature on community engagement (CE) focuses on why and how local communities respond to energy projects or technologies. There has been very limited attention to project developers and the way they shape CE in the literature. We address this gap by focusing on the work of professionals active within or for energy companies, who are responsible for engaging communities in the development of energy projects: so-called ‘community engagement professionals’ (CEPs). Using Q methodology, we explore how CEPs see their role as front-line workers operating on the boundary between their own organization and the local community.
Our analysis results in three perspectives of their own work amongst CEPs. Perspective 1 views CE as co-creation and their position as one of an intermediary between their organization and the community. Perspective 2 sees CE as an inherent part of project management, using it to remain in control of the process. Perspective 3 is all about project development, with CE as something that must be done as part of compliance with laws and regulations.
We show that CEPs have heterogeneous perspectives on community engagement. We discuss differences between these perspectives: 1) mode of engagement; 2) the position of the CEP between their organization and the community; 3) how conflict is viewed and dealt with; 4) the extent to which CEPs see themselves as responsible for the representation of communities; and 5) interaction with internal stakeholders. We end by discussing the implications of this study for project developers and the governance of energy infrastructures.
Our analysis results in three perspectives of their own work amongst CEPs. Perspective 1 views CE as co-creation and their position as one of an intermediary between their organization and the community. Perspective 2 sees CE as an inherent part of project management, using it to remain in control of the process. Perspective 3 is all about project development, with CE as something that must be done as part of compliance with laws and regulations.
We show that CEPs have heterogeneous perspectives on community engagement. We discuss differences between these perspectives: 1) mode of engagement; 2) the position of the CEP between their organization and the community; 3) how conflict is viewed and dealt with; 4) the extent to which CEPs see themselves as responsible for the representation of communities; and 5) interaction with internal stakeholders. We end by discussing the implications of this study for project developers and the governance of energy infrastructures.
When controversies cascade
Analysing the dynamics of public engagement and conflict in the Netherlands and Switzerland through “controversy spillover”
Journal article
(2020)
-
Eefje Cuppen, Olivier Ejderyan, Udo Pesch, Shannon Spruit, Elisabeth van de Grift, Aad Correljé, Behnam Taebi
Energy controversies have been widely studied. Such studies are, however, generally based on either single case studies, providing rich and in-depth understanding of (local) dynamics of planning and implementation processes, or they focus on understanding responses to a specific technology (not bound to a location). Therefore these studies tend to overlook a key dynamic in controversy, namely that publics respond to projects by drawing on earlier experiences with a similar technology elsewhere, or with earlier experiences with other technologies in their vicinity. We refer to this dynamic as controversy spillover. The notion of controversy spillover helps to understand how the discursive space of controversy changes over time. In case studies, other controversies are usually considered as context, i.e. as an external condition. However, in order to understand the temporal dynamics of public engagement with energy projects, spillover from other controversies deserves to be investigated more as an object of interest, rather than as an external condition. The aim of this paper is to conceptualize controversy spillover as an important dynamic in controversies and to develop a research agenda. We identify three different types of spillover: 1) geographical (i.e. between the same energy technology in different locations), 2) historical (i.e. with respect to earlier experiences at the same location), 3) technology (i.e. between different technologies). Three empirical examples serve to illustrate the three types of spillover. We finalize the paper with a research agenda for further conceptualization and empirical analysis of the notion of controversy spillover.
...
Energy controversies have been widely studied. Such studies are, however, generally based on either single case studies, providing rich and in-depth understanding of (local) dynamics of planning and implementation processes, or they focus on understanding responses to a specific technology (not bound to a location). Therefore these studies tend to overlook a key dynamic in controversy, namely that publics respond to projects by drawing on earlier experiences with a similar technology elsewhere, or with earlier experiences with other technologies in their vicinity. We refer to this dynamic as controversy spillover. The notion of controversy spillover helps to understand how the discursive space of controversy changes over time. In case studies, other controversies are usually considered as context, i.e. as an external condition. However, in order to understand the temporal dynamics of public engagement with energy projects, spillover from other controversies deserves to be investigated more as an object of interest, rather than as an external condition. The aim of this paper is to conceptualize controversy spillover as an important dynamic in controversies and to develop a research agenda. We identify three different types of spillover: 1) geographical (i.e. between the same energy technology in different locations), 2) historical (i.e. with respect to earlier experiences at the same location), 3) technology (i.e. between different technologies). Three empirical examples serve to illustrate the three types of spillover. We finalize the paper with a research agenda for further conceptualization and empirical analysis of the notion of controversy spillover.
Review
(2020)
-
Kirsten E.H. Jenkins, Shannon Spruit, Christine Milchram, Johanna Höffken, Behnam Taebi
Many academic approaches that claim to consider the broad set of social and ethical issues relevant to energy systems sit side-by-side without conversation. This paper considers three such literatures: Value Sensitive Design, Responsible Research and Innovation and the Energy Justice framework. We argue that whilst definitions of these concepts appear, on face value, to be united by a common normative goal – improving the social outcomes and mitigating sensitivities at the interface of technological energy systems and human livelihoods –, their existence in academic silos has obscured complementarities, which, once synthesized, might increase their overall academic and practical relevance. This paper fills the emergent gap of critically discussing the concepts and their strengths and challenges as well as how they could contribute to each other. It compares: (1) the things that they claim to tackle, (2) the solutions they claim to provide and (3) the points that clearly distinguish one approach from another (if any at all). Not only does this make this paper the first of its kind, but it also makes it an impactful one. With each concept gaining various degrees of support in academia and practice, our discussion reveals where tensions exist and where positive gains can be made. We identify five opportunities for collaboration and integration with implications for the achievement of energy systems that are acceptable from a societal and ethical perspective.
...
Many academic approaches that claim to consider the broad set of social and ethical issues relevant to energy systems sit side-by-side without conversation. This paper considers three such literatures: Value Sensitive Design, Responsible Research and Innovation and the Energy Justice framework. We argue that whilst definitions of these concepts appear, on face value, to be united by a common normative goal – improving the social outcomes and mitigating sensitivities at the interface of technological energy systems and human livelihoods –, their existence in academic silos has obscured complementarities, which, once synthesized, might increase their overall academic and practical relevance. This paper fills the emergent gap of critically discussing the concepts and their strengths and challenges as well as how they could contribute to each other. It compares: (1) the things that they claim to tackle, (2) the solutions they claim to provide and (3) the points that clearly distinguish one approach from another (if any at all). Not only does this make this paper the first of its kind, but it also makes it an impactful one. With each concept gaining various degrees of support in academia and practice, our discussion reveals where tensions exist and where positive gains can be made. We identify five opportunities for collaboration and integration with implications for the achievement of energy systems that are acceptable from a societal and ethical perspective.
Poster
(2019)
-
Eefje Cuppen, Udo Pesch, Shannon Spruit, Aad Correlje, Elisabeth van de Grift, Behnam Taebi
Delicate balance
Adaptive support to improve patient safety
Journal article
(2017)
-
A. C P Guédon, S. L. Spruit, L. S G L Wauben, M. van der Elst, N. Doorn, J. Dankelman, J. J. van den Dobbelsteen, J. Klein
The Food Warden
An Exploration of Issues in Distributing Responsibilities for Safe-by-Design Synthetic Biology Applications
The Safe-by-Design approach in synthetic biology holds the promise of designing the building blocks of life in an organism guided by the value of safety. This paves a new way for using biotechnologies safely. However, the Safe-by-Design approach moves the bulk of the responsibility for safety to the actors in the research and development phase. Also, it assumes that safety can be defined and understood by all stakeholders in the same way. These assumptions are problematic and might actually undermine safety. This research explores these assumptions through the use of a Group Decision Room. In this set up, anonymous and non-anonymous deliberation methods are used for different stakeholders to exchange views. During the session, a potential synthetic biology application is used as a case for investigation: the Food Warden, a biosensor contained in meat packaging for indicating the freshness of meat. Participants discuss what potential issues might arise, how responsibilities should be distributed in a forward-looking way, who is to blame if something would go wrong. They are also asked what safety and responsibility mean at different phases, and for different stakeholders. The results of the session are not generalizable, but provide valuable insights. Issues of safety cannot all be taken care of in the R&D phase. Also, when things go wrong, there are proximal and distal causes to consider. In addition, capacities of actors play an important role in defining their responsibilities. Last but not least, this research provides a new perspective on the role of instruction manuals in achieving safety.
...
The Safe-by-Design approach in synthetic biology holds the promise of designing the building blocks of life in an organism guided by the value of safety. This paves a new way for using biotechnologies safely. However, the Safe-by-Design approach moves the bulk of the responsibility for safety to the actors in the research and development phase. Also, it assumes that safety can be defined and understood by all stakeholders in the same way. These assumptions are problematic and might actually undermine safety. This research explores these assumptions through the use of a Group Decision Room. In this set up, anonymous and non-anonymous deliberation methods are used for different stakeholders to exchange views. During the session, a potential synthetic biology application is used as a case for investigation: the Food Warden, a biosensor contained in meat packaging for indicating the freshness of meat. Participants discuss what potential issues might arise, how responsibilities should be distributed in a forward-looking way, who is to blame if something would go wrong. They are also asked what safety and responsibility mean at different phases, and for different stakeholders. The results of the session are not generalizable, but provide valuable insights. Issues of safety cannot all be taken care of in the R&D phase. Also, when things go wrong, there are proximal and distal causes to consider. In addition, capacities of actors play an important role in defining their responsibilities. Last but not least, this research provides a new perspective on the role of instruction manuals in achieving safety.
Managing the uncertain risks of nanoparticles
Aligning responsibility and relationships
Technological developments in the field of nanoscience and nanotechnology have led to the development of several newly engineered nanoparticles. These materials are already being applied in a variety of consumer contexts, as well as business products, and are expected to be more widely used in the coming years. Despite all the promises, novel nanoparticles are still accompanied by scientific uncertainty about their hazardous effects. Due to these uncertainties, conventional methods for managing risk are deemed insufficient. In response to this, it has been proposed that the management of uncertain risks requires a forwardlooking notion of responsibility, which entails various kinds of anticipatory activities to ensure an adequate and timely response to emerging risks. The question of who should bear this responsibility often remains implicit in such discussions. However, innovation processes cannot be responsible, nor can they reflect on or account for what they do, or make intentional choices. Ultimately, responsibility should rest with particular individuals. At the same time, it has been recognized that the collaborative nature of innovation processes creates problems for the allocation of responsibility to individual actors such as scientists, engineers and product developers. Activities that lead to the development of nanoparticles and nanoproducts are often complex and distributed; they take place at multiple locations, combine insights from several disciplines and involve many different agents. This suggests that in order to determine a viable allocation of responsibility for uncertain nanoparticle risks, it is necessary to reflect on the way people interact in the field, and how this influences the capacity of individuals to take responsibility for emerging hazards. This thesis contributes to this discussion by exploring the relationships between people who are involved in various ways in the development and use of nanoparticles, and by exploring how such relationships should be taken into account in the allocation of responsibility. The ultimate aim is to align the responsibilities that people have with the relevant relationships in the field. The goal of the thesis is primarily normative: it develops a framework to ethically assess relationships. However, the normative analysis is strongly empirically informed: it is supported by data from two case studies, one on the use of nanoparticles in a work environment and one on the use of nanoparticles for Managing the uncertain risks of nanoparticles 162 land remediation, complemented with literature from the empirical sciences and a collaborative paper with two nano-engineers. As a first step, this thesis explores how relationships matter to the way we deal with the uncertain risks of nanoparticles. Exploring the possibility of informed consent in relation to nanoparticles, Chapter 2 shows that several features of relationships, such as dependency, proximity and the existence of shared interest can influence the quality of decision-making processes about uncertain risks. Following this, Chapter 3 shows that relationships, such as those between employer and employees, can give rise to duties of care for uncertain risks. Chapter 4 argues that the existence of relationships is necessary in order to be able to respond to new and emerging hazards in the field of nanoscience and nanotechnology. On this basis, Chapter 4 argues that in some cases there is an obligation to establish relationships. In particular cases, where there is a need for collective action, but no such collective exists, individual engineers involved in innovation processes would have a duty to collectivize: they must organize themselves into a collective that can adequately act upon emerging and unwanted hazards. Finally, in Chapter 5, this thesis explores the characteristics required of such relationships to foster responsibility in nanoparticle development. In doing so, I shift from a narrow notion of responsibility focused on dealing with risks to a broader conception of responsibility that not only takes into account risks, but includes the potential benefits of innovation as well. The chapter develops a framework to characterize morally relevant features of relationships based on the Ethics of Care. Several features of relationships are identified that can be used to evaluate whether relationships amongst those developing and using nanoparticles are caring. These include dependency, power, attention, responsiveness, emotional engagement and availability. The usability of this framework is explored by applying it to the context of innovation in relation to nanoparticles used in the context of land and water remediation. In Chapter 6, the thesis concludes with a reflection on the alignment of relationships and responsibilities, discussing whether relationships should be adjusted to responsibilities or – vice versa – whether the responsibilities we allocate for nanoparticle risks should be adjusted to the relationships at hand. I suggest that there is a middle ground between these two options – an understanding of responsibility that is based on a certain characterization of relationships. This understanding holds that having ‘the right kind of relationships’ is part of what it means to take responsibility. This thesis ends with a discussion of the implications of these findings for the practice of and scholarship in Responsible Research and Innovation.
...
Technological developments in the field of nanoscience and nanotechnology have led to the development of several newly engineered nanoparticles. These materials are already being applied in a variety of consumer contexts, as well as business products, and are expected to be more widely used in the coming years. Despite all the promises, novel nanoparticles are still accompanied by scientific uncertainty about their hazardous effects. Due to these uncertainties, conventional methods for managing risk are deemed insufficient. In response to this, it has been proposed that the management of uncertain risks requires a forwardlooking notion of responsibility, which entails various kinds of anticipatory activities to ensure an adequate and timely response to emerging risks. The question of who should bear this responsibility often remains implicit in such discussions. However, innovation processes cannot be responsible, nor can they reflect on or account for what they do, or make intentional choices. Ultimately, responsibility should rest with particular individuals. At the same time, it has been recognized that the collaborative nature of innovation processes creates problems for the allocation of responsibility to individual actors such as scientists, engineers and product developers. Activities that lead to the development of nanoparticles and nanoproducts are often complex and distributed; they take place at multiple locations, combine insights from several disciplines and involve many different agents. This suggests that in order to determine a viable allocation of responsibility for uncertain nanoparticle risks, it is necessary to reflect on the way people interact in the field, and how this influences the capacity of individuals to take responsibility for emerging hazards. This thesis contributes to this discussion by exploring the relationships between people who are involved in various ways in the development and use of nanoparticles, and by exploring how such relationships should be taken into account in the allocation of responsibility. The ultimate aim is to align the responsibilities that people have with the relevant relationships in the field. The goal of the thesis is primarily normative: it develops a framework to ethically assess relationships. However, the normative analysis is strongly empirically informed: it is supported by data from two case studies, one on the use of nanoparticles in a work environment and one on the use of nanoparticles for Managing the uncertain risks of nanoparticles 162 land remediation, complemented with literature from the empirical sciences and a collaborative paper with two nano-engineers. As a first step, this thesis explores how relationships matter to the way we deal with the uncertain risks of nanoparticles. Exploring the possibility of informed consent in relation to nanoparticles, Chapter 2 shows that several features of relationships, such as dependency, proximity and the existence of shared interest can influence the quality of decision-making processes about uncertain risks. Following this, Chapter 3 shows that relationships, such as those between employer and employees, can give rise to duties of care for uncertain risks. Chapter 4 argues that the existence of relationships is necessary in order to be able to respond to new and emerging hazards in the field of nanoscience and nanotechnology. On this basis, Chapter 4 argues that in some cases there is an obligation to establish relationships. In particular cases, where there is a need for collective action, but no such collective exists, individual engineers involved in innovation processes would have a duty to collectivize: they must organize themselves into a collective that can adequately act upon emerging and unwanted hazards. Finally, in Chapter 5, this thesis explores the characteristics required of such relationships to foster responsibility in nanoparticle development. In doing so, I shift from a narrow notion of responsibility focused on dealing with risks to a broader conception of responsibility that not only takes into account risks, but includes the potential benefits of innovation as well. The chapter develops a framework to characterize morally relevant features of relationships based on the Ethics of Care. Several features of relationships are identified that can be used to evaluate whether relationships amongst those developing and using nanoparticles are caring. These include dependency, power, attention, responsiveness, emotional engagement and availability. The usability of this framework is explored by applying it to the context of innovation in relation to nanoparticles used in the context of land and water remediation. In Chapter 6, the thesis concludes with a reflection on the alignment of relationships and responsibilities, discussing whether relationships should be adjusted to responsibilities or – vice versa – whether the responsibilities we allocate for nanoparticle risks should be adjusted to the relationships at hand. I suggest that there is a middle ground between these two options – an understanding of responsibility that is based on a certain characterization of relationships. This understanding holds that having ‘the right kind of relationships’ is part of what it means to take responsibility. This thesis ends with a discussion of the implications of these findings for the practice of and scholarship in Responsible Research and Innovation.
In recent years, informed consent has been suggested as a way to deal with risks posed by engineered nanomaterials. We argue that while we can learn from experiences with informed consent in treatment and research contexts, we should be aware that informedconsent traditionally pertains to certain features of the relationships between doctors and patients and researchers and research participants, rather than those between producers and consumers and employers and employees, which are more prominent in the case of engineered nanomaterials. To better understand these differences, we identify three major relational factors that influence whether valid informed consent is obtainable, namely dependency, personal proximity, and existence ofshared interests. We show that each type of relationship offers different opportunities for reflection and therefore poses distinct challenges for obtaining valid informed consent. Our analysis offers a systematic understanding of the possibilities for attaining informed consent in thecontext of nanomaterial risks and makes clear that measuresor regulations to improve the obtainment of informed consent should be attuned to the specific interpersonal relations to which it is supposed to apply.
...
In recent years, informed consent has been suggested as a way to deal with risks posed by engineered nanomaterials. We argue that while we can learn from experiences with informed consent in treatment and research contexts, we should be aware that informedconsent traditionally pertains to certain features of the relationships between doctors and patients and researchers and research participants, rather than those between producers and consumers and employers and employees, which are more prominent in the case of engineered nanomaterials. To better understand these differences, we identify three major relational factors that influence whether valid informed consent is obtainable, namely dependency, personal proximity, and existence ofshared interests. We show that each type of relationship offers different opportunities for reflection and therefore poses distinct challenges for obtaining valid informed consent. Our analysis offers a systematic understanding of the possibilities for attaining informed consent in thecontext of nanomaterial risks and makes clear that measuresor regulations to improve the obtainment of informed consent should be attuned to the specific interpersonal relations to which it is supposed to apply.
Medical sciences have long since established an ethics code for experiments, to minimize the risk of harm to subjects. Natural language processing (NLP) used to involve mostly anonymous corpora, with the goal of enriching linguistic analysis, and was therefore unlikely to raise ethical concerns. As NLP becomes increasingly wide-spread and uses more data from social media, however, the situation has changed: the outcome of NLP experiments and applications can now have a direct effect on individual users’ lives. Until now, the discourse on this topic in the field has not followed the technological development, while public discourse was often focused on exaggerated dangers. This position paper tries to take back the initiative and start a discussion. We identify a number of social implications of NLP and discuss their ethical significance, as well as ways to address them.
...
Medical sciences have long since established an ethics code for experiments, to minimize the risk of harm to subjects. Natural language processing (NLP) used to involve mostly anonymous corpora, with the goal of enriching linguistic analysis, and was therefore unlikely to raise ethical concerns. As NLP becomes increasingly wide-spread and uses more data from social media, however, the situation has changed: the outcome of NLP experiments and applications can now have a direct effect on individual users’ lives. Until now, the discourse on this topic in the field has not followed the technological development, while public discourse was often focused on exaggerated dangers. This position paper tries to take back the initiative and start a discussion. We identify a number of social implications of NLP and discuss their ethical significance, as well as ways to address them.