From ethics of restriction to ethics of construction: ELSA research in Norway
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5324/njsts.v3i1.2155Keywords:
ELSA, RRI, integrated research, bioethics, nanoethicsAbstract
Current trends in ELSA policies are marked by keywords like collaboration, integration and Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI). This article analyzes how these trends have manifested themselves in Norway with the aim to find ways to understand and respond adequately to these policy developments. Recent criticisms of ELSA strategies accompanied by arguments for a turn towards ‘post-ELSI’ research approaches hold that ELSA research was designed to maintain a sharp unproductive normative division of labor between natural scientists on the one hand and ELSA researchers on the other hand. ELSA strategies consequently have to be overcome and restructured towards collaboration, integration and RRI. Our account of the Norwegian ELSA history does not support this simple analysis of the ‘modernist’ character of early ELSA strategies. We present and analyze a shift as it took place in two successive ELSA programs in the Research Council of Norway, and argue that ELSA policies that rest only on post-ELSI analyses, risk reinventing the wheel of collaboration. By insisting on the creation of novel designing strategies, one disregards important lessons from the early phases of ELSA research, and even more importantly, fails to recognize that an ethics of construction implies different challenges for different groups of ELSA researchers.
Downloads
References
Balmer, A., Bulpin, K., Calvert, J., Kearnes, M., Mackenzie, A., Marris, C., Martin, P., Molyneux-Hodgson, S. and Schyfter, P. 2012. Towards a Manifesto for Experimental Collaborations between Social and Natural Scientists.
Balmer, A. and Bulpin, K. 2013. Left to their own devices: Post-ELSI, ethical equipment and the Internationally Engineered Machine (iGEM) Competition. Biosocieties, 8 (3): 311-335.
Bloor, D. 1976. Knowledge and Social Imagery. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Collins, H. M. and Evans, R. 2002. The third wave of science studies. Social Studies of Science, 32 (2): 235-296.
Damvad, 2011a. Evaluation of FUGE. The Functional Genomics Programme of the Research Council of Norway.
Damvad. 2011b. Evaluering av NANOMAT. Forskningsrådets Store program innen nanoteknologi og nye materialer.
Eide, T. 1994. Etikkprogrammet. Norges Forskningsråd.
Fisher, E. 2005. Lessons learned from the Ethical, Legal and Social Implications program (ELSI): Planning societal implications research for the National Nanotechnology Program. Technology in Society, 27 (3), 321-328.
Forsberg, E. M. 2014. Institutionalising ELSA in the moment of breakdown? Life Sciences, Society and Policy, 10 (1).
Galison, P. 1997. Image & logic. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gläser, J. 2001. ‘Producing Communities’ as a Theoretical Challenge. Paper presented at the TASA 2001 Conference, University of Sydney 13 – 15 December.
Grunwald, A. 2014. Responsible Research and Innovation: An Emerging Issue in Research Policy Rooted in the Debate on Nanotechnology. In Responsibility in Nanotechnology Development, (eds.) Arnaldi, S., Ferrari, A., Magaudda, P., Marin, F. Dordrecht: Springer.
Kant, I. 1996. The Metaphysics of Morals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jakobsen, S. E. 2001. Bioetikk: en ny stor satsing. Bladet Forskning 3.
Jasanoff, S. 2004. The Idiom of Co-Production. In States of Knowledge: The Co-production of Science and the Social Order, (ed.) Jasanoff, S. London: Routledge.
Latour, B. 1993. We Have Never Been Modern. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Myskja, B. K., Nydal, R. and Myhr, A. I. 2014. We have never been ELSI researchers – there is no need for a post-ELSI shift. Life
Sciences, Society and Policy, 10 (9)
Nature 2000. Functional genomics, Nature insight, 405, 15 June.
NFR (Norges Forskningsråd). 2000. Etikk, samfunn og bioteknologi Planutvalgets rapport. Desember 2000. Oslo NFR
NFR (Norges Forskningsråd). 2001. FUGE – Funksjonell genomforskning i Norge –en nasjonal plan. Oslo: NFR.
NFR (Norges Forskningsråd). 2002. Work programme. Etikk, samfunn og bioteknologi/ Ethical, legal and social aspects of biotechnology
Oslo: NFR.
NFR (Norges Forskningsråd). 2003. Programplan. Nanoteknologi og nye materialer – NANOMAT. Oslo: NFR.
NFR (Norges Forskningsråd). 2005. Nanoteknologier og nye materialer: Helse, miljø, etikk og samfunn. Oslo: NFR.
NFR (Norges Forskningsråd). 2007a. Årsrapport 2007 Etikk, samfunn og bioteknologi 2002-2007. Oslo: NFR.
NFR (Norges Forskningsråd). 2007b. Etiske, rettslige og samfunnsmessige aspekter ved bioteknologi, nanoteknologi og kognitiv vitenskap. Innstilling fra utvalg oppnevnt av Norges forskningsråd. Oslo: NFR.
NFR (Norges Forskningsråd). 2008. Work Programme 2008-2014. Ethical, Legal and Social Aspects of Biotechnology, Nanotechnology
and Neurotechnology –ELSA. Oslo: NFR.
NFR (Norges Forskningsråd). 2009. Evaluative Synthesis studies.
NFR (Norges Forskningsråd). 2012. Nanoteknologi og funksjonelle materialer- NANOMAT (2002-2011).
NFR (Norges Forskningsråd). 2013a. Work programme 2012 – 2021, Nanotechnology and Advanced Materials – NANO2021.
NFR (Norges Forskningsråd). 2013b. Work programme 2012–2021, BIOTEK2021.
NFR (Norges Forskningsråd). 2013c. Årsrapport 2013, ELSA 2007-2014.
NFR (Norges Forskningsråd). 2014. Forskningsrådets idélab. Sandpit.
NSF (National Science Foundation) 2001 Societal Implications of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology. Report from the Workshop held at the National Science Foundation, 28–29. September, 2000. (eds.) M. C. Roco & W. Bainbridge.
National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI). 2012. ELSI Planning and Evaluation History.
Nordmann, A. 2004. Converging Technologies - Shaping the Future of European Societies. European Commission report, Brussels.
Nordmann, A. 2007. If and Then: A Critique of Speculative Nanoethics. Nanoethics, 1: 31-46.
Nydal,R. 2006. Rethinking the topoi of normativity. PhD diss., NTNU, Trondheim.
Nygård, T. 1994. Etikk-programmet – utradisjonell forskerutdanning. Forskningspolitikk 2.
Pogge, T. 2002. World Poverty and Human Rights: Cosmopolitan Responsibilities and Reforms. Oxford: Polity Press.
RS/RAE (Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering) 2004. Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties.
London: RS/RAE.
RNA (Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences) 2004. How big can small actually be? Some remarks on research at the nanometre
scale and the potential consequences of nanotechnology. Prepared for the Dutch Minister of Education, Culture and Science. Amsterdam: RNA.
Rabinow, P. and Bennett, B. 2009. Synthetic biology: ethical ramifications 2008. Systems and Synthetic Biology 3, 1-4: 99–108.
Rip, A. 2009. Futures of ELSA. EMBO reports, 10 (7): 666-670.
Stephansen, S. M. 2006. Har teke etikk på alvor. Forskning, 3/2006.
Williams, R. 2006. Compressed Forsight and Narrative Bias: Pitfalls in Assessing High Technology Futures. Science as Culture, 15, (4) p.327-348.
Winner, L. 2004. Testimony to the Committee on Science of the U.S.S House of Representatives on The Societal Implications of Nanotechnology. Wednesday, April 9, 2003.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
All content in NJSTS is published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license. This means that anyone is free to share (copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format) or adapt (remix, transform, and build upon the material) the material as they like, provided they give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made.
