How to achieve clarity in the application of the code of conduct for responsible nanosciences and nanotechnologies research Kjell Andersson Karita Research Governance and Ethics of Nanotechnology European Commission Conference Brussels, May 7-8, 2008
My point of departure There is a need for more clarity and awareness in policy making - for all stakeholders and policy makers We should have arenas where all arguments are put forward and challenged in a structured way Proposal for a European Transparency Arena
Transparency The Riscom model
Looking at the proposed code of conduct w ith these eyes The inclusive approach Ethical, legal and societal impacts – Policy making Risk assessment Some cases for clarity
The inclusive approach …. instrument to encourage dialogue at all governance levels …. … governance of N&N research activities should be guided by the principles of openness to all stakeholders ….. … allow the participation in decision-making processes of all stakeholders involved …. … maintain an open and pluralistic forum for discussion on N&N research … … stimulate the societal debate …. …. enhance communication on benefits, risks and uncertainties related to N&N research … … all stakeholders who should …… take an active part in the research activities …
From an entirely different area ”In sum, there seems to be a general interest in the gradual building and testing of more inclusive governance models, distributing power and problem framing across a broader base” and further on : ”Such a description may at first glance convey a rather harmonious picture of public involvement in radioactive waste management, but – as with most things – the devil is usually in the details, and it is there that the picture becomes more complicated and ambiguous”
The inclusive approach Some concerns: • Public has limited time and attention span • Methods are often expert driven • Sometimes NGO:s tend to dominate the scene - or they stay away • Inadequate challenging of stakeholder arguments • Results often lack in democratic accountability
ethical, legal and societal im pacts 4.2.7 N&N research funding bodies should launch and coordinate specific research activities in order to gain a better understanding of ethical, legal and societal impacts of the new fields opened by N&N. Information and communication technologies and biotechnology should receive particular attention as well as the convergence between these fields and cognitive sciences and N&N.
Com m ents now under the heading of ”precaution” deserves its own heading (e.g. ”Issues for policy making”) or perhaps under ”General principles” .. in order to gain ”increased clarity among policy makers and stakeholders” instead of ”a better understanding”
Risk assessm ent 4.2.3 Public and private N&N research funding bodies should request that a risk assessment be presented along with each submission of a proposal for funding for N&N research. To present a risk assessment should not be enough - it needs to be challenged
Som e cases for clarity 3.7 accountability 4.1.10 stakeholders to take an active part in the research activities … 4.1.17 avoidance of certain resecah activities
conclusions w ith clarity as lead star The code of conduct is a good step forward, but “the devil is usually in the details” – review and monitoring to gain clarity !! An inclusive approach does not guarantee clarity - extra efforts are needed It is important with clear roles: expertise, “stakeholders” politics, industry – responsible authorities, etc
Recommend
More recommend
