Taking the “Soft Impacts” of Technology into Account: Broadening the Discourse in Research Practice

Public funding institutions are able to influence what aspects researchers take into account when they consider the future impacts of their research. On the basis of a description of the evaluation systems that public research funding institutes in the Netherlands (STW and SenterNovem) use to estimate the quality of engineering science, this article shows that researchers are now predominantly required to reflect on the intellectual merit of their research and on the usability and marketability of the technology it contributes to. In addition, SenterNovem also mandates reflection on sustainability. Here it is argued that these requirements do not suffice. Funding institutions should also do more to enhance reflection during the research process on the “soft impacts” of technologies, which refer to the alterations that technologies may bring about in the quality of human life. To do this it is suggested that it is helpful to engage a specifically trained ethicist to monitor the research process and create ...

[1]  S. van der Burg,et al.  Informed decision making about predictive DNA tests: arguments for more public visibility of personal deliberations about the good life , 2009, Medicine, health care, and philosophy.

[2]  Don Ihde,et al.  Technology and the lifeworld , 1990 .

[3]  I. Poel.  How Should We Do Nanoethics? A Network Approach for Discerning Ethical Issues in Nanotechnology , 2008 .

[4]  Philip Shapira,et al.  Learning from Science and Technology Policy Evaluation: Experiences from the United States and Europe , 2003 .

[5]  Armin Grunwald,et al.  Vision Assessment: Shaping Technology in 21st Century Society , 2000 .

[6]  Murray L. Wax,et al.  After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory. , 1981 .

[7]  D. Collingridge.  The social control of technology , 1980 .

[8]  Carl Mitcham,et al.  Beyond the Social Contract Myth , 2000 .

[9]  Sven Hemlin,et al.  The Shift in Academic Quality Control , 2006 .

[10]  P. Verbeek.  Obstetric Ultrasound and the Technological Mediation of Morality: A Postphenomenological Analysis , 2008 .

[11]  R. Frodeman,et al.  The plea for balance in the public funding of science , 2002 .

[12]  Michael Gibbons,et al.  Science's new social contract with society , 1999, Nature.

[13]  A. Mol.  The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice , 2003 .

[14]  J. Britt Holbrook,et al.  Assessing the science-society relation: The case of the US National Science Foundation's second merit review criterion , 2005 .

[15]  P. Verbeek.  What Things Do: Philosophical Reflections on Technology, Agency, and Design , 2005 .

[16]  Philip Shapira,et al.  Learning from Science and Technology Policy Evaluation , 2001 .

[17]  Tsjalling Swierstra,et al.  Responsibility without Moralism in Technoscientific Design Practice , 2006 .

[18]  Sjoerd D. Zwart,et al.  A network approach for distinguishing ethical issues in research and development , 2006, Science and engineering ethics.

[19]  Erik Fisher,et al.  Lessons learned from the Ethical, Legal and Social Implications program (ELSI): Planning societal implications research for the National Nanotechnology Program , 2005 .

[20]  G. Khushf.  An agenda for future debate on concepts of health and disease , 2007, Medicine, health care, and philosophy.

[21]  David B. Wilson,et al.  Technology and the Character of Contemporary Life: A Philosophical Inquiry by Albert Borgmann (review) , 1986 .

[22]  M. Boenink.  Genetic Diagnostics for Hereditary Breast Cancer: Displacement of Uncertainty and Responsibility , 2008 .

[23]  Sven Ove Hansson,et al.  Ethical Criteria of Risk Acceptance , 2003 .

[24]  Simone van der Burg,et al.  Imagining the Future of Photoacoustic Mammography , 2009, Sci. Eng. Ethics.

[25]  Adam Briggle,et al.  Real friends: how the Internet can foster friendship , 2008, Ethics and Information Technology.

[26]  Armin Grunwald,et al.  Technology Assessment or Ethics of Technology , 1999 .

[27]  G. Khushf.  WHY BIOETHICS NEEDS THE PHILOSOPHY OF MEDICINE: SOME IMPLICATIONS OF REFLECTION ON CONCEPTS OF HEALTH AND DISEASE , 1997, Theoretical medicine.

[28]  C. Mitcham,et al.  Midstream Modulation of Technology: Governance From Within , 2006 .

[29]  A. Tversky,et al.  The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. , 1981, Science.

[30]  Adam Briggle,et al.  Love on the internet: a framework for understanding Eros online , 2008, J. Inf. Commun. Ethics Soc..

[31]  B. Latour.  Aramis, or the Love of Technology , 1993 .

[32]  Armin Grunwald,et al.  Reflections on Technology Development between Social Sciences and Philosophy , 1999 .

[33]  C. Bullard.  Shaping technology/Building society , 1994 .