Skip to main content
Log in

The role of ethics in interdisciplinary technology assessment

  • Focus
  • Published:
Poiesis & Praxis

Abstract

Technology Assessment (TA) is a problem oriented endeavour dealing with political, societal, ecological, etc. problems. Only in rare cases is one individual scientific discipline sufficient to assess these problems. Usually the perspectives of different scientific disciplines have to be combined in order to develop interdisciplinary based recommendations to act. In this paper a quality controlled interdisciplinary discussion process is described which encourages an expert group to generate argumentation chains cross-cutting the disciplinary boundaries. The role of ethical reflection in this procedure depends on the problem situation. Whenever a technical application is on the agenda which cannot be allocated to a so-called “business-as-usual” case, one would ask for ethical reflection. This contribution argues that this ethical reflection has to take place together with the interdisciplinary discussion due to two reasons. Firstly, the technical, economical, legal and social aspects are deeply cross-correlated with the ethical reflection. And secondly, participating in such interdisciplinary discussions enables an ethical reflection which keeps in touch with the real world. Two case studies dealing with robotics applications in health care are mentioned as examples for problem settings, in which interdisciplinary TA succeed in developing discipline-crossing argumentation chains.

Zusammenfassung

Technikfolgenabschätzung (TA) ist ein problemorientiertes Unterfangen, das sich unter anderem mit politischen, gesellschaftlichen und ökologischen Problemen befasst. In den seltensten Fällen reicht eine einzelne wissenschaftliche Disziplin aus, diese Probleme zu beurteilen. Gewöhnlich sind die Perspektiven verschiedener wissenschaftlicher Disziplinen zusammenzubringen, um interdisziplinär fundierte Handlungsempfehlungen zu entwickeln. In diesem Beitrag wird ein interdisziplinärer Diskussionsprozess beschrieben, der, unter Aufrechterhaltung einer Qualitätskontrolle, eine Expertengruppe dazu ermutigt, Argumentationsketten aufzubauen, die die Grenzen ihrer Disziplinen durchbrechen. Welche Rolle ethische Reflektion in dieser Prozedur spielt, hängt von der Problemsituation ab. Wann immer eine technische Anwendung auf der Agenda steht, die keinem so genannten „Business-as-usual“-Fall zugeordnet werden kann, ist ethische Reflektion gefragt. Das Argument dieses Beitrags ist, dass ethische Reflektion zusammen mit der interdisziplinären Diskussion stattzufinden hat, und zwar aus zwei Gründen: Erstens korrelieren die technischen, ökonomischen, rechtlichen und sozialen Aspekte stark mit der ethischen Reflektion. Zweitens ermöglicht die Teilnahme an solchen interdisziplinären Diskussionen eine ethische Reflektion, die die reale Welt nicht aus den Augen verliert. Als Beispiele für Problemstellungen dienen zwei Fallstudien über Robotikanwendungen im Gesundheitswesen, in denen es gelingt, im Rahmen einer interdisziplinären TA Argumentationsketten über die Grenzen von Disziplinen hinweg zu entwickelt.

Résumé

L’évaluation technologique (ET) est une entreprise axée sur les problèmes, à savoir les problèmes politiques, sociétaux, écologiques, etc. Les cas sont rares dans lesquels une seule discipline scientifique suffit à évaluer ces problèmes. En général, les perspectives provenant de différentes disciplines scientifiques doivent être combinées afin de développer pour l’action des recommandations à base interdisciplinaire. Cet article décrit un processus de discussion interdisciplinaire soumis à un contrôle de qualité, qui encourage un groupe d’experts à constituer des chaînes d’arguments franchisant les limites des disciplines. Le rôle de la réflexion éthique dans cette démarche dépend de la situation problématique. Dès qu’une application technique ne pouvant être affectée à la catégorie dite des « cas courants » est à l’ordre du jour, une réflexion éthique est demandée. La présente contribution pose que cette réflexion éthique doit avoir lieu en même temps que la discussion interdisciplinaire, et ceci pour deux raisons : d’une part, les aspects techniques, économiques, juridiques et sociaux sont étroitement liés à la réflexion éthique. D’autre part, la participation à de telles discussions interdisciplinaires permet une réflexion éthique demeurant en prise avec le monde réel. Les deux études de cas portant sur des applications robotiques dans le domaine de la santé illustrent des problématiques dans lesquelles une ET interdisciplinaire parvient à générer des chaînes d’argumentation au-delà des frontières de différentes disciplines.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1.
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. A new city highway for example is connected with advantages for those who live in the countryside and work in the city. People who live next to the new highway have disadvantages because they are exposed to the pollutants and to the noise and their plot of land looses value. Citizens who live in the opposite part of the city are less affected.

  2. A definition of TA in this sense, i.e., focusing on social relevance, can be found in Grunwald (2002)

  3. These argumentation chains are mainly if-then clauses.

  4. This example refers to the research project “Robotics. Options for the Substitutability of Humans” organised from The Europäische Akademie GmbH (Christaller et al. 2001)

  5. Within the robotics community (cf. the problematic with the notion “autonomy” in the “introductory step”)

  6. By using the notion “replacement” it is assumed that the task to be fulfilled by the robot has up to now been taken over by humans.

  7. This description can be found at http://www.orthopaedics.northwestern.edu/orthopaedics/research/robodoc.htm

  8. For the description of the “business-as-usual” case, see the paper of Armin Grunwald in this volume

  9. Personal communication with Professor Dr. Karl Lauterbach, Institute of Health Economics and Clinical Epidemiology, University of Cologne

  10. The pre-project of the robotics project is published in Decker (1997)

  11. A chart of these phases and their accompanying evaluation loops can be found in (Decker and Grunwald 2001)

  12. See the contribution of Leo Hennen in this volume

  13. At the Europäische Akademie this person is typically a member of the scientific staff who would also follow through with the entire project phase as the project manager.

  14. Striving for the goal “common authorship of all full members of the project group” is a fundamental aspect of the project group concept.

  15. Such a change of focus may result from one of the evaluation processes mentioned below.

  16. This advocacy is not claimed to be complete, but one can assume that there are at least some ideas about the stakes of clients, and a discussion about that could give rise to invite a representative from a particular stake-holder group to participate in a meeting of the project group.

  17. Grunwald introduces the notion ‘predeliberative’ agreement as an advancement (Grunwald 2000a; and his contribution in this volume)

  18. The remaining experts could be candidates invited to the evaluation meetings.

  19. Of course this depends on the personality traits of the participating individuals. Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to include this in the selection process of potential participants.

  20. “Autonomy” was, for example, a notion within the robotics project which is a well defined concept in robotics, philosophy and jurisprudence, but in completely different senses. Therefore, a common definition of the notion “autonomy” was one of the first tasks on the project group’s agenda.

  21. In some cases it might be more promising to go for a so-called participatory TA-method, which includes stake-holders, citizens, etc.

  22. Concerning a project on “xenotransplantation”, for example, one would definitely need a surgeon, a virologist and an immunologist.

  23. At the Europäische Akademie this evaluation step is done by its scientific council.

  24. Examples of statements presented during the kick-off meeting of the robotics project can be found in Decker (1999)

  25. At the end of the kick-off meeting the work program of the project and thus the initial problem definition has been scrutinised three times. Firstly by the so-called “core-group”, secondly and thirdly by external experts. This is due to the high importance of this phase for the whole project; wrong decisions during this “setting the course” process are difficult to correct during the project phase.

  26. Christaller et al. (2001) have an example for such a final report in common authorship

  27. At the Europäische Akademie, this multidisciplinary expert group is the scientific council of the Academy.

  28. cf. Armin Grunwalds contribution in this volume

  29. The Catholic or Protestant churches, trade unions or patient associations are examples of such groups.

  30. cf. the contribution of Rob Reuzel in this volume. The deaf community can be described as such a social group

  31. Which is the reason why they can be used as a basis for rational decisions at all (Grunwald 2000b)

  32. cf. Pedro Gallo’s contribution referring to “equity” in this volume

  33. Establishing a black box in robots equipped with learning algorithms was one recommendation given in Christaller et al. (2001)

  34. ZEIT Nr.20/99, p 42 und Nr.32/99, p 29; Frankfurter Rundschau Nr. 133 12/6/99, p 6

  35. Süddeutsche Zeitung 03.01.2002

  36. It is not self-evident that the human is at the top within the control hierarchy of the cooperation system between human and robot. Especially in the case of autopilots where many accidents are caused by problems of handling the pilot-machine interface, one then thinks about leaving the last decision to the computer or robot. (Bild der Wissenschaft 5/97, p 59)

  37. Christaller et al. (2001) has recommended the use of robots in the context of nursing only as tools for the human nurse and as instruments to raise patient’s autarky. One has to avoid the reduction of the human nursing staff.

  38. Again, the description of the case studies is focusing on the cross-correlations among the different scientific disciplines. For complete argument see Christaller et al. (2001))

References

  • Christaller T, Decker M, Gilsbach J-M, Hirzinger G, Lauterbach K, Schweighofer E, Schweitzer G, Sturma D (2001) Robotik. Perspektiven für menschliches Handeln in der zukünftigen Gesellschaft. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Decker M (1997) Perspektiven der Robotik. Überlegungen zur Ersetzbarkeit des Menschen, Graue Reihe Nr. 8, Europäische Akademie GmbH, Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler

    Google Scholar 

  • Decker M (ed) (1999) Robotik. Einführung in eine interdisziplinäre Diskussion. Graue Reihe Nr. 16, Europäpische Akademie GmbH, Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler

    Google Scholar 

  • Decker M, Grunwald A (2001) Rational technology assessment as interdisciplinary research. In: Decker M (ed) Interdisciplinarity in technology assessment. Implementation and its chances and limits. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, p 32–60

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gethmann CF (1979) Proto-Logik. Untersuchungen zur formalen Pragmatik von Begründungsdiskursen. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt

    Google Scholar 

  • Gethmann CF (1991) Ethische Aspekte des Handelns unter Risiko. In: Lutz-Bachmann M (ed) Freiheit und Verantwortung. Morus-Verlag Berlin, p 152–169

    Google Scholar 

  • Gethmann CF (1999a) Die Rolle der Ethik in der Technikfolgenabschätzung. In: Petermann T, Coenen R (eds) Technikfolgen-Abschätzung in Deutschland. Bilanz und Perspektiven. Campus Frankfurt am Main

    Google Scholar 

  • Gethmann CF (1999b) Rationale Technikfolgenbeurteilung. In: Grunwald A (ed) Rationale Technikfolgenbeurteilung. Konzepte und methodische Grundlagen. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, p 1–10

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Grunwald A (2000a) Technik für die Gesellschaft von morgen. Möglichkeiten und Grenzen gesellschaftlicher Technikgestaltung. Campus, Frankfurt, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Grunwald A (2000b) Technology policy between long-term planning requirements and short-ranged acceptance problems. New challenges for technology assessment. In: Grin J, Grunwald A (ed) Vision assessment: shaping technology in 21st century society. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Grunwald A (2000c) Technik für die Gesellschaft von morgen. Möglichkeiten und Grenzen gesellschaftlicher Technikgestaltung. Campus, Frankfurt

    Google Scholar 

  • Grunwald A (2000d) Against overestimating the role of ethics in technology. Sci Eng Ethics 6:181–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grunwald A (2002) Technikfolgenabschätzung – eine Einführung. Edition Sigma, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Hans M, Graf B, Schraft RD (2002) Robotic home assistant Care-O-bot: past—present—future. In: Proceedings of the 11th IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication, ROMAN2002, Berlin, pp 380–385

  • Loerzer S (2003) Immer mehr Beschwerden. Verbesserungen in der Altenpflege scheitern am Geld. In: http://www.Sueddeutsche.de, 16th January 2003

  • Nennen H-U, Garbe D (1996) Das Expertendilemma: zur Rolle wissenschaftlicher Gutachter in der öffentlichen Meinungsbildung. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York Nennen, 1996. Das Expertendilemma, zur

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Decker.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Decker, M. The role of ethics in interdisciplinary technology assessment. Poiesis Prax 2, 139–156 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10202-003-0047-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10202-003-0047-0

Keywords

Navigation