Skip to main content
Log in

A Problem with Societal Desirability as a Component of Responsible Research and Innovation: the “If we don’t somebody else will” Argument

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
NanoEthics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

An Erratum to this article was published on 18 May 2016

Abstract

The implementation of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) is not without its challenges, and one of these is raised when societal desirability is included amongst the RRI principles. We will argue that societal desirability is problematic even though it appears to fit well with the overall ideal. This discord occurs partly because the idea of societal desirability is inherently ambiguous, but more importantly because its scope is unclear. This paper asks: is societal desirability in the spirit of RRI? On von Schomberg’s account, it seems clear that it is, but societal desirability can easily clash with what is ethically permissible; for example, when what is desirable in a particular society is bad for the global community. If that society chose not to do what was desirable for it, the world would be better off than if they did it. Yet our concern here is with a more complex situation, where there is a clash with ethical acceptability, but where the world would not be better off if the society chose not do what was societally desirable for itself. This is the situation where it is argued that someone else will do it if we do not. The first section of the paper gives an outline of what we take technology to be, and the second is a discussion of which criteria should be the basis for choosing research and innovation projects. This will draw on the account of technology outlined in the first section. This will be followed by an examination of a common argument, “If we don’t do it, others will”. This argument is important because it appears to justify acting in morally dubious ways. Finally, it will be argued that societal desirability gives support to the “If we don’t…” argument and that this raises some difficulties for RRI.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Al-Rodham N (2015) The many ethical implications of emerging technologies. Sci Am, March 13. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-many-ethical-implications-of-emerging-technologies/. Accessed 08 April 2016

  2. ARC (2013) Australian Research Council Strategic plan 2013-14 to 2015-16 / Australian Research Council. ACT Australian Research Council, Majura Park

    Google Scholar 

  3. Australia’s science and research priorities (2015). http://www.science.gov.au/scienceGov/news/Pages/PrioritisingAustraliasFuture.aspx . Accessed 08 April 2016

  4. Haxton N (2015) Coal mining should not go ahead in Queensland’s untapped Galilee Basin, Climate Council finds, The World Today, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-24/galilee-basin-coal-mining-risky-climate-council-report-adani/6569910

  5. Laudan L (1977) Progress and its problems: towards a theory of scientific growth. University of California Press, Berkeley

  6. Laudan L (1981) A problem-solving approach to scientific progress. In: Hacking I (ed) Scientific revolutions. Oxford University Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  7. May L (1991) Metaphysical guilt and moral taint. In: May L, Hoffman S (eds) Collective responsibility: five decades of debate in theoretical and applied ethics. Rowman & Littlefield, Savage

    Google Scholar 

  8. Polanyi M (1962) The republic of science: its political and economic theory. Minerva 1:54–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Popper K (1972) Objective knowledge: an evolutionary approach. Oxford University Press, London

  10. Reardon S (2015) The Pentagon’s gamble on brain implants, bionic limbs and combat exoskeletons. Nature 522:7555. http://www.nature.com/news/the-pentagon-s-gamble-on-brain-implants-bionic-limbs-and-combat-exoskeletons-1.17726

  11. Smart JJC, Bernard W (1973) Utilitarianism: for and against. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  12. Soltanzadeh S (2015) Questioning two assumptions in the metaphysics of technological objects. Philos Technol. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs13347-015-0198-7 Accessed 08 April 2016

  13. Stahl BC (2013) Responsible research and innovation: the role of privacy in an emerging framework. Sci Public Policy 40(6):708–716. doi:10.1093/scipol/sct067

  14. Stilgoe J, Owen R, Macnaughten P (2013) Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Res Policy 42(9):1568–1580

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Swierstra T, Rip A (2007) Nano-ethics as NEST-ethics: patterns of moral argumentation about new and emerging science and technology. NanoEthics 1(1):3–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Von Schomberg R (2013) A vision of responsible innovation. In: Owen R, Heintz M, Bessant J (eds) Responsible innovation: managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society. Wiley, London, pp 51–74

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Wisor S (2014) The moral problem of worse actors. Ethics Glob Polit 7(2):47–64

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Stephan Lingner for comments on an earlier draft and to the anonymous reviewers for their suggestions. This article was written with support from the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme grant number 321400.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John Weckert.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Weckert, J., Valdes, H.R. & Soltanzadeh, S. A Problem with Societal Desirability as a Component of Responsible Research and Innovation: the “If we don’t somebody else will” Argument. Nanoethics 10, 215–225 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-016-0258-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-016-0258-1

Keywords

Navigation