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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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
ARC (2013) Australian Research Council Strategic plan 2013-14 to 2015-16 / Australian Research Council. ACT Australian Research Council, Majura Park
Australia’s science and research priorities (2015). http://www.science.gov.au/scienceGov/news/Pages/PrioritisingAustraliasFuture.aspx . Accessed 08 April 2016
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
Laudan L (1977) Progress and its problems: towards a theory of scientific growth. University of California Press, Berkeley
Laudan L (1981) A problem-solving approach to scientific progress. In: Hacking I (ed) Scientific revolutions. Oxford University Press, London
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
Polanyi M (1962) The republic of science: its political and economic theory. Minerva 1:54–74
Popper K (1972) Objective knowledge: an evolutionary approach. Oxford University Press, London
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
Smart JJC, Bernard W (1973) Utilitarianism: for and against. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
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
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
Stilgoe J, Owen R, Macnaughten P (2013) Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Res Policy 42(9):1568–1580
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
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
Wisor S (2014) The moral problem of worse actors. Ethics Glob Polit 7(2):47–64
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
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
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
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-016-0258-1