Ajk Auke Pols

Limits to responsible innovation

ABSTRACTResponsible Innovation (RI) is a young field of research that has nevertheless had remarkable successes in dissemination within academic and political circles. However, there is relatively little awareness of its limits, blind spots and situations in which it cannot be used for actual innovation trajectories. Without such awareness, there is a risk that RI may get hollowed out and turned into a tool for ‘greenwashing’. To examine RI’s limits, we present a case study on biofuel innovation in Hassan, South India. This case study demonstrates that there are important barriers that may make it difficult to conduct innovation according to RI values. In particular, we highlight the following factors that emerge from our case study and need more attention in order to be included and adequately theorised in the RI literature: material barriers to innovation, engagement with abandoning or reducing existing practices as a consequence of innovation, power differences and dependencies, (un)clear demarcation o...

Transferring Responsibility Through Use Plans

Engineers are initially responsible for the artefacts they produce, but at some point, part of the responsibility for the artefact shifts from the engineer to the user. This chapter will analyse how and when this transfer of responsibility takes place. Specifically, it will combine the theory of responsibility and control of Fischer and Ravizza (1998) and the use plan theory of knowledge of artefact functions by Houkes and Vermaas (2004) into a new theoretical framework which specifies the conditions under which this transfer can take place. After introducing both theories and combining them, I will give an example of how the combined theory works and apply it to a test case to show how it functions in practice.

Biofuels: Sustainable Innovation or Gold Rush? Identifying Responsibilities for Biofuel Innovations

Based on fieldwork and literature review we have investigated the rise and fall of jatropha cultivation in Tanzania over the last decade, and its negative socio-economic and environmental impacts. Based on the fact that the most vulnerable actors, small farmers, were affected the most, through loss of land and income, we conclude that biofuel innovations have so far been irresponsible. In this chapter we draw lessons for future biofuel innovations through the identification of stakeholder responsibilities. We do so by developing a framework which is based on current discussions on the meaning of ‘sustainability’ and recent ethical work on moral responsibility. In addition, we use the framework to reflect on the jatropha biofuel innovation experiences. Additional fieldwork will be done to gather information on visions and expectations and to discuss responsibilities for sustainable biofuel innovations in Tanzania. Our preliminary conclusion is that stakeholder participation and a clear demarcation of responsibilities are preconditions for sustainable biofuel innovations.

What is morally salient about enhancement technologies

The human enhancement debate typically centres on moral issues regarding changes in human nature, not on the means for these changes. We argue that one cannot grasp what is morally salient about human enhancement without understanding how technologies affect human action and practical reasoning. We present a minimalist conception of human agents as bounded practical reasoners. Then, we categorise different effects of technologies on our possibilities for action and our evaluation of these possibilities. For each, we discuss whether enhancement technologies have morally salient effects; which technologies show these effects; and whether these differ significantly from those of other, non-enhancement technologies. We conclude that enhancement technologies are morally salient in several respects, that not all enhancement technologies share all those morally salient respects, and that continuities with traditional technologies may be found in all morally salient respects.

Plans for Modeling Rational Acceptance of Technology

We argue that the use-plan analysis of artefact use and design can be combined with the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT), a well-tested model for predicting the adoption of information systems in organizational contexts. After presenting the outlines of the use-plan analysis and UTAUT, we show how the basic concepts of the accounts can be mapped onto each other. This indicates that it is possible to develop an empirically informed, evaluative model of ‘Rational Acceptance of Technology’. We then demonstrate the mutual benefits of the combination. Specifically, we show how the use-plan analysis can improve and extend UTAUT with conditions for the rational adoption of technology, recommendations for ‘adoption-sensitive’ design, and conditions for the transfer of control over and responsibility for the technology from designer to user.

May Stakeholders be Involved in Design Without Informed Consent? The Case of Hidden Design

Stakeholder involvement in design is desirable from both a practical and an ethical point of view. It is difficult to do well, however, and some problems recur again and again, both of a practical nature, e.g. stakeholders acting strategically rather than openly, and of an ethical nature, e.g. power imbalances unduly affecting the outcome of the process. Hidden Design has been proposed as a method to deal with the practical problems of stakeholder involvement. It aims to do so by taking the observation of stakeholder actions, rather than the outcomes of a deliberative process, as its input. Furthermore, it hides from stakeholders the fact that a design process is taking place so that they will not behave differently than they otherwise would. Both aspects of Hidden Design have raised ethical worries. In this paper I make an ethical analysis of what it means for a design process to leave participants uninformed or deceived rather than acquiring their informed consent beforehand, and to use observation of actions rather than deliberation as input for design, using Hidden Design as a case study. This analysis is based on two sets of normative guidelines: the ethical guidelines for psychological research involving deception or uninformed participants from two professional psychological organisations, and Habermasian norms for a fair and just (deliberative) process. It supports the conclusion that stakeholder involvement in design organised in this way can be ethically acceptable, though under a number of conditions and constraints.

Certification for sustainable biofuels

Certification for sustainable biofuels has been developed to ensure that biofuel production methods adhere to social and environmental sustainability standards. As such, requiring biofuels to be certified has become part of policy documents such as the EU Renewable Energy Directive (RED) that aim to promote energy security, reduce emissions and promote rural development. According to the EU RED, in 2020 10% of our transport energy should come from renewable sources, including biofuels. Only certified biofuels may count towards this target. In this paper I examine what biofuel certificates are, what they can do and what their weak points are. I argue that the EU RED makes an important but unjustified assumption in demanding certified biofuels for its target: that if biofuel production is sustainable, then biofuel use is too. Applying the use plan approach from the philosophy of technology to biofuel certification, I show why this assumption is unjustified and why the EU is in fact making ‘improper use’ of biofuel certification. Finally, I discuss ways in which biofuel certification could be used in working towards the EU RED’s goals.