Suchergebnisse

"Tell an engineer that you teach engineering ethics and it will not be long before you hear one of the biases about engineering, about ethics, or about how the two fields relate to each other. Ironically, one persistent bias is the view that engineering is an unbiased and objective practice, because "engineers deal with facts and figures, so there is no place for opinions or ethics in the practice of engineering". Another bias, fuelled by much thought and discussion about ethics in relation to malpractices, is that an engineer "must be honest.""--

AbstractNew technology brings great benefits, but it can also create new and significant risks. When evaluating those risks in policymaking, there is a tendency to focus on social acceptance. By solely focusing on social acceptance, we could, however, overlook important ethical aspects of technological risk, particularly when we evaluate technologies with transnational and intergenerational risks. I argue that good governance of risky technology requires analyzing both social acceptance and ethical acceptability. Conceptually, these two notions are mostly complementary. Social acceptance studies are not capable of sufficiently capturing all the morally relevant features of risky technologies; ethical analyses do not typically include stakeholders' opinions, and they therefore lack the relevant empirical input for a thorough ethical evaluation. Only when carried out in conjunction are these two types of analysis relevant to national and international governance of risky technology. I discuss the Rawlsian wide reflective equilibrium as a method for marrying social acceptance and ethical acceptability. Although the rationale of my argument is broadly applicable, I will examine the case of multinational nuclear waste repositories in particular. This example will show how ethical issues may be overlooked if we focus only on social acceptance, and will provide a test case for demonstrating how the wide reflective equilibrium can help to bridge the proverbial acceptance‐acceptability gap.

The introduction of new technologies in society is sometimes met with public resistance. Supported by public policy calls for "upstream engagement" and "responsible innovation," recent years have seen a notable rise in attempts to attune research and innovation processes to societal needs, so that stakeholders' concerns are taken into account in the design phase of technology. Both within the social sciences and in the ethics of technology, we see many interdisciplinary collaborations being initiated that aim to address tensions between various normative expectations about science and engineering and the actual outcomes. However, despite pleas to integrate social science research into the ethics of technology, effective normative models for assessing technologies are still scarce. Rawls's wide reflective equilibrium (WRE) is often mentioned as a promising approach to integrate insights from the social sciences in the normative analysis of concrete cases, but an in-depth discussion of how this would work in practice is still lacking. In this article, we explore to what extent the WRE method can be used in the context of technology development. Using cases in engineering and technology development, we discuss three issues that are currently neglected in the applied ethics literature on WRE. The first issue concerns the operationalization of abstract background theories to moral principles. The second issue concerns the inclusiveness of the method and the demand for openness. The third issue is how to establish whether or not an equilibrium has been reached. These issues should be taken into account when applying the methods to real-world cases involving technological risks. Applying the WRE method in the context of engaged interdisciplinary collaboration requires sensitivity for issues of power and representativeness to properly deal with the dynamics between the technical and normative researchers involved as well as society at large.

Alternative fuel cycles are being considered in an effort to prolong uranium fuel supplies for thousands of years to come and to manage nuclear waste. These strategies bring with them different benefits and burdens for the present generation and for future generations. In this article, we present a method that provides insight into future fuel cycle alternatives and into the conflicts arising between generations within the framework of intergenerational equity. A set of intersubjective values is drawn from the notion of sustainable development. By operationalizing these values and mapping out their impacts, value criteria are introduced for the assessment of fuel cycles, which are based on the distribution of burdens and benefits between generations. The once‐through fuel cycle currently deployed in the United States and three future fuel cycles are subsequently assessed according to these criteria. The four alternatives are then compared in an integrated analysis in which we shed light on the implicit tradeoffs made by decisionmakers when they choose a certain fuel cycle. When choosing a fuel cycle, what are the societal costs and burdens accepted for each generation and how can these factors be justified? This article presents an integrated decision‐making method, which considers intergenerational aspects of such decisions; this method could also be applied to other technologies.

The ongoing energy transition toward more sustainable energy systems implies a change in the values for which such systems are designed. The energy transition however is not just about sustainability but also about values like energy security and affordability, and we witness the emergence of new values like energy justice and energy democracy. How can we understand such value changes and how can or should they affect the design of future energy systems? This introduction to the special section on value change in energy systems introduces the main themes and questions. It discusses different understandings of values and value change, explains why the topic is important and how it can be methodologically studied.

This paper investigates the viability of Energy Justice as a framework to assist the governance of multinational risk. Positioned between local and universal scales, it advocates for the approach of multinational energy justice as a means of considering justice manifestations either between neighboring countries, or between geographically isolated countries that share common energy concerns or systems. Specifically, it focuses on how to govern the risk of nuclear waste in a multinational fashion, and questions the extent to which this approach could offer a useful account to help understand the justice issues multinational repositories give rise to. We present a content analysis of 10‐years' worth of policy reports on nuclear waste repositories (2006–16), including 25 full‐length reports documents relating to the Government of South Australia's now abandoned repository proposal. Following a discussion around the merit of energy justice approaches in relation of transboundary issues of justice, intergenerational justice and the role conflicting justice demands across time and space, we present three areas for further consideration: (i) We call for greater attention to issues of spatial conflict; (ii) further reflect on temporal justice conflict and its integration into energy justice frameworks; and (iii) reflect upon multinational responsibility for energy justice.