1. Models of Anticipation within the Responsible Research and Innovation Framework: the Two RRI Souls and the Challenge of Human Rights Daniele Ruggiu CIGA, University of Padova Trento, November 7-8, 2015 Centre for Environmental, Ethical, Legal and Social Decisions on Emerging Technologies (CIGA), University of Padua

2. 2 Summary:  Anticipation  Public participation  New Governance RRI the socio-empirical and the normative version  Two models of anticipation  Shortcomings of both versions  Conclusions

3. Anticipation  state of scientific uncertainty  inextricability of risks, unknown consequences, opportunities  end of unanimity in science  the need to anticipate 3 How?

4. Public participation  crisis of legitimation of public authorities (EU) lack of transparency lack of the public involvement (e.g. biotechnology)  quest for open forms of participatory democracy 4

5. Distributed nature of power  power is distributed at the global sphere  growing importance of the private sector  crisis of the state-centric conceptions of governance  without the active cooperation of private actors (funding agencies, businesses, researchers etc.) it is difficult to ensure the success of governance  alternative models of governance stressing democratization processes of governance (new and self-governance) 5

6. New and self-governance  Governance: hetero-arranged or self-arranged  New governance : public actors try to steer governance by involving stakeholders through tools of hard and soft law  Self-governance : a sector self-arranges for anticipating the problem solving (research at its infancy or under-regulated) 6

7. New governance  informality  lack of hierarchy  the presence of private actors Toolkit : networking, agency, self-regulation, guidelines, recommendations, certification systems, social dialogue, on-line & ad hoc consultations, public fora,  alternatively or jointly used to hard legislation (soft+hard)  presence of leading public subjects  democratic legitimation 7

8. Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI)  involvement (responsiveness & reflexivity)  anticipation  focus on the loss of opportunities  ethical acceptability 8

9. The two souls of RRI  RRI?  The socio-empirical version (stress on participation)  The normative version (stress on institutional goals) 9

10. No unanimity on RRI definition and features 10 RRI is a transparent, interactive process by which societal actors and innovators become mutually responsive to each other with a view to the (ethical) acceptability, sustainability and societal desirability of the innovation process and its marketable products (in order to allow a proper embedding of scientific and technological advances in our society) RRI is a collective commitment of care for the future through responsive stewardship of science and innovation in the present

11. The socio-empirical version  democratic participation societal values  bottom-up values setting  movable anchorage (values vary according to the context) Eg. SPICE project on geoengineering 11

12. The normative version  constitutional values steering policies  top-down values setting  fixed anchorage  In Europe: EU goals Article 3 of the Treaty on the European Union: techno-scientific advance competitiveness sustainability social justice (fundamental rights) the protection of human health and the environment 12

13. Possible contaminations between the two models  same features (inclusion, anticipation, focus on opportunities, ethical acceptability)  different accents (engagement, ethical acceptability)  examples of mix : e.g. René von Schomberg’s theory, 2014 report to the Commission of Richard Owen, the 2008 Code of conduct on responsible nanosciences and nanotechnologies research (EC CoC) 13

14. the 2008 Code of conduct on responsible nanosciences and nanotechnologies research  consultation processes (2007, 2010) aimed at identifying a set of code principles (socio-empirical interpretation)  consultation paper (EU goals) as basis of consultations 14

15. The conceptual justification of the socio- empirical version  gap of responsibility : no one can be deemed responsible for consequences that could not be foreseen at the moment of the action  too early/too late dilemma : at early stage best chances of controlling a growing technology but few data  innovation needs to consider also the loss of opportunities  all addressees should have the chance to say what values they want to be anchored on  negotiation must be equitable and democratic 15

16. Variable values  values are culturally-sensitive : they differ according to the context  democratic participation mutual process of learning responsiveness to the inputs stemming from the society reflexivity of stakeholders on the purposes and goals of innovation  risk of coinciding with the current flexible, tentative and adaptive EU model of governance 16

17. Self-governance  strong pole of attraction for the socio-empirical version : self- governance  self-governance = spontaneous coordination of a sector for pursuing a common interest (quintessence of participation) Eg. synthetic biology 2.0 conference (2006), code of conduct of IASB (2009) 17

18. The conceptual justification of the normative version  consequences of technological innovation are the result of collective action ethics of co-responsibility  state of scientific uncertainty  end of unanimism in science  in a situation of general disagreement responsibility can be founded only on fundamental constitutional principles (procedural norms of public discourse)  The risk: a conflict between institutional goals and participation. 18

19. Process rationality v. goal rationality (Heydebrande)  traditional forms of regulation : goal rationality rule of law and constitutional rights are the starting point  new governance : process rationality informal and negotiated nature of the process democratic participation is the only value no value superior to participation (even constitutional rights) 19

20. The model of anticipation of the socio- empirical version all affected parties participate with their inputs reflexivity (priorities, views, values) responsibilisation foresight & resilience 20 shared visions

21. The model of anticipation of the normative version fundamental constitutional principles (EU goals) as filters : selecting policies and trajectories of governance shaping governance tools (participation), allocating research funding (e.g. Horizon 2020)  anticipation of impacts=identifying ‘right impacts’ 21

22. Shortcomings of the socio-empirical model  weak dimension of fundamental rights Examples:  The SPICE project on geoengineering (stage gate architecture) risk assessment and respect of existing legislation (fundamental rights?) project suspended for a conflict of interests  the 2011 code of conduct launched by International Association of Synthetic Biology 22

23. Shortcomings of the normative model  fundamental rights can be balanced with other anchor points  totally or partially sacrificed  possible adverse court decisions (rights=externality) 23

24. Correctives for the socio-empirical model  public and independent institutions on human rights  more structured organization, resources (No NGOs)  capability of dealing with issues of high technical nature 24

25. The necessary participation of independent institutions Heydebrande on public participation : just «getting the right people at the table, and one will get substance» supranational and independent institutions need to participate at any stage of policy-making 25

26. Correctives for the normative model EU law : balancing of rights with other EU goals (risk of adverse decisions, e.g. Brüstle case) Council of Europe : human rights are not balanced (except Art. 15 and margin of appreciation) the framework of decisions of the ECtHR can strengthen that of the EU preventing fundamental rights from being balanced 26

27. The rights-based model of governance  integrity principle : policy decisions and regulation need to be coherent with the principles of justice of liberal-democratic societies  political decisions, rules and their administrative application are in accordance with the (legal) principles of human rights 27

28. Conclusions  two different modes of conceptualizing anticipation  democratic and broad participation (socio-empirical version)  normative filters (EU goals) for policy making  shortcomings: a) the protection of individual rights depends on just stakeholders b) fundamental rights balanceable  correctives: 1) participation of public independent institutions on human rights 2) use the framework of decisions of ECtHR for strengthening the application of fundamental rights 28

29. Thank you for the attention!!! Any question or comment? Daniele Ruggiu daniele.ruggiu@unipd.it 29