科技伦理责任观基本内容论析

当今时代,科技伦理失责问题日渐凸显,迫切需要构建科技伦理责任观,科学明晰科技伦理责任观的基本内容。本文认为科技伦理责任观的构建包括责任目标、责任主体、责任对象、责任原则和责任规范等基本内容,并对之作了分析和阐述。     

论科技伦理责任的构建与实现的社会机制

现代科学技术的进步,科技伦理失责问题的凸显,呼唤着构建和实现科学的科技伦理责任观。科技伦理责任观构建和实现的社会机制主要包括法治机制、监管机制、公开机制、奖惩机制、评价机制和教育机制等。     

责任伦理视角下人类胚胎干细胞研究的法律规制

人类胚胎干细胞技术的迅猛发展对科学研究和医疗有着重大意义,但不可避免带来了一系列的社会、伦理难题.仅靠弹性很大的行业伦理规范不足以防范科技风险,有必要寻求法律制度的回应.责任伦理作为科技时代的伦理,为解决科技发展带来的伦理争议提供了新的纬度和伦理指导.应以责任伦理学为思维框架,在责任监管和制裁机制的构建等方面进行探索.     

科技工作者角色道德意识及其培育

科技工作者的角色道德意识既是对其角色责任、伦理期待和道德规范认知的前提和基础,又是对科技行为进行伦理调控和道德人格塑造的内在动力.因此,在角色扮演过程中,科技工作者必须深刻理解和把握自己所扮演角色的伦理道德要求,形成对以权利和责任为核心的道德原则和道德规范的自觉意识.只有对自身角色的道德要求有明确认知与觉解,才能自觉按照与角色要求相适应的道德规范、道德原则进行道德实践,进而养成角色道德自觉.     

有关责任伦理几个问题的认识

对责任伦理的研究和实践能极大地促进伦理学的实践,进一步完善伦理学的建设。对责任伦理有多种理解,本文认为责任伦理要解决的问题主要不是主观意图的责任意识,而是指人们在履行伦理原则、规范的行为过程中对他人、对社会实际产生的效应。责任伦理的着眼点是伦理效应。只有从实际发生的伦理效应才能真实地判断伦理的责任是否到位。重视伦理原则、规范在实际应用中发生的伦理冲突,区分责任伦理的不同性质和类型,构建落实责任伦理的完整链条,是落实责任的基本途径。     

情感、理性、责任：个人慈善行为的伦理动因

个人慈善行为从本质上讲是高尚的道德行为,这决定了从伦理角度对其进行研究的根本路径。个人慈善行为的发生是道德情感、道德理性和道德责任共同作用的结果。其中,道德情感是原动力,道德理性是助动力,道德责任是核心动力。     

科技伦理:一个有争议的课题

在应用伦理学的诸多领域中 ,没有一个领域像科技伦理那样同责任概念联系得如此紧密。科技伦理的核心问题就在于 :探寻科学家在其研究的过程中、工程师在其工程营建的过程中是否及在何种程度上涉及到以责任概念为表征的伦理问题。持否定态度者认为 ,科学家的研究目的是追求现实世界中存在着的客观真理 ,判断科学知识及理论的标准是真与假 ,而不是道德意义上的好与坏 ;工程技术人员的工程营建所依据的也是自然界本身的客观法则 ,判断技术发明与应用的标准是先进或落后 ,而不是道德意义上的善与恶。因此 ,科技领域本身是价值中立的 ,并非伦理道…     

商业伦理的核心问题、价值定位与规范体系

科技的全速进步和经济活动数字化、网络化的超常规发展,是商业伦理从边缘走向中心的推动力量。从宏观层面的制度缺位到中观层面的组织品质缺失、微观层面的商人理性缺损,都彰显了商业伦理问题的新趋向。商业伦理的价值追求应定位于社会责任、企业核心价值观以及个人良心信念的统一。构建商业伦理规范体系要体现人本原则、公正原则、权利保障原则,符合伦理要求的公司应遵守契约规范、制度规范、营销规范和商业决策规范。     

科技——伦理的相契之维与生态发展

在科学、技术、生产一体化的时代,科技发展面临着自身无法应对的逻辑困境和发展困境,关注生活本身的相与的伦理之维为科技发展揖别上述困境提供了契机.正是在此机缘中,我们思入了科技伦理之所以成为时代问题的本质.切入科技伦理成为时代问题的维度,开启了我们进入科技伦理问题的生态视野,彰显出科技伦理的生态发展路向.科技和伦理在展现生活的意义和生命的价值的层面上相互关联,它们关联的生态视野开拓出科技发展揖别自身面临的各种困境的生态发展的路向.     

交谈伦理能够涵盖责任伦理吗?

众所周知 ,责任伦理与交谈伦理是最近几十年来在德语区内最活跃的两个伦理学派。这两个相互竞争着的学派起源于同一个时代 ,而且都是鉴于科技时代威胁人类的巨大灾难 ,为了回答科技发展的后果所造成的严峻挑战而提出的[1] 。因此人们自然会问 :这两个学派是一种什么样的关系 ?它们是相互包含 ,相互独立 ,还是相互补充 ?从责任伦理的角度来看 ,忧那思从未认为过以自主、公正原则为核心的交谈伦理可以还原为责任伦理 ,相反地 ,他强调责任伦理原则并不要求涵盖全部伦理学领域 ,而只是涉及到传统道德理论中一个被忽视了的伦理焦点 ,因此是一种扩…     

Survival Ethics in the Real World: The Research University and Sustainable Development

We discuss how academically-based interdisciplinary teams can address the extreme challenges of the world’s poorest by increasing access to the basic necessities of life. The essay’s first part illustrates the evolving commitment of research universities to develop ethical solutions for populations whose survival is at risk and whose quality of life is deeply impaired. The second part proposes a rationale for university responsibility to solve the problems of impoverished populations at a geographical remove. It also presents a framework for integrating science, engineering and ethics in the efforts of multidisciplinary teams dedicated to this task. The essay’s third part illustrates the efforts of Howard University researchers to join forces with African university colleagues in fleshing out a model for sustainable and ethical global development.     

宋明理学“为学”与“修德”并进论对当代科技的启示

科技异化是当代社会所面临的重大问题,消除科技异化,保证科技的健康发展和合理应用成了当务之急。宋明理学强调以居敬诚意的“修德”为认知求真的“为学”的前提和条件,倡导“为学”与“修德”统一并进,这对于今天强化科技活动的伦理价值和提升科技主体的道德责任,进而消除科技异化,具有重要启示。     

爱因斯坦科技伦理思想的三个基本命题

爱因斯坦是科学道德权威的象征。他的科技伦理思想非常丰富,其中,道德是一切人类价值的基础、科技具有伦理二重性以及科学家和工程师担负着特别沉重的道义责任等三个命题构成了他的科技伦理思想的核心。这些思想对于人类在科技活动中正确把握真与善的关系具有重要启迪。     

Devices of Responsibility: Over a Decade of Responsible Research and Innovation Initiatives for Nanotechnologies

Responsible research and innovation (RRI) has come to represent a change in the relationship between science, technology and society. With origins in the democratisation of science, and the inclusion of ethical and societal aspects in research and development activities, RRI offers a means of integrating society and the research and innovation communities. In this article, we frame RRI activities through the lens of layers of science and technology governance as a means of characterising the context in which the RRI activity is positioned and the goal of those actors promoting the RRI activities in shaping overall governance patterns. RRI began to emerge during a time of considerable deliberation about the societal and governance challenges around nanotechnology, in which stakeholders were looking for new ways of integrating notions of responsibility in nanotechnology research and development. For this reason, this article focuses on nanotechnology as the site for exploring the evolution and growth of RRI.     

Ethics and Technology ‘in the Making’: An Essay on the Challenge of Nanoethics

After reviewing portions of the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act that call for examination of societal and ethical issues, this essay seeks to understand how nanoethics can play a role in nanotechnology development. What can and should nanoethics aim to achieve? The focus of the essay is on the challenges of examining ethical issues with regard to a technology that is still emerging, still ‘in the making.’ The literature of science and technology studies (STS) is used to understand the nanotechnology endeavor in a way that makes room for influence by nanoethics. The analysis emphasizes: the contingency of technology and the many actors involved in its development; a conception of technology as sociotechnical systems; and, the values infused (in a variety of ways) in technology. Nanoethicists can be among the many actors who shape the meaning and materiality of an emerging technology. Nevertheless, there are dangers that nanoethicists should try to avoid. The possibility of being co-opted from working along side nanotechnology engineers and scientists is one danger that is inseparable from trying to influence. Related but somewhat different is the danger of not asking about the worthiness of the nanotechnology enterprise as a social investment in the future.     

The Ambivalence of Promising Technology

Issues of responsibility in the world of nanotechnology are becoming explicit with the emergence of a discourse on ‘responsible development’ of nanoscience and nanotechnologies. Much of this discourse centres on the ambivalences of nanotechnology and of promising technology in general. Actors must find means of dealing with these ambivalences. Actors’ actions and responses to ambivalence are shaped by their position and context, along with strategic games they are involved in, together with other actors. A number of interviews were conducted with industrial actors with the aim of uncovering their ethical stances towards responsible development of nanotechnology. The data shows that standard repertoires of justification of nanotechnological development were used. Thus, the industrial actors fell back on their position and associated responsibilities. Such responses reinforce a division of moral labour in which industrial actors and scientists can focus on the progress of science and technology, while other actors, such as NGOs, are expected to take care of broader considerations, such as ethical and social issues.     

Discernment and Denial: Nanotechnology Researchers’ Recognition of Ethical Responsibilities Related to Their Work

To what extent do nanotechnology researchers discern specific work-related ethical responsibilities that are incumbent upon them? A questionnaire was designed and administered to answer this question. Analysis of responses to 11 ethical responsibility statements (ERSs) by 213 researchers at the Stanford Nanofabrication Facility revealed widespread agreement about a number of work-related ethical responsibilities and substantial divergence in the views about several others. Explanations of this divergence are proposed. A new variable is defined that gauges the respondent’s overall level of discernment of the ethical responsibilities referenced in the ERSs. The mean discernment level score for respondents who had taken a course that included discussion of ethical issues closely related to science, technology, or engineering was significantly higher than for those who had not. Further, among respondents who had taken such a course, the mean discernment level score for those who had taken an ethics course devoted to exploration of ethical issues closely related to science, technology, or engineering was significantly higher than for those who had taken a technical science or engineering course that typically pays only fleeting attention to such issues. Implications of these findings are discussed.     

Ways of thinking about and teaching ethical problem solving: Microethics and macroethics in engineering

Engineering ethics entails three frames of reference: individual, professional, and social. "Microethics" considers individuals and internal relations of the engineering profession; "macroethics" applies to the collective social responsibility of the profession and to societal decisions about technology. Most research and teaching in engineering ethics, including online resources, has had a "micro" focus. Mechanisms for incorporating macroethical perspectives include: integrating engineering ethics and science, technology and society (STS); closer integration of engineering ethics and computer ethics; and consideration of the influence of professional engineering societies and corporate social responsibility programs on ethical engineering practice. Integrating macroethical issues and concerns in engineering ethics involves broadening the context of ethical problem solving. This in turn implies: developing courses emphasizing both micro and macro perspectives, providing faculty development that includes training in both STS and practical ethics; and revision of curriculum materials, including online resources. Multidisciplinary collaboration is recommended 1) to create online case studies emphasizing ethical decision making in individual, professional, and societal contexts; 2) to leverage existing online computer ethics resources with relevance to engineering education and practice; and 3) to create transparent linkages between public policy positions advocated by professional societies and codes of ethics.     

Editors’ Overview Perspectives on Teaching Social Responsibility to Students in Science and Engineering

Global society is facing formidable current and future problems that threaten the prospects for justice and peace, sustainability, and the well-being of humanity both now and in the future. Many of these problems are related to science and technology and to how they function in the world. If the social responsibility of scientists and engineers implies a duty to safeguard or promote a peaceful, just and sustainable world society, then science and engineering education should empower students to fulfil this responsibility. The contributions to this special issue present European examples of teaching social responsibility to students in science and engineering, and provide examples and discussion of how this teaching can be promoted, and of obstacles that are encountered. Speaking generally, education aimed at preparing future scientists and engineers for social responsibility is presently very limited and seemingly insufficient in view of the enormous ethical and social problems that are associated with current science and technology. Although many social, political and professional organisations have expressed the need for the provision of teaching for social responsibility, important and persistent barriers stand in the way of its sustained development. What is needed are both bottom-up teaching initiatives from individuals or groups of academic teachers, and top-down support to secure appropriate embedding in the university. Often the latter is lacking or inadequate. Educational policies at the national or international level, such as the Bologna agreements in Europe, can be an opportunity for introducing teaching for social responsibility. However, frequently no or only limited positive effect of such policies can be discerned. Existing accreditation and evaluation mechanisms do not guarantee appropriate attention to teaching for social responsibility, because, in their current form, they provide no guarantee that the curricula pay sufficient attention to teaching goals that are desirable for society as a whole.     

Freedom in responsibility: on the relevance of "sin" as a hermeneutic guiding principle in bioethical decision making.

This essay deals with questions of responsibility concerning technology, in particular, gene technology and the special problem of research on embryos. I raise issues concerning the extent of humans' authority to act and the limits of human freedom. In what way is that freedom given, and what kind of responsibility results from it? By discussing various concepts of human freedom in the tradition of European philosophy, as juxtaposed to the Protestant understanding of freedom, this essay discusses the restricting limits, and the obligation to take responsibility. It will turn out that the question concerning freedom cannot be answered without understanding what being human involves. From a Christian perspective, this implies that the foundational relationship between human freedom and sin will be central to an assessment of the human ability to take responsibility. By obliterating the limits of human freedom, sin jeopardizes the very essence of that freedom. The project of taking into account the sinful state of the human condition thus aims at developing a realistic picture of the authority of humans in action, even in view of the human tasks of promoting science and research.