Philosophers go on a retreat
Two years ago, an international visitation committee designated the philosophers of technology from the universities of Delft, Eindhoven and Twente as 'excellent'. Fortunately, the philosophers in Delft did not see this as a sign that they could sit back and take it easy. On the contrary, they are still making serious headway. Sabine Roeser and Ibo van de Poel from the Philosophy section at TPM both managed to earn a fellowship from the prestigious Netherlands Institute of Advanced Studies (NIAS).
The fellowship will give Roeser and Van de Poel the opportunity to spend a whole year contemplating in a tranquil environment on the perimeter of the dunes in Wassenaar. The impressive NIAS buildings have room for some forty talented scientists from home and abroad. The scientists are thoroughly pampered to allow them to work on forthcoming publications without being disturbed. They all have their own study with a stunning view of majestic old trees, and NIAS staff cater to their every need: from library books and presentation rooms to good meals and accommodation.
Coincidence
The fact that Sabine Roeser and Ibo van de Poel both received a fellowship at the same time is sheer coincidence. They are both working on separate research projects. So what exactly do they intend to do with all that time, peace and concentration? Sabine Roeser: "I'm so excited to have time for my real passion: research. Four years ago, I was awarded a VENI grant from the NWO [Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research] for my research into the role of emotions while assessing technological risks. I intend to expand this research during my time at the NIAS. Last year, I signed four book contracts, so I can certainly set to work on one of them in Wassenaar. I'll have plenty of time."
Van de Poel is also looking forward to the retreat. "I have been carrying out a lot of teaching and management duties over the last few years, including the job of general director of the 3TU Centre of Ethics (the joint research institute for the three universities of technology, ed.). I am really looking forward to spending a year contemplating and writing. At an academic level, it will also be interesting to meet people from other disciplines who are working on totally different projects." Both researchers will undertake a few additional duties as from September. Roeser will be taking over from Van de Poel as director of the 3TU centre, and they will both continue to supervise PhD students.
Direct understanding
Sabine Roeser, who attended the academy of arts in Maastricht, before obtaining a degree in philosophy and psychology and a PhD in Amsterdam, talks about her research subject with great enthusiasm. "I want to prove that ethics and emotions are not purely subjective, as claimed by followers of David Hume, or that emotions should be banished from moral debate on account of their presumed subjectivity, as propagated by followers of Immanuel Kant. Emotion and intuition can also provide objective truths. The insight they give is not based on arguments, but on a direct understanding of reality. For example, there are no arguments to support the moral principle that all people are equal. But the principle is correct; most people understand this intuitively."
In her research, Roeser shows that emotions such as sympathy, empathy, compassion, guilt and shame can reflect what is morally important to people, even during the process of weighing up technological risks. Engineers should not only make cost/benefit analyses and quantitative calculations, but should also take account of the ethical aspects when assessing risks. She explains: "A large proportion of the world's population will never be able to afford an air ticket, but will suffer the consequences of CO2 emissions from air traffic. This is why eco tax was introduced, and why we are studying ways of developing 'cleaner' aircraft. An extra measure could be: make use of the emotion 'compassion'. Point out to people that if the entire population of the world could afford to fly, no-one would be able to do it more than once in their lifetime. Make it clear to people that they should not take their right to board an aeroplane for granted."
Roeser refers to empirical research that shows that the quantitative risk strategy adopted by experts does not fit in with the sizeable perception of risks as experienced by ordinary citizens. The general public takes qualitative aspects into account too. For example, citizens do not only consider the statistical chance of a meltdown occurring in a nuclear plant, but also the implications of any such meltdown. Experts who include the fear of the implications in their assessment will inevitably have a broader-based view. It forces them to think about the alternatives, for instance. Roeser: "Emotions are not only an instrument for enhancing or reducing support for technological innovation; they are also a source of knowledge. At the NIAS, I shall be thinking about how engineers can tap into this source."
Conflicting values
Ibo van de Poel's research does not so much focus on risk assessment, as on the more general role that moral values can play in the design process that engineers go through. Van de Poel is a technology ethicist. He studied for his degree and PhD in Twente and has been working at Delft since 1998. "Innovating also involves resolving conflicting values", he says. "Moral values like safety, durability, justice and freedom all play a role in the technological design process. But they sometimes conflict with each other. When designing a car that must be durable and affordable, you will invariably come up with a lightweight model, but this car will also be less safe. Unless we all start driving lightweight vehicles of course; then safety would again improve. So the question is this: what do moral values involve, and how do they interact?" As an ethicist, Van de Poel thinks that engineers should not try to express all values in terms of money, but look for other ways to weigh up relative values during a design process.
At the NIAS, he will be exploring the various strategies that can be used to weigh up moral values while developing technological innovations. Like Roeser, his mission is to supplement the existing body of multi-criteria and cost/benefit analyses with philosophical considerations. "We think about various aspects that engineers are unaware of. Our critical reflection can be very useful, for example to make tacit decisions about values such as safety and durability explicit, and to take a critical look at them. On the other hand, engineers themselves can unify moral values by thinking up new technological solutions. The Oosterschelde storm surge barrier is a good example. It is a technological innovation of the highest order, a half-open barrier that takes account of two values: safety and care of the environment. I bring the world of philosophers and the world of engineers in contact with each other in a completely new way."
Innovative
Van de Poel has just put his finger on one of the reasons why NIAS has honoured him and his colleague Roeser with fellowships. Their research field is innovative. Of course their track record also played a role. But won't it leave a substantial gap in the department if two heavyweights more or less disappear for a year? Van de Poel puts it into perspective: "Well, the department will receive money from the NIAS to fund replacement teaching staff. And if we come back from this year in the dunes with good publications, it will reflect well on the philosophers in Delft."
The Ethics of Technological Risk
In mid-February, Sabine Roeser and Lotte Asveld from the Philosophy section presented a compilation of articles entitled The Ethics of Technological Risk. The compilation was the result of a congress organised by Roeser and Asveld in 2006 about the role that ethics should play in risk assessment. They selected seventeen articles written by prominent international ethicists, psychologists and sociologists. Many people were interested in contributing, because up until now, very little has been published in this field. The authors of the seventeen articles answer questions such as: who benefits from new technological inventions, who picks up the bill and who is affected by the risks? Do people take these risks voluntarily? Are there alternatives for the invention and what are the implications if something goes wrong? Which morally legitimate considerations come into play when making risk assessments? Which other methods are useful when making an assessment, apart from a cost/benefit analysis? What role does the general public play?
