B

Meeting Agendas and Participants

The Committee on Ethical and Societal Implications of Advances in Militarily Significant Technologies That Are Rapidly Changing and Increasingly Globally Accessible held five open meetings starting in August 2011. These meetings included information-gathering sessions open to the public, as well as closed segments for committee deliberation. The committee heard from numerous presenters at these meetings. They include the following by meeting date and session.

MEETING 1

Tuesday, August 30, 2011

10:45 AM - 11:15 AM

Discussion of Charge with DARPA

Norman Whitaker, DARPA

11:15 AM - 12:45 PM

Military Ethics and Law

Shannon French, Case Western University (video)

• How and to what extent, if any, do military ethics differ from the law of armed conflict?

Ward Thomas, College of the Holy Cross

• How have norms of military conflict evolved with the introduction of new technologies?



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 283
B Meeting Agendas and Participants The Committee on Ethical and Societal Implications of Advances in Militarily Significant Technologies That Are Rapidly Changing and Increasingly Globally Accessible held five open meetings starting in August 2011. These meetings included information-gathering sessions open to the public, as well as closed segments for committee deliberation. The committee heard from numerous presenters at these meetings. They include the following by meeting date and session. MEETING 1 Tuesday, August 30, 2011 10:45 AM - 11:15 AM Discussion of Charge with DARPA Norman Whitaker, DARPA 11:15 AM - 12:45 PM Military Ethics and Law Shannon French, Case Western University (video) •  ow and to what extent, if any, do military H ethics differ from the law of armed conflict? Ward Thomas, College of the Holy Cross •  ow have norms of military conflict evolved H with the introduction of new technologies? 283

OCR for page 283
284 ELSI FRAMEWORK FOR EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES AND NATIONAL SECURITY Judith Miller, former Department of Defense general counsel •  ow do ethical/legal considerations enter H into DOD acquisition decisions? 12:45 PM - 1:30 PM Lunch 1:30 PM - 3:15 PM Military Futures: Emerging Contexts Peter Schwartz, Global Business Network •  hat are the emerging/re-emerging contexts W and trends in the global environment that are shaping military missions? Consider:  —Non-state actors in conflict (e.g., insurgencies, terrorism);  —Access to resources (food, energy, water) —Climate disruption —Ethnic/religious tensions and conflict —Economic pressures —Demographic changes —Social connectedness  —Changes in regional military capacities and relationships —Technology “push” —Dual-use technologies and research 3:15 PM - 3:30 PM Break 3:30 PM - 5:15 PM Future Military Missions Scott Wallace, U.S. Army (ret.), Tradoc •  hat military missions are emerging in W response to these trends? Consider, for example:  —Peacekeeping, conflict reduction, humanitarian operations; nation-building  —DOD support as authorized by law for domestic agencies within the continental United States  —Traditional military activities, for example with respect to near-peer competitors 5:15 PM Adjourn

OCR for page 283
APPENDIX B 285 Wednesday, August 31, 2011 8:30 AM - 10:15 AM Technologies for Meeting Emerging Military Missions George Lucas, U.S. Naval Academy  Patrick Lin, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California •  ow do the emerging/re-emerging contexts H and military missions described earlier shape ethical, legal, and societal questions about military technology?  Consider, for example, such questions as they relate to:  —Constraints on technologies intended to help protect troops, civilian populations, or particular subgroups; to support humanitarian missions or other peacekeeping operations  —Technologies that kill vis-à-vis those that maim or that negatively or positively affect mental or psychological processes  —Concerns regarding blowback from emerging technologies  —Technologies that enable military operations at long range or that remove the “human-in-the-loop” from decision making (e.g., drones, cyber, robots)  —Technologies for surveillance (including surveillance of populations as well as of military deployments and movements) 10:15 AM - 10:30 AM Break 10:30 AM - 12:30 PM Prior ELSI Efforts—Biomedical/Engineering Ethics  Alta Charo, University of Wisconsin Law R. School •  asic approach of and relevant history from B biomedical ethics Joseph Herkert, Arizona State University •  asic approach of and relevant history from B engineering ethics; ethics of emerging technologies

OCR for page 283
286 ELSI FRAMEWORK FOR EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES AND NATIONAL SECURITY MEETING 2 Wednesday, November 2, 2011 8:00 AM - 8:30 AM Breakfast 8:30 AM - 8:40 AM Welcome and Housekeeping 8:40 AM - 10:35 AM Technology Panel 1—Information Technology  Technology and Applications—Peter Lee, Microsoft Research  Ethics—Keith Miller, University of Illinois, Springfield  Ethics and Societal Issues—Gloria Mark, University of California, Irvine  Ethics of Research—Simson Garfinkel, Naval Postgraduate School 10:35 AM - 10:50 AM Break 10:50 AM - 12:45 PM Technology Panel 2—Neuroscience  Basic Science—Scott Grafton, University of California, Santa Barbara  Applications—Craig Stark, University of California, Irvine  Ethics—Martha Farah, University of Pennsylvania (via video link) 12:45 PM - 1:30 PM Lunch 1:30 PM - 3:25 PM Technology Panel 3—Prosthetics  Technology (arm)—Stuart Harshbarger, Contineo Robotics  Technology (eye)—Daniel Palanker, Stanford University  Technology (neurology)—Gerald Loeb, University of Southern California (via phone)  Ethics—Nicholas Agar, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand (via Skype) Ethics—James Hughes, Trinity College 3:25 PM - 3:40 PM Break

OCR for page 283
APPENDIX B 287 3:40 PM - 5:35 PM Technology Panel 4—Synthetic Biology Fundamentals—George Church, Harvard University (via video link) Applications—Drew Endy, Stanford University Ethics—Nita A. Farahany, Vanderbilt University 5:35 PM - 6:15 PM Reception with Speakers 6:15 PM - 7:45 PM Dinner Thursday, November 3, 2011 8:00 AM - 8:30 AM Breakfast 8:30 AM - 10:15 AM Crosscutting Synthesis and Discussion Judith Reppy, Cornell University George Khushf, University of South Carolina 10:15 AM - 10:30 AM Adjourn Questions for Technology Panels Basic Science What is the maturity of the underlying science for creating national security applications with significant operational value? What hard prob- lems need to be resolved to enable such applications? Applications Assuming the hard scientific/technical problems described above can be resolved, what are the scope and nature of such national security applications? How important are the potential national security applications for the future of the technology/field/etc. as opposed to, for example, potential commercial drivers of development? Ethical and Societal Issues How, if at all, do researchers in the field identify and address ethi- cal issues that might apply to their research? What mechanisms exist to address latent ethical issues that are not noticed by researchers? (Leave out issues related to scientific misconduct.)

OCR for page 283
288 ELSI FRAMEWORK FOR EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES AND NATIONAL SECURITY What ethical and societal issues arise if the national security applica- tions described above can be successfully deployed? What ethical and societal issues arise in the course of conducting basic and/or applied research oriented toward national security applica- tions? How can or should attention to these issues affect directions and outcomes of basic and applied research oriented toward national security applications? How, if at all, have the ethical and societal issues evolved as the tech- nology has matured? MEETING 3 Thursday, January 12, 2012 8:00 AM - 8:30 AM Breakfast 8:30 AM - 8:45 AM Housekeeping 8:45 AM - 10:45 AM Emerging Technologies and ELSI Deborah Johnson, University of Virginia  Sheila Jasanoff, Harvard University, Kennedy School of Government David Rejeski, Woodrow Wilson Center  Malcolm Dando, University of Bradford (respondent) •  ow have various technology fields H addressed ELSI concerns? •  ow and in what ways have these H approaches been successful and unsuccessful? •  ow, if at all, have these fields managed H uncertainties (prospectively) and inaccuracies (retroactively) in forecasts about what the future would bring? (Uncertainties and inaccuracies are intended to cover all domains in which they might be relevant—ELSI concerns, scientific or technical developments, national security applications.) •  ow, if at all, are the lessons learned from H past and current approaches to ELSI issues being changed by:

OCR for page 283
APPENDIX B 289 —A military/national security orientation or application of emerging technologies? —High degrees of accessibility to these technologies by nonmajor nation-states and/ or subnational actors? 10:45 AM - 11:00 AM Break 11:00 AM - 12:45 PM Mechanisms Used by Government Agencies to  Address ELSI Concerns (panel 1 of 2, panel 2 for April meeting) Kelly Moore, National Science Foundation  Jean McEwen, National Human Genome Research Institute Valery Gordon, National Institutes of Health Fred Cate, Indiana University School of Law Ray Colladay, DARPA (retired) •  hat are some of the mechanisms (e.g., W regulations, rules, institutions) that agencies have used to address ELSI concerns? What prompts agencies to put these mechanisms in place? •  hat has been the impact on the course of W scientific/technological research and progress when these mechanisms have been used? •  ow has the research community H responded to such mechanisms? •  ow and in what ways, if any, could such H mechanisms be usefully applied to the conduct of research with applications for national security? 12:45 PM - 1:30 PM Lunch 1:30 PM - 3:15 PM Technology Panel—Cyber Warfare Mark Seiden, Yahoo! Randall Dipert, University of Buffalo Neil Rowe, Naval Postgraduate School •  ee attached questions (same as for S November meeting) 3:15 PM - 3:30 PM Break

OCR for page 283
290 ELSI FRAMEWORK FOR EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES AND NATIONAL SECURITY 3:30 PM - 5:30 PM Technology Panel—Robotics and Automated Weapons Ron Arkin, Georgia Institute of Technology Peter Singer, Brookings Institution  Jürgen Altmann, Technische Universität Dortmund, Germany •  ee attached questions (same as for S November meeting) 5:30 PM - 6:00 PM Reception 6:00 PM - 8:00 PM Dinner Friday, January 13, 2012 8:00 AM - 8:30 AM Breakfast 8:30 AM - 10:30 AM Risk Assessment (panel 1 of 2, panel 2 for April meeting) Paul Fischbeck, Carnegie Mellon University •  ow to elicit expert judgments about the H performance of deeply uncertain systems Denise Caruso, Carnegie Mellon University •  ow to responsibly conduct R&D in the H context of emerging scientific understanding and complexity Peter Hancock, University of Central Florida •  ow to anticipate human use and misuse of H new technologies 10:30 AM - 10:45 AM Break 10:45 AM - 11:45 AM Committee Discussion—Identification of Major Ideas This session will focus on identifying the major ideas that committee members believe are important for inclusion in the report. To increase the efficiency of the idea extraction process, we’ll use a procedure often used in industry to engage committee members in parallel.

OCR for page 283
APPENDIX B 291  start with large sheets of butcher paper on We the wall, each with the title of a chapter from the draft report (see attachment). An additional sheet is labeled “miscellaneous and other.” Each committee member will have a 3 × 5 sticky note pad; during this session, committee members write their ideas on these sticky notes, one idea per sheet. They then post their ideas on the relevant sheet of paper. Reading other ideas on the sheet often inspires people to think of yet other ideas, which they are free to post as appropriate. Sometimes committee members think of the same ideas—that becomes clear as multiple notes appear with the same idea. Over lunch, staff will examine the ideas that have been posted and will attempt to synthesize commonalities for presentation to the group at the start of the afternoon session. 11:45 AM - 12:45 PM Lunch 12:45 PM - 3:15 PM Committee Discussion 3:15 PM Adjourn Questions for Technology Panels Basic Science What is the maturity of the underlying science for creating national security applications with significant operational value? What hard prob- lems need to be resolved to enable such applications? Applications Assuming the hard scientific/technical problems described above can be resolved, what are the scope and the nature of such national security applications? How important are the potential national security applications for the future of the technology/field/etc., as opposed to, for example, potential commercial drivers of development?

OCR for page 283
292 ELSI FRAMEWORK FOR EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES AND NATIONAL SECURITY Ethical and Societal Issues How, if at all, do researchers in the field identify and address ethi- cal issues that might apply to their research? What mechanisms exist to address latent ethical issues that are not noticed by researchers? (Leave out issues related to scientific misconduct.) What mechanisms exist for consideration, correction, or redress of untoward consequences? What ethical and societal issues arise if the national security applica- tions described above can be successfully deployed? What ethical and societal issues arise in the course of conducting basic and/or applied research oriented toward national security applica- tions? How can or should attention to these issues affect directions and outcomes of basic and applied research oriented toward national security applications? How, if at all, have the ethical and societal issues evolved as the tech- nology has matured? MEETING 4 Thursday, April 12, 2012 8:00 AM - 8:30 AM Breakfast 8:30 AM - 8:45 AM Welcome 8:45 AM - 10:45 AM Embedding Ethics in Research and Development  Heather Douglas, University of Waterloo, Canada Alex John London, Carnegie Mellon University Nils-Eric Sahlin, Lund University, Sweden •  t what point (or points) in the R&D effort is A societal and ethical expertise best brought to bear? Why? •  commonly stated desire of scientists is to A ensure that societal and ethical review does not “unduly” affect the pace and nature of scientific progress. What does “unduly” mean? By what standards might one recognize a societal or ethical review that unduly affects a given R&D project?

OCR for page 283
APPENDIX B 293 •  ow and to what extent, if at all, do the H kinds of societal and ethical expertise depend on the specific nature of the R&D being performed? •  hat is necessary to facilitate respectful and W honest communication between those with societal and ethical expertise and working scientists and technologists? •  ow can expertise about societal and ethical H matters be brought to bear on a given R&D effort? •  ow can those charged with having such H expertise and applying expertise to an R&D effort be kept from “going native” and being compromised? 10:45 AM - 11:00 AM Break 11:00 AM - 12:45 PM Risk Assessment Paul Fischbeck, Carnegie Mellon University Wandi de Bruin, Carnegie Mellon University Arthur (Skip) Lupia, University of Michigan Adam Finkel, Carnegie Mellon University •  hat information do various publics need W in order to judge social and ethical issues of emerging military technologies fairly? •  hat organizational procedures should the W sponsors of those technologies follow, in order to meet those information needs? •  hat analytical methods are best suited to W produce that information, considering the novelty, complexity, uncertainty, etc., of those technologies? •  hat are the potential barriers to public W understanding of that information, assuming that it is produced? •  ow can we ensure that effective H communications are created, tested, and disseminated in a timely fashion? •  hat are examples of successful and W unsuccessful programs for addressing these challenges?

OCR for page 283
294 ELSI FRAMEWORK FOR EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES AND NATIONAL SECURITY •  hat additional research is most needed W to provide a scientific foundation for risk analysis and communication, for emerging military technologies? 12:45 PM - 1:30 PM Lunch 1:30 PM - 3:15 PM Mechanisms, Panel 2  William Brinkman, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science  Carmen Maher, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Office of the Chief Scientist  Diana Hoyt, NASA, Office of the Chief Technologist  Edward Knipling, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) •  hat are some of the mechanisms (e.g., W regulations, rules, institutions) that agencies have used to address ELSI concerns? What prompts agencies to put these mechanisms in place? •  hat has been the impact on the course W of scientific/technological research and progress when these mechanisms have been used? •  ow has the research community responded H to such mechanisms? •  ow and in what ways, if any, could such H mechanisms be usefully applied to the conduct of research with applications for national security? 3:15 PM - 3:30 PM Break 3:30 PM - 5:30 PM Non-U.S. Perspectives on Ethics in Science and Technology  Qiu Renzong, Chinese Academy of Social Science, China  Frans Brom, Utrecht University, The Netherlands Steven Lee, Hobart and William Smith Colleges Montgomery McFate, U.S. Naval War College

OCR for page 283
APPENDIX B 295 The purpose of this panel is to consider the following question: With respect to issues of ethics regarding science and technology as they may be applied to armed conflict, how do the perspectives of different nations, religious traditions, and cultures compare to those of the United States?  is recognized that the ethics of science and It technology and the ethics of war and armed conflict are fundamentally different areas. Accordingly, •  rofessors Qiu Renzong and Frans Brom are P requested to address ethics in science and technology from the Asian and European perspectives, respectively, and to speculate, if they wish, on the implications of Asian and European perspectives on ethics in science and technology as they might apply to military matters. •  rofessors Steven Lee and Montgomery P McFate are requested to compare different religious (Lee) and cultural (McFate) perspectives on armed conflict and war to U.S. perspectives that are based largely on “just-war” theory, and to speculate, if they wish, on the implications of these differences for how the United States might use new military technologies. 5:30 PM - 6:00 PM Reception 6:00 PM - 8:00 PM Dinner (with speakers) Homework: •  ake comments regarding the report M summary on sticky notes for placement in the morning.

OCR for page 283
296 ELSI FRAMEWORK FOR EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES AND NATIONAL SECURITY •  ach committee member will have a 3 × 5 E sticky note pad to be used for recording thoughts on the material to be discussed on Friday (see Friday agenda below). Please record one thought per note sheet, and organize them by the topics below. •  f your comments don’t fit into the categories I listed below, record them anyway for the “miscellaneous” category. •  lso, please think about comments on two A topics from Thursday’s sessions:  —How do non-U.S. perspectives affect our report? (from Thursday)  —Embedding ethics into R&D (from Thursday) Both will be discussed on Friday. Friday, April 13, 2012 ALL FRIDAY SESSIONS ARE CLOSED. MEETING 5 Monday, June 4, 2012 8:00 AM - 8:30 AM Breakfast 8:30 AM - 10:00 AM Nuclear Ethics  George Perkovich, Nuclear Policy Program, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (via videolink) 10:00 AM - 10:15 AM Break 10:15 AM - 12:15 PM Nonlethal Weapons  David Fidler, Center for Applied Cybersecurity Research, Indiana State University  Neil Davison, International Committee of the Red Cross (via videolink)

OCR for page 283
APPENDIX B 297 12:15 PM - 1:15 PM Lunch 1:15 PM - 5:30 PM Closed Session 5:30 PM - 8:00 PM Reception and Dinner Tuesday, June 5, 2012 ALL TUESDAY SESSIONS ARE CLOSED.