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? |
Judith Miller, former Department of Defense general counsel • How do ethical/legal considerations enter 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 • What are the emerging/re-emerging contexts 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 • What military missions are emerging in 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 |
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 • How do the emerging/re-emerging contexts 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 R. Alta Charo, University of Wisconsin Law School • Basic approach of and relevant history from biomedical ethics Joseph Herkert, Arizona State University • Basic approach of and relevant history from engineering ethics; ethics of emerging technologies |
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 |
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 problems 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 ethical 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 ethical and societal issues arise if the national security applications 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 applications? 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 technology 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) • How have various technology fields addressed ELSI concerns? • How and in what ways have these approaches been successful and unsuccessful? • How, if at all, have these fields managed 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.) • How, if at all, are the lessons learned from past and current approaches to ELSI issues being changed by: |
—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) • What are some of the mechanisms (e.g., regulations, rules, institutions) that agencies have used to address ELSI concerns? What prompts agencies to put these mechanisms in place? • What has been the impact on the course of scientific/technological research and progress when these mechanisms have been used? • How has the research community responded to such mechanisms? • How and in what ways, if any, could such 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 • See attached questions (same as for November meeting) |
3:15 PM - 3:30 PM |
Break |
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 • See attached questions (same as for 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 • How to elicit expert judgments about the performance of deeply uncertain systems Denise Caruso, Carnegie Mellon University • How to responsibly conduct R&D in the context of emerging scientific understanding and complexity Peter Hancock, University of Central Florida • How to anticipate human use and misuse of 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. |
We start with large sheets of butcher paper on 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 problems 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?
Ethical and Societal Issues
How, if at all, do researchers in the field identify and address ethical 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 applications 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 applications? 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 technology 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 • At what point (or points) in the R&D effort is societal and ethical expertise best brought to bear? Why? • A commonly stated desire of scientists is to 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? |
• How and to what extent, if at all, do the kinds of societal and ethical expertise depend on the specific nature of the R&D being performed? • What is necessary to facilitate respectful and honest communication between those with societal and ethical expertise and working scientists and technologists? • How can expertise about societal and ethical matters be brought to bear on a given R&D effort? • How can those charged with having such 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 • What information do various publics need in order to judge social and ethical issues of emerging military technologies fairly? • What organizational procedures should the sponsors of those technologies follow, in order to meet those information needs? • What analytical methods are best suited to produce that information, considering the novelty, complexity, uncertainty, etc., of those technologies? • What are the potential barriers to public understanding of that information, assuming that it is produced? • How can we ensure that effective communications are created, tested, and disseminated in a timely fashion? • What are examples of successful and unsuccessful programs for addressing these challenges? |
• What additional research is most needed 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) • What are some of the mechanisms (e.g., regulations, rules, institutions) that agencies have used to address ELSI concerns? What prompts agencies to put these mechanisms in place? • What has been the impact on the course of scientific/technological research and progress when these mechanisms have been used? • How has the research community responded to such mechanisms? • How and in what ways, if any, could such 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 |
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? It is recognized that the ethics of science and technology and the ethics of war and armed conflict are fundamentally different areas. Accordingly, • Professors Qiu Renzong and Frans Brom are 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. • Professors Steven Lee and Montgomery 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: • Make comments regarding the report summary on sticky notes for placement in the morning. |
• Each committee member will have a 3 × 5 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. • If your comments don’t fit into the categories listed below, record them anyway for the “miscellaneous” category. • Also, please think about comments on two 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) |