Meru University of Science and Technology Research Ethics Review System: A SWOT Analysis

The objectives of this article are as follows: 1) to propose a university research ethics system framework, 2) to provide a brief anatomy of the Meru University of Science and Technology (MUST) Institutional Research Ethics Review Committee (MIRERC), 3) to perform a SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) analysis of MIRERC, and 4) to make recommendations for improving its performance. The 13-member multi-disciplinary MIRERC was established in April 2017 to provide effective ethical oversight of research undertaken by the University’s scholarly community. Strengths of the MUST research ethics review system include a functional MIRERC, a pertinent national law and ethical guidelines, an Innovation and Enterprise Centre that could house a dedicated MIRERC Secretariat, and a supportive University Management Board. The weaknesses include lack of graduate schools to assure scientific rigor of proposals before submission to the MIRERC, lack of research ethics training in most school’s curricula, absence of a dedicated MIRERC Secretariat, undergraduate research proposals being not ethically reviewed, dearth of faculty trained in research ethics, and lack of an operating budget for MIRERC work. The opportunities include existence of about 22 accredited Institutional Research Ethics Review Committees (IRERC) in Kenya, existence of international standards and operational guidance for ethics review, availability of guidelines and codes of best ethical practices in research, existence of a free automated platform called Research for Health Innovation Organizer (RHInnO) Ethics for managing the ethics review process, and availability of external resources for strengthening IRERCs. In order to improve the performance and sustainability of the MUST research ethics system, there is need to include research ethics training in all undergraduate and post-graduate curricula, create a dynamic database of potential research ethics reviewers, allocate a percentage of the annual MUST research budget for MIRERC operations, charge a graduated fee for proposal ethics review, require all students’ and faculties’ internal and external research proposals be cleared by the MIRERC, and use the RHInnO Ethics platform to manage the ethics review process.

Philosophical Reflection on Risks of Transgenic Technology

[Objective] The aim was to analyze risks of transgenic technology. [Method] Discussions on risks of transgenic technologies were conducted from perspective of philosophy. [Result] Mechanistic philosophy and reductionism are causes of reflection on risks of transgenic technology. Considering transgene is an artificial choice taking place of natural choice, it is inevitable for risks of transgenic technology to be found. In addition, social system constitutes the root for out-of-control of transgenic technology, hence, mechanism risk is the primary cause of transgenic risks. [Conclusion] It is inescapable for science view to be changed from arbitrary and lopsided to reflective and comprehensive and for technology view to be changed from exterminative and genesic to protective and symbiotic.

Constructing an assessment index system for strategic risk management in coal science and technology enterprises

Coal occupies a dominant position in China＇s national economy and is an essential energy source for future industrial development. To inform the efficient and sustainable development of the coal industry, this paper analyzes the sources of strategic risk for coal science and technology enterprises using 3 first-class indicators, 10 second-level indicators, and 37 observation points established through the existing research literature and experience. Moreover, in accordance to the obtained initial index data, the selected indicators have been tested and screened using reliability and membership degree analyses to remove redundant variables, avoid juxtaposition of risk factors at different levels, and reduce the influ- ence of some tiny risk factors for enterprise strategic risk. Then, factor analysis of external environment factor sub-scale was carried out. Factors are extracted according to a standard characteristic value greater than 1. Variables with high coefficients are classified into one factor category; and finally, 3 first-class indicators. 8 second-level indicators, and 37 observation noints are reconstructed.

人工智能文生视频大模型Sora对科技伦理的冲击及应对

Sora的推出是人类社会发展和人工智能进步的标志性事件,凸显出生成式人工智能的强大功能。Sora的爆火离不开规模化数据、先进算法和规模化算力,其内在运行机制紧扣文本输入、文本编码、视频生成和视频输出的基本逻辑,在人类社会具有广阔应用前景。但Sora在技术更迭和运用过程中可能给科技伦理带来诸如冲击人的主体性地位、导致人们认知的混乱性、冲击伦理规则的适用性、冲击数字隐私伦理并造成数字歧视等风险。因此,要坚持以人为本,运用技术手段增强Sora的数据筛选力度和敏捷治理效度,防止数据泄露和侵犯隐私,进行伦理设计实现科技伦理与时俱进,辅之必要的教育培训,以此提升全民运用人工智能技术的能力。

Reflections on a Science and Technology Agenda for 21st Century Disaster Risk Reduction Based on the Scientific Content of the 2016 UNISDR Science and Technology Conference on the Implementation of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–203

The first international conference for the post-2015 United Nations landmark agreements(Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030, Sustainable Development Goals, and Paris Agreement on Climate Change) was held in January 2016 to discuss the role of science and technology in implementing the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030. The UNISDR Science and Technology Conference on the Implementation of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 aimed to discuss and endorse plans that maximize science's contribution to reducing disaster risks and losses in the coming 15 years and bring together the diversity of stakeholders producing and using disaster risk reduction(DRR) science and technology. This article describes the evolution of the role of science and technology in the policy process building up to the Sendai Framework adoption that resulted in an unprecedented emphasis on science in the text agreed on by 187 United Nations member states in March 2015 and endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly in June 2015. Contributions assembled by the Conference Organizing Committee and teams including the conference concept notes and the conference discussions that involved a broad range of scientists and decision makers are summarized in this article. The conference emphasized how partnerships and networks can advance multidisciplinary research and bring together science, policy, and practice; how disaster risk is understood, and how risks are assessed and early warning systems are designed; what data, standards, and innovative practices would be needed to measure and report on risk reduction; what research and capacity gaps exist and how difficulties in creating and using science for effective DRR can be overcome. The Science and Technology Conference achieved two main outcomes:(1) initiating the UNISDR Science and Technology Partnership for the implementation of the Sendai Framework; and(2) generating discussion and agreement regarding the content and endorsement process of the UNISDR Science and Technology Road Map to 2030.

Science and Technology Networks: A Helping Hand to Boost Implementation of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030?

The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 underlines the importance of Science and Technology(S&T) and S&T networks for effective disaster risk reduction(DRR). The knowledge of existing S&T networks and their exact role in DRR,however, is limited. This opinion piece initiates a discussion on the role of S&T networks in the implementation of the Sendai Framework. The article highlights that current practice is oriented towards a narrative that emphasizes the potential of S&T for DRR and stresses a collaborative approach delivered through networks. But a true understanding of whether and how S&T networks can mobilize and enable S&T for DRR is missing. We call for a review of existing S&T networks for DRR and the development of good practice guidelines on S&T networks for DRR. This review should include knowledge on how to overcome common challenges and maximize the benefits, along with a framework for successful evaluation of such networks.This knowledge would provide much needed guidance for existing and emerging networks.

Thirty Years of Science,Technology,and Academia in Disaster Risk Reduction and Emerging Responsibilities

The 1990 initiation of the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction marked its 30th year in 2019.The three decades since then have seen significant developments in science and technology and their incorporation into the decision making in the field of disaster risk reduction.The disasters that have occurred during that time have enhanced the importance of the field,and new research and innovations have evolved.This article summarizes this evolution through the review of specific milestones.While the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 provides opportunities for synergies with the sustainable development agenda,the science and technology communities have also changed their roles from advisory to co-designing and co-delivering solutions.Higher education plays an important role in developing new generations of professionals,and the role of thematic incubation in higher education institutions is highlighted along with the development of the professional society in disaster risk reduction.The evolution from Society 4.0(information age)to Society 5.0 will see an enhanced role of the technology-driven approach in disaster risk reduction,while traditional knowledge and indigenous technologies still remain valid for society.Scientists and science communities need to be more sensitive to changing the“last mile”concept to“first mile”thinking with respect to the users’needs and perspectives.

Global Community of Disaster Risk Reduction Scientists and Decision Makers Endorse a Science and Technology Partnership to Support the Implementation of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030

At the first gathering of its kind on the role of science in implementing the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030,over 750 scientists,policymakers,business people,and practitioners met in Geneva from January 27–29,2016.The UNISDR Science and Technology Conference on the Implementation of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 fea-

面向智慧教育的技术伦理取向与风险规约

当前,智能技术与教育的全过程融合正推动教育方式发生深刻转变,同时衍生出算法歧视、技术滥用、隐私泄露和教育主体错位等技术伦理风险,如何规避风险以最大化享受智能技术红利成为智慧教育发展的重要议题。为此,文章首先分析技术伦理相关报告文件,刻画智慧教育在智能技术、教育主体、教育数据和教育监管四个向度的技术伦理取向;然后,文章剖析“教-学-管-评-练-研”六大智慧教育典型场景下的差异化技术伦理风险表征,将其产生根源归为技术工具失信、教育实践失范和师生素养不足三个层面;最后,文章从技术升级、风险管理、问责监管、数据流动和素养提升角度给出风险防范与治理建议,助力智慧教育健康可持续发展。

论生成式人工智能的技术创新伦理周期——以ChatGPT为例

生成式人工智能在推动技术创新突破性应用的同时,也带来了许多社会伦理风险:隐私暴露与信息安全控制风险;虚假信息派生所带来的信息传播风险;算法偏见所带来的决策和政策风险以及责任界定模糊风险。运用“索洛悖论”理论,将伦理进步看作是科技创新投入的增函数,可以发现生成式人工智能对伦理推动的“技术创新索洛周期”。基于此,要跨越生成式人工智能“伦理风险鸿沟”可以采取以下对策:健全生成式人工智能法律规制,推动构建生成式人工智能治理体系;加强平台监管,完善流程标准化管理,规范保障生成式人工智能安全发展;落实优化生成式人工智能可持续发展环境,探索更多行业重塑的可能。

前沿科技的深层次伦理风险及其应对

当前,生命科技和人工智能等前沿科技的伦理风险日益引起国际社会的高度关切,我国的科技伦理治理正在走上制度化发展之路。为了更好地推进我国科技伦理治理工作,我们必须切实把握作为科技伦理治理重点的前沿科技的特征,揭示其所呈现出的一系列深层次伦理风险,从而进一步加强对科技社会系统的结构性特征的理解,探索和重构风险认知的底层逻辑。其一,充分认识新兴科技驱动的科技社会系统的革命性变化,以此理解前沿科技深层次伦理风险的结构性实质。其二,立足前沿科技伦理治理的开放性实践,将科技伦理的风险认知和规范视为相关群体不断更新的集体认知和工作假设。其三,强调前沿科技风险认知的系统性与可塑性,赋予科技和创新更大的可能性空间。由此,我们可以得出树立科学认知的伦理边界、设置合理的伦理法律门槛、形成具有开放性和整体性的治理机制、增进公众科技伦理素养以及遵循相称性原则等面向深层次科技伦理风险的预控和应对之道。

医学伦理学对科技伦理治理的贡献与新作为

《关于加强科技伦理治理的意见》的出台,标志着中国科技伦理治理体系进入新阶段。中国科技伦理的研究与实践是沿着两条进路开展的。一条进路是从一般伦理原理出发,推导出具体科学和实践的规则;另一条进路是从科学研究的问题和科学技术事件和案例出发,逐步形成针对科技过程中某一类特定现象或问题的伦理治理原则与共识。医学伦理学研究也是这样形成医学道德传统和现代生命伦理学传统的。在伦理治理实践中,医学伦理走在科技伦理的前列,形成了科技伦理研究与发展的“先行区”、伦理审查建制化“探索者”和科技伦理治理的“示范区”。伦理治理意见的出台不是医学伦理治理研究的终点,医学伦理学需要有新的作为。一是对医学伦理学理论基础和方法论的再思考,坚持马克思主义理论的指导。二是对两条研究进路的再思考,两条道路平衡发展互相支撑。三是对伦理与法治关系的再思考,不断提高伦理治理法治化水平。

伦理先行:生成式人工智能的治理策略

生成式人工智能的迅猛发展为数字经济发展提供新动力,为社会民生创造新福祉,同时也引发了一系列现实挑战。中国现行立法已为生成式人工智能的发展划定了基本的安全保障底线,但该技术的发展方向和产业发展均处在高度不确定性当中,部分安全风险可能是被制造的焦虑,以国家立法形式进行规制为时尚早。生成式人工智能的治理需要伦理先行,坚持激励相容精神,为人工智能新技术新应用创新留下充分空间,以伦理治理的方式推动技术社区、产业群体、社会组织、社会公众、治理机构共同进行探索磨合,凝聚共识,待实践经验充足、立法时机成熟时,再将共识性规范纳入法律框架之中。

底线思维与科技审度:高风险社会治理的要义与进路

当前AI大爆发及其应对乏力表明,西方科技发展模式的缺陷与人类社会的脆弱及学界研究的薄弱,更加凸显人类风险防控机制存在诸多漏洞及其引发的科技危机与人类安全危机,已把人类带入高风险社会。用底线思维与刘大椿提出的科技审度予以破解:底线思维解决非共识下的议而不决;科技审度和审度思维所特有的执两用中、包容互补、多元开放、整合升级、共识决策等,可提供有效的治理对策。科技转型是治理科技风险的根本解决之道,科技审度可发挥重要的启发与引导作用,以构建真善美的新型科技发展模式,加快世界科学中心建设,据此总结出高风险社会治理的要义与进路,以作为科技风险治理的研究指南。

后发国家科技伦理治理的挑战及应对思考

面对新兴科技带来的风险隐患和伦理挑战,处于不同发展阶段和水平的国家面临着不同的治理挑战。后发国家科技发展上“后发优势”与“低技术陷阱”并存的特点,导致在科技伦理治理上面临着现代化路径选择的两难困境、发达国家的伦理倾销、资本对科技的介入失范以及科技伦理治理研究相对滞后等多重挑战。作为世界上最大的后发国家,中国在实践上以负责任自主创新破解道路之难、以全球化科技伦理治理方案破解利益之难、通过完善伦理审查制度破解机制之难、加强科技伦理研究与教育破解理论之难,从而实现伦理治理的弯道超越,是有效应对挑战的可行之策。

脑机接口领域中的伦理问题研究

作为生命科学和信息技术深度交叉融合的前沿新兴技术,脑机接口近年来发展迅猛,重大突破频现,同时也引发了诸多伦理争议。脑机接口对传统伦理原则提出的挑战涉及物理、心理与社会等多个层面。在侵入式脑机接口已获准进入临床试验阶段的背景下,如何构建合伦理的脑机接口正成为各国神经科学家、工程师和伦理学家的关注焦点。为了化解脑机接口伦理风险,我们有必要加强监督管理,提升伦理素养,深化跨学科合作,通过建立健全伦理规范与监管机制,确保脑机接口技术能够真正增进人类福祉。

人工智能伦理治理研究

以人工智能为代表的新质生产力逐渐成为智能时代下经济发展的强劲动力,同时也引致了智能技术对人类个体和整体合法权益的担忧。中国在多个国际场合下都提出了“以人为本、智能向善”的主张,引导全球在人工智能伦理的轨道上发展智能技术。人工智能伦理有遵循一般科技伦理原则的方面,同时更多涉及社会伦理问题及人类整体安全问题。文章通过探讨人工智能伦理的基本内涵,分析人工智能伦理审查的道德正当性与政策规范的必要性,厘清人工智能伦理审查的理论逻辑,提出人工智能伦理审查机制的构建在坚持“以人为本”的基础上确保人工智能“向善”发展,还需确保制度规范的公平公正,厘清透明度与问责制的因果联系,确保科技发展与法律关系的稳定性,在人工智能伦理审查原则中落实监管责任,适时建立审查评估制度。

社会信用治理模型选择:由风险预测制迈向行为积分制

模型是对实践的抽象化表达,内含实践的认知理念和价值判断。不同信用模型内含不同的信用治理理念并会产生不同的社会效果。风险预测制模型用于风险预测和秩序控制,在实际社会信用治理中产生过度收集数据、模型黑箱化、难以有效预测等问题。究其原因,在于技术设计过程未能有效反映治理需求,反而消解了人的主体性地位。社会信用治理需要从行为改变出发,迈向行为导向,转换治理范式。行为积分制模型以行为理论为支撑,通过将社区治理过程中的日常事项转化为积分激励事项,推动社区居民积极参与到社区经济、政治、社会、文化、生态等建设中,以共建推动共同治理,将共治行为转化为积分,进而实现治理成果的共享,提供了民主治理的新范式。在推动信用体系建设过程中,应更多考虑行为积分制模型的应用和推广。

儒家“藏礼于器”思想的伦理审视及当代启示

“藏礼于器”思想是儒家科技伦理思想的核心内容,同时也是我国古代造物制器的基本法则。在“藏礼于器”思想影响下,“器物”成为“礼制”的指示器和强化剂,二者呈现出一种双向互构的关系:一方面,器物是礼制的物化形态,器物的设计与使用要遵循礼制规定,礼制在器物中以物化的形态得以显现,另一方面,器物反作用于礼制,对礼制具有强化作用,发挥着重要的“无言之教”的道德教化功能。“藏礼于器”思想是极具中国文化特色的科技伦理思想资源,对于当代构建科技伦理治理的中国话语体系具有重要参考价值,经过创造性转化与创新性发展,仍然能够对当今科技伦理治理发挥一定的指导作用。

数字教材发展的伦理风险与消解路径

因教育与技术孰轻孰重的问题,数字教材发展引发人们对数字教材伦理价值性的深入思考。从技术伦理、内容伦理和主体伦理等逻辑维度对数字教材伦理展开理性思考,发现数字教材发展面临技术裹挟削弱教材本质、内容困惑亟须有机整合多元标准、主体间鸿沟影响教育公平正义等伦理风险。要消解数字教材发展中的伦理风险,数字教材研发团队应树立“技术向善”的理念,规避技术的过度干预;国家相关部门应协同完善数字教材的相关标准,框定内容的技术规范;多主体应协同创设有情感的数字化教学情境,增强技术的伦理温度。