WEBVTT 00:00:03.517 --> 00:00:10.497 This is the Convergent Science Network podcast. Leading researchers in the domain 00:00:10.497 --> 00:00:16.717 of neuroscience, brain theory and technology are interviewed by Paul Verschure and Tony Prescott. 00:00:20.837 --> 00:00:24.657 Paul Verschure here with the Convergent Science Network podcast, 00:00:24.797 --> 00:00:27.497 together with my colleague Tony Prescott. 00:00:29.457 --> 00:00:36.677 And we're speaking now with Christine Icarly. Yes. Welcome to the podcast, Christine. Thank you. 00:00:37.317 --> 00:00:43.437 Christine, you spoke this morning about, if you want, responsible research and 00:00:43.437 --> 00:00:44.257 responsible innovation. 00:00:45.357 --> 00:00:48.777 So how would you define responsible research and innovation? 00:00:52.937 --> 00:00:56.897 There are many definitions out there and they don't all align. 00:00:58.357 --> 00:01:07.297 If I stick to the one that we have been trying to follow in the human brain project, 00:01:07.637 --> 00:01:19.257 we are using the one proposed by the Engineering and Physical Science Research 00:01:19.257 --> 00:01:26.417 Council in the United Kingdom, 00:01:26.417 --> 00:01:33.757 which is more process-oriented in that it proposes to anticipate, 00:01:34.057 --> 00:01:37.217 reflect, 00:01:38.417 --> 00:01:44.017 engage, act, kind of area, framework, where you are trying, 00:01:44.237 --> 00:01:48.817 when you're looking at an innovation process and new technology, 00:01:48.957 --> 00:01:56.737 to anticipate on the potential implications for society that this particular 00:01:56.737 --> 00:01:58.597 technology could lead to, 00:01:59.657 --> 00:02:05.477 that you analyze it and reflect on it, and reflect on it with the scientists 00:02:05.477 --> 00:02:12.197 themselves by bringing in as many perspectives as you can to bear on the topic, 00:02:13.197 --> 00:02:16.717 trying really to widen your inquiry to... 00:02:19.367 --> 00:02:24.427 Try to understand how this kind of narrow technological scientific development 00:02:24.427 --> 00:02:33.707 could pan out in society based on political, economic, social drivers out there. 00:02:37.207 --> 00:02:44.747 The engagement part is part with the scientists, part with like seeking all 00:02:44.747 --> 00:02:48.087 this kind of complementary expert opinion, 00:02:49.727 --> 00:02:59.207 on key sticky points you are going to identify while you are doing this kind of horizon scanning. 00:03:00.367 --> 00:03:06.027 And then the act part, which is, like I said this morning, the hard bit, 00:03:06.187 --> 00:03:11.227 closing the loop between anticipation and acting, 00:03:11.227 --> 00:03:18.207 Which is getting back to the scientists with not necessarily normative frameworks 00:03:18.207 --> 00:03:21.947 or ethical frameworks belonging to any kind of schools, 00:03:22.167 --> 00:03:32.547 but with a bucket full of, for the school of social come from, 00:03:32.647 --> 00:03:37.767 more empirical findings that are going to be things to bear in mind that matter. 00:03:37.767 --> 00:03:41.847 To think of when you are... 00:03:43.358 --> 00:03:51.318 Going on about your research and acting accordingly, which for me is sort of 00:03:51.318 --> 00:03:56.058 dissociating between when you come into hard problems, hard ethical problems. 00:03:57.478 --> 00:04:01.658 You are hardly ever going to resolve them on your own. Otherwise, they are not that big. 00:04:01.918 --> 00:04:07.478 But you can try to disentangle how much belongs to a policy layer. 00:04:07.618 --> 00:04:11.978 And that's a certain kinds of of action with certain kinds of actors that can 00:04:11.978 --> 00:04:13.178 target the policy level. 00:04:14.158 --> 00:04:20.378 How much of it is about eventually doing some, I would say, bad word, 00:04:20.538 --> 00:04:29.938 lobbying, but really interacting with constituencies, civil society groups, 00:04:30.358 --> 00:04:35.398 different kinds of stakeholders, and make them aware of certain things you have found. 00:04:35.398 --> 00:04:39.998 And then the level of really, for me, one of the most interesting things for 00:04:39.998 --> 00:04:43.598 me as a researcher is going back to the level of the researcher themselves. 00:04:43.698 --> 00:04:48.418 So really the level of the professional activity and the self-regulation of the professions. 00:04:49.078 --> 00:04:54.978 Because usually this is what the researchers are at the cutting edge. 00:04:55.058 --> 00:04:56.538 They are at the forefront. 00:04:56.918 --> 00:05:03.638 And they are also at the forefront of a governance that is always lagging behind. 00:05:03.638 --> 00:05:07.058 So for me, this is a very important layer to try and address. 00:05:07.538 --> 00:05:18.978 So I think the area framework is kind of targeting researchers themselves to 00:05:18.978 --> 00:05:22.138 think about what they're doing, why they're doing it, and so on. 00:05:22.278 --> 00:05:27.118 If we take larger-scale projects like the Human Brain Project. 00:05:28.063 --> 00:05:35.483 At what point do you think this sort of push for individual action for researchers 00:05:35.483 --> 00:05:39.363 to take more responsibility for what they're doing, at what point do you need 00:05:39.363 --> 00:05:40.823 to complement that with, 00:05:40.983 --> 00:05:43.143 at the level of the project, 00:05:43.323 --> 00:05:48.163 some integrated approach to research governance that ensures delivery of the framework? 00:05:49.583 --> 00:05:53.723 It's actually in the act part because this is for instance what we saw when we, 00:05:53.783 --> 00:05:58.963 because the very first thing we tackled as the ethics and society program of 00:05:58.963 --> 00:06:02.643 the Human Brain Project was the question of data protection and privacy because 00:06:02.643 --> 00:06:07.163 it was a kind of burning issue in view of the plans, 00:06:07.363 --> 00:06:10.343 the research plans of the medical informatics platforms and then became apparent 00:06:10.343 --> 00:06:15.043 that it was not just a medical informatics platform and there was a lot of potential 00:06:15.383 --> 00:06:22.703 sticky point with animal data, with human data, and there was a need to sort 00:06:22.703 --> 00:06:27.423 of coordinate an entire governance strategy across the projects. 00:06:27.663 --> 00:06:32.423 And that's at this point that we sort of stepped up beyond the level of the 00:06:32.423 --> 00:06:37.363 individual researchers to also to advocate, for instance, for the creation of 00:06:37.363 --> 00:06:40.183 a job of data protection officer, 00:06:40.523 --> 00:06:45.203 which was basically not something that the ethics and society subproject could 00:06:45.203 --> 00:06:49.503 decide on their own, but was something that needed the approval of the, 00:06:49.663 --> 00:06:53.923 well, first of the science and infrastructure board of the project, 00:06:54.003 --> 00:06:57.243 of the directorate, and eventually of the European Commission to accept that 00:06:57.243 --> 00:07:02.863 such a job was going to be created for the project and take up some of the funds of the coordination. 00:07:03.703 --> 00:07:10.123 So I would say that's some of the actions you can take. But one of the things 00:07:10.123 --> 00:07:15.783 I said this morning as well is that one of the main issues with this kind of 00:07:15.783 --> 00:07:18.243 project is that when you find those kind of... 00:07:19.463 --> 00:07:21.643 You identify those... 00:07:23.562 --> 00:07:27.362 The things that would need action at a kind of higher policy level, 00:07:27.582 --> 00:07:30.442 so policymakers or other constituency, 00:07:33.062 --> 00:07:37.242 because responsible research and innovation or whatever you want to call it, 00:07:37.302 --> 00:07:44.722 is implemented at project level, it's sort of, I would say, to be really. 00:07:45.902 --> 00:07:50.142 For me to get this and become really effective, 00:07:51.182 --> 00:07:56.182 it should be at the level of entire research programs and actually funders themselves 00:07:56.182 --> 00:08:00.742 should be submitted to responsible research and innovation practices when they 00:08:00.742 --> 00:08:03.562 define research programs, funding strands, etc. 00:08:03.982 --> 00:08:11.962 Because once the European Commission or the Research Council UK have decided 00:08:11.962 --> 00:08:16.442 that they are going to fund a number of particular strands of research and they 00:08:16.442 --> 00:08:19.582 are going to push for or a certain way of approaching, 00:08:19.782 --> 00:08:23.602 for instance, science with and for society, etc., etc. 00:08:24.582 --> 00:08:32.342 Part of the frame is already set. And we are not asked as people trying to implement 00:08:32.342 --> 00:08:36.162 responsible research and innovation practices and to foster them, 00:08:36.242 --> 00:08:42.082 to question the way into these research programs have been framed, into these projects, 00:08:42.202 --> 00:08:44.662 where these projects are fitting. 00:08:44.662 --> 00:08:47.582 And there is definitely, for me, a 00:08:47.582 --> 00:08:53.402 need to eventually go one step up and for research councils and funders themselves 00:08:53.402 --> 00:08:58.142 to accept that they should themselves 00:08:58.142 --> 00:09:05.222 include this kind of reflective approaches in what they are doing. 00:09:07.462 --> 00:09:12.402 It sounds to me that you're advocating something a bit more radical than maybe 00:09:12.402 --> 00:09:14.442 what has been implemented so far. 00:09:17.990 --> 00:09:24.470 Because in terms of data management, for instance, in a way that's a continuity 00:09:24.470 --> 00:09:32.090 with what has been traditionally seen as reach ethics around sort of human participants, use of animals. 00:09:32.450 --> 00:09:37.410 Data management is a consequence of all this data we're now collecting and concerns about privacy. 00:09:37.810 --> 00:09:45.370 But the response to an innovation idea is, as you say, it's anticipate. 00:09:45.370 --> 00:09:52.090 So there is something more proactive about RRI than is perhaps captured by these 00:09:52.090 --> 00:09:55.030 steps towards extending traditional ethics, if you like. 00:09:55.830 --> 00:09:59.910 Yes. And since it's meant to be proactive and to anticipate, 00:10:00.090 --> 00:10:04.450 if you are entering something where a certain frame has already been defined 00:10:04.450 --> 00:10:06.610 and is already guiding research in many ways, 00:10:06.710 --> 00:10:09.490 and that this frame is not to be questioned, and 00:10:09.490 --> 00:10:16.430 somehow this can get in the way of the way you anticipate and the way you can 00:10:16.430 --> 00:10:25.870 deploy actions is already constrained by this pre-existing frame of usually 00:10:25.870 --> 00:10:29.190 the research followers or the policymakers. 00:10:29.870 --> 00:10:35.350 But if I understand you correctly, the model you're advocating is very much 00:10:35.350 --> 00:10:39.770 one of collective reflection and consensus. consensus, if I get it right. 00:10:39.950 --> 00:10:45.470 So, the most important aspect of responsible research, in other words, 00:10:45.470 --> 00:10:49.690 ethical research, is that all the participants, all the stakeholders commonly 00:10:49.690 --> 00:10:53.430 reflect on the process of research. 00:10:53.730 --> 00:10:55.630 Is that correct? Would that be a very exciting? 00:10:56.670 --> 00:11:03.470 That's right. Whether there is a consensus coming out of it is… Secondary. 00:11:03.690 --> 00:11:07.530 Is secondary. Would be the goal to sort of at least exchange views. Would be the goal. 00:11:08.110 --> 00:11:13.410 And sometimes I don't think you can always reach consensus. 00:11:13.970 --> 00:11:19.230 The idea that's one of the things that is very... 00:11:21.096 --> 00:11:25.876 In the way responsible research and innovation is deployed is that by this kind 00:11:25.876 --> 00:11:28.956 of participatory engagement, you reach consensus. 00:11:30.956 --> 00:11:36.796 You don't always reach consensus. And sometimes people just get antagonistic. 00:11:38.496 --> 00:11:43.496 And then you don't have mechanisms to resolve the disputes. 00:11:43.996 --> 00:11:50.836 But now, if reflection then is the core value, right, of ethical research, 00:11:51.156 --> 00:11:54.316 at best, it's a necessary condition, right? 00:11:54.376 --> 00:12:00.156 Because we can reflect collectively a lot, and we can all agree to build the 00:12:00.156 --> 00:12:04.676 world's most devastating porcelain gas, because that's what we believe needs to be done, 00:12:05.536 --> 00:12:09.536 which from the outside might look like a rather unethical decision, right? 00:12:09.596 --> 00:12:13.676 So how then is reflection actually of operationally? 00:12:13.836 --> 00:12:17.676 Because in science, when we deal with questions of truth, truth, 00:12:18.036 --> 00:12:22.756 in some sense, now we have the orthogonal perspective of right and wrong. 00:12:23.316 --> 00:12:26.896 And also scientists, of course, in the end, have to make those decisions. 00:12:26.996 --> 00:12:31.016 Like, can I perform this animal, this experiment on this animal? 00:12:31.276 --> 00:12:36.096 Is the payoff sufficiently justified to induce this kind of suffering? 00:12:36.496 --> 00:12:40.056 Or should I take an alternative approach? These are the very concrete decisions 00:12:40.056 --> 00:12:44.176 that the scientist faces in which they need guidance. 00:12:44.176 --> 00:12:49.496 Right so how does the reflection if that's our core value with its own limitations 00:12:49.496 --> 00:12:55.196 as i just sketched and help us as scientists to make better and more ethical 00:12:55.196 --> 00:12:57.816 decisions in how we pursue science, 00:12:59.236 --> 00:13:02.076 um i would say um. 00:13:05.456 --> 00:13:13.736 This kind of for me this the diverse diversity of using in in in being included 00:13:13.736 --> 00:13:16.636 in participation mechanisms, 00:13:18.556 --> 00:13:22.396 might not necessarily aim for consensus. 00:13:22.916 --> 00:13:35.756 But I think that as many views as possible are always more valuable than thinking on your own. 00:13:37.276 --> 00:13:40.836 And in the case of, for instance, animal experimentations, and on deciding, 00:13:41.036 --> 00:13:47.756 I think you are doing this research with one particular aim in mind. 00:13:48.576 --> 00:13:56.236 But then it might be interesting to bring into the process if an outcome is 00:13:56.236 --> 00:14:03.356 towards eventually doing some new medications or some new treatments or I don't know what, 00:14:04.076 --> 00:14:07.916 to bring in the views of the patient groups might be implicated. 00:14:10.016 --> 00:14:14.336 I won't say animal activists because you're going to know exactly what they 00:14:14.336 --> 00:14:16.636 are going to say. But, um... 00:14:20.124 --> 00:14:32.344 In the end, I would say we can, I do believe that scientists are sort of most of the time behaving, 00:14:32.564 --> 00:14:35.264 you know, they think about what they do. 00:14:35.704 --> 00:14:43.224 Sometimes they are, they get too narrowly focused, which is why I really advocate 00:14:43.224 --> 00:14:49.224 for getting more views into the process, because sometimes it can trigger other ways of seeing things. 00:14:49.224 --> 00:14:57.064 But ultimately, it's going to be the scientists themselves, with the help of 00:14:57.064 --> 00:15:01.824 their research ethics board, deciding whether they go for some kind of experimentation or not. 00:15:02.204 --> 00:15:09.084 What we have been doing, for instance, in this kind of particular case in the 00:15:09.084 --> 00:15:13.644 Human Man Project of data protection and all the data governance things… Well, 00:15:13.684 --> 00:15:14.684 but that's not an issue, right? 00:15:14.804 --> 00:15:19.864 I understand that… But we're also setting an ethical checklist where people 00:15:19.864 --> 00:15:22.784 can go through and go through the branches. 00:15:22.824 --> 00:15:27.704 For me, that's a different discussion because there we also face new regulation 00:15:27.704 --> 00:15:33.524 by the European Commission on management of personal data, which, 00:15:33.604 --> 00:15:36.184 of course, is very much driving that change. 00:15:36.304 --> 00:15:40.644 I don't see that that's necessarily a good example if you look at responsible research. 00:15:40.944 --> 00:15:43.924 It's a bit of a different topic for me. and what I was trying to get at, 00:15:43.924 --> 00:15:48.404 and also you said it now, in some sense, the fundamental premise of your approach 00:15:48.404 --> 00:15:52.044 is that in the end, humans know what is good. 00:15:52.644 --> 00:15:57.524 That's what you're saying, right? Scientists in the end will know what is good 00:15:57.524 --> 00:16:00.844 because they will think about what they do. That seems a very strong assumption. 00:16:01.164 --> 00:16:05.764 It's my... I mean, they know what they want to do. 00:16:06.464 --> 00:16:09.144 That's different. And... 00:16:11.842 --> 00:16:15.942 And I don't think they all want to do things that I think personally are good. 00:16:17.342 --> 00:16:23.162 But good and bad is very subjective. But also people are put in cultural situations 00:16:23.162 --> 00:16:24.942 where it makes it difficult to act. 00:16:24.982 --> 00:16:28.442 It makes it very difficult to… The way that it is difficult doesn't mean we 00:16:28.442 --> 00:16:29.862 shouldn't try to address it. 00:16:30.142 --> 00:16:34.542 So that's why I gave you an example where I say, well, as a researcher, 00:16:34.702 --> 00:16:39.962 you must make ethical decisions on are the expected results worth the suffering 00:16:39.962 --> 00:16:42.142 of this animal? That's an example, right? 00:16:42.282 --> 00:16:45.582 It's a very concrete situation. And that's where people need guidance. 00:16:46.942 --> 00:16:53.522 So how would you go about providing guidance from a responsible research perspective? 00:16:54.902 --> 00:17:01.902 It's really trying to exactly evaluate what are the expected benefits. 00:17:01.902 --> 00:17:07.022 Benefits, and the expected, 00:17:07.382 --> 00:17:14.942 you know, I mean, depending on the people you are going to talk to, 00:17:15.162 --> 00:17:22.262 no outcome is good enough to be worth an animal's life. No outcome. 00:17:22.802 --> 00:17:26.922 For some people. For some people. No, no. For some people. 00:17:27.282 --> 00:17:32.782 So that's what I mean, you know, right and wrong is very subjective and depending 00:17:32.782 --> 00:17:35.042 on culture and on cultural beliefs. 00:17:35.802 --> 00:17:39.962 For some people, very little is going to be... So. 00:17:41.676 --> 00:17:45.336 But it doesn't solve. It's not going to solve your problem. 00:17:45.536 --> 00:17:51.856 It's just going to help you get as many cards in your hands as possible about 00:17:51.856 --> 00:17:55.176 what are the benefits, what are the downsides, and so on and so forth. 00:17:55.676 --> 00:18:01.376 And eventually to give you an ethical training into thinking whether you buy 00:18:01.376 --> 00:18:08.336 into consequentialist ethics or virtue ethics or duty ethics. 00:18:08.336 --> 00:18:12.276 But as you know, ethicists from these different schools tend to kill each other. 00:18:14.836 --> 00:18:18.756 You can't even go to an ethicist and ask them what they would do. 00:18:19.176 --> 00:18:24.896 So in the end, it falls onto your… This is exactly where I want to get to. 00:18:25.076 --> 00:18:28.976 Are you getting too much at the personal ethics? because, you know, 00:18:28.996 --> 00:18:38.496 it's, and I accept that the area framework maybe speaks to the personal ethical stance of researchers, 00:18:38.776 --> 00:18:43.996 but the challenge we really have is that we have a culture of science which 00:18:43.996 --> 00:18:46.636 puts people in a double bind situation where, 00:18:46.776 --> 00:18:50.236 you know, having a job, being able to support themselves and their families 00:18:50.236 --> 00:18:55.836 puts them in a situation of having to do things which they may be ethically uncomfortable with. 00:18:56.076 --> 00:19:00.136 And so what you want to do is create a research culture that doesn't create 00:19:00.136 --> 00:19:01.496 the situation for people. 00:19:01.856 --> 00:19:08.636 So it has to be at the level of the organization that you, well, 00:19:08.776 --> 00:19:13.016 you can't avoid these clashes entirely, 00:19:13.396 --> 00:19:20.076 but you can certainly, if you apply the area framework at the organizational level, 00:19:20.816 --> 00:19:22.856 then you should be able to create a culture which is different. 00:19:22.856 --> 00:19:27.916 So the point is, I think, so what I was trying to get at, as we saw earlier, 00:19:28.096 --> 00:19:32.616 right, the core value of responsible research, as we now discussed it, 00:19:32.736 --> 00:19:35.336 was a reflection, right? 00:19:35.496 --> 00:19:39.836 And also we've seen that in reports to the European Commission. And I was just saying…. 00:19:41.406 --> 00:19:44.906 In the Wednesday conference, there was a lot of reflection on the final solution. 00:19:45.546 --> 00:19:48.386 So obviously, reflection as such is not enough. 00:19:48.986 --> 00:19:52.466 We have to insert certain priors into that discussion. 00:19:53.026 --> 00:19:58.186 This might be human rights considerations. This might be one angle you can take, right? 00:19:58.526 --> 00:20:01.306 It might be more ideological, political, religious considerations. 00:20:01.466 --> 00:20:04.406 But there must be additional priors you insert in that debate, 00:20:04.546 --> 00:20:06.026 even though it's difficult. 00:20:06.226 --> 00:20:09.086 And that's the whole point, because it's difficult to want to deal with it, 00:20:09.186 --> 00:20:12.346 right? John F. Kennedy, remember, we go to the moon because it's difficult. 00:20:12.626 --> 00:20:17.446 So we kind of run away from it and just wave our hands and then diffuse responsibility, 00:20:17.606 --> 00:20:20.286 say, oh, there's so many opinions in the room, we don't know what to do. 00:20:20.406 --> 00:20:21.786 No, the real problems are there. 00:20:22.086 --> 00:20:28.966 And so we must be willing to actually debate on foundational grounds these fundamental challenges. 00:20:29.366 --> 00:20:33.066 And it also means that within research projects, we must have frameworks that 00:20:33.066 --> 00:20:35.386 define what's right and what is wrong. 00:20:36.046 --> 00:20:39.406 Otherwise, we're just wasting our time and running around in circles. 00:20:39.626 --> 00:20:43.706 So I'm saying reflection is your core value is not enough, as history has shown. 00:20:43.946 --> 00:20:48.246 We must go beyond that. And I don't give you an answer to what that should be, 00:20:48.286 --> 00:20:54.486 but I'm saying that's a debate we must have as responsible citizens and as responsible scientists. 00:20:54.646 --> 00:20:58.486 And I don't hear enough about that from ethics and ethics is a little bit about 00:20:58.486 --> 00:21:01.206 the precautionary principle. Well, let's see what what happens? 00:21:01.406 --> 00:21:05.206 That's not good enough anymore because we can have runaway technology, 00:21:05.446 --> 00:21:07.746 the repercussions of which are irreversible. 00:21:07.886 --> 00:21:10.986 So we must have a much more proactive stance. That's what I'm arguing for. 00:21:11.186 --> 00:21:16.006 So I just wanted to feel out that domain, to say great, I understand, 00:21:16.526 --> 00:21:17.766 but I feel it's not enough. 00:21:17.966 --> 00:21:24.586 And I feel we're losing the game if we insist on this wait and see and let's 00:21:24.586 --> 00:21:27.866 give everybody a voice in the process approach. 00:21:28.026 --> 00:21:30.906 I think from an operational perspective, it has no value. 00:21:37.623 --> 00:21:43.383 Effectively, collectively, you can end up involving, you know, 00:21:43.443 --> 00:21:46.543 that's the problem of participatory democracy and all this kind of, 00:21:46.663 --> 00:21:48.903 it's difficult to take decisions. 00:21:51.103 --> 00:22:00.703 What I find that's where I sort of align with what you say is that I agree that 00:22:00.703 --> 00:22:08.343 the ARIA framework is a lot about personal responsibility and thinking about your own work. 00:22:08.343 --> 00:22:12.583 But I think that when analyzed properly, 00:22:13.303 --> 00:22:16.583 it's all this process for me, 00:22:16.603 --> 00:22:20.863 and that's why I say it's a shame it's only implemented at project level, 00:22:20.983 --> 00:22:28.503 is that it also helps disentangling where it's really something an individual 00:22:28.503 --> 00:22:36.943 scientist or lab head can take a decision about being reasonably informed. 00:22:36.943 --> 00:22:44.543 But there are these kind of double bind situations or impossible decisions to make where it's not, 00:22:44.583 --> 00:22:50.263 it should not be at the individual level and where collective mechanisms do 00:22:50.263 --> 00:22:53.943 not exist and policy is lagging. 00:22:54.603 --> 00:22:59.543 And and and so that's where i mean we've seen it in the human brain project 00:22:59.543 --> 00:23:05.423 a lot is that you see things that should be done at a higher level than the 00:23:05.423 --> 00:23:11.423 project in the way for instance the project the project officers are um. 00:23:12.968 --> 00:23:21.308 Sort of running the project. But we don't have this mechanism by which we can 00:23:21.308 --> 00:23:24.728 go back one step up on saying, 00:23:24.928 --> 00:23:31.408 you know, this is an unacceptable way and actually an irresponsible way to run a project. 00:23:31.568 --> 00:23:36.408 Like, for instance, this is a project that runs mostly on fixed-term contract 00:23:36.408 --> 00:23:39.768 researchers, postdocs, with a few PIs. 00:23:40.188 --> 00:23:43.188 And we are now in the third phase of the human brain project, 00:23:43.368 --> 00:23:46.168 and they've never managed to have continuity of funding between two phases. 00:23:47.608 --> 00:23:53.248 That's a problem. And especially between the rampant phase and the SGA one, 00:23:53.328 --> 00:23:59.348 we had how many months, six months between the two, and how responsible a way 00:23:59.348 --> 00:24:01.328 is that to run a scientific project? 00:24:02.148 --> 00:24:05.528 When people don't get the money to pay their postdocs, postdocs go away. 00:24:05.768 --> 00:24:09.888 And then, and I saw just the review letter that was finalized last week, 00:24:09.928 --> 00:24:12.708 the report letter saying, oh, it's like, basically, 00:24:13.488 --> 00:24:16.928 the reviewers and the European Commission are wondering why, 00:24:17.128 --> 00:24:22.688 and are sort of alarmed that you haven't managed to spend all your budget in SGA1. It's like, duh. 00:24:23.208 --> 00:24:26.268 I mean, so many people couldn't recruit for months. 00:24:26.888 --> 00:24:30.448 And then when we got finally the money, we still have to recruit because people have gone. 00:24:30.668 --> 00:24:36.228 So when I say, yeah, there are levels at the individual level, but then we are lacking. 00:24:37.108 --> 00:24:41.848 So, I mean, I'm part of the guinea pigs who are, you know, sort of trying this 00:24:41.848 --> 00:24:44.928 kind of science within full society implementation horizon 2020. 00:24:45.528 --> 00:24:47.668 What that implication, that's what I totally mentioned to you, 00:24:47.708 --> 00:24:50.288 right? This is an important one. I really like your example. 00:24:50.568 --> 00:24:54.568 You say there's no responsible research without responsible governance, right? 00:24:54.648 --> 00:24:59.428 And all the stakeholders in the governance process must then be part of the 00:24:59.428 --> 00:25:02.908 responsible research process. This is also what you're saying, right? 00:25:03.568 --> 00:25:06.068 But in some sense. 00:25:07.261 --> 00:25:12.941 This is always an incomplete model because we work in hierarchies and somewhere 00:25:12.941 --> 00:25:17.541 the hierarchy is closed and there is no more overview at that level, right? 00:25:17.661 --> 00:25:23.441 So that means that is also best an approximation of how you might get to responsible research. 00:25:23.441 --> 00:25:31.601 And there is also the issue that there are so many powerful lobbies with a lot 00:25:31.601 --> 00:25:37.761 of money to pay for lobbying that are influencing at the commission level and that we are not going, 00:25:37.901 --> 00:25:40.661 neither you nor I, going to be able to do. 00:25:41.721 --> 00:25:45.481 I mean, you can't, so we are in a very imperfect world. 00:25:45.481 --> 00:25:50.461 But we're in a position where, you know, sort of a large amount of money has 00:25:50.461 --> 00:25:52.901 been devolved to a group of scientists, essentially, 00:25:52.961 --> 00:25:59.041 to manage themselves and manage their research, which is quite a privilege and 00:25:59.041 --> 00:26:01.281 in some senses an anticipated situation. 00:26:01.681 --> 00:26:05.581 Maybe sort of CERN and things have been in situations. And as Christine said, 00:26:05.661 --> 00:26:06.661 the big social experiment. 00:26:06.961 --> 00:26:12.841 Yeah, exactly. So, I mean, and it seems to me that we do need to, as Paul said. 00:26:14.409 --> 00:26:22.109 Think about different levels of which sort of responsible research can be considered. 00:26:22.309 --> 00:26:28.149 So there's the question of what are our values and how do we agree some, 00:26:28.309 --> 00:26:32.669 not necessarily consensus, but we at least look at our values and try and see 00:26:32.669 --> 00:26:33.909 which ones we care about. 00:26:34.209 --> 00:26:42.089 There's the question of what are the risks, and we need to anticipate the risks short and long term. 00:26:42.329 --> 00:26:46.969 And then there's the question of how do we have the right governance structures 00:26:46.969 --> 00:26:53.809 to ensure that we make decisions that are fitting with those values and address those risks. 00:26:55.909 --> 00:27:02.569 Do we have the right mechanisms in a project like the HBP to do all those things? 00:27:02.649 --> 00:27:08.489 Are there people who are thinking about values and looking for the right values 00:27:08.489 --> 00:27:09.449 to guide what we're doing? 00:27:09.589 --> 00:27:12.909 Are there people who are anticipating risks? I think They probably are, 00:27:13.049 --> 00:27:18.729 but maybe it doesn't seem to me as an insider, I haven't seen that there's a 00:27:18.729 --> 00:27:22.389 framework that summarizes all this. Is there one? Not really. 00:27:50.829 --> 00:27:53.709 Boxes that now you start having those kind of there is 00:27:53.709 --> 00:27:56.649 a sound operation procedure and kind of pipeline for 00:27:56.649 --> 00:28:03.789 everything but it doesn't treat it never says anything about right or wrong 00:28:03.789 --> 00:28:10.729 it's if the process has been respected then you must accept the outcome and 00:28:10.729 --> 00:28:15.909 so it's it's been god yeah i used to be an engineer so it's kind of garbage in garbage out for me so, 00:28:17.169 --> 00:28:19.429 So there is something missing. 00:28:19.569 --> 00:28:23.729 You can't just be happy saying if all the procedures are in place and all the 00:28:23.729 --> 00:28:27.409 process has been respected, then you have to accept the outcome. 00:28:27.969 --> 00:28:32.669 Well, this is a good example, yeah, because ethical values actually become especially 00:28:32.669 --> 00:28:35.609 important when your standard procedures don't work, right? 00:28:35.689 --> 00:28:38.689 When the standard procedures don't work, it means everything is as expected 00:28:38.689 --> 00:28:40.929 and there's apparently little challenges. 00:28:41.709 --> 00:28:45.449 But ethical principles come in when you have trade-offs, when you have conflicts, right? 00:28:46.049 --> 00:28:49.389 So this is where a whole procedural model can actually never solve that. 00:28:49.649 --> 00:28:53.969 Exactly. Different values have to come in, and these values must be defined in some way. 00:28:54.529 --> 00:29:00.949 And it's… I mean, what is terribly complicated is that there are so many disciplinary 00:29:00.949 --> 00:29:04.969 fields represented in the Human Brain Project that you…. 00:29:06.289 --> 00:29:11.809 Even the professional ethics of those various fields don't align at all between themselves. 00:29:12.109 --> 00:29:18.329 So you talk to the people who come from really the more informatics side, 00:29:18.529 --> 00:29:23.029 and say, I've never had to fill an ethics application in my entire career. 00:29:23.349 --> 00:29:25.949 It's like, why would I start now? 00:29:26.789 --> 00:29:31.349 But the two states here, right? So the one end, your green project is a social 00:29:31.349 --> 00:29:34.929 experiment in science funding and or science organization. 00:29:34.929 --> 00:29:40.369 But maybe for the discussion of online ethics and research, it's just one example 00:29:40.369 --> 00:29:43.369 we can look at. It's one example. There are many others. 00:29:43.609 --> 00:29:48.209 And it might not necessarily be the best example, also given the kinds of problems 00:29:48.209 --> 00:29:54.189 it has faced, actually, that have a lot to do with ethics from its inception to where it is now. 00:29:55.189 --> 00:30:01.169 So maybe it's also worth a while to look a little bit, as do you, 00:30:01.189 --> 00:30:03.669 if it's just a test case, a use case we can analyze. 00:30:03.669 --> 00:30:07.909 And I think an important issue is, of course, researchers come in all sorts 00:30:07.909 --> 00:30:14.449 of flavors, and there will be on one extreme those that are in a project of 00:30:14.449 --> 00:30:16.329 that kind because it gives some resource. 00:30:16.909 --> 00:30:20.789 And for the rest, and this is what some people report, it's a great project, but it got my money. 00:30:21.509 --> 00:30:24.829 On the other extreme, you have people who are in the project because there's 00:30:24.829 --> 00:30:26.209 more and more ideological objectives. 00:30:26.929 --> 00:30:31.349 But that, of course, also means if you want these groups to reflect collectively, 00:30:31.609 --> 00:30:38.349 that the frames in which they look at that process are so radically different, 00:30:38.569 --> 00:30:41.089 it might be very difficult to make much progress. 00:30:41.209 --> 00:30:45.769 Because if you look at the discussion on free will, where as an individual, 00:30:45.889 --> 00:30:51.009 we must be able to make our decision based on a notion of good and evil and 00:30:51.009 --> 00:30:54.149 good and bad, there is a notion of reason responsiveness, right? 00:30:54.149 --> 00:30:59.889 So in free will, to be a moral decision maker, we must be able to monitor our own decision making. 00:31:00.029 --> 00:31:01.789 We must be able to reflect on 00:31:01.789 --> 00:31:05.309 those decisions, but we must be able to also explicitly externalize them. 00:31:05.369 --> 00:31:10.509 We must be able to point to the reasons behind what we do. Right. 00:31:10.569 --> 00:31:16.069 And so in that collective where you have so many different perspectives on one project, 00:31:16.249 --> 00:31:21.469 it might be very difficult to come to a reason responsive analysis because the 00:31:21.469 --> 00:31:25.369 reasons are very different and maybe more implicit in one case, 00:31:25.429 --> 00:31:26.669 very explicit in another case. 00:31:26.769 --> 00:31:32.569 So wouldn't that argue that this idea of let's reflect is actually, 00:31:32.569 --> 00:31:36.549 in some sense, the best we can do in a very bad situation? 00:31:37.269 --> 00:31:40.089 It's the best we can do in the best situation. And moreover, 00:31:40.209 --> 00:31:45.029 like you said this morning, the scenario I presented was extremely crude. 00:31:45.149 --> 00:31:50.169 But that's one of the few things like, if we don't talk about this kind of practical 00:31:50.169 --> 00:31:54.589 questions, we don't even want to interact with you because you are wasting our time. 00:31:55.689 --> 00:31:58.709 So, you know, so that's also part of... 00:32:00.690 --> 00:32:07.510 We are there and for some people we are there in the Human Brain Project in 00:32:07.510 --> 00:32:11.350 the same way that you are filling in an ethics application to get funding. 00:32:11.570 --> 00:32:16.010 So we are there, we get a bit of the money, but further than that. 00:32:17.330 --> 00:32:19.070 We do the ethics compliance. 00:32:19.730 --> 00:32:24.410 Some people among us do the compliance, so to free the police of things. 00:32:25.310 --> 00:32:28.890 If we can help with the science communication, which we don't really, 00:32:29.010 --> 00:32:33.050 this is not really our work. I mean, I'm not a PR person, but then good. 00:32:33.790 --> 00:32:38.150 Otherwise, take as little space as possible and just don't waste our time. 00:32:38.410 --> 00:32:43.570 So there is also this kind of ill will that is very hard when there is already 00:32:43.570 --> 00:32:48.510 a lot of demand in a project which is so bureaucratized for all sorts of reporting 00:32:48.510 --> 00:32:51.070 and deadlines and stuff. 00:32:51.270 --> 00:32:54.530 And you come back at things like, oh, let's think about ethics. 00:32:54.770 --> 00:32:56.710 Like, I don't have time. 00:32:57.710 --> 00:33:02.350 Right. Paul, we should wrap up because Christine has to get a plate. 00:33:02.650 --> 00:33:09.450 Maybe we could finish by, the Human Brain Project has been running for five years now. 00:33:10.150 --> 00:33:16.170 The commission is about to launch into another round of flagships. 00:33:16.170 --> 00:33:19.950 They're going to fund some pilot studies for flagships in the next year. 00:33:20.290 --> 00:33:26.770 So what lessons could you summarize from five years of HPP for this next round of flagships? 00:33:26.770 --> 00:33:34.350 For me, I would say don't integrate all humanities, 00:33:34.590 --> 00:33:41.070 arts, and social science into those big scientific projects because that frames 00:33:41.070 --> 00:33:49.890 them as being purely utilitarians and it's not necessarily helpful. 00:33:50.810 --> 00:33:58.670 I would also say the way they have been evaluating the large flagships is very subjective. 00:33:59.781 --> 00:34:05.641 Because they are social experiments, but never at any point in these five years 00:34:05.641 --> 00:34:10.921 has there been any social scientist involved in these projects mandated to actually 00:34:10.921 --> 00:34:15.481 monitor these projects as social experiments. 00:34:15.781 --> 00:34:23.861 So whatever conclusions are drawn are not drawn based on fieldwork and qualitative 00:34:23.861 --> 00:34:25.501 research within the projects. 00:34:26.561 --> 00:34:31.381 And because it was all launched from the premise that this is the right model 00:34:31.381 --> 00:34:32.861 to address the big challenges. 00:34:33.181 --> 00:34:39.221 And like I said, when you are framed within a certain, this is a very constraining frame. 00:34:39.361 --> 00:34:41.501 So that's not questionable. 00:34:43.141 --> 00:34:47.401 But it's sort of questioned because now they are sort of saying, 00:34:47.541 --> 00:34:51.781 we may be using a different, smaller flagship, blah, blah, and so on, 00:34:52.501 --> 00:34:54.921 which means they are not entirely satisfied with the way it's happened, 00:34:54.921 --> 00:34:58.141 But they haven't mandated any research to be done in the way it has happened. 00:34:58.341 --> 00:35:03.721 So I would say a bit more, you know, take all this a bit more seriously and 00:35:03.721 --> 00:35:09.361 actually accept that even your own premises are questioned by whatever social 00:35:09.361 --> 00:35:15.041 science and humanities you inject into those launch and essays you inject to those last projects. 00:35:15.041 --> 00:35:18.381 And yeah that's 00:35:18.381 --> 00:35:21.961 and another thing is um 00:35:21.961 --> 00:35:25.241 it's all well and nice to create uh 00:35:25.241 --> 00:35:31.901 work packages on sub or sub projects in charge of ethics and society to which 00:35:31.901 --> 00:35:37.861 all these questions are sort of delegated but if you don't give them teeth to 00:35:37.861 --> 00:35:42.261 uh actually go back to the to the to people who are not 00:35:42.481 --> 00:35:50.361 necessarily willing to interact and collaborate and just like, 00:35:50.461 --> 00:35:52.681 I'm not interested and I don't want to work with you. 00:35:54.623 --> 00:36:01.763 I mean, we are powerless, so we end up like being unable to just go back to 00:36:01.763 --> 00:36:06.183 the actual problem. Christine, if I want to pursue responsible research, 00:36:06.603 --> 00:36:08.303 what should be Christine's law? 00:36:14.823 --> 00:36:23.963 I mean for me it's always been and that's my very partial judgment, 00:36:24.563 --> 00:36:33.063 I tend to be strictly critical of what I do and look back on it and I mean don't 00:36:33.063 --> 00:36:39.923 spare yourself self-reflection is also about really trying to step out and look at what we're doing, 00:36:40.723 --> 00:36:49.503 as, you know, do I have other motives than the ones I'm allowing myself to make explicit to myself? 00:36:50.243 --> 00:36:53.583 Like, know thyself. We're back in Delphi, right? 00:36:53.763 --> 00:36:57.863 Yeah. And the second, Dennis, if you have to make a prediction that Tony will 00:36:57.863 --> 00:37:03.623 come and check in London four years from now on the state of the art in response to research, 00:37:04.763 --> 00:37:09.943 what specific prediction would you like to see validated in a four-year time frame? 00:37:10.143 --> 00:37:14.063 That's about by the end of the human brain. By the end of the human brain project. 00:37:18.443 --> 00:37:24.163 So far, what we have seen validated is all the negative stuff. 00:37:24.403 --> 00:37:29.543 When we told the medical informatics people at the beginning of the ramp-up 00:37:29.543 --> 00:37:34.843 phase that if they went on the way they were going, ignoring consent and saying, 00:37:34.843 --> 00:37:37.703 we are all going to anonymize. They were going to faceplant. 00:37:37.863 --> 00:37:42.063 And they sort of faceplanted. So that was... 00:37:42.663 --> 00:37:43.423 That's a bad prediction. 00:37:44.243 --> 00:37:47.703 Yeah, we totally said, which is not exactly satisfying. 00:37:48.103 --> 00:37:51.483 It's a prediction now. Prediction about the human brain project. 00:37:51.723 --> 00:37:54.423 No, about... Responsible research. Responsible research. Responsible now. 00:37:54.903 --> 00:37:59.883 I mean, like, utopian or realistic? Anything you want. Anything I want. 00:38:00.163 --> 00:38:03.343 Tony will come and check it four years from now. Four years from now. 00:38:03.343 --> 00:38:05.763 Now, I think it will have changed names. 00:38:07.563 --> 00:38:12.183 Very good. Okay, Christina Cardes, thank you very much for this conversation. Very good. 00:38:16.223 --> 00:38:21.903 The CSN podcast was produced by the Convergent Science Network of Biometrics 00:38:21.903 --> 00:38:28.323 and Biohybrid Systems, a project funded by the European Sevens Research Framework Program. 00:38:29.823 --> 00:38:35.143 For more interviews, recorded lectures, or upcoming conferences in the field 00:38:35.143 --> 00:38:41.423 of biometrics and biohybrid systems, go to csnnetwork.eu. 00:38:42.000 --> 00:38:49.520 Music. 00:38:42.203 --> 00:38:43.583 And thank you for listening.