SIENNA
Stakeholder-Informed Ethics for New Technologies with High Socio-Economic and Human Rights Impact
Objectives
SIENNA is a three-and-a-half-year project with 11 core partners and 2 associate partners, focussing on ethical and human rights challenges posed by human genomics, human enhancement and hu-man-machine interaction technologies such as robots and smart devices. While these technologies offer significant benefits to individuals and society, they also present significant ethical challenges, e.g. in relation to human autonomy, equality, personal liberty, privacy, and accountability. In collab-oration with a variety of stakeholders, SIENNA will identify and assess the ethical and socio-economic issues, public opinions, legal regulation and human rights implications of each technology.
Outputs
- Ethical impact assessments for all three technology areas
- Public opinion surveys
- Citizen panels
- Expert and stakeholder consultation
- Stakeholder workshops
- Development of ethical codes for all three technological areas
- Recommendations for regulations and professional codes of conduct
SIENNA will boost the EU’s leadership in developing ethical standards and support its vision of Re-sponsible Research and Innovation (RRI) to foster the design of inclusive research and innovation. The project will improve knowledge of the ethical, human rights and socio-economic impacts of the three technologies, while supporting ethical and responsible decision making by research ethics committees (REC), scientific researchers and policy makers in the three areas. SIENNA will also create added value by generalising its methods for use in other emerging technological domains.
Key project results/activities for RECs and ethics experts
D3.3 “Survey of REC Approaches and Codes for Human Enhancement” investigates the role of RECs in grappling with the ethical challenges introduced by human enhancement technology (HET). By scrutinising REC approaches to reviewing HET, the report provides insights into the existing ethical landscape within RECs. It advocates for RECs to inform researchers about potential ethical issues in HET development and encourages introspection through self-assessment. The accompanying reference document equips RECs to guide researchers in navigating ethical concerns, enhancing the capacity of RECs to adeptly review proposals related to HET.
D4.3 “Survey of REC Approaches and Codes for Artificial Intelligence & Robotics”
centres on the engagement of RECs with the ethical issued posed by AI and robotics, looking at prevailing REC approaches and codes related to these technologies. The report notes that setting clear objectives, pragmatism, and sustainability are essential in developing ethical guidelines. For RECs hoping to incorporate guidelines for AI and robotics into their existing review procedures, this report ensures that REC evaluations align with the changing landscape of emerging technologies.
D2.3 “Survey of REC Approaches and Codes for Genomics” looks at how RECs confront the ethical challenges posed by human genomics. Offering a survey of international and national REC approaches and codes related to genomics, the report looks into diverse ethical considerations within REC guidelines. It notes the potential benefit of additional education for RECs on the ethical, legal, and social implications of human genomics.
D5.7 “Ethics by Design and Research Ethics for Artificial Intelligence” gives practical guidance on implementing an ethics-by-design approach in the context of AI. The document enhances REC capacity to assess and oversee AI research. As RECs bear the responsibility of evaluating the ethical aspects of research proposals, the insights and tools outlined in this report ensure that ethical principles are embedded in the design, development, and deployment of AI systems.
Duration
October 2017 - March 2021
Website
https://www.sienna-project.eu/
Cordis Entry
Funded by the European Union. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or European Research Executive Agency. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them.
