Responsible Computing Research Report

Leave a reply Jonny Hankins

A Consensus Study Report

Earlier this year (2022) The committee on Responsible Computing Research of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine in the USA published a Consensus Study Report entitled Fostering Responsible Computing Research, Foundations and

The Committee members predominantly came from US universities (with one representative from Australia), but also included representatives from Microsoft, Google and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. It is a 100 page document, but the following conclusions and recommendations are all to be found in the summary.

Conclusions

The process led to the committee coming to three conclusions that underpin the report recommendations:  

Conclusion 1. To be responsible, computing research needs to expand to include consideration of ethical and societal impact concerns and determination of effective ways to address them.

Conclusion 2. To be responsible, computing research needs to engage the full spectrum of stakeholders and deploy rigorous methodologies and frameworks that have proven effective for identifying the complicated social dynamics that are relevant to these ethical and societal impact concerns.

Conclusion 3. For computing technologies to be used responsibly, governments need to establish policies and regulations to protect against adverse ethical and societal impacts. Computing researchers can assist by revealing limitations of their research results and identifying possible adverse impacts and needs for government intervention.

Recommendations

Recommendation 1. The computing research community should reshape the ways computing research is formulated and undertaken to ensure that ethical and societal consequences are considered and addressed appropriately from the start.

Recommendation 2. The computing research community should initiate projects that foster responsible computing research, including research that leads to societal benefits and ethical societal impact and research that helps avoid or mitigate negative outcomes and harms. Both research sponsors and research institutions should encourage and support the pursuit of such projects.

Recommendation 3. Universities, scientific and professional societies, and research and education sponsors should support the development of the expertise needed to integrate social and behavioral science and ethical thinking into computing research.

Recommendation 4. Computing research organizations—working with scientific and professional societies and research sponsors—should ensure that their computing faculty, students, and research staff have access to scholars with the expertise to advise them in examining potential ethical and societal implications of proposed and ongoing research activities, including ways to engage relevant groups of stakeholders. Computing researchers should seek out such advice.

Recommendation 5. Sponsors of computing research should require that ethical and societal considerations be interwoven into research proposals, evaluated in proposal review, and included in project reports.

Recommendation 6. Scientific and professional societies and other publishers of computing research should take steps to ensure that ethical and societal considerations are appropriately addressed in publications. The computing research community should likewise take steps to ensure that these considerations are appropriately addressed in the public release of artifacts.

Recommendation 7. Computing researchers who are involved in the development or deployment of systems should adhere to established best practices in the computing community for system design, oversight, and monitoring.

Recommendation 8. Research sponsors, research institutions, and scientific and professional societies should encourage computing researchers to engage with the public and with the public interest and support them in doing so.

All of which makes perfect sense, so why not take a look at the report yourself? There is lots of stuff about bias in data sets and other issues that we have addressed previously and It’s free to download here.

And take a look at what Mozilla have been doing here.

Computing Within Limits

2 Replies Jonny Hankins

LIMITS

I have just attended LIMITS 22, the eight annual workshop on computing within limits.

As the name suggests, the workshop addresses the role of computing in human societies affected by real-world limits, for example limits of extractive logics, limits to a biosphere’s ability to recover, limits to our knowledge, or limits to technological “solutions”.

Very much tied to the interests of the TechnologyBloggers website, this collection of researchers and practitioners aim to reshape the computing research agenda, grounded by an awareness that contemporary computing research is intertwined with ecological limits in general and climate- and climate justice-related limits in particular.

This was a virtual distributed workshop, with many participants joining hubs so that they could avoid travel but still attend a social event. I touched upon this as a model in my post about conferencing a few weeks ago.

I attended one of such hubs in Rotterdam (Netherlands), held at Varia, a space for developing collective approaches to everyday technology. There were a dozen people there, computer programmers, university lecturers and students and the likes, which made for interesting discussion during the break-out sessions and a very nice social mix.

I won’t go into the individual presentations too much, but would like to highlight a few of the questions addressed and point readers towards some resources.

What is the carbon footprint of streaming media?

Researchers estimate that streaming media accounts for about 1% of global carbon emissions. These emissions are created throughout the chain, with only a small percentage visible to users (the electricity that appears on their household bills), the vast majority hidden as it is produced during data storage, cooling, delivery, maintaining back-up systems and during a miriad of other processes (not to mention construction, mining of raw materials, etc).

This website offers lots of information, beginning with the startling revelation that ICT in general is estimated to use about 7% of all electricity used, so may contribute (depending how the electricity is produced) to up to almost 4% of global greenhouse gasses.

So the actual carbon footprint is very difficult to measure, with a range offered for watching a streamed film as equivalent to burning between 1.2 and 164 kilos of coal (depending on your calculations and not the film).

The large data centres providers often claim that they use clean energy for their centres, but this was also questioned as their mass use of this energy has been shown to monopolize access, at very least having an enormous effect on the local networks and sometimes resulting in others having to use fossil fonts,. Their green claims were described as cherry-picked.

Digital platforms

Well we all love a digital platform don’t we? Facilitating car sharing, what could be better than that? Well even here a critical perspective appears, as we have to add ICT emissions to real emissions if calculating the possible environmental implications. And not only that! For example, using one car instead of two halves the emissions for analytical purposes, but on top of this we should add the ICT emissions (which as we know are difficult to work out). But we can come up with an estimate. Then behavioural change might also come into play. People might drive further because they are sharing, some will share a car and leave the bike at home or not take the usual train. It all becomes rather murky.

Other discussions

Other questions arose: what are the implications of framing the discussion in terms of limits, rather than abundance? Could such a reframing bring in an ethics of care? Can we discuss the relationship between humans and nature and its ties to capitalism? What role can religion take? How important are imaginaries of the (technological) future? Does the public have the information required to understand the environmental implications of their choices?

As you can see, it was very stimulating.

Check out this website for a perspective.

And the Chaos Computer Club for another.

The papers are all available here so fill your boots.

Open Scholarship, Responsible Research and Innovation and Anticipatory Governance: Event at Kate Hamburger Kolleg, Cultures of Research-RWTH Aachen University (Germany)

Leave a reply Jonny Hankins

This (online) Open Scholarship event will be held on 29 and 30 June 2022, with registration possible by contacting events@khk.rwth-aachen.de. Regular followers may recall that I edited a book with one of the organizers René von Schomberg and that there is a post about his work here on the website.

The following overview has been made available by the organizers:

29 June and 30 June 2020 Käte Hamburger Kolleg (KHK), Cultures of Research, RWTH Aachen University

First Day

10:00 – 10.15 Welcome address Andoni Ibarra, René von Schomberg, Stefan Böschen.(KHK)

10.15 – 10.30 Intro to the first day: René von Schomberg

10:30 – 11.15 Opening up science: a means for responsibility? Clare Shelley-Egan, Technical University of Denmark (DTU)
11.15 – 11. 30 Discussion

11.30 – 12.15 Missions? Quite Possibly! The legacies of rri and RRI in tackling global and local societal challenges, Douglas Robinson (Université Gustave Eiffel, France and CNRS)
12.15 – 12.30 Discussion followed by lunch

14.00 – 14.45 Interpretive multiplicity in Anticipatory Governance. Evidence from 12 countries, Mario Pansera (Universidade de Vigo)
14.45 – 15:00 Discussion

15.00- 15.45 Quadruple Helix Collaborations, the ethics of stakeholder engagement, and the future of responsible innovation, Vincent Blok (Wageningen University)
15.45- 16.00 Discussion

16.15 – 17:00 Roundtable Discussion: lead question, whether open scholarship can make science more reliable, efficient, responsive, inclusive in the incorporation of a broader range of scientific knowledge producers beyond the academic context and facilitte globally organised mission oriented research.

17:00 – 19.00 Key Note: Transition to Open Science, Why and How, Frank Miedema (Vice Rector for Research at Utrecht University and chair of the Utrecht University Open Science Programme)

Second Day (30 June): Anticipatory Governance

10:00 – 10:15 Andoni Ibarra: Introduction to the second day

10.15 – 11.00 The missing component of anticipatory governance, Roberto Poli (University of Trento)
11.00 – 11.15 Discussion

11.15-12.00 Framing RRI in health research domain: the case of MULTI-ACT participatory and anticipatory governance model, Paola Zaratin (Director of Scientific Research, Italian MS Society – Italian MS Foundation, Genoa, Italy)
12.15 – 12.30 Discussion followed by lunch

14.00 – 14.45 Foresight on additive manufacturing in order to support RRI, Marianne Hoerlesberger, Austrian Institute of Technology
14.45 – 15.00 Discussion

15.00 – 16.00 Round Table on Lead questions:
How do we conceptualize ‘anticipation’ in such a way that it leads to open anticipatory governance? What is the significance of anticipatory governance for Open Science and Responsible Research and Innovation? What are the narratives of open anticipatory governance in different institutional and organizational settings?
How can we assess Anticipatory Governance? How can mission-oriented research be best practiced as part of facilitating anticipatory governance?

16.00 – 16.05 Closing of the Workshop.

I will be there, it looks really interesting.