Traditionally, the management of technology has focused on the stages before or after development of technology. In this approach the technology itself is conceived as the result of a deterministic enterprise; a result that is to be either rejected or embraced. However, recent insights from Science and Technology Studies (STS) have shown that there is ample room to modulate technology during development. This requires technology managers and engineering ethicists to become more involved in the technological research rather than assessing it from an outsider perspective. Instead of focusing on the question whether or not to authorize, approve, or adopt a certain technology or on the question of who is to blame for potential mistakes, the guiding question in this new approach is how research is to be carried out.
Aristotle. (1985). Nicomachean ethics (T. Irwin, Trans.). Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.
2.
Berloznik, R., & Van Langenhove, L. (1998). Integration of technology assessment in R&D management practices. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 58, 23-33.
3.
Bovens, M. ( 1998). The quest for responsibility. Accountability and citizenship in complex organisations. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
4.
Collingridge, D. ( 1980). The social control of technology. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.
5.
Corlett, J.A. ( 2006). Responsibility and punishment (3rd ed.). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
6.
Davis, M. (Ed.). (2005). Engineering ethics. Aldershot, England: Ashgate.
7.
Davis, M. ( 2009, August). "No one here but us chickens." Some thoughts on the professional responsibility of engineers. Paper presented at the conference Moral Responsibility: Neuroscience, Organization & Engineering. TU Delft, The Netherlands.
8.
Doorn, N. (in press). Responsibility ascriptions in technology development and engineering: Three perspectives. Science and Engineering Ethics. doi:10.1007/s11948-009-9189-3.
9.
Driessen, A. ( 2009). Ethical aspects of research in ultrafast communication . In P. Sollie & M. Düwell (Eds.), Evaluating new technologies (pp. 11-19). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer Science+Business Media.
10.
Durbin, P.T. ( 1997). Engineering ethics and social responsibility: Reflections on recent developments in the USA. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 17, 77-83.
11.
Durbin, P.T. ( 2008). Engineering professional ethics in a broader dimension . Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 33, 226-233.
12.
Eshleman, A. ( 2008). Moral responsibility. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 ed.). Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/moralresponsibility
13.
Feinberg, J. ( 1970). Doing and deserving. Essays in the theory of responsibility . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
14.
Fischer, J.M., & Ravizza, M. ( 1993). Introduction. In J. M. Fischer & M. Ravizza (Eds.), Perspectives on moral responsibility (pp. 1-41). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
15.
Fischer, J.M., & Ravizza, M. ( 1998). Responsibility and control. A theory of moral responsibility . Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
16.
Fisher, E. ( 2007). Ethnographic invention: Probing the capacity of laboratory decisions. NanoEthics, 1, 155-165.
17.
Fisher, E., & Mahajan, R.L. ( 2006, November). Midstream modulation of nanotechnology research in an academic laboratory. Paper presented at the ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition (IMECE2006) , Chicago, IL.
18.
Fisher, E., Mahajan, R.L., & Mitcham, C. ( 2006). Midstream modulation of technology: Governance from within . Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 26, 485-496.
19.
Frankfurt, H. ( 1971). Freedom of the will and the concept of a person. Journal of Philosophy, 68, 5-20.
20.
Frankfurt, H. ( 1988). The importance of what we care about. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
21.
Grin, J., & Hoppe, R. ( 1995). Toward a comparative framework for learning from experiences with interactive technology assessment. Industrial & Environmental Crisis Quarterly, 9, 99-120.
22.
Guston, D.H., & Sarewitz, D. ( 2002). Real-time technology assessment. Technology in Society, 24, 93-109.
23.
Harris, C.E., Pritchard, M.S., & Rabins, M.J. ( 2005). Engineering ethics: Concepts and cases. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Hart, H.L.A. (1968). Punishment and responsibility. Essays in the philosophy of law. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.
24.
Hart, H.L.A., & Honoré, T. (1985). Causation in the law . Oxford, England: Clarendon Press .
25.
Kant, I. ( 1795). To perpetual peace: A philosophical sketch [Zum ewigen Frieden: Ein philosophischer Entwurf]. Königsberg , Germany: Friedrich Nicolovius.
26.
Kivi Niria. (2006). Gedragscode/Code of conduct. The Hague, the Netherlands: KIVI NIRIA.
27.
Lewis, H.D. ( 1991). Collective responsibility. In L. May & S. Hoffman (Eds.), Collective responsibility: Five decades of debate in theoretical and applied ethics (pp. 17-34). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
28.
Lynch, W.T., & Kline, R. ( 2000). Engineering practice and engineering ethics. Science, Technology & Human Values, 25, 195-225.
29.
Magill, K. ( 2000). Blaming, understanding and justification. In T. van den Beld (Ed.), Moral responsibility and ontology (pp. 183-198). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
30.
Marcus, R.B. ( 1980). Moral dilemmas and consistency. Journal of Philosophy, 77, 121-136.
31.
Martin, M.W., & Schinzinger, R. (2005). Ethics in engineering (4th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
32.
May, L., & Hoffman, S. ( 1991). Introduction. In L. May & S. Hoffman (Eds.), Collective responsibility: Five decades of debate in theoretical and applied ethics (pp. 1-16). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
33.
Mehalik, M.M. ( 2000). Sustainable network design: A commercial fabric case study. Interfaces, 30, 180-189.
34.
Miller, D. ( 2004). Holding nations responsible. Ethics, 114, 240-268.
35.
Nijsingh, N., & Düwell, M. (2009). Interdisciplinarity, applied ethics and social science. In P. Sollie & M. Düwell (Eds.), Evaluating new technologies (pp. 79-92). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer Science+Business Media.
36.
Pritchard, M.S. ( 2001). Responsible engineering: The importance of character and imagination. Science and Engineering Ethics, 7, 391-402.
37.
Pritchard, M.S., & Holtzapple, M. (1997). Responsible engineering: Gilbane Gold revisited. Science and Engineering Ethics, 3, 217-230.
38.
Reuzel, R.P.B., Van der Wilt, G.J., Ten Have, H.A.M.J., & De Vries Robbé, P.F. (1999). Reducing normative bias in health technology assessment: Interactive evaluation and casuistry . Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 2, 255-263.
39.
Rip, A. ( 2006). A co-evolutionary approach to reflexive governance- and its ironies. In J. P. Voß, D. Bauknecht, & R. Kemp (Eds.), Reflexive governance for sustainable development (pp. 82-100). Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.
40.
Sarewitz, D. ( 2005). This won’t hurt a bit: Assessing and governing rapidly advancing technologies in a democracy. In M. Rodemeyer, D. Sarewitz, & J. Wilsdon (Eds.), The future of technology assessment (pp. 14-21). Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
41.
Schot, J.W., & Rip, A. ( 1997). The past and future of constructive technology assessment . Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 54, 251-268.
42.
Strawson, P.F. ( 1974). Freedom and resentment. In P. F. Strawson (Ed.), Freedom and resentment and other essays (pp. 1-25). London, England: Methuen.
43.
Swierstra, T., & Jelsma, J. ( 2006). Responsibility without moral-ism in techno-scientific design practice. Science, Technology & Human Values, 31, 309-332.
44.
Thompson, D.F. ( 1980). Moral responsibility and public officials. American Political Science Review, 74, 905-916.
45.
Van de Poel, I. ( 2008). How should we do nanoethics? A network approach for discerning ethical issues in nanotechnology. NanoEthics, 2, 25-38.
46.
Van de Poel, I., & Zwart, S.D. ( 2010). Reflective equilibrium in R&D networks. Science, Technology & Human Values, 35, 174-199.
47.
Van der Burg, S. ( 2009). Imagining the future of photoacoustic mammography. Science and Engineering Ethics, 15, 97-110.
48.
Vanderburg W.H. ( 2000). The labyrinth of technology. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
49.
Vanderburg W.H. ( 2006). Can the university escape from the labyrinth of technology? Part 3: A strategy for transforming the professions. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 26, 189-203.
50.
Vanderburg, W.H. ( 2009). Rethinking engineering design and decision making in response to economic, social, and environmental crises. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 29, 421-432.
51.
Wallace, R.J. ( 1994). Responsibility and the moral sentiments. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
52.
Watson, G. ( 1996). Two faces of responsibility. Philosophical Topics, 24, 227-248.
53.
Whitbeck, C. ( 1998). Ethics in engineering practice and research. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press
54.
Wilsdon, J. ( 2005). Paddling upstream: New currents in European technology assessment. In M. Rodemeyer, D. Sarewitz, & J. Wilsdon (Eds.), The future of technology assessment (pp. 22-29). Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars .
55.
Zimmerman, M. ( 1988). An essay on moral responsibility. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
56.
Zwart, S.D., Van de Poel, I., Van Mil, H., & Brumsen, M. ( 2006). A network approach for distinguishing ethical issues in research and development. Science and Engineering Ethics , 12, 663-684.
