Resilience, Risk, Uncertainty in technology
Ethics of resilience
Doorn, N., Resilience indicators: Opportunities for including distributive justice concerns in disaster management. Journal of Risk Research, 2017. 20(6): p. 711-731.
Doorn, N., P. Gardoni, and C. Murphy, A Multidisciplinary Definition and Evaluation of Resilience: The Role of Social Justice in Defining Resilience. Sustainable and Resilient Infrastructure, 2019. 4(3): p. 112-123.
Copeland, Samantha, Tina Comes, Sylvia Bach, Michael Nagenborg, Yannic Schulte, and Neelke Doorn. 2020. 'Measuring social resilience: Trade-offs, challenges and opportunities for indicator models in transforming societies', International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 51: 101799.Uncertainty
Doorn, N., Reasoning About Uncertainty in Flood Risk Governance, in The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis, S.O. Hansson and G. Hirsch Hadorn, Editors. 2016, Springer: Dordrecht. p. 245-263.
Ibo van de Poel has argued that in the light of often huge uncertainties, the introduction of new technology in society can be best conceived as a social experiment (Van de Poel 2017), and has developed an ethical framework for evaluating new (experimental) technologies in this light (Van de Poel 2016). He has also published a volume on the experimental approach to new technology (Van de Poel, Mehos, and Asveld 2018). The approach has, among others, been applied to nuclear energy, biotechnology and nanotechnology.
Van de Poel, Ibo. 2016. "An Ethical Framework for Evaluating Experimental Technology." Science and Engineering Ethics 22 (3):667-686. doi: 10.1007/s11948-015-9724-3.
Van de Poel, Ibo, Donna C. Mehos, and Lotte Asveld, eds. 2018. New Perspectives on Technology in Society: Experimentation Beyond the Laboratory. Oxon and New York: Routledge.
Van de Poel, Ibo. 2017. "Society as a laboratory to experiment with new technologies." In Embedding New Technologies into Society: A Regulatory, Ethical and Societal Perspective, edited by Diana M. Bowman, Elen Stokes and Arie Rip, 61-87. Singapore: Pan Stanford Publishing.
Risk ethics
Doorn, N. and S.O. Hansson, Should probabilistic design replace safety factors? Philosophy & Technology, 2011. 24(2): p. 151-168.
Doorn, N., Rationality in flood risk management: The limitations of probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) in the design and selection of flood protection strategies. Journal of Flood Risk Management, 2014. 7(3): p. 230-238.
Doorn, N., The blind spot in risk ethics: Managing natural hazards. Risk Analysis, 2015. 35(3): p. 354-360.
Doorn, N. and S.O. Hansson, Design for the value of safety, in Handbook of Ethics and Values in Technological Design, M.J. Van den Hoven, P. Vermaas, and I.R. Van de Poel, Editors. 2015, Springer: Dordrecht. p. 491-509.
Doorn, N., Reasoning About Uncertainty in Flood Risk Governance, in The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis, S.O. Hansson and G. Hirsch Hadorn, Editors. 2016, Springer: Dordrecht. p. 245-263.
Doorn, N., Allocating responsibility for environmental risks: An example from water governance. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 2017. 13(2): p. 371-375.
Doorn, N. and S.O. Hansson, Factors and Margins of Safety, in Handbook of Safety Principles, N. Möller, et al., Editors. 2017, John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, New Jersey.
Selck, H., P.B. Adamsen, T. Backhaus, G.T. Banta, P.K.H. Bruce, G.A. Burton, M.B. Butts, E. Bøgh, J.J. Clague, K.V. Dinh, N. Doorn, J. Gunnarsson, H. Hauggaard-Nielsen, C. Hazlerigg, A. Hunka, J. Jensen, Y. Lin, S. Loureiro, S. Miraglia, W.R. Munns Jr, F. Nadim, A. Palmqvist, R.A. Rämö, L.P. Seaby, K. Syberg, S.R. Tangaa, A. Thit, R. Windfeld, M. Zalewski, and P.M. Chapman (2017). ‘Assessing and Managing Multiple Risks in a Changing World – the Roskilde Recommendations’. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 36 (1): 7-16, DOI: 10.1002/etc.3513.
Doorn, N., Distributing risks: Allocation principles for distributing reversible and irreversible outcomes. Ethics, Place & Environment, 2018. 21(1): p. 96-109.
Sabine Roeser has contributed to risk ethics by developing a new theory on risk and moral emotions according to which emotions are an important source of moral insights and pointers of moral values. Taking people’s emotions and underlying values seriously via emotional deliberation can contribute to more socially accepted and morally responsible designs, innovations and policies. These ideas are grounded in her metaethical work on moral emotions and intuitions. Furthermore, she has argued that artworks that engage with risky technologies can contribute to emotional-moral deliberation.
Sabine Roeser (2018), Risk, Technology, and Moral Emotions, Routledge
Sabine Roeser - Emotions should play an important role in debates on risky technology - TEDxDelft
Ibo van de Poel - Exploration of the relation between risk and responsibility
van de Poel, Ibo, and Jessica Nihlén Fahlquist. 2012. "Risk and Responsibility." In Handbook of Risk Theory, 877-907.
Safety
Guédon, A.C.P., S.L. Spruit, L.S.G.L. Wauben, M. Van der Elst, N. Doorn, J. Dankelman, J.J. Van den Dobbelsteen and J. Klein (2017). ‘A delicate balance: adaptive support to improve patient safety’. BMJ Innovations 3(1): 1-6, DOI: 10.1136/bmjinnov-2016-000150.
Doorn, N. and S.O. Hansson, Should probabilistic design replace safety factors? Philosophy & Technology, 2011. 24(2): p. 151-168.
Doorn, N. and S.O. Hansson, Design for the value of safety, in Handbook of Ethics and Values in Technological Design, M.J. Van den Hoven, P. Vermaas, and I.R. Van de Poel, Editors. 2015, Springer: Dordrecht. p. 491-509.
Doorn, N. and S.O. Hansson, Factors and Margins of Safety, in Handbook of Safety Principles, N. Möller, et al., Editors. 2017, John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, New Jersey.