EPOCH
Ethics and Public pOlicy making, the Case of Human
enhancement
Collaborative Project,
7th Framework Program, Science –in-Society
An overview of the project
Ruud ter Meulen
Centre for Ethics in Medicine
University of Bristol
Participants
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
University of Bristol (UK)
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (D)
University of Padua (I)
CNRS-University of Paris Descartes (Fr)
Maastricht University (NL)
University of Ljubljana (Sl)
Swansea University (UK)
National University of Singapore (Si)
University of Aarhus (DK)
University of Calgary (Cnd)
Goal of the project

The overall goal of the project is to gain
better insights into the potential contributions
of ethics and ethical expertise in relation to
the development of public policies on science
and technology in the European context, in
particular on issues of human enhancement
by way of new and emerging technologies.
Objectives

To provide sophisticated, practically relevant,
insight into the relationship between normative
issues, ethical expertise and science and
technology policy making.

To develop a framework, informed by multidisciplinary perspectives, that can guide EU
policy development in relation to a variety of
issues concerning the use of S&T for the
purpose of human enhancement
Research questions

what types of ethical expertise are needed for
the development of public policies?

what models of governance are needed
(also specifically regarding the involved
expertise)?
Research methodology

a comparative perspective which will include EU Member States
as well as other parts of the world (America and Asia) where
relevant;

an overview of the kinds of evidence and expertise that are
currently used by ethics committees and utilisation thereof;

an exploration of how the input of ethics committees and public
dialogue activities is used in decision and law-making processes;

a focus on emerging fields of research and development and
emerging trends in the relationship between normative issues,
ethical expertise, and science and technology policy making.
Results (envisaged)

The project will provide an overview on how selected
enhancement issues (in particular physical and cognitive
enhancements) are dealt with EU Member States, at EU level
and elsewhere in the world.

It will generate insight into cultural differences and shared values
with regard to human enhancement.

It will generate a normative framework which will be derived from
ethical expertise and non-academic, public discourses on
enhancement issues.

It will identify cases of ‘good’ or even ‘best practice’ in the
governance and regulation of enhancement issues.
Results (continued)

The project will also seek to identify possible
shortcomings in existing normative and regulatory
frameworks and conflicts of policy objectives (for
example the tension between progress in physical
enhancement technologies and global anti-doping
policies)

The research is designed to provide insights into, and
new ideas for, the regulation of enhancement
technologies and for the governance of the topic of
human enhancement in general.
Three main areas of the project
1.
Ethics and Governance of Science and Technology: Bristol (lead),
Maastricht, Ljubljana and Paris, supported by Work Packages
1,2,3,9
2.
Human Enhancement and European Policy Making: Karlsruhe
(lead), Bristol, Swansea, Aarhus and Calgary, supported by Work
Packages 4,5, 6,7
3.
Challenges to Regulatory and Legal Frameworks: Padua (lead),
Swansea, Paris, Karlsruhe, Singapore and Bristol, supported by
Work Packages 7, 8,9,10
Area 1 Ethics and Governance
Research questions

What is the impact of the ‘empirical turn’ in bioethics on the role of
theoretical and applied ethics, particularly in the context of public policymaking?

Is their a role for ethical theory, normative ethics and ethical expertise in
participatory approaches to public decision-making on science and
technology?

What are the roles of social scientists and ethicists in the governance of
normative issues in science and technology?

Does the disciplinary status of bioethics change in its interface with social
science when assessing and governing science and technology?

What will be the role of more traditional institutions such as ethics
committees and other advisory bodies in assessing and governing new
technologies and what is the role of ethical expertise in these committees?
Area 2 Human Enhancement and European Policy
Making: Research questions

What is the relevance of the distinction between therapeutic and non-therapeutic uses of
technologies for policy-making on the use of technology for human enhancement?

How can societal and cultural aspects, be taken into account, taking into account in
discourses and governance activities dedicated to the topic of human enhancement?

How can the position of vulnerable groups and disabled people be taken into account in the
governance of technology for human enhancement?

Is there a need for additional governance frameworks for physical enhancement in sport in
addition to existing international doping policies?

In which way will the regulation and governance of science and technology be affected by
the possibilities of the use of these technologies for non-therapeutic, including human
enhancement purposes?

How can the discourses on human enhancement profit from a more systematic inclusion of
gender aspects?
Area 3 Challenges to Regulatory and Legal
Frameworks: Research Questions

how can public participatory approaches and ‘collective responsibility’ be integrated in
socially inclusive models of governance of science and technology?

is there a conflict between the normative approach of applied ethics on the one hand
and empirical and participatory approaches on the other hand in the governance of
science and technology?

how can so-called ‘soft’ approaches to the governance of science and technology be
combined with ‘hard’ and explicit models of regulation?

what is the current role of advisory bodies in the assessment and governance of
science and technology and what other governance models can or should be applied
in this context?

is there a role for vision and speculation about the future in the assessment and
governance of new emerging technologies, particularly in relation to human
enhancement?

how can we take cultural differences into account, and how do European regulations
of science and technology compare with other approaches in the global context?
Workpackages
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Ethics and policy making (Bristol)
Governance and ethics (Maastricht)
Ethical Policy Advice (Ljubljana)
Enhancement technologies (Karlsruhe)
Enhancement discourses (Aarhus)
Enhancement policies (Karlsruhe)
Sport enhancement (Swansea)
Regulatory challenges (Padua)
Implementation options (Paris)
Global policy (Singapore)
Dissemination (Karlsruhe)
Final Conference (Padua)
Co-ordination (Bristol)
Milestones
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Insight in the best possible model for governance of normative
issues of science and technology
Insight in actual role of ethical expertise in public policy making
Insight in specific ethical expertise needed for public-policy
making on science and technology
Deeper understanding of ELSI and governance aspects of
enhancement technologies
Determining the need for new normative frameworks
Situating the governance policies and regulatory structures of
the European Union regarding enhancement technologies in the
global context
Development of guidance for including ethical expertise and
public consultation in public policy-making
Workshops

Area 1 (Month 14) Reports of WP 1,2,3

Area 2 (Month 16) Reports of WP 4,5,6

Area 3 (Month 18) Reports of WP 7,8,9

Global Policies Singapore (Month 20) Report WP 10

Final Conference (Month 22)
Management

Project Management Office PMO (Bristol)

Steering Group SC (Leads of Areas 1,2,3:
Bristol, Karlsruhe, Padua)

Academic Workpackage Management

Management and Other Workpackages (WP
11,12,13)
Project Management Office





Day-to-day project operation
Communication with Commission
Project infrastructure
Knowledge and risk management
Quality Assurance
Steering Committee




Overall responsibility for Project
Meets four times during project, with regular
interim correspondence
Agree project processes and frameworks
Evaluate process and results
Management of the Project

Monitoring

Communication

Dissemination
Monitoring

WP Leads will monitor WP deliverables, milestones and financial
matters.

WP Leads will serve as the primary point of contact between the
Coordinator/Project Management Office and the partners.

WP Leads will contact the PMO on a regular basis (at least each
quarter) to provide an informal update.

SC will oversee progress at SC meetings.

WP Leads will submit a formal progress report for each SC
meeting (6 monthly), detailing progress towards tasks,
deliverables and milestones.
Communication

The project will be managed with principles of consistent and
transparent communication between the PMO and all partners.

The main mechanism of communication will be e-mail, with a shared
mailbox email address to be established in Bristol, to which the
coordinator, project officer and project manager will have access.

Email will be supplemented by the EPOCH website, which will contain a
password-protected area for access by consortium members only as
well as a repository for reports (non-public).

All matters of interest to the consortium will be shared, including
meetings, workshop and annual reports.

Any communications from the Commission with implications for the
consortium as a whole will also be shared.
Dissemination

Dissemination Plan (to be developed by SC)

Website (public and restricted)

Involvement with public meetings and debates

Releasing statements to the press; articles for popular
consumption (including on the EPOCH website)

Academic papers in scientific and bioethics journals and
conference contributions.

Please visit:

Epochproject.com