Abstract Research on emerging technologies such as AI-driven health interventions, extended reality (XR) systems, biobanks, and genome editing poses novel ethical challenges that traditional ethics governance models struggle to address. This article explores various models of research ethics governance within the European Union (EU) context, starting from traditional one-time research ethics committee (REC) reviews, REC review with post-approval monitoring, as well as alternative models such as ethics self-assessment, and ethics-by-design approaches. Based on literature analysis and a survey of European research ethics experts, the study identifies prevalent models of research ethics oversight, research ethics expert perceptions of their sufficiency, and challenges such as insufficient technical and ethics expertise, lack of specific guidelines, and unclear boundaries of REC responsibilities. Findings also indicate that traditional REC reviews remain dominant but have limitations in effectively managing rapidly evolving technologies. Research ethics experts highlighted the feasibility of continuous oversight mechanisms to better integrate ethical reflection throughout the research lifecycle. The article concludes by recommending a shift towards proportional, risk-based oversight, development of clearer, technology-specific guidelines, enhanced REC training, and improved harmonization across EU ethics governance systems to address current gaps.

Advancements in neurosciences and neurotechnologies pose various ethical and social challenges, warranting public/stakeholder engagement. Art, such as short films, can expose audiences to the social aspects of neuro-advancements. The 2019 BIO·FICTION Film Festival, for instance, examined how neurotechnologies shape society, the human body, and mind. Students are one important group of stakeholders, as they are expected to be critical thinkers and change agents. The lived reality of disabled people is impacted by neuro-advancements in many ways. Critical disability studies students are therefore key stakeholders, as their programs and courses encourage them to identify and address social challenges faced by disabled individuals. Therefore, they need to be able to evaluate the social impacts of neuro-advancements. Few studies exist that ascertain the views of critical disability studies students on the social impact of neuro-advancements. Our study sought to amplify the voices of critical disability studies students by analyzing the responses of 89 undergraduates from three courses to six top films from the BIO·FICTION festival. Conducted asynchronously due to COVID restrictions, students watched the films independently and responded to four guiding questions about: a) general thoughts about the films, b) their perceived impact on those watching, c) implications for their anticipated careers involving disabled people, and d) the social impact of neuro-advancements on disabled people. Our findings indicated that the topical (non-)fictional short films effectively prompted students to reflect on the social aspects of neuro-advancements and were well received. However, responses also indicated a need for follow-up discussions – virtual or in-person – to address questions about film content and deepen the discussion and class engagement. Such discussion setups could also inform film festivals aiming to raise awareness about the societal implications of emerging technologies.

A wealth of literature and best practices on Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) document how it can be implemented in projects. However, each project is too specific to simply replicate existing patterns. Especially in early projects with a high degree of uncertainty, where indicators and measures cannot be applied, the so-called provenance assessment as a methodological change of perspective makes it possible to assess the procedural quality of research by means of narratives. A clear picture of the challenges for European bio-economy projects is sought by mapping the broader debate on "RRI in practice" in the context of biotechnology. The SUSPHIRE project is used as a case study to show how project-specific narratives integrate and signify RRI. By unpacking various concepts of "responsibility" that are already present in the project narrative at an early stage, I will show how this assessment differs significantly from other attempts to "do RRI". It is precisely in the absence of other criteria that the assessment of provenance can bring to the fore the specific form(s) of responsibility inherent in the development of projects.

Hype over novel quantum technologies has prompted discussion on the likely societal impacts of the sector. Calls to ensure the responsible development of quantum technologies are complicated by a lack of concrete case studies or real-world examples of irresponsible quantum. At this stage, responsible quantum faces a situation reminiscent of the Collingridge dilemma. In this dilemma, the moment in which discussion on societal risks and benefits can be most impactful is also the time when the least information is available. The flipside of this challenge is an opportunity to build processes for examining the public good of quantum before the trajectory (and potential problems) of the sector become “locked in”. Recent work in this space has argued that quantum researchers and innovators must work with society to address uncertainties and concerns. By engaging quantum stakeholders and understanding their perspectives on responsibility, this paper seeks to support this proposition and enable further dialogue on responsible development and use of quantum technologies.

With the advent of synthetic biology, scientists are increasingly relying on digital sequence information, instead of physical genetic resources. This article examines the potential impact of this shift on the access and benefit-sharing (ABS) regime of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Nagoya Protocol. These treaties require benefit-sharing with the owners of genetic resources. However, whether “genetic resources” include digital sequence information is unsettled. The CBD conceives genetic resources as genetic material containing functional units of heredity. “Material” implies tangibility, and for some scholars, “functional units of heredity,” undefined in both treaties, mean full-coding sequences. This article argues that digital sequence information obtained from physical genetic resources, full-coding or not, should be treated as genetic resources. Literal construction of the CBD risks eroding its usefulness and the ABS regime. This is because through bioinformatics, sequence information can easily be obtained from genetic resources for utilization, without physically moving them or concluding ABS agreement with owners. The CBD must evolve with scientific progress also because sequence functionality depends on the state of knowledge. These arguments are vindicated by domestic ABS laws equating genetic information with genetic resources; Nagoya Protocol provisions deeming research exploiting the genetic composition of genetic resources as utilization of genetic resources; and CBD provisions requiring the sharing of benefits from the utilization of genetic resources. Moreover, treaty interpretation and case law demand that generic, scientific terms, such as “genetic resources” and “functional units of heredity” be interpreted in an evolutionary manner to capture scientific developments.

Due primarily to technological advances over the last decade, quantum research has become a key priority area for science and technology policy all over the world. With this manifesto, we wish to prevent quantum technology from running into fiascos of implementation at the interface of science and society. To this end, we identify key stumbling blocks and propose recommendations.

The article analyses European regulations concerning the health protection at work with nanomaterials in the context of the Christian vision of human work. The increasingly widespread presence of nanotechnology in workplaces requires serious reflection on the adequacy of employers’ measures to protect workers’ health from the risks in the workplace. The lack of clear guidance in European legislation directly concerning work with nanoparticles is problematic. Moreover, the health consequences for workers using nanomaterials in the work process are not fully explored in science. It is therefore essential to consider what values should accompany employers in shaping working conditions and what values should be legislated when creating occupational health and safety (OH&S) law. First of all, how should the employers deal with the unknown? Should they abandon nanomaterials for which they do not have adequate information at all until the consequences for workers’ health have been established? Should such action be limited to situations where studies indicate the toxicity of the nanomaterials present in the working environment? In this context, the article analyses values and objectives indicated by the teaching of the Catholic Church. The publication presents a Christian vision on the protection of workers’ health and their place in the work process. Europe has been under the influence of Christianity for many centuries now. The Catholic Church’s view of human labour continues to be present in public debates in Europe. The Christian view of human labour is focused on the working man and his dignity. Irrespective of other concepts of labour, Christianity assumes the priority of a human being over capital. The Catholic Church analyses the working man as going beyond the Earthly context, which is not typical for such doctrines as liberalism or Marxism. The author’s article is an attempt in answering the question about how up to date the Catholic Church’s views on human labour are in the light of nanotechnology development in the workplace.

In response to calls for a research and innovation system that is more open to public scrutiny, we have seen a growth of formal and informal public engagement activities in the past decades. Nevertheless, critiques of several persistent routines in public engagement continue to resurface, in particular the focus on expert knowledge, cognitive exchange, risk discourse, and understandings of public opinion as being static. In an attempt to break out of these routines, we experimented with an innovative engagement format that employs situated speculative prototyping to support citizens in contextualizing and discussing developments regarding—in this case—nanotechnology. This format invites participants to imagine and critically reflect on technological futures through collaborative prototyping and story-writing. In this paper, we outline five reconstructed contextualization patterns in which participants engaged during the format’s exercises and use these to assess the value of the format in the current engagement landscape. We show that situated speculative prototyping has potential in the realm of informal public engagement initiatives, taking an explorative approach, but also warn of ‘the designer fallacy’ as a prominent pitfall of prototyping that could reproduce techno-scientific framings and obstruct critical reflection on technological directions and implications if not treated with caution.