An interesting proposal has been made by the “Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration,” or ETA Group for short. This group suggests that there should be some kind of international governance over the technological community that enforces ethical and responsible scientific practices prior to the deployment of a new technology. They advocate for such a governing body due to some of the recent negative consequences of technological innovation. For instance, they have highlighted some scientific backlash in areas such as nanotechnology, geoengineering and synthetic biology on the last page of this article.

By and large, I think people would generally agree that ethical and responsible practices should be encouraged in all fields, especially in scientific and technological development. However I also think that we live in a time period where scientific and technological development is greatly rewarded, and that adding more regulation to the field would hinder technological progression. The ETA Group proposes a regulatory agency that “involves the UN, ensures environmental integrity, includes a full consideration of potential negative socioeconomic impacts, and has equitable representation and participation of developing countries and vulnerable communities and Indigenous Peoples.” At the close of every meeting the team will be required to share homemade cookies with one another and sing all national anthems in linked arms before hugging each other goodbye and carpooling home in their Priuses.

Kidding. But a group that includes the quoted qualities listed above (among some other qualities that are not mentioned in this blog post) sounds too good to be true to me. A group that regulates scientific innovation and depends on multilateral agreement by multiple governments provides some room for political disagreement to affect the technological progression of a nation; and for disputes over technology to affect foreign relations. I.e. geopolitical differences could sway certain countries to vote against technological innovation of another country simply out of spite, effectively working as a “technological sanction.” In turn, this creates one more area for political disagreement to affect national economies.

Moreover, “full consideration of potential negative socioeconomic impacts” is one hell of a standard to submit to. This suggests that the techies of Silicon Valley should be fully aware of the socioeconomic climate of the indigenous people of Papua New Guiney (and everywhere else for that matter) before they begin to innovate. Otherwise these techies may spend years of their lives securing funding from venture capitalists, researching, developing and diffusing their product, only to be told just before deployment that they have not considered certain consequences that may arise half way around the world from them and that their time has been wasted.

What I’m trying to say here is: yes, there should be some regulation and everyone should hope for scientists, engineers and innovators alike to be responsible and ethical in their practices because what they create can change the world; however, too much regulation could potentially discourage these innovators from changing the world and subsequently retard technological development. So I see what the ETC Group wants to accomplish, but their proposed regulation seems flawed. Perhaps there should be a regulatory agency regulating them.