Abstract
Keywords
Introduction
The pervasive integration of emerging technologies into society has posed challenges like never before, and ethical debates centred on uncertainty have captured widespread attention. Addressing the ethical governance of new technologies in a prompt and effective manner has become a pressing demand of our era. The academic community has engaged in a multitude of exploratory efforts to tackle the complex questions of what to govern, how to govern and how to evaluate the effectiveness of governance. The three mainstream pathways are as follows: constructing governance models, strengthening institutional building and conducting ethical reviews. These three pathways are respectively rooted in technology governance, social governance and ethical governance, each with its own advantages in different application scenarios. Furthermore, the ethical governance of emerging technologies spans various domains, such as life sciences, artificial intelligence (AI) and data technology, resulting in a multitude of tailored governance strategies. Research on these governance strategies and plans has reached a significant level of accumulation, yielding effective practical insights. Drawing from the outcomes of prior research, this paper distils three key focal points for the construction of the governance system of science and technology (S&T) ethics: risk governance, agile governance and global governance. Through an in-depth examination of these focal points, the paper advocates for the practicality and imperative of employing tentative strategies in the ethical governance of emerging technologies, with the aim of bolstering the efficacy of ethical governance and exploring the Chinese approach to ethical governance in this domain.
Focal points of the ethical governance of emerging technologies
In current research on the governance of S&T ethics, risk governance, agile governance and global governance are the primary focal points. Risk governance, which focuses on value orientation, is the starting point; agile governance, which focuses on governance effectiveness, is the critical link; and global governance, which focuses on strategic cooperation, is the burgeoning frontier. A comprehensive analysis of these three focal points helps to uncover existing problems and practical challenges in the governance of S&T ethics and provides a foundation for proposing tentative governance strategies.
Risk governance: The starting point for the ethical governance of S&T
Risk governance, as the starting point in the ethical governance of emerging technologies, centres on the object of governance. It highlights the transposition of the core components of governance—substance, principles, methods and processes—into the realm of risk and associated decision-making contexts (Renn et al., 2011). The term encapsulates the coordination, directive and supervisory actions and processes implemented by institutions under conditions of complexity, uncertainty and ambiguity, which together lead to collective decision-making endeavours (Rosa et al., 2014). The essence of risk governance lies in regulating, reducing or controlling risk issues. Therefore, how to regulate, reduce and control the social and ethical risks caused by emerging technologies has become the main problem that needs to be resolved in the governance of S&T ethics.
Risk governance in the realm of emerging technology ethics is currently a focal point, encompassing three distinct aspects. The first is risk identification and classification. This mainly involves how to identify risks and how to categorize and govern them. The focus of risk identification and classification is to clarify which risks should be governed. In addition to the general criteria of risk identification, such as the classic measurable standards—damage level, probability, uncertainty, insufficiency, persistence, reversibility, delay effects and potential for mobilization (WBGU, 2000), risk identification in specific fields also needs to be considered, such as the special risks in emerging technology fields such as AI, synthetic biology, brain–computer interfaces, autonomous driving and quantum information. The second is risk assessment and evaluation. This involves how to assess and grade potential or existing risks. On the one hand, risks can be assessed based on their temporal elements and divided into different stages such as pre-assessment, formal assessment and feedback assessment; on the other hand, risks can also be evaluated based on their synchronous elements, such as technical indicators, social impact and ethical risks. The third is risk governance and communication. The key here is tolerance and acceptability. If a risk is classified as acceptable, then certain actions need to be designed and implemented in the process of risk governance to maintain such acceptability over the long term. If a risk is deemed intolerable, even though it may entail certain benefits, the focus of risk governance should still be placed on prohibiting or gradually phasing out activities that cause the risk (Ansell and Torfing, 2022). Additionally, communication among policymakers, experts, stakeholders and the public should also be given special attention.
Agile governance: The critical link in the ethical governance of S&T
Agile governance, as a critical link in the ethical governance of emerging technologies, focuses on enhancing governance effectiveness. Originally a concept in the field of software engineering, agile governance has since been extended to research areas including organization, management and social services. Agile governance entails effectively addressing the ever-evolving natural environment and societal demands and requires a response rate that outpaces the speed of change (Mergel et al., 2021). In March 2022, the General Office of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and the General Office of the State Council issued the
For the ethical governance of emerging technologies, agile governance is a crucial issue. Complexity, uncertainty and ambiguity are among the most notable features of emerging technologies, while agile governance demands rapid, timely and adaptive governance activities. Thus, the key to bolstering the effectiveness of S&T ethics governance lies in strategically planning and implementing agile governance amid the complexities, uncertainties and ambiguities inherent in technological advancements. Specifically, the following two aspects are involved: first, the methods and means of agile governance; second, the correctness and verifiability of agile governance. In contemporary research, agile governance methodologies and techniques are largely derived from the earlier practices of agile software development and agile manufacturing, emphasizing swift responsiveness within the software design and development life cycle. De O Luna et al. (2014) have encapsulated the approach as ‘design simply and refine continuously’, advocating for the adoption of straightforward designs that are iteratively enhanced at a rapid pace, instead of commencing with a slow start and working towards a balance between agile and lean methodologies. Additionally, there are social governance methods that can achieve agile governance, such as enacting temporary policies and setting up temporary agencies. Regarding the correctness and verifiability of agile governance, questions such as how accurate and effective agile governance is, and whether there are other methods for predicting risks in order to carry out agile governance more effectively, merit further examination.
Global governance: The burgeoning frontier in the ethical governance of S&T
Global governance, as the burgeoning frontier in the ethical governance of emerging technologies, focuses on promoting strategic cooperation. Global governance typically denotes the process of integrating various actors, agents and institutions to coordinate collective actions on a global scale. The overall goal of global governance is to provide global public goods and avoid global public harms (Erman and Furendal, 2022). From current practices, the ethical governance of emerging technologies can be pursued in multiple forms, such as government regulation, industry governance, ethical standards, the establishment of ethics committees and signing contracts or international agreements. Global governance plays an important role in promoting the ethical governance of emerging technologies, and it stands as a critical link in the future development of S&T.
The global governance of emerging technology ethics can be understood from three aspects: transnational governance, cross-sectoral governance and cross-cultural governance. Transnational governance emphasizes collaboration and communication between countries, which can be government-led or industry-led, for the joint governance of emerging technologies involving different countries. Given the highly intangible, informatized and globally mobile nature of emerging technologies, there is an argument that the governance challenges they pose must be tackled at the global level (Greely, 2022). Cross-sectoral or cross-domain governance, emphasizing collaboration and cooperation across various domains or sectors, originates from concerns regarding cross-sectoral impacts. For example, a multidisciplinary forum or coordination group involving academia, industry, government and non-governmental organizations can be established to better address the social, ethical and legal impacts of emerging technologies. Cross-cultural governance refers to the process through which governance entities from different cultural backgrounds look for common ground and engage in cooperation despite their differences. For any emerging technology, the cultural values, political preferences and social concepts that it embodies may all lead to conflicts. Consequently, the ethical governance of emerging technologies across diverse cultural backgrounds will exhibit variations in core values and cultural concepts; hence the need for a holistic perspective (Pfotenhauer et al., 2022).
Practical challenges in the ethical governance of emerging technologies
Based on an overview of risk governance, agile governance and global governance, this paper seeks to delve deeper into the prevalent issues and practical challenges within the current landscape of S&T ethics governance. The key areas of concern include inadequate emergency-response capabilities, suboptimal governance efficacy and an urgent need to enhance global cooperation. These challenges reflect a lack of attention to flexibility, dynamism and openness in the current pathways of S&T ethics governance, which makes it imperative to devise innovative governance strategies to tackle contemporary challenges.
Insufficient emergency-response capabilities in the ethical governance of emerging technologies
Emergency-response capabilities are an important aspect for testing and evaluating the governance capabilities of governing bodies. In previous research on the ethical governance of emerging technologies, this element is often easily overlooked. Emergency-response capabilities in the ethical governance of emerging technologies mainly refer to the ability to respond and make a decision in a timely, flexible, dynamic and open manner when facing ethical emergencies and to properly handle the event within a certain time frame based on that decision.
The insufficiency of emergency-response capabilities in the ethical governance of emerging technologies is prominently manifested in two aspects. First, it is reflected in the inability to respond quickly to emergencies. Events concerning S&T ethics often happen abruptly, and the handling of emergencies should be rapid, accurate and effective. A lack of ethical emergency-response capabilities will affect the timeliness of handling emergencies, which is evident in the inability to make judgements and decisions quickly in the face of emergencies. Delayed or incorrect responses can trigger further ethical controversies in the media and may even lead to crises in S&T ethics. Second, it is reflected in the lack of flexibility in handling related events. Due to the particularity and uncertainty of ethical issues, there are certain ‘grey areas’ in the handling of S&T ethics events. On the basis of sticking to ethical ‘bottom lines’, the handling of certain issues related to S&T ethics should be more flexible and adaptive. A lack of ethical emergency-response capabilities will make it difficult to deal with those grey areas in a flexible way, thereby triggering crises in S&T ethics. For example, the issue of data ethics sparked heated discussions during the COVID-19 pandemic, especially regarding the invasion of individual privacy by tracking software. In the early stages of the pandemic, the ethical governance of tracking software needed to reflect inclusiveness, and the surrender of individual privacy is ethically justifiable to a certain extent when facing significant health needs (Afroogh et al., 2022). However, once technology development enters a relatively stable phase, its ethical governance should reflect adaptability, anticipating potential ethical issues and strengthening governance efforts to prevent ethical events caused by the misuse of technology.
Low effectiveness of the ethical governance of emerging technologies
Governance effectiveness is a key factor in the construction of governance systems, and enhancing the effectiveness of S&T ethics governance is the core objective and guiding value in the construction of the S&T ethics governance system. Yet, in the current practices of S&T ethics governance, the effectiveness of ethical governance has not been fully realized. This is mainly manifested in two aspects: first, the lack of governance resilience; and second, the absence of tangible governance outcomes.
Resilience captures the ability to bounce back, heal, resist and adapt, and it also denotes the capacity for enduring stress, facilitating recovery and sustaining progress to ‘revert to the original condition’ (Chandler, 2014). Governance resilience underscores the ability to revert to a state of normalcy and sustain stable functionality following disruptions within the governance process, and its notable features include robustness, redundancy, resourcefulness and rapidity (the 4Rs) (Bruneau et al., 2003). Resilience in S&T ethics governance should manifest in its capacity to preserve stable functionality and to withstand, absorb and recuperate from the adverse events and their negative repercussions when facing disruptions caused by emergencies. As demonstrated by the current practices of S&T ethics governance, governance resilience is not prominently displayed. For example, due to the rapid iteration of AI technology itself, new technological products (such as ChatGPT and Sora) keep emerging, constantly disrupting the existing ethical governance systems and making it difficult to maintain stable functionality. New governance strategies and tools are therefore needed to keep up with the demands of technological development. In that process, governance resilience has not been able to fully demonstrate its function and value.
The absence of tangible outcomes is a clear indication of low effectiveness within the ethical governance of emerging technologies. The invisibility of clear results is evident in the quest for a definitive ethical governance strategy. Regrettably, that pursuit extends the duration of governance, consequently diminishing its timeliness. For instance, in the ethical governance of emerging technologies such as synthetic biology, autonomous driving and brain–computer interfaces, pursuing a definitive governance strategy necessitates several rounds of assessment, consultation, inspection and feedback to arrive at a relatively firm consensus. That lengthy process can reduce the timeliness of ethical governance, making it difficult to be effective in the early stages of risk occurrence. Detecting early signs of risks, formulating risk pre-control plans, conducting real-time technology assessment and making long-term planning in the interest of human development are all necessary for the development and integration of complex emerging technologies (Roco et al. 2013).
Global collaboration on the ethical governance of emerging technologies needs to be strengthened
With the acceleration of globalization, the significance and imperative of global collaboration on the governance of S&T ethics have become increasingly highlighted. When it comes to ethical governance of emerging technologies, maintaining a global outlook and focusing on the international landscape are crucial to contribute effectively to the advancement of global S&T innovation. However, in the face of uncertain facts, controversial values and high decision-making risks, consensus on the ethical governance of emerging technologies is often difficult to achieve, and global collaboration on ethical governance still needs to be enhanced.
On the one hand, the global ethical governance of emerging technologies remains significantly fragmented and regionally centred. Take AI as an example: despite the growing call for global governance, such as the Global AI Governance Initiative proposed by China, the
On the other hand, further efforts are required to dismantle cultural barriers and foster cross-cultural cooperation within the global ethical governance of emerging technologies. The ethical governance of emerging technologies is not a simple technical issue; it also has to do with cultural values, political preferences and social concepts. Framing the issue as a technical problem often results in seeking a technical solution (Green, 2019), which happens to keep those more deep-seated and structural issues out of the equation. Roco (2008) argues that current methods for governing emerging technologies typically address the cause-and-effect relationships of individual events, often neglecting to account for long-term intervals, subsequent effects and the interplay with other occurrences. The organization and measures for S&T governance are fragmented across various dimensions, including jurisdictions, types of products or processes, intervention levels and the international consistency of assessment and management procedures. However, for an emerging technology that produces cross-sectoral and global impacts, it is necessary to take predictive and corrective measures based on an integrated governance approach.
Tentative strategies for the ethical governance of emerging technologies
Based on the above analysis, we can tell that a possible root cause of the problems in the ethical governance of emerging technologies might be the pursuit of certainty, frameworks and standardization in the traditional governance model, which often proves ineffective in addressing the ethical governance challenges of emerging technologies. Therefore, this paper proposes several tentative strategies in the following four aspects: first, at the conceptual level, clarifying what tentative governance is; second, at the methodological level, describing how to carry out tentative governance; third, process-wise, explaining which stages are suitable for tentative governance; and finally, outcome-wise, giving feedback on the efficacy of tentative governance.
What is tentative governance?
Tentative governance is a governance strategy that deals with uncertainty and unexpected risks and stresses process-oriented and open-form governance methods. The concept of tentative governance was proposed by Kuhlmann et al. (2019), who argue that, when governance is conceived, executed, implemented or evolved as a dynamic process that addresses interdependent and emergent events in a non-conclusive way, it is deemed ‘tentative’. Tentative governance is characterized by a cautious, preliminary, flexible and incremental approach to addressing problems. It is a temporary, flexible, modifiable, dynamic and open governance method. It shares both commonalities and distinctions with other governance philosophies, such as reflexive governance, anticipatory governance, adaptive governance, experimentalist governance and explorative governance. According to Kuhlmann et al. (2019), reflexive governance and anticipatory governance focus on tentativeness rooted in forward-looking logic, while adaptive governance is primarily concerned with responding to events that have already occurred or are currently unfolding, and experimentalist governance and explorative governance are also part of tentative governance in a broader sense. With greater inclusiveness and flexibility, tentative governance is an effective strategy for dealing with uncertainty and systemic complexity. It is often contrasted with definitive governance. The definitive model epitomizes a linear governance approach, segmenting the process into distinct phases (risk identification, assessment, management and feedback), whereas the tentative model pertains to a governance method that endeavours to address complexity and uncertainty through iterative cycles (Li and Li, 2024). However, tentative governance does not reject definitive governance. Rather, it emphasizes functioning in an environment in which ‘hard’ governance and ‘soft’ governance coexist. Although tentative governance inherently contains uncertainties, its emphasis on an open, inclusive and flexible process enables it to swiftly, proactively and effectively tackle ethical issues within emerging technologies. Therefore, it can be considered an alternative governance strategy to cope with the uncertainties and systemic complexity of emerging technologies.
Pathways of tentative governance
There are two primary pathways for conducting tentative governance: top-down and bottom-up. The top-down governance pathway is mainly reflected in the process of policy formulation and implementation, emphasizing flexibility, dynamism and openness. Fisher (2019) regards the sociotechnical integration approach in US nanotechnology governance as an exemplar of tentative governance. That approach is deliberately experimental, anticipatory and provisional, designed for dynamic application and mirroring a pattern that seeks to actualize new governance possibilities. Fisher notes that the potential controversies surrounding nanotechnology are fraught with high uncertainty and come with ‘moving targets’ (such as public ambivalence and the social unpredictability of technology). When policymakers integrate uncertainty and these moving targets into their deliberations, even on a provisional basis, that can lead to the emergence of innovative governance methods. Such methods are designed to make the entire knowledge production system more explicitly attuned to societal concerns and to encourage fruitful interplay between social and technological dynamics. Consequently, Fisher sees the intentional inclusion of societal dynamics in the policy formulation process as an instance of tentative governance.
The bottom-up governance pathway places greater emphasis on stakeholder engagement. Lyall and Tait (2019) point out that stakeholder engagement is a viable method of tentative governance. Especially in the early stages of technological R&D, when the success of S&T endeavours is uncertain, and it is unknown which new products and processes will eventually reach the market, as well as how different stakeholder groups will view them, a tentative approach to governance is highly desirable, as it places its focus on participation and uncertainty. As things stand now, public participation appears to be a ‘necessary but insufficient part of open science and its governance’ (Stilgoe et al., 2014). To this end, Lyall and Tait (2019) have provided a guide for stakeholder engagement to improve public participation in tentative governance, and its main content includes broadening the scope of stakeholder accommodation, carefully weighing the timing of participation, thoroughly considering pre-emptive schemes and questioning related evidence on just grounds.
Phases of tentative governance
In terms of phases, tentative governance is in the ‘upstream’ of emerging technology R&D. In the upstream phase, people are figuring out whether products or processes will function as expected and what kind of technologies will emerge. Therefore, tentative governance is more suited for addressing upstream issues, uncertainties and preventive measures. Here, the emphasis on the upstream phase is also a way to distinguish it from the adaptive governance mentioned above. For instance, Lyall and Tait (2019) compared two reports from the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, noting that the report
Of course, tentative governance is not only effective in the ‘upstream’ phase but can also be applied in the ‘midstream’ and ‘downstream’ phases of the production and promotion of technologies. That said, the timing of governance is very important. If governance is involved too early, its value may be diminished by the uncertainty of future development, and the opportunities of technological innovation might be missed; if governance is involved too late, it may result in a situation in which decisions have already been made and mind-sets are so deeply entrenched that adjustments and adaptations are difficult to make. Therefore, the phases and timing of tentative governance must be carefully weighed. For example, if a tentative strategy is adopted to address the ethical risks of facial recognition, it would not be appropriate to implement a ‘one-size-fits-all’ prohibitive measure. Instead, it would be necessary to conduct flexible pilots during the early design and usage phases of the technology, such as actively gathering and providing feedback on ethical risks, establishing an open risk registry, and managing those risks in a flexible and dynamic manner. Of course, a ‘zero-tolerance’ position should always be maintained to forestall attempts on the ‘red-line’ and ‘bottom-line’.
Feedback in tentative governance
From the perspective of governance efficacy, tentative governance should focus on precursors and feedback and be able to adjust strategies at any time to seek the best results. Based on the analysis of the practical challenges in the ethical governance of emerging technologies, the feedback of tentative governance should also focus on three aspects: ethical emergency-response capabilities, actual governance effectiveness and global collaborative governance. First, good practices in tentative governance should be able to enhance ethical emergency-response capabilities, enabling rapid response and flexible adjustment in handling contingent ethical events in line with the tentative strategies. Second, good practices in tentative governance should be able to enhance the effectiveness of ethical governance, strengthen its resilience and improve governance outcomes. Finally, good practices in tentative governance should focus on global collaborative governance. Despite practical geographical boundaries and seemingly insurmountable cultural barriers, tentative governance could still contribute to global collaborative governance, as well as transnational, cross-sectoral and cross-cultural governance, within the framework of ethical governance of emerging technologies.
The fundamental purpose of tentative governance is to deal with uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity, which are precisely the hallmarks of emerging technologies. As an alternative solution, the exploratory, tentative and experimental nature of tentative governance strategies could indeed provide new opportunities for the ethical governance of emerging technologies. As a strategic approach, tentative governance should be verifiable and subject to ongoing refinement and optimization based on feedback. At its core, tentative governance embodies the ‘phronesis’—or practical wisdom—championed by Aristotle, which emphasizes the aptitude for making sound judgements and adapting to shifting circumstances. It is through this dynamic responsiveness that the ethical governance of emerging technologies can stay on a constructive path, leading to development that is transformative, responsible, inclusive and forward-looking.
Phronesis: Avoidance of potential risks of tentative strategies
It should be noted that, as an alternative for the ethical governance of emerging technologies, tentative strategies also have certain limitations. For instance, an overemphasis on tentativeness may lead to questions about its stability and reliability; an overemphasis on provisional features may lead to doubts about its long-term durability and sustainability; and an overemphasis on its ‘globality’ may fail to effectively address localization issues. Therefore, to fully exercise phronesis, or practical wisdom, it is important to focus on avoiding potential risks when adopting tentative strategies and to strive for a balance between flexibility and stability, between provisional and long-term considerations, and between localization and globalization.
Balancing flexibility and stability
When conducting ethical governance of emerging technologies with tentative strategies, it is important to balance flexibility and stability. Tentative governance is a concept opposite to definitive governance, but it does not exclude the latter; there is an interdependent and interchangeable relationship between the two. Kuhlmann et al. (2019), who propose this concept, suggest that we might find that ‘definitive governance measures may ultimately evolve in a tentative fashion, while deliberately selected tentative approaches might lead to key players making challenging decisions in a top-down manner’.
In reality, combining tentative governance with definitive governance is the only effective way to promote the positive development of ethical governance of emerging technologies. Specifically, this can be approached from two aspects: first, while focusing on response speed, it is also important to draw on historical experiences. Although incidents of S&T ethics often happen abruptly, lessons can always be learned from history. The cumulative experience from addressing previous S&T ethics incidents is invaluable for informing suitable decisions when confronted with new challenges. It helps to sidestep erroneous judgements that might be prompted by the urgency to respond quickly. As Morley et al. (2020) have cautioned, adopting a ‘try-everything’ approach can be perilous when facing crises. Second, while handling incidents with flexibility, it is also necessary to consider the characteristics of different stages. For example, once uncertain risks transform into certain risks, the governance model should immediately shift from a modest ‘tentative’ approach to an expansive ‘regulatory’ one (Li and Li, 2024). Governance requirements at various stages should be met with adaptable methods and well-timed interventions, ensuring that ethical boundaries are maintained while still supporting the advancement of technology.
Balancing provisional and long-term considerations
Balancing provisional and long-term considerations is also important in conducting ethical governance of emerging technologies with tentative strategies. There has always been a delicate balance between technological innovation and ethical governance. Overly cautious ethical governance may restrict innovation, while overly aggressive technological development may have irreversible impacts. Finding the optimal balance between innovation and caution is a necessary consideration in the governance of S&T ethics (Yu, 2024). The provisional considerations underscored by tentative strategies help to alleviate the tension between innovation and caution. Provisional ethical governance measures can ensure orderly technological innovation within a certain scope, but, if the long-term goals of technological development are not given adequate consideration, provisional ethical governance measures may also cause irreversible consequences for future technological development.
Therefore, there must be a balance between provisional and long-term considerations in the ethical governance of emerging technologies. On the one hand, even as expedient measures, provisional ethical governance initiatives must still uphold resilience, including robustness, redundancy and resourcefulness, to prevent the ethical governance system from losing stability in the face of external disruptions, such as dynamic changes in public expectations (Budde and Konrad, 2019). On the other hand, ethical governance measures for emerging technologies should encompass a long-term perspective, and adopt a preventive, dialogic and participatory governance approach, in order to prepare for potential harms in the future and circumvent the failure of technology ethics (Liu, 2019). It is only through governance that is both forward-looking and grounded in comprehensive ethical considerations that we can truly enhance the effectiveness of ethical governance.
Balancing localization and globalization
Ethical governance of emerging technologies should also focus on the synergistic development of localization and globalization. Currently, emerging technologies have had a fundamental impact on human nature, social life and nature itself. ‘Deep technologies’ delve into the core of things and reconstruct them, challenging established natural boundaries and deeply entrenched social perspectives (Hopster, 2021). These technologies have been termed ‘socially disruptive technologies’ by Dutch scholars such as Philip Brey (Van de Poel et al., 2023). It is precisely because of the formation of socially disruptive technologies that the global governance of emerging technology ethics has become an inevitable trend. For example, the Global AI Ethics and Governance Observatory, dedicated to ethical concerns surrounding emerging technologies, has directed its focus towards the global governance of AI ethics in recent years. It has declared its mission to serve as a global resource, equipping policymakers, regulators, academia, the private sector and civil society with the means to address the most pressing challenges posed by AI. 1
However, the globalization of ethical governance in emerging technologies should also be pursued in tandem with localization. On the one hand, geographical disparities, cultural barriers and social heterogeneity are undeniable realities, and global governance strategies might not align with local conditions, leading to ‘cultural mismatches’ that can significantly diminish the effectiveness of S&T ethics governance. On the other hand, within the realm of S&T ethics governance, there exists the potential pitfall of ‘ethical dumping’ within globalized governance models (Wang et al., 2022). It is only through achieving a harmonious balance between global and local governance that we can avoid such issues and achieve good ethical governance of emerging technologies.
Conclusion: Exploring the tentative strategy for building an S&T ethics governance system with Chinese features
Overall, adopting a tentative governance strategy to address the uncertainty and systemic complexity of S&T ethics helps to enhance emergency-response capabilities, governance effectiveness and global perspectives. The tentative governance strategy is a governance model that attempts to deal with systemic complexity and uncertainty through iterative cycles. It emphasizes cautious, preliminary, flexible and gradual approaches to problem-solving with characteristics including flexibility, adaptability and reversibility. Given the uncertainties surrounding the ethical risks of emerging technologies, governance can be conducted in a flexible, reversible and dynamic fashion by identifying and uncovering latent risks.
Fundamentally, adopting a tentative governance strategy represents a new approach to building an S&T ethics governance system with Chinese features. It will aid in fundamentally enhancing China's ethical soft power. The tentative governance strategy emphasizes rapid and flexible responses to the ethical challenges brought by S&T innovation. It is therefore conducive to improving the effectiveness of S&T ethics governance and strengthening the S&T ethics governance system. This is a direct reflection and robust measure for the implementation of the
Footnotes
Declaration of conflicting interests
Funding
ORCID iD
