Difference between revisions of "Team:Edinburgh UG/Ethics"

Line 267: Line 267:
 
       <div class="col-sm-2"><centre style="font-size:160%;">Process
 
       <div class="col-sm-2"><centre style="font-size:160%;">Process
 
Which mechanisms are used to reflect on process? How could you do it differently?</centre></div>
 
Which mechanisms are used to reflect on process? How could you do it differently?</centre></div>
−
       <div class="col-sm-2">centre style="font-size:160%;">Product
+
       <div class="col-sm-2"><centre style="font-size:160%;">Product
 
What might be the potential use? How can we ensure societal desirability?</centre></div>
 
What might be the potential use? How can we ensure societal desirability?</centre></div>
−
       <div class="col-sm-2">centre style="font-size:160%;">Purpose
+
       <div class="col-sm-2"><centre style="font-size:160%;">Purpose
 
Is the research controversial? How could you do it differently?</centre></div>
 
Is the research controversial? How could you do it differently?</centre></div>
−
       <div class="col-sm-2">centre style="font-size:160%;">People
+
       <div class="col-sm-2"><centre style="font-size:160%;">People
 
Who is affected?</centre></div>
 
Who is affected?</centre></div>
 
       <div class="col-sm-2"></div>
 
       <div class="col-sm-2"></div>

Revision as of 18:06, 15 October 2016

Our meeting with Dr Tristram Riley-Smith pointed us in the direction of FRRIICCT; the Framework for Responsible Research and Innovation in ICT. He said that this would be a good tool for us to use to focus our research and make sure we were doing it responsibly. Though we did not join the network or advisory board, we used their online resources to reflect on our project. Find our reflections below.

Anticipate

Process Is the planned research methodology acceptable?
Product Will the products be socially desirable? How sustainable are the outcomes?
Purpose Why should this research be undertaken?
People Have we included the right stakeholders?

We believe that our research methodology is reasonable because not only are we testing out our methods in multi-step proof of concept, but we are also testing our design in a real world situation (store rooms at the Main Library and storing a real text for the National Library of Scotland. In this way we are also demonstrating the sustainability of our project; less energy and monetary output required for longer term storage. This research should be undertaken because at current, it is necessary to store data for years, even indefinitely, but our ability to store these pieces is reaching its end. Throughout the development of our project we have engaged our end users to ensure our project stays on track and is as practical as possible.

Reflect

Process Which mechanisms are used to reflect on process? How could you do it differently?
Product What might be the potential use? How can we ensure societal desirability?
Purpose Is the research controversial? How could you do it differently?
People Who is affected?

We have used this framework as a way to reflect as well as discussions at weekly meetings with supervisors about our progress. We have refined the potential uses of our project to general data storage to archival data storage. Controversy might arise given the incorporation of encryption into our system. However, advice from Special Agent You at the FBI highlights why we included it; should this technology evolve and become more common place, encryption will be necessary as most data transfer is encrypted at current. Though we have consulted experts and devised an encryption system, as a new concept, it would be a good idea to continue to develop and test our method.

Engage

Process How to engage a wide group of stakeholders?
Product What are viewpoints of a wide group of stakeholders?
Purpose Is the research agenda acceptable?
People Who prioritizes research?

Through the course of the summer we have shared our project with a group of data librarians at the University Main Library, Lee Hibberd from the National Library of Scotland and held a workshop with a small group of employees at the National Library. Through these encounters we were able to engage and receive feedback from our potential stakeholders. All were enthusiastic and approving with the exception of a few hesitations. Most of these have to do with the slow read/write speeds of DNA. However, we believe that given the development of new sequencing technologies such as MinION, the read speeds of DNA will improve. We believe the research agenda is acceptable given the current cost of long term storage. In light of recent papers of DNA data storage, we strongly believe that our modular method makes the technology more accessible.

Act

Process How can your research structure become more flexible?
Product What needs to be done to ensure social desirability?
Purpose How do we ensure that the implied future is desirable?
People Who matters?

In terms of future action, more time and more money would allow further development and more flexible research. Keeping our ‘stakeholders’ or ‘consumers’ engaged will ensure our project is still practical.