Additional Resources

The following section contains a number of resources for organizations and individuals to build upon the findings and recommendations.

This section includes:

• Insights from Foundational Discussions and Roundtables
• Roundtable Hosts and Participants
• Initiative Activities and Timeline
• Examples of Ethical Frameworks

New America began this provocation challenge by conducting a landscape review of best practices in the science and technology space. This combination of a desk review and interviews with private sector, civil society, and academic experts from around the world provided the foundation for the work and contributed to the refinement of several learning questions. New America recognized the opportunity to obtain a broader perspective to address these questions and released a request for proposals (RFP) for Public Interest Technology University Network (PIT-UN) member universities to host cross-sector roundtables.

CEPI FGV Direito São Paulo, Cleveland State University, Stillman College, and University of Edinburgh hosted roundtable discussions with community, industry, and private sector partners in the fall of 2022. These academic institutions were selected to host roundtables based on their demonstrated expertise and ongoing research into ethics and structures of technology development and use.

To focus the initiative, the following five broad questions were developed to guide the project’s research and foundational discussions. The guiding questions and the collective insights from the responses follow.

1. What has been learned from previous efforts to draft industry-wide ethical codes?

Codes are powerful especially when clear, enforceable, and focused on organizations.

The complex and rich history of industry-wide ethical codes provides many lessons for a technologist code of ethics to address. Codes are powerful tools to shape behavior in ways that go beyond establishing moral principles. Codes allow institutions and industries to explicitly define priorities and the desired norms. An aspirational code of ethics can generate knowledge, establish definitions, and create new social arrangements and expectations for how technology should interact with communities.

While codes offer value to a sector, they are often fragile and can lose relevancy over time. This is due to the long and complex drafting process that results in content that is too vague or abstract, focuses on individuals rather than organizations and collectives, or is unenforceable. People involved in drafting other science and technology codes of ethics described the challenge of reconciling ethical issues and norms that are deeply contextual across communities, countries, and continents. A code of ethics that covers all technologists would likely be unreasonably long in order to address specific concerns for every subdiscipline; a shorter, more general code of ethics could make it difficult for specific technologists to appreciate its relevance.

Additionally, codes have historically been backward-looking and rarely proactive or anticipatory, leaving them unsuited to governing emerging technologies in a democratic way. A significant shortcoming of most codes of ethics referenced is the lack of a clear path for enforcement. There are concerns, for example, that a “name and shame” approach for enforcement would expose the organizing body to lawsuits by both individuals and corporations.

Any new, modern code of ethics should be structured to address these challenges. Regardless of its scope, a new code of ethics should allow ongoing review and adaptation, have endorsement from stakeholders across industries, and be supported by enforcement mechanisms. Without the proper structure and support, a new code may become lost or indistinguishable from a sea of already existing codes for subsets of technologists.

2. What is the value of focusing on the norms and culture of the global tech industry at a time when conversations are dominated by legal, regulatory, policy and governance questions?

A code of ethics or guiding frameworks are tools—distinct but complementary to policy and regulation—that can shift the norms and standards for the development, deployment, use, and governance of technology.

Tackling the complexity of legal, regulatory, and political domains in which technology simultaneously operates is a daunting task. Additionally, addressing the cultural, spatial, geographic, and temporal variability of all stakeholders’ perspectives is difficult: What is acceptable in one country or culture may be deemed unacceptable in another country or culture. Some discussion participants suggested that it may be possible to construct a global technology code of ethics by starting small and outlining minimal areas of consensus. A code could also be explored in conjunction with other strategies that safeguard the inalienable rights of individuals in society.

A code of ethics is one tool to shift the norms and standards for the development, deployment, use, and governance of technology. This tool should be considered as a complementing effort of more structured tools, which include legislation, regulation, and enforcement. In fact, a code can support the interpretation of existing legal rules or fill gaps in the regulatory landscape that typically does not keep pace with the development of emerging technologies. Codes of ethics are often developed and distributed through professional societies, academic institutions, and civil society organizations; they are meant to shape practices in the training of professionals in the academic environment as well as the functioning of professionals in the industry.

Navigating contextual differences and differing legal and regulatory environments is one of the most challenging aspects of developing a technologist code of ethics. In fact, “some participants advocated that it is not possible to build a global code of ethics, since the cleavage between the Global South and North is marked by Occidentalism, disregarding several ethical traditions.”¹ Intentional design, significant hands-on management of the process, and enough flexibility in the schedule and priorities to mitigate friction points as they arise, will all be required to help navigate these differences and find minimal consensus.

3. How could an open drafting process help to strengthen connections among digital activists, academics, and technologists from the Global South and North and bridge conversations about algorithmic discrimination and digital repression?

The drafting process should start by naming power dynamics, cultural differences and resources needed to facilitate a healthy dialogue.

Drafting a technologist code of ethics necessitates a “dialogue that focuses on the common ground that must be sought between disparate, divergent, and even polarized perspectives.”² All participants must be given an equal voice in this process. This is hard to achieve, as “among the needed stakeholders, there is no parity of strength in terms of resources and voice reach (i.e., it is difficult for members of the Public Power to access arguments from civil society in the legislative process because companies have more presence).”³ Additionally, working across cultures presents other challenges. Some discussion participants expressed concern that a poorly designed process would amplify the effects of historical racism and inequalities on a global scale.

Foundational discussion participants recommended that future facilitators of a code or guiding principles practice “institutional reflexivity”⁴ and systematically consider the assumptions, motivations, and boundaries of participation. For example, it will be necessary to identify funding and resources for civil society and academia to participate in the creation or open drafting process of a code of ethics or guiding principles in order to ensure inclusivity. By including some, others are excluded, so process facilitators will need to transparently communicate decisions about who is invited to specific conversations and how to maintain a safe and inclusive environment, especially for historically marginalized voices.

4. What considerations about operationalization and implementation of such a code should be considered from the outset to maximize impact?

Operationalization of a code should clearly define the code’s community, and be designed for transparency, accessibility, and implementation.

There is no global, well-established definition of who is a technologist and whether that identity replaces or encompasses other professional identities. Similarly, there is no clear public understanding of which sectors or industries would be subject to a technologist code of ethics, or if the new code would be in place of or in addition to existing codes that are society-specific or industry-specific. These issues must be addressed and clearly communicated before a technologist code of ethics can be operationalized and implemented.

Above all, a code should be transparent, accessible, and implementable. Therefore, any group affected by the code should be involved in its development. That means including a cross-sectional representation of developers, testers, designers, representatives of company management, professional and business entities/associations, civil society organizations, and academia. It also means that people or communities who are impacted by technology, or advocates working on their behalf—there were many mentions of the interests of children and adolescents—should also be involved.

The need to be inclusive is more than just participating in the process: Both public and private sectors must be represented, active, and want to work together to generate a unified output. Finally, it must be noted that students and early-career professionals are critical inputs for changing norms.

Codes of ethics are largely shaped by their social, cultural, political, and technical contexts, and to be useful must be anchored within them.⁵ For this reason, the drafting process must include voices from many countries and ethnicities. Having diversity in the drafting process is a necessary but insufficient goal for creating a technologist code of ethics. A global code of ethics must look for diversity throughout organizations—at the top and the bottom, and in between.

Codes should also seek to influence company and organizational culture. Rarely are big technical decisions and strategies decided by a single person; rather, key technical and ethical decisions are made by teams or broadly by the managers and leaders.⁶ A code of ethics should accompany a plan to create a culture of ethics-by-design in companies. It should also encourage a strong culture of sharing feedback and creating room for error among technologists.

An effective code should be able to adapt to the needs of technologists as contexts change. A sentiment heard repeatedly throughout the foundational discussions can be summed up in the words of one participant at the University of Edinburgh roundtable, Dr. Emma Frow: “We don’t seem to be lacking in codes, but we do seem to be lacking in means and incentives for developing capacities for bringing these codes to life and living with them.”

5. What insights from public interest technology work are most applicable to an ethical code?

Public interest technology engages directly with communities throughout technology design and implementation.

While the exact wording to define the growing field of public interest technology varies, there is consensus on the field’s overarching principles.

This definition, crafted by New America's Public Interest Technology program, illustrates well its framework:

Public interest technology (PIT) refers to the study and application of technology expertise to advance the public interest in a way that generates public benefits and promotes the public good. By deliberately aiming to protect and secure our collective need for justice, dignity, and autonomy, PIT asks us to consider the values and codes of conduct that bind us together as a society.

This definition provides insight for developing and maintaining a technology code of ethics.

Public interest technology principles of justice, transparency, and integrity should be applied to general technology development. Among the broadly defined technologist community, there is an appetite for convening and discussing shared objects of concern within the public interest technology field, especially as it relates to creating sustainable change among individual technologists and organizations that rely on technologies to generate products and services. Public interest technology work is done by engaging directly with communities throughout the technology and policy design and implementation processes. To affect systemic change and to create a more equitable world, these values can be applied to a code of ethics that seeks to do the same with technology.

To conduct the cross-sector and interdisciplinary conversations, New America selected four academic institutions to host roundtable discussions after an open call for proposals to host convenings. These four Public Interest Technology University Network (PIT-UN) members represented a diversity of demographics: an innovation center within a private university in Brazil; a U.S.-based, predominantly white Institution from the Midwest; a U.S.-based, historically Black college and university from the South; and one public university in Scotland. Each roundtable consisted of presentations and discussions to answer key questions about a potential new technologist code of ethics.

Over 170 academic instructors, students, industry professionals, public servants, civil society members, activists, and innovators participated in four global roundtables to discuss the value and potential of a technologist code of ethics.

To encourage robust dialogue, the roundtables brought together a diverse and interdisciplinary set of perspectives. Participants provided insight from academia, public interest technology, business, philosophy, information systems and engineering, health care, artificial intelligence, military technology, ethics, human rights, law, and religion.

Together, these individuals represent a vast network of organizations, including over 24 universities and colleges,10 public and civil society organizations, and three hospitals, as well as various private sector organizations.

Please note, due to differences in how roundtables were summarized by hosting organizations, this report may not represent the full scope of the roundtables’ audience size. In addition, because certain information was conveyed anonymously, a full breakdown of all roundtable participant data is not available.

Participation by hosting institution is as follows:

CEPI FGV Direito São Paulo – Brazil

Participants: 80, including online participation

Speakers/Presenters

• Maraísa Cezarino (Lawyer, Daniel Law; Pro-bono Practitioner, Casa1)
• Paula Marques Rodrigues (Partner, Daniel Law; Law and Technology Specialist, POLI/USP Brazil; Civil Law and Civil Procedure Specialist, EPD Brazil)
• Luiza Sato, LLM (Partner, TozziniFreire)

Participant Background and Represented Organizations

• Participants represented academia, private companies, public sector, and Brazilian and international civil society, with focuses on public interest technology, engineering, religion, internet freedom, health care, legal rights, and artificial intelligence. This included representatives from seven Brazilian universities and colleges (all non-PIT-UN member universities except the hosting institution), two hospitals, one healthcare network company, and several civic and research organizations.
• Student participation mostly comprised those from graduate law programs, master’s degree programs, and doctoral programs.
• Particular care was taken to reflect sectoral, regional, gender, and racial diversity among participants.

Read the university report from CEPI FGV Direito São Paulo’s roundtable here.

Cleveland State University: Cleveland, Ohio, United States

Participants: 15

Speakers/Presenters

• Emmanuel Ayaburi, PhD (Assistant Professor of Information Systems, College of Business, Cleveland State University)
• Joseph Carvalko, JD (Director, Technology and Ethics Working Group, Interdisciplinary Center for Bioethics, Yale University)
• Michael X. Delli Carpini, PhD (Director, PIT-UN Program, University of Pennsylvania)
• Shannon French, PhD (Professor of Philosophy, Inamori International Center for Ethics and Excellence, Case Western Reserve University)
• Brian Gran, PhD, JD (Professor, Department of Sociology, Case Western Reserve University)
• Ray Henry, PhD (Associate Dean, College of Business, Cleveland State University)
• Mihir Kshirsagar, JD (Director, PIT-UN Program, Princeton University)
• Nikhil Marda, MS (Policy Advisor, National AI Initiative Office, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy)
• Charles McElroy, PhD (Assistant Professor of Information Systems, College of Business, Cleveland State University)
• Nigamanth Sridhar, PhD (Provost, Cleveland State University)
• Patricia Stoddard Dare, MSW, PhD (Designee to PIT-UN, Cleveland State University T.E.C.H. Hub)
• Martin Wolf, PhD (Professor, Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Bemidji (Minnesota) State University; Director, Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) Ethics and Society Committee)

Participant Background and Represented Organizations

• Most participants were from academia, with a broad array of interdisciplinary expertise represented, including ethics, public interest technology, information systems, health care, artificial intelligence, and military technology.
• One-third of participants were explicitly recruited for their expertise in ethics and technology.
• Six American universities were present at the roundtable: four PIT-UN member universities and two non-PIT-UN member universities.

Stillman College: Tuscaloosa, Alabama, United States

Participants: 55

Speakers/Presenters

• Eric Carlton (Principal, Reinvigorate)
• Derrick Gilmore, PhD (Executive Vice President, Stillman College)
• Kevin Harris, PhD (Program Chair and Associate Professor, Department of Computational and Informational Sciences, Stillman College)
• Joseph Johnson, MS (CEO/Founder, Telein Group)
• Robert Santos, MS (Director, United States Census Bureau)

Participant Background and Represented Organizations

• Participants included both students and faculty from academia, as well as industry leaders, public service administrators, civic and social justice activists, and community members.
• Seven American universities were present at the roundtable: two PIT-UN member universities and five non-PIT-UN member universities.

University of Edinburgh: Edinburgh, Scotland

Participants: 22

Speakers/Presenters

• Nina Maria Frahm, PhD (Postdoctoral Researcher, School of Communication and Culture, Department of Digital Design and Information Studies, Aarhus University in Denmark)
• Emma Frow, PhD (Associate Professor, School for the Future of Innovation in Society and the School of Biological & Health Systems Engineering, Arizona State University)
• Luke Stark, PhD (Assistant Professor, Faculty of Information and Media Studies, University of Western Ontario)
• Shannon Vallor, Ph (Baillie Gifford Chair in the Ethics of Data and Artificial Intelligence, Edinburgh Futures Institute, University of Edinburgh; Director, Centre for Technomoral Futures)

Participant Background and Represented Organizations

• Five global universities—from Denmark, Canada, the United States, and Scotland—were present at the roundtable, including two PIT-UN member universities.
• Participants included technology practitioners, industry professionals, innovators, and activists with a variety of backgrounds including philosophy, scientific and technological services, and engineering.
• The attendees and speakers also represented a diverse array of career stages ranging from students to professors and company directors.

Read the university report from the University of Edinburgh here.

Phase 1: Initiative Launch (May – June 2022)

• New America and USAID complete a consultative process to prepare for the initiative launch.
• The Technologist Code of Ethics initiative is announced at RightsCon 2022 by New America and USAID (June 10, 2022). The announcement includes two events:
  • A Conversation on How to Build an Inclusive and Rights-Respecting Digital Future [Zoom-side chat between USAID Administrator, Samantha Power and New America CEO, Anne-Marie Slaughter]
  • A Technologist Code of Ethics: Building a Rights-Respecting Digital Future [Panel]

Phase 2: Landscaping, Consultations, and Outreach (June – August 2022)

• New America completes a brief landscaping of existing and complementary workstreams related to a technologist code of ethics.
• New America releases a request for proposal (RFP) seeking applications from PIT-UN member universities interested in hosting a Technologist Code of Ethics roundtable. Four university proposals are accepted.

Phase 3: Convenings (November – December 2022)

• Technologist Code of Ethics roundtables are held at four universities around the world:
  • Stillman University – Tuscaloosa, Alabama, United States (November 17, 2022)
  • University of Edinburgh – Edinburgh, Scotland (November 18, 2022)
  • Cleveland State University – Cleveland, Ohio, United States (December 5, 2022)
  • CEPI FGV Direito São Paulo – São Paulo, Brazil (December 15-16, 2022)

Phase 4: Collate and Share Findings (January – June 2023)

• New America collates roundtable materials to inform a public-facing summary of findings. The report will be published on newamerica.org in May.
• New America presents the summary report during the RightsCon 2023 interactive roundtable session, “Code Word, Ethics: Collaborating on Guiding Principles for Technologists” (June 5-8). The roundtable will feature:
  • Afua Bruce, Principal, ANB Advisory Group
  • Dr. Charles McElroy, Assistant Professor of Information Systems, College of Business, Cleveland State University
  • Allison Price, Senior Advisor, Digital Impact and Governance Initiative at New America
  • Sophie Stone, PhD Candidate and Research Assistant, University of Edinburgh

Phase 5: Next Step Recommendations to Develop Guiding Principles for Technologists (June 2023 onward)

• At the conclusion of this consultation process, New America recommends the following steps to creating guiding principles for technologists in order to establish standards and norms that affect all professions working as technologists:
  • Identify an independent entity to move the drafting process forward. This should be a global civil society entity that demonstrates expertise and involvement in the fluid field of tech and ethics, in addition to having access to the resources and regional reach needed to host an inclusive process.
  • Sustain and encourage open dialogue around the development of technologist guiding principles, focused on global inclusion, cross-sector collaboration, and equity. Continue conversations begun during the academic-hosted roundtables. Intentionally and openly engage with stakeholders across sectors, particularly engaging private sector perspectives, including technologists, decision-makers, and leaders, which were underrepresented in the original roundtable process.

The following list includes examples of codes, principles or other forms of guiding ethical frameworks that were either cited during the initial research or during the collaborative inquiry stage of the process. This list is representative of the variety and scope of the field, and although comprehensive, it is not exhaustive.