Do no harm: A taxonomy of the challenges of humanitarian experimentation

Abstract

This article aims to acknowledge and articulate the notion of "humanitarian experimentation". Whether through innovation or uncertain contexts, managing risk is a core component of the humanitarian initiative -but all risk is not created equal. There is a stark ethical and practical difference between managing risk and introducing it, which is mitigated in other fields through experimentation and regulation. This article identifies and historically contextualizes the concept of humanitarian experimentation, which is increasingly prescient, as a range of humanitarian subfields embark on projects of digitization and privatization. This trend is illustrated here through three contemporary examples of humanitarian innovations (biometrics, data modelling, cargo drones), with references to critical questions about adherence to the humanitarian "do no harm" imperative. This article outlines a broad taxonomy of harms, intended to serve as the starting point for a more comprehensive conversation about humanitarian action and the ethics of experimentation.

Rethinking access: how humanitarian technology governance blurs control and care

“…3 Specifically, Chamayou develops 'a typology of vilization technologies' (Lambert, 2013), which can be understood as a typology of technologies involved in the production of bodies considered 'fit' for experimentation-whether because these bodies are constructed as vile or undesirable (Agier, 2010), surplus (Duffield, 2007), or simply as less valuable (Fassin, 2010). Critically, then, the question is how humanitarian subjects may in certain contexts come to be determined as 'vile', which justifies their subjection to experiments with new technologies-not only medical but also, as we shall illustrate and as others have shown (Sandvik, Jacobsen, and McDonald, 2017), experiments with new digital technologies. Insofar as this occurs, it is a crucial dimension of humanitarian governancemore specifically, of the governance of risks and violence where such production of vile bodies and related practices of experimentation unfold in humanitarian contexts.…”

Development of a Resilient 3-D Printer for Humanitarian Crisis Response

“…To assess these eight design elements and their effectiveness in providing the desired capabilities, a three-month trial program was conducted in western Kenya. Testing was not conducted in a humanitarian crisis, as it would be irresponsible to bring untested technology into such a setting [44][45][46]. Instead, we brought the Kijenzi 3-D printer to a range of health care facilities in peri-urban and rural areas and worked with local health care professionals to prototype devices commonly used in their practice.…”

The new informatics of pandemic response: humanitarian technology, efficiency, and the subtle retreat of national agency

“…A great deal has been written about how communication technologies were used in the global 2014 response to West African Ebola, including academic articles (Odugleh-Kolev 2014;Tulenko 2014;Sacks et al 2015;Sandvik et al 2017;Harman and Wenham 2018), assessments of multinational and non-governmental response (ACAPS 2015;Adams et al 2015;DuBois et al 2015;Smith 2015), and case studies documenting specific instances of technology use or country communication processes (NetHope Global Broadband and Innovations Alliance 2014;ACAPS 2015;Levine et al 2015). The most comprehensive overview is provided by Fast and Waugaman's (2016) 140-page report for USAID, "Fighting Ebola with Information," which provides a starting point for this article's conceptual framework.…”

“…There is wide agreement that international humanitarian intervention should complement and support national authorities' response as a temporary measure until the point at which national authorities are able to assume control over national processes, facilities, and infrastructure (Jahre and Jensen 2010;Harvey and Harmer 2011;OCHA Inter-Agency Standing Committee 2015). The details of this relationship prompt arduous contention and debate in the context of traditional humanitarian coordination mechanisms, such as the UN cluster system (Harvard Humanitarian Initiative 2011; Sandvik et al 2014;McDonald 2016), and to a modest degree, in critical commentary on the application of humanitarian technology (Sandvik et al 2017). Until they are equally visible in the discourses and planning processes that drive remote volunteering, university hackathons, mobile network-enabled contact tracing, and participatory mapping efforts, it is hard to imagine ways in which to reassert the agency and influence of national authorities in new response informatics.…”

“…These expectations are countered by an emerging critical scholarship concerned with the novel risks that accompany humanitarian technologies (Sandvik et al 2014(Sandvik et al , 2017Comes 2016), how communication technologies impact power relationships between national and international actors in humanitarian crises (Burns 2014;Letouzé et al 2015;McDonald 2016), and the ways in which new technologies are both constituted by, and contribute to reshaping social practices in a given society (Amicelle et al 2015).…”