Responsible research and innovation has come to represent a change in the relationship between science, technology and society. With origins in the democratisation of science, and the inclusion of ethical and societal aspects in research and development activities, RRI offers a means of integrating society and the research and innovation communities. In this article, we frame RRI activities through the lens of layers of science and technology governance as a means of characterising the context in which the RRI activity is (...) positioned and the goal of those actors promoting the RRI activities in shaping overall governance patterns. RRI began to emerge during a time of considerable deliberation about the societal and governance challenges around nanotechnology, in which stakeholders were looking for new ways of integrating notions of responsibility in nanotechnology research and development. For this reason, this article focuses on nanotechnology as the site for exploring the evolution and growth of RRI. (shrink)

This paper presents results of a systematic literature review of RRI practices which aimed to gather insights to further both the theoretical and practical development of RRI. Analysing practices of RRI and mapping out main approaches as well as the values, dimensions or characteristics pursued with those practices, can add to understanding of the more conceptual discussions of RRI and enhance the academic debate. The results, based on a corpus of 52 articles, show that practices already reflect the rich variety (...) of values, dimensions and characteristics provided in the main definitions in use, although not all are addressed yet. In fact, articles dealing with uptake of RRI practices may be improved by including more methodological information. RRI practices may further the conceptual debate by including more reflection, and these may foster mutual responsiveness between theory and practice by early anticipating impacts. (shrink)

This paper presents results of a systematic literature review of RRI practices which aimed to gather insights to further both the theoretical and practical development of RRI. Analysing practices of RRI and mapping out main approaches as well as the values, dimensions or characteristics pursued with those practices, can add to understanding of the more conceptual discussions of RRI and enhance the academic debate. The results, based on a corpus of 52 articles, show that practices already reflect the rich variety (...) of values, dimensions and characteristics provided in the main definitions in use, although not all are addressed yet. In fact, articles dealing with uptake of RRI practices may be improved by including more methodological information. RRI practices may further the conceptual debate by including more reflection, and these may foster mutual responsiveness between theory and practice by early anticipating impacts. (shrink)

This paper makes a plea for more reflexive attempts to develop and anchor the emerging concept of responsible research and innovation. RRI has recently emerged as a buzzword in science policy, becoming a focus of concerted experimentation in many academic circles. Its performative capacity means that it is able to mobilise resources and spaces despite no common understanding of what it is or should be ‘made of’. In order to support reflection and practice amongst those who are interested in and (...) using the concept, this paper unpacks understandings of RRI across a multi-disciplinary body of peer-reviewed literature. Our analysis focuses on three key dimensions of RRI that remain particularly opaque. A total of 48 publications were selected through a systematic literature search and their content was qualitatively analysed. Across the literature, RRI is portrayed as a concept that embeds numerous features of existing approaches to govern and assess emerging technologies. Our analysis suggests that its greatest potential may be in its ability to unify and provide political momentum to a wide range of long-articulated ethical and policy issues. At the same time, RRI’s dynamism and resulting complexity may represent its greatest challenge. Further clarification on what RRI has to offer in practice—beyond what has been offered to date—is still needed, as well as more explicit engagement with research and institutional cultures of responsibility. Such work may help to realise the high political expectations that are attached to nascent RRI. (shrink)

What does it mean to be irresponsible in developing or using a technology? There are two fundamentally different answers to this question and they each generate research strands that differ in scope, style and applicability. To capture this difference, I make use of two mythical creatures of Jewish origin that have been employed in the past to represent relationships between man and man-made entities: the Golem (Collins and Pinch, 2002, 2005 ) and the Leviathan (Hobbes, 1994 ). The Golem is (...) the traditional image of technology as a creature that can be helpful but needs to be controlled. Irresponsibility in this perspective is the failure to exercise control. The Leviathan is the image of technology as a difficult compromise between fundamental values. Irresponsibility is in this perspective is allowing some values to systematically dominate others. Having worked out the basics of these images, I show that each comes with its specific methodological challenges: where the Golem gives rise to the Collingridge Dilemma of control, the Leviathan gives rise to Münchhausen’s trilemma of justification. Since the Golem image is predominant in scholarship on irresponsibility, I conclude with an appeal for a more equal distribution of efforts in conceptualizing technologies as Golems and as Leviathans. (shrink)

Human Brain Project: Ethics Management or Proceduralization of Reflexivity? Everywhere, the reflexivity and responsibility of research and innovation is called for – the neurosciences being no exception. Undesirable side effects of scientific‐technical developments should be recognized early on and opportunities for participation by non‐scientific actors should be made available. In addition to the well‐known reflective programs such as Technology Assessment, Public Understanding of Science, Ethical Legal and Social Implications (ELSI) of Science, Science Communication and Citizen Science, a new program is (...) emerging: Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI). With the dimensions of anticipation, reflexivity, inclusiveness and responsiveness advocated here, social accountability of research has just been expanded again: factually (applying to the scientific practice of all domains), temporally (becoming more and more permanent) and socially (involving more and more actors). The following study will first reconstruct the current prominence of RRI as the dynamics of a changing relationship between science and society, then explore into the claim and reality of RRI as documented in publicly available material. The observation: While RRI at the level of its program aims at legitimacy through democratization of knowledge production, the organization of RRI demonstrates highly orchestrated bureaucratic arrangements and procedures. In the case of the Human Brain Project, it thus becomes clear that and how RRI is being put to the service of supporting neuroinformatic big science through targeted reductions: it is mainly framed as ‘ethics management’ and hardly integrated into research practice or even public discourse. (shrink)

Scholars and policymakers have increasingly advocated to engage citizens more substantially in the development of science and technology. However, to a large extent it has remained unknown how citizens can contribute to technology development. In this study, we systematically characterized citizens’ contributions in the development of nanotechnology for health. We explored to which technology aspects citizens are able to provide suggestions on and on which values their suggestions are based. Fifty citizens in the Netherlands were asked to discuss different applications (...) of nanotechnology for health. They were divided over eight focus groups, which lasted approximately 6.5h each. The citizens were able to contribute to various technology aspects; they mainly focused on the technologies’ implementation and use, they paid some attention to the development and system aspects, and also addressed, but less, the design and communication aspects. Their suggestions were often derived from concerns about the potential effects of the technologies and were predominantly based on the values of well-being, autonomy, and privacy. (shrink)

New technologies not only contribute greatly to society and the economy; they also involve fundamental societal shifts, challenging our values and ideas about ourselves and the world. With a view to aligning technological change and innovation with ethical values, the concept of responsible innovation advocates the inclusion of a variety of stakeholders, in particular from society. In shifting moral responsibility towards the producers of innovations, responsible innovation rejects the standard normative economic view that the ethical evaluation of innovations is a (...) matter of individual consumers’ market-based choices. However, in this article we argue that responsible innovation should not abandon all normative consideration of the individual outright, to which end we present an alternative normative economic approach based on preference learning. We show how this approach can provide an enhanced understanding of responsible innovation by clarifying the redistribution of moral responsibility and casting individuals in the normative role of co-innovators, rather than mere consumers. We argue that responsible innovation should enable individuals to form preferences and evaluate innovations, so as to align innovation with ethical demands. Finally, we show how our proposed approach can be put into practice in so-called laboratories in real-world contexts, using methods from the field of design. In short, drawing on normative economics, this article aims to establish a new understanding of responsible innovation that is conceptually sound and can form the basis for novel innovation practices. (shrink)

La formulación de las políticas de investigación y desarrollo está siendo transformada de manera novedosa en los documentos más recientes que se elaboran en Europa. Una de las peculiaridades es que los patrones de investigación transitan hacia prácticas científico-tecnológicas más interactivas entre los distintos actores de la sociedad. Así, como respuesta a la naturaleza compleja de la investigación las primeras medidas se revelan en aquellas estrategias para la promoción de actitudes emprendedoras y colaborativas entre los actores académico-empresariales de la investigación (...) y el desarrollo. A estas iniciativas se superponen otros planteamientos que trascienden el objetivo primariamente economicista de la colaboración e integran los aspectos sociales y éticos en la investigación y el desarrollo. Sin embargo, estas transformaciones también están sujetas a diversas tensiones de base y a objetivos concurrentes. El artículo dilucida estas dinámicas de apertura-y-cierre y manifiesta que algunas de las relaciones y demandas se muestran más resistentes al cambio. (shrink)