Abstract

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.