NanoEthics 11 (3):213-228 (2017)

The desire to guide research and innovation in more ‘responsible’ directions is increasingly emphasised in national and international policies, the funding of inter- and trans-disciplinary collaborations and academic scholarship on science policy and technology governance. Much of this growth has occurred simultaneously with the development of nanoscale sciences and technologies, where emphasis on the need for responsible research and innovation has been particularly widespread. This paper describes an empirical study exploring the potential for RRI within nanosafety research in Norway and Denmark. It identifies three different ways nanosafety scientists relate to core RRI criteria, demonstrating areas of both convergence and divergence between their views and those of academics and policymakers currently defining and working to promote RRI. The paper identifies a range of practical barriers and cultural differences that are creating such divergences and inhibiting the enactment of RRI within the particular site of research laboratories. It concludes that the identified differences and challenges demand critical reflection on both the appropriateness and applicability of RRI characteristics for enactment at the level of individual research scientists. Significant changes are therefore advocated as required if RRI, as currently imagined and promoted, is to become an integral mode of scientific culture.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s11569-017-0306-5
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 69,089
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

The Emerging Concept of Responsible Innovation. Three Reasons Why It is Questionable and Calls for a Radical Transformation of the Concept of Innovation.V. Blok & P. Lemmens - 2015 - In Bert- Jaap Koops, Ilse Oosterlaken, Henny Romijn, Tsjalling Swiwestra & Jeroen Van Den Hoven (eds.), Responsible Innovation 2: Concepts, Approaches, and Applications. Dordrecht: Springer International Publishing. pp. 19-35.
Midstream Modulation of Technology: Governance From Within.Carl Mitcham, Roop L. Mahajan & Erik Fisher - 2006 - Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society 26 (6):485-496.

View all 12 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Four Observations About “Six Domains of Research Ethics”.Edward J. Hackett - 2002 - Science and Engineering Ethics 8 (2):211-214.
Group Mentoring to Foster the Responsible Conduct of Research.Caroline Whitebeck - 2001 - Science and Engineering Ethics 7 (4):541-558.


Added to PP index

Total views
26 ( #436,533 of 2,498,995 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #279,629 of 2,498,995 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes