Reinventing responsible innovation (original) (raw)

Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society

2012

The term responsible (research and) innovation has gained increasing policy relevance in the last two years, in particular within the European Commission's Science in Society programme, framed within the EU Horizon 2020 initiative. We provide a brief historical overview of the concept, and identify three distinct features that are emerging from associated discourses. The first is an emphasis on the democratic governance of the purposes of research and innovation, steering these towards the 'right impacts' that are anchored in societal values. The second focuses on responsiveness, emphasising the institutionalisation and integration of established approaches of anticipation, reflection and deliberation in and around research and innovation in such a way that it influences the direction of these and associated policy. The third concerns the framing of the concept of responsibility itself in the context of research and innovation as collective activities with uncertain and unpredictable consequences. We conclude by reflecting on the motivations for responsible innovation itself, asserting that it must be conducted for substantive and normative reasons, rather than an instrumental approach to expedite the meeting of pre-defined policy goals.

A vision of Responsible Research and Innovation

2014

Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) has become an increasingly important phrase within policy narratives, in particular in Europe, where it will be a cross-cutting issue under the prospective EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation "Horizon 2020". In EU member states, there are also various initiatives supporting RRI, notably under schemes of national research councils (e.g. the United Kingdom, Norway, and the Netherlands). However, there is no agreed definition of the concept, and approaches how it should be implemented may vary. This chapter outlines a vision behind Responsible Research and Innovation, taking a largely European policy perspective, provides a definition of the concept and proposes a broad framework for its implementation under Research and Innovation schemes around the world. I will make the case that RRI should be understood as a strategy of stakeholders to become mutual responsive to each other and anticipate research and innovation outcomes underpinning the "grand challenges" of our time for which they share responsibility. Research and Innovation processes need to become more responsive and adaptive to these grand challenges. This implies, among other, the introduction of broader foresight and impact assessments for new technologies beyond their anticipated market-benefits and risks.

Responsible innovation: a going concern

Journal of Responsible Innovation, 2014

View related articles View Crossmark data Citing articles: 1 View citing articles EDITORIAL Responsible innovation: a going concern With this second issue, the Journal of Responsible Innovation (JRI) is now a "going concern" as they say, demonstrably not a one-off. Inquiries abound. Manuscripts arrive over the electronic transom. And "responsible research and innovation" continues to be a timely and important topic at the interface of scholarship and practice. In the USA, for example, the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues recently released its report, Gray Matters (PCSBI 2014), which discusses in detail the options for pursuing responsible neuroscience in the context of President Barack Obama's BRAIN Initiative. The focus of the report is "integrative approaches for neuroscience, ethics and society", and it borrows heavily from JRI's own associate editor, and my Arizona State University colleague, Erik Fisher's testimony and work in Socio-Technical Integration Research (PCSBI 2014, 15 and see Shuurbiers and Fisher 2009). Indeed, three of the Commission's four recommendations focus on integrating ethical and societal perspectives with neuroscience-"early and explicitly throughout the research" as well as in education and in advisory bodiesand the fourth focuses on evaluating integration techniques. In the UK, SynbiCITE (www.synbicite.com)the Synthetic Biology Innovation Commercial and Industrial Translation Enginehas committed to an approach including responsible innovation (RI). Based at Imperial College and comprising 15 academic and 11 industrial partners, SynbiCITE aims "to grow UK industry in the sector and improve synthetic biology, using industry to achieve significant economic impact, generate wealth for the companies, generate skilled workers and create jobs". 1 It has also adopted as its approach to RI the four-part frameworkanticipate, reflect, engage and actproffered by the UK's Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) and described by Owen (2014) in JRI's first issue. Meanwhile, on the continent, the constructive conference scene for RI continues. The Dutch "Responsible Innovation Conference 2014" was held in The Hague in May, and the International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation (www.ice-conference.org)with the support of the IEEE Technology Management Councilconducted its meeting on "Engineering Responsible Innovation in Products and Services" in Bergamo, Italy, in June as JRI was going to press. Conference activities have also spread to the global South, as Macnaghten et al. (2014) report in the Perspectives section on a meeting in Brazil. The second issue of JRI joins the fray with many features shared with the first issue, and it introduces different pleasures as well. In the lead research article, authors Colette Bos, Bart Walhout, Alexander Peine and Harro van Lente (Bos et al. 2014), explore a major challenge to RI, namely, its role in steering research given its ideographic nature. Studying this question not just with respect to RI but also to "sustainability" and "valorization" in a Dutch research program on nanotechnology, Bos and co-authors find that such terms do have forceful normative connotations and contribute to the structuring of research projects and programs. Talk matters.

From the 'responsible development of technologies' towards responsible innovation

The institutional and societal learning processes with the introduction of new technologies since World War II have culminated in specific large-scale initiatives to promote the 'responsible development' of a new technology under public policy. Nano science and nanotechnologies constituted the first historic case in which a technology, in its infancy, is being addressed by such large-scale, multi-billion dollar/euro, mid to long-term programs at both sides of the Atlantic. Since 2001, The National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) is the U.S. Federal Government's interagency program for coordinating research and development and enhancing communication and collaborative activities in nanoscale science, engineering, and technology. Among its four major goals features the support of 'responsible development of nanotechnology' (Nanogov. National Nanotechnology Initiative). The European Commission has adopted a European strategy and action plan which emphasizes the 'safe, integrated and responsible' development of nanosciences and nanotechnologies (European Commission, 2004). The 'responsible development of nanotechnology' is under both the American and the European initiative addressed by:

Responsible Research and Innovation (Draft)

Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) emerged in the early 2010s as a framework to integrate the societal dimensions of reflexivity, anticipation, inclusiveness, and responsiveness into research and innovation processes. First, we briefly present the theoretical underpinnings of RRI, its connection with TA, and its implementation in European research policy, particularly through the Horizon-2020 programme. Second, we discuss operational challenges faced by RRI, highlighting its excessively broad and difficult-to-implement nature. Thirdly, we focus on RRI's legacy, analyzing its limited impact on laboratory-level science on the examples of artificial intelligence and quantum technologies. Finally, we emphasize the importance of recognizing the diversity of ethical labour in the scientific community, suggesting that RRI should be tailored to the ethical type of the innovator in order to produce a meaningful impact on the design of emerging technologies.

An unfinished journey? Reflections on a decade of responsible research and innovation

Journal of Responsible Innovation, 2021

We reflect on a decade of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) as a discourse emerging from the European Commission (EC) 10 years ago. We discuss the foundations for RRI, its emergence during the Seventh Framework programme and its subsequent evolution during Horizon 2020. We discuss how an original vision for RRI became framed around five so-called 'keys': gender, open access, science communication, ethics and public engagement. We consider the prospects for RRI within the context of the EC's Open Science agenda and Horizon Europe programme, before closing with some reflections on the contribution RRI has made to debates concerning the relationship between science, innovation and society over the last decade.

A vision of responsible innovation

I provide a vision and definition of Responsible Research and Innovation and propose a broad framework for its implementation under Research and Innovation schemes around the world. I make the case that RRI should be understood as a strategy of stakeholders to become mutual responsive to each other and anticipate research and innovation outcomes underpinning the "grand challenges" of our time for which they share responsibility. Research and Innovation processes need to become more responsive and adaptive to these grand challenges. This implies, among other, the introduction of broader foresight and impact assessments for new technologies beyond their anticipated market-benefits and risks. Social benefits of new technologies need to take into account widely shared public values. This implies a paradigm shift in innovation policy, moving away from an emphasis on key technologies towards issue and mission oriented policies. Background information can be found on: http://Rene...