Keywords

3.1 Introduction

RRI has emerged as an important concept and practice in Science, Technology and Innovation (STI). The origin of RRI can be traced to the Sixth Framework Program (FP6) Program of the European Commission which was from 2002–2006 and established a new program ‘Science and Society’ with one of the objectives of the Program being to encourage ‘responsible research and application of science and technology’ (Owen et al. 2021). This emphasis on ‘responsible research and application’ received further thrust in the Seventh Framework Program (FP7) and the subsequent program Horizon 2020. Over the past decade or so, the idea of RRI received much traction within Europe and elsewhere.

A working definition of RRI is: “Responsible research and innovation is an approach that anticipates and assesses potential implications and societal expectations with regard to research and innovation, with the aim to foster the design of inclusive and sustainable research and innovation” (European Commission 2020). Another much cited definition is: “Responsible Research and Innovation is a transparent, interactive process by which societal actors and innovators become mutually responsive to each other with a view on the (ethical) acceptability, sustainability and societal desirability of the innovation process and its marketable products (in order to allow a proper embedding of scientific and technological advances in our society)” (Von Schomberg 2011, 9). In 2012, the then EU Commissioner for Research, Innovation and Science Máire Geoghegan-Quinn affirmed high-level EC policy support for RRI by stating “our duty as policy makers [is] to shape a governance framework that encourages responsible research and innovation” (Geoghegan-Quinn 2012).

The objective of this approach is to align the process and outcome of the innovation process with the needs, expectations, and values of the society. This calls for stakeholders, ranging from scientists and researchers to users/consumers, working together to achieve this with a shared understanding. The idea of RRI keys is used to elucidate this. In RRI the six keys or dimensions are public engagement, gender equality, science education, open access, ethics, and governance (European Commission 2004). Anticipation and Reflection are key components of RRI. According to the ORBIT Project, “The key to anticipation for RRI is to ensure that consequences of undertaking the research and of possible findings are considered and that these considerations are reflected in the research design… One way of describing reflection in RRI is to see it as an example of second order reflexivity, i.e., of a reflection on the processes of reflection that underpin and guide research. This means that the axioms and basic assumptions need to be questioned with a view to ensuring that the research is aligned with societal needs and requirements” (ORBIT no date).

Smith et al. (2019) point out that Owen, Stilgoe, Macnaghten and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) of the United Kingdom developed the Anticipation, Inclusion, Reflexivity, Responsiveness (AIRR) framework. This framework and the Anticipation and Reflection mentioned by the European Commission are similar, but not identical. Anticipate means consider the future path of research or research and development and think in terms of potential plausible consequences and impacts. Seeking voices and views of a broad range of stakeholders is Inclusion, while reflections on the paths and directions chosen and considered is Reflexivity. Responsiveness means including and integrating the outcomes of the first three processes (Anticipate, Inclusion and Reflexivity). The AIRR framework is more expansive than Anticipation and Reflection, but it also depends on how the terms are interpreted and applied. Moreover, the differences in translating these into praxis cannot be ignored. As EPSRC has co-developed the AIRR framework, it is used more in the projects related to RRI funded by EPSRC whereas projects on RRI funded by the European Commission use Anticipation and Reflection more than the AIRR framework.

RRI has been the theme of many research projects and the literature has increased significantly. For example, using Web of Science, Ortt et al. (2020), found that the number of articles published on responsible innovation increased from less than 10 in 1994 to about 500 in 2018. The RRI framework or the concept of RRI and its relevance has been studied and discussed in different contexts, along with its application in governance of STI, particularly in emerging technologies such as nanotechnology, synthetic biology, Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) and neurotechnologies.

Although RRI and Responsible Innovation (RI) have been used interchangeably in the literature they are not the same. While RRI is a broad concept and practice that involves both research and innovation and gives emphasis to science education, RI has a distinct focus on innovation. RI does not have Science Education as a dimension. Tracing the roots of RI to the Dutch Research Council’s Program on Socially Responsible Innovations, Jeroen van den Hoven (2017, 2) points out that, “Responsible innovation can, as a concept, be understood in a substantive and in a procedural sense. As a procedural notion, responsible innovation refers to a process of innovation that meets certain procedural norms, like accountability, inclusiveness, due care and transparency (to stakeholders and to society). As a substantive notion, responsible innovation refers to results and outcomes of innovation processes in the form of products, systems or services, i.e., innovative technologies, which reflect and accommodate moral values.”

In contrast, RRI takes a broader perspective on research, innovation and society and the governance framework and dimensions go beyond what is envisaged in RI. Although there are similarities and a strong emphasis on connection with society and stakeholders in both, RRI is much broader and has wider connotations in terms of concept, discourse and practice. In that sense, RRI is more relevant for STI (Science, Technology and Innovation) policy making than RI. RI is more appropriate for innovation-related planning and development activities, particularly in the industrial sector.

Irrespective of the term used, RRI and RI have added a new dimension to theory and practice in understanding and working in science-society relationship. This does not necessarily mean that they have replaced approaches and practices like Technology Assessment, Ethical, Legal and Social Impact (ELSI) Assessment or the typical cost–benefit analysis (CBA). But there are questions about the relevance of RRI and RI, their adoption in different sectors and whether they can be adopted beyond Europe, particularly in the Global South.

In this regard, this chapter’s objective is modest: to discuss the contextualization of RRI in India and what RRI as a concept and practice can learn from India. My contention is that RRI is relevant for India but must be contextualized and that contextualization has to be sensitive to issues in STI in India and the societal needs in India. RRI can learn and adopt some aspects from policies and practices in India and an RRI contextualized for India will be a hybrid that takes the best from RRI concept and practice from India and elsewhere. The recent (draft) Science, Technology and Innovation Policy (STIP), which is yet to be officially approved, creates many opportunities for this although the Policy does not use the concept of RRI or RI (Department of Science and Technology DST 2020). STIP is an outcome of an exercise undertaken jointly by the Department of Science and Technology (DST) and the Office of Principal Scientific Advisor. It is a successor to the 2013 STI Policy. It is expected to give a major boost to STI in India and enable India to meet inter alia, self-sufficiency (‘Atma Nirbhar’) in many sectors including in strategic sectors. As the policy is not official, I am using the draft of the policy which was put up for public comment as the reference (Department of Science and Technology DST 2020).

3.2 Responsible Research and Innovation

3.2.1 RRI in Europe

Many of the research projects on RRI have addressed its application in different sectors, issues in measuring and developing indicators, comparative analysis of interpretation, and application of RRI in different countries. RRI has been integrated into policy documents or policy processes in some countries. In some, the core ideas of RRI have been acknowledged or adopted in policymaking. On the other hand, there are criticisms and self-reflexive accounts of RRI, interestingly mostly from those who are associated with projects on RRI. Coenen (2016) opined that conceptual work in RRI may be deemed as a process innovation and underscores the need to broaden the discourse on RRI.

As Fisher (2020) points out, there are positive developments regarding RRI as it gains support from policy makers and funders, and RRI per se or concepts from it are integrated into new programs in Science, Technology and Innovation. Still, as he points out, there is a need to rethink how it is conceptualized, introduced and implemented. After reflecting upon a decade of RRI and comparing it to a conversation, Owen, Schomberg and Macnaghten state, “It has played its part in helping us to understand, reflect on and open up those futures being created by science, technology and innovation, and how we can take responsibility for those futures as a society” (2021, 13). But taking a critical perspective Novitzky et al. (2020) point out that while the EU promoted RRI in principle, its implementation was problematic.

Although RRI as a concept has been developed in Europe and supported by the EC and some funding agencies, the adoption of RRI has been limited. Christensen et al. (2020) point out that there are many issues with RRI in theory as well as in implementation, ranging from weakness in concept, lack of indicators and tools for assessment, to justifying RRI’s relevance and importance vis a vis former practices. Of course, the seven hindrances they cite, such as lack of funding or lack of political support, would be true in most circumstances or countries. They point out that as there are many initiatives to promote RRI practices, the concept itself may be of less importance. This results in a dilemma. Should this be taken as a positive acknowledgment of RRI and absorbing its principles through practice although not in the name of RRI or does it mean that while RRI practices have more practical relevance while theory per se has less use or relevance?

It is possible to use the emphasis on RRI keys in RRI without indicating that RRI is their source of inspiration. Certainly, while some initiatives would have incorporated some of the keys, without labelling their origin in RRI, due incorporation of the others would enhance the responsibility dimension without any reference to RRI. According to Novitzky et al., “The lack of clarity in conceptualizing RRI for research policy and governance, the limited understanding among key stakeholders, and the concept’s conflation with other—often conflicting—policy goals (e.g., scientific excellence, economic value, technological readiness) hinder the emergence of a specific RRI-oriented policy frame” (2020, 41).

The other case studies from the RRI Practice and Nucleus projects also show the divergences in understanding and implementation of RRI within Europe and outside Europe. For example, Owen et al. (2019) state that most institutions understand and implement ‘ethics’ as a matter of research ethics and scientific integrity while only some give serious attention to reflecting on impacts on society. In this and related matters there is no consistency or uniformity even among institutions in Europe. But the impact of projects on RRI has been significant and a review by the European Commission (European Commission 2020a) points out that about 250 individual institutional change plans are implemented or being implemented and in about 130 institutions Gender Equality Plans (GEPs) have been implemented or are under implementation.

Thus, it can be safely concluded that despite criticisms, RRI has become an important concept and practice in STI at least in Europe. The continuing support by the European Commission and funding agencies, research projects that are expanding the application of RRI, and active interest from academics and stakeholders are ensuring that RRI is getting more firmly embedded in the theory and practice of innovation in Europe.

3.2.2 RRI Beyond Europe

Many aspects of RRI have been questioned, including the idea of ‘Responsible’ and its conceptual basis. For example, Valkenburg et al. (2020) bring in issues of exclusion and the need to empower diverse epistemologies. They suggest this based on a single case study, and for a problem that is confined to a few states in India and to a problem that itself is seasonal. I cite this as an example to argue that RRI as a concept and practice has attracted much attention as well as criticism. In later sections, I will provide suggestions to make it more relevant and meaningful, and seek to expand its scope and diversify its ambit.

But what is the right approach to make RRI more relevant and meaningful across various countries, cultures and systems of innovation? According to Doezema et al. (2019), transduction is a better approach as that would make RRI a truly global concept that does not seek to standardize and creates space for multiple knowledges without instrumentalization. Thus, transduction could mean development of novel concepts related to RRI and deeper and better engagement with RRI which can be context-specific. For example, resource constraint may not be an issue for a funding body in Europe which emphasizes RRI in assessing projects, while in a developing country resource constraint can be an issue and a funding body may promote development of innovations that are effective and cheaper as an example of responsible innovation or consider that aspect in a project as a positive factor representing a dimension of RRI in that context. There are case studies on development of cheaper, in-house built instruments and research equipment in the global South.

Asveld and Dam-Mieras (2018) argue that there is a need to accept alternative conceptual structures and contextualize RRI. Jakobsen et al. (2019) take a position that it is also important to broaden the concept of innovation under RRI and it should go beyond what is done in laboratories or by scientists. Recent literature on RRI (e.g., Ortt et al. 2020) includes case studies on large technological systems and frugal innovation. This indicates that RRI in discourse and practice is moving beyond innovations that emanate from typical Research and Development (R&D) processes to include diversity in innovations. Typical R&D processes are done in academic or research institutions or in industry so that from basic research, innovations are developed.

RRI’s relevance and utility in non-European contexts has also attracted much attention, mostly from national case studies and comparative analyses made in different research projects in RRI such as RRI Practice (https://rri-practice.eu). But was RRI conceptualized primarily with European society and its values in mind or to address the Science-Society-Innovation issues in Europe? In a much-cited paper on RRI, Stilgoe et al. state “in different cultural contexts, different values will be more or less pertinent, and they may be conflicted. In our analysis, we have therefore been reticent to explicitly define the normative ends of responsible innovation” (2013, 1577).

Irrespective of this reticence, over the years the major question has been about how relevant RRI is for non-European countries and in non-European contexts. In the last three or four years, studies have been published on RRI done in large countries like Brazil and China on how it has been adopted and perceived there. The literature points to multiple versions and pathways related to responsible innovation. For example, according to Yan and Ravesteijn, “This Chinese context, in which this development takes place, differs from conditions in Europe and the United States. In addition, China, the EU and America are confronted with similar but not completely overlapping environmental and social challenges. All of this results in different pathways and versions of responsible innovation” (2019, 117).

This raises an important question: is the concept of RRI a sort of procrustean bed to define and measure innovation? Other questions arise about how to assess innovations that are often bottom-up solutions that are developed more as workable and affordable innovations that meet societal needs using the keys of RRI and the RRI principles. This is an issue not just for frugal innovation but also for inclusive innovation and grassroots innovation.

Vasen (2017) has pointed out that RI should not be restricted to emerging technologies and should be sensitive to developments and needs of and in developing countries, and calls for a dialog between RI and inclusive innovation so that an integrated framework can be developed. Although RRI and RI are different, both are relevant for developing socially responsible innovations in emerging technologies in different national contexts.

On similar lines, Bhaduri and Talat (2020) suggest that there should be a dialog between frugal innovation and RRI. Hartley et al. (2019) suggest that some elements of RI can be transferable to the South and, referring to the view of Biddle, they suggest that a technology that addresses a locally defined societal need, with research done in the local context and results accessible to those who need it most, can be considered as RI.

Thus, it can be stated that a consensus exists among academics working on RRI/RI, that there is a need to go beyond the conventional approaches and conceptualizations of RRI/RI as well as to critically engage with new ideas, concepts, and practices. This is a welcome development. Even as such a consensus emerges, we have case studies on RRI/RI in developing countries, particularly from the RRI Practice Project (https://rri-practice.eu) and Nucleus Project (https://www.nucleus-project.eu/). The case studies reveal that the response to RRI has been mixed. For example, the case study from Brazil points out many hurdles for RRI in Brazil. The report from India points out that RRI is perceived as a novel concept and is virtually unknown in India although there is interest among academics and policy makers to know more about it.

In China, while there have been positive developments in terms of RRI getting recognized among policy makers and in policy documents, besides being adopted in large infrastructure projects, there are constraints too. According to Gao et al., “As we have shown, entry points for RRI can be identified across broad domains of Chinese society, where quite a number of promising practices are emerging. However, there lacks an institutional mechanism for dialogue and for exchanges to take place across different levels” (2019, 372).

The 13th Five-Year National Science and Technology Innovation Program (2016) in China advocates, inter alia, RRI. But the interpretation of RRI is different from that of the European Commission. According to Mei et al., “Thus, RI is framed differently in the EU and China. The EU adopts a more political perspective, meaning that RI is mainly framed in terms of inclusiveness and open access, and implemented through a systemic policy program. In contrast, China, a highly centralized and emerging country, appears to be more ethically oriented, namely, it mostly focuses on the individual responsibilities of scientists and firms rather than claiming profound transformations at governance level” (2020, 1).

This divergence is inevitable given the differences in political structures and values that underpin the Science, Technology and Innovation ecosystem or the National Innovation System. Still, that does not mean that there is no possibility for mutual learning or having similar views on issues like ethical governance in certain technologies and applications (e.g., human germline modification, human genome editing) where RRI can play a key role in governance as it has ethics and public engagement as keys and strives to inculcate anticipation and reflexivity among scientists and institutions. Since there is a reference to RRI in official documents in China, which seem to advocate RRI, this could be considered as a case of transduction or contextualization. I am not sure, but I think this is more a case of contextualization than transduction. According to a report from Nucleus Project (2017), in China and South Africa, elements of RRI were conceptualized via various and different notions and there were some common features at the level of policies, such as giving emphasis to science education, or giving importance to innovation and knowledge economy. Similarly, Setiawan, (2018) pointed out the need to consider cultural aspects explicitly for RRI to become more relevant in different contexts.

Wakunuma et al. (2021) point out that hybrid forms of RRI can emerge and they cite Brazil as an example. After a comparative analysis of RRI in The Netherlands, Brazil and Malawi they conclude: “Mutual learning across regional and sector boundaries appears to be key to an open, fluid, internationally inclusive RRI approach that can be adapted to global contexts and towards an integrated conceptual framework of RRI moving forward into the future” (2021, 19).

The above discussion on understanding and applying RRI/RI makes it obvious that wide variance exists, and this has resulted in calls for expanding definitions of RRI or taking country-specific aspects into consideration in deploying RRI, whether it is in the North or South.

3.3 RRI and India

3.3.1 RRI and Its Relevance for India

The debates on the role of science in society preceded India’s independence in 1947 and since them the thrust has been towards the application of science for the benefit of society (Chaturvedi and Srinivas, 2015). The S&T Vision 2032 Document of the NITI Aayog, an apex premier policy ‘think tank’ of the Government of India, has emphasized using S&T for addressing various societal challenges such as safe drinking water, affordable healthcare, food security, clean air, etc. (NITI Aayog 2017). India adopted the Green Revolution to increase output in agriculture and the White Revolution to make the country self-sufficient in the dairy sector (Pingali 2012, Scholten 2010).

A key objective of founding the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO), which has gained a reputation for developing and launching low-cost high-capability satellites, was the application of space technology for societal benefit. Nanotechnology has been supported through Nano-Mission, a multi-year programme (Beumer 2019). Nano-Mission has funded projects that resulted in affordable innovations in water purification and supply. Thus, meeting societal needs and aspirations has been a key feature of India’s endeavours in S&T. These and most of the innovation-related initiatives and projects in India emanate from a top-down approach while India is also known for its grassroots innovations and frugal innovations (Abraham 2021a, b).

The concept of RRI is not part of the official discourse on S&T, although many elements of RRI, including gender and science education, are present in various policies and programs in different forms (Srinivas et al. 2018). Over the years, the Department of Science and Technology (DST) has promoted initiatives to enhance participation of women in S&T. In recent years, open access and open data have been given importance. DST is supporting science communication through an organization called Vigyan Parsar. These have nothing to do with the concept of RRI even though promoting some of the keys (public engagement, open access, gender, science education) has become part of the policy. Most of them preceded the concept of RRI and are implemented for specific objectives. For example, the DST has six different programs, including the Indo-US Fellowship for Women in STEMM, to empower women and promote gender equality in science. Elsewhere I have pointed out that the ideas and initiatives of Kumarappa and Reddy can be considered as pioneering ones in RRI in India although they did not use that term (Srinivas and Pandey 2019).

India has been adopting international guidelines in ethics, including those pertaining to research involving human subjects. Recently the revised Guidelines on Ethics has been adopted by the Indian Council on Medical Research (ICMR 2017) and the Guidelines discuss Responsible Research. Institutional ethics committees and mandatory clearances are part of the research/project review and funding process. With respect to clinical trials, international standards and the need to adhere to global norms to get legitimacy and acceptability were factors for changes in law and practice.

Although public engagement is not part of the official S&T policy, the 2018 Economic Survey stressed the importance of public engagement and communication (Ministry of Finance, 2017). Civil society institutions have been doing science communication and public engagement. The journal of the Indian Science Academy (ISA), entitled Dialog, is focused on science communication and engagement with the wider public. Although the RRI keys are important for India, RRI cannot be transplanted into India using the same discourse and ideas on ethics, public engagement and reflexivity. Contextualization and examining their relevance for India is necessary as otherwise RRI will remain an alien concept with little relevance.

For example, open science in the Indian context also means access to textbooks and course materials, particularly in regional languages, and not just access to scientific literature in journals and data. Similarly, gender and science in the Indian context cannot be divorced from the historical under-representation of women in science and the various factors and barriers in Indian society (some of which, like caste inequalities, are specific to India) that constrain fuller and better participation of women in science, or for that matter in higher education and research.

Contextualizing the concept and practice of RRI for India is a challenge, but not an impossible one. As India continues to invest heavily in S&T and aspires to be in the top league among countries in S&T, understanding and applying RRI in India will help in developing innovations needed by society, and based on ethics and public engagement. This may result in better acceptance and maybe avoid unnecessary controversies over innovations. There are new and upcoming initiatives, including missions and national plans, in Artificial Intelligence, Cognitive Science and Internet of Things (IoT). In all three domains, the literature on RRI is growing and India can learn lessons from this which will complement contextualization of RRI in India.

3.3.2 Science, Technology and Innovation Policy (STIP) (Draft) and RRI

In 2020 DST and the Office of Principal Scientific Advisor (oPSA) launched an initiative to prepare a new Science, Technology and Innovation Policy (STIP). The previous STI policy elicited mixed responses and there were critiques (e.g., Krishna 2013). While adopted in 2013, it was not followed up with a strategy to implement it. Since 1947, there have been four policy statements, Scientific Policy Resolution of 1958 (Government of India 1958), Technology Policy Statement 1983 (Department of Science and Technology DST 1983), Science and Technology Policy of 2003 (Department of Science and Technology DST 2003) and Science, Technology and Innovation Policy (Department of Science and Technology DST 2013). Abraham (2021a, b) has analyzed these.

When the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) was elected to power in 2014, the then Planning Commission was dissolved and a new entity, NITI Aayog, was established. Previously, India had adopted five-year plans after becoming independent in 1947 which were modelled after the Soviet Union’s experience with five-year planning. The distinct feature of these five-year plans was that they had a specific chapter on science which outlined the priorities and goals of the country in Science and Technology (S&T). In addition to the strategies outlined in these plans, special programs and missions were initiated to meet specific objectives. Until 1991, the thinking was based on state-led planning that emphasised a strong public sector, giving priority to S&T for societal needs and objectives under the five-year plans.

The state decided the direction and purpose of S&T in India and invested heavily in public sector institutions in S&T as well as in public sector units in different sectors. This largely command-and-control approach underwent a change in 1991 when the economy opened up through liberalization, globalization and policy changes that enlarged the space and freedom for the private sector in almost all sectors. Still the government did not give up five-year plans, nor the idea that the state should play a major role in S&T, although private sector R&D was encouraged and incentivized. The last Five-Year Plan was for 2012–2017 but as the new government took over in 2014 and dissolved the Planning Commission, the idea of five-year plans was abandoned. However, the structure and organisation of S&T in government did not change. Thus, there is continuity and change in S&T in government. In terms of Gross Expenditure on R&D, about 65% is from the public sector while the rest is from private sector. Since 2014 there has been a greater thrust on digitization and using digitization and Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) for effective delivery of public services and to enhance financial inclusion and food security.

STIP (Department of Science and Technology DST 2020), while not explicitly mentioning RRI or discussing responsible innovation as a guiding concept, has many ideas, proposals and initiatives that are directly related to RRI and its keys. For example, it gives a strong emphasis to open access and open science, outlining the need to expand and enhance access to scientific knowledge, data and infrastructure. It has a Chapter on Equity and Inclusion focused on enhancing the role and contribution of women in science. It has conceptualized Gender in a broader way and considers exclusion on account of other factors and categories of exclusion. It has proposed adaptation of the Athena-SWAN model for transforming institutions and for promoting equity and inclusion in them. The importance to science education is clearly mentioned in the chapter on Capacity Building and in other places in the document. Science Communication and public engagement are discussed in a separate chapter with more emphasis on science communication, although the importance of public engagement is recognized in a limited manner.

Mr. Narendra Modi, the Prime Minister of India, in his address to the annual Indian Science Congress in 2019, mentioned the Social Responsibility of scientists. This has resulted in DST developing a concept of Scientific Social Responsibility (SSR). The draft STIP states the following regarding SSR: “2.1.6 Students of all educational levels will be given opportunities to get exposure to be part of leading science laboratories during the period of end-term breaks as part of Scientific Social Responsibility Policy” (Department of Science and Technology DST 2020, 17). In addition: “8.3.1 In line with the national policy on Scientific Social Responsibility (SSR 2020), and, scientists and researchers will be motivated and incentivised to engage in Science Communication and Public Engagement Activities. Institutes and organizations will be encouraged to earmark a percentage of allocated budget (SSR fund) for science communication and public engagement activities” (Department of Science and Technology DST 2020, 46).

Based on the SSR policy draft of 2019, and the concepts of SSR and RRI, Braun et al. (2020) have made some suggestions for DST and EC to work together and further mutual learning in RRI and enrich both SSR and RRI in theory and practice. In May 2022, DST published Scientific Social Responsibility (SSR) Guidelines. SSR is defined as “The ethical obligation of knowledge workers in all fields of science and technology to voluntarily contribute their knowledge and resources to the widest spectrum of stakeholders in society, in a spirit of service and conscious reciprocity” (Department of Science and Technology DST 2022, 12).

These guidelines can be useful for strengthening science-society linkages and encourage scientists and technocrats to spend more time and energy in science communication and reach out to educational institutions and students, and to the neighbourhoods in which they operate. These official Guidelines provide much scope for creative engagement by scientists and scientific institutions. The activities envisaged are varied and institutions have flexibility in using them. On the other hand, these are based (although not stated) on a ‘deficit in public understanding model’. In this it is the public that needs to be made aware of, communicated about and educated. Many of the proposed activities are based on this assumption. Although it is stated, “Society-science connect: Collaborating with communities to identify their needs and problems and develop scientific and technological solutions. The age-old approach of Lab to Land (L2) would be replaced by a new-age approach of Land (Experience) to Lab (Expertise) to Land (Applications) (L3)” (Department of Science and Technology DST 2022, 4). But SSR Guidelines do not give scope for learning from communities and learning with communities. Nor do they envisage engaging with citizen science, Do-It-Yourself Biology or Makers and Hackers. The guidelines envisage that support from SSR-related activities will be from multiple sources and funds through Corporate Social Responsibility mechanisms. Thus, institutions need not rely solely on funds from the government to implement SSR.

As the guidelines have just been issued, it is too early to know about their implementation. SSR guidelines indicate the desire to give effect to the concept of SSR and make it part of science-related activities undertaken by institutions. It would have been better had the SSR guidelines taken into account recent developments in theory and practice in Public Understanding of Science and Public Engagement in Science. Nonetheless SSR guidelines will enable more active engagement by scientific institutions with society. From a RRI perspective this is a welcome development.

Although there has not been a distinct Indian version of RRI, I am of the view that based on India’s experiences with S&T and concepts and practices developed in India, India can enrich and contribute to RRI in theory and practice. To illustrate this, I provide two examples.

3.3.3 Scientific Temper

The Constitution of India may be the only one that specifies cultivation of scientific temper as a fundamental duty. According to Article 51 of the Constitution of India “it shall be the duty of every citizen of India to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform.” This duty is not mandatory and is only a suggestion. Scientific temper and spirit of inquiry reflect the Enlightenment values that are at the core of modern humanism. The Constitution also indicates that the spirit of inquiry is part of the fundamental duty. Spirit of inquiry can inform public engagement and can justify it. In my view the concept of scientific temper can be developed further in the context of Science, Technology and Innovation and may be used in discourse and practice in RRI. Scientific temper is not a methodology but an attitude and an approach to understanding and action (Mahanti 2013).

Jawahar Lal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India, articulated the idea of scientific temper in his book The Discovery of India (Nehru 1946). Since then, it has been discussed and debated in India and elsewhere. Nehru articulated Scientific Temper not as an attitude that worships science but as an attitude that has scope for self-reflection and critical inquiry. Although I will not elaborate on this point further, the idea of scientific temper has scope to be examined in the light of debates over RRI and understanding of science education and communication, and public engagement, particularly in developing countries. In these days of disinformation, fake news, climate change denial, and anti-vaccine campaigns, it is relevant in the North as well. In terms of RRI keys, Scientific Temper is closely related to ethics, science education, citizen engagement and governance while the elements of reflexivity and anticipation are included also. It is suggested that its relevance for RRI and RI can be explored, and the concept of Scientific Temper can be adopted and contextualized.

3.3.4 Access, Equity and Inclusion and RRI

Chaturvedi and Srinivas (2015) have identified Access, Equity and Inclusion (AEI) as values that can be used to assess the outcomes of S&T and Innovation policies in developing countries. This approach is compatible with inclusive development and can also be related to inclusive innovation. As a preliminary exercise we highlight how Access, Equity and Inclusion can be compared with the keys in RRI and also with some of the policies proposed in STIP (Department of Science and Technology DST 2020). The following table attempts to provide an overview of Indian keys of AEI in relation to RRI and STIP. STIP does not use the term ‘Access, Equity and Inclusion’ nor mention RRI/RI. But AEI has much relevance for STI policies and can be used by policy makers in addressing specific issues (Srinivas 2020) (Table 3.1).

Table 3.1 AEI in relation to RRI Keys, STIP 2020 (DRAFT) and RRI
Full size table

The AEI framework must be developed further to contextualize RRI in India and elsewhere. Tools to measure Access, Equity and Inclusion are needed. The theoretical framework also must be made robust. While RRI is focused on formal innovations or innovations in the organized sector, new models of innovations like frugal innovation, inclusive innovation and grassroots innovation have taken shape, particularly in India. In the global South these are important forms of innovation that are not well understood or explained in terms of typical approaches to innovation. In both theory and practice India has contributed significantly on these. They do not challenge the idea of RRI but rather show that innovation can arise in different contexts and for different needs. There are significant lessons for RRI discourse and practice from these, but these will not be elaborated here for reasons of space. As pointed out earlier, although these may pose challenges to a narrow conception of RRI that excludes such innovations and prioritizes only innovation that arises from R&D in organized/formal sectors, this can be addressed by contextualizing RRI and by enriching RRI in theory and practice. In this, India can play an important role.

Vasen (2017) has identified five issues that have to be considered for making the RRI framework more relevant in developing countries, particularly in Latin America. In my view, a similar analysis for making RRI more relevant for India can be undertaken. Bigger developing countries like China, India, and Brazil are also major innovators and hence making RRI relevant in them is a challenge as well as an opportunity for making RRI more meaningful and useful. According to Yangdong et al. (2018),RRI has an affinity with the five development concepts in China, i.e., innovation, coordination, green development, opening up, and sharing. They point that RRI has been written into the 13th Five Year Plan for Science Technology and Innovation and that cultural tradition, development stage, and social structure should be considered when implementing RRI in China. In the case of India this exercise can benefit from studies done in India on RRI and RI (e.g., Chaturvedi et al. 2016, Mishra and Singh 2018). The Indian versions of RRI and RI can emerge by contextualizing RRI and RI, taking into account a dialog with ideas like Scientific Temper, SSR, and the AEI framework, and case studies on grass roots innovations, inclusive innovations and frugal innovations. These versions can in fact draw upon the policy frameworks that have elements of RRI and RI.

Another stream that can contribute to this is research on RRI at a few institutions such as Research and Information System for Developing Countries and the Centre for Studies in Science Policy (CSSP) of Jawaharlal Nehru University. The former is a think tank actively working on RRI while the latter as an educational and research center is promoting RRI through research and education.

3.4 Conclusion

RRI as a concept and practice originated in Europe and with the active support of the EC it has gained much traction in the last decade and a half. It has not become a fad in innovation studies or STI policy, but has gained firm footing in policy and research although it is not yet mainstream. The heart of RRI lies in connecting science with society and developing a social contract for STI so that stakeholders participate and engage with STI as active citizens rather than as passive consumers or sceptical observers. For this, the six keys of RRI and AIRR principles provide the direction. The literature shows that despite criticisms and shortcomings in implementation the rationale and relevance of RRI is well accepted. Although it has been tested and implemented more in Europe than elsewhere, its relevance and scope for contextualization and adoption/adaptation elsewhere, particularly in the Global South has been raised in the literature. RRI has not been institutionalized in the Global South and is gaining traction.

This chapter has taken India as an example and I have argued that RRI can be contextualized and adapted in India. The STI policy under consideration, while not mentioning RRI/RI, gives importance to some of the RRI keys (Open Science, Gender and Science Education). At the same time concepts such as Access, Equity and Inclusion and Scientific Temper which are from India can enrich RRI theory and practice. Through mutual learning and dialogue, the scope for this can be explored further. As there is an increase in interest on RRI in/for Global South the time is ripe to engage in this.

3.5 Disclosures and Disclaimers

  1. (1)

    I am with Research and Information System for Developing Countries (RIS), as a Senior Fellow & Consultant. RIS has been a partner in three RRI projects (ProGRESS, RRI Practice and NewHoRRIzon). I have benefitted much by participating in them. This chapter does not reflect the views of these projects or RIS. It is written in my personal capacity, and it is not an output or part of any deliverable from any of those projects. I have cited and referred to literature from the two projects (i.e. RRI Practice and NewHoRRIzon).

  2. (2)

    I have done a peer review of a version of STIP for DST and otherwise I have nothing to do with STIP or the process that resulted in the version of STIP I reviewed. In other words, I have not been associated with the preparation of the STIP version (Department of Science and Technology DST 2020) reviewed by me or with the STIP process in any capacity or in any manner. At the time of writing (July 2022) STIP has not been officially announced. Nor there is an official announcement that it will be adopted and implemented with effect from a specific date. It is presumed that there will be a STI Policy as an outcome of the STIP process and this chapter is written with that presumption.