Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 19, Issue 3, pp 1141–1164 | Cite as

Midstream Modulation in Biotechnology Industry: Redefining What is ‘Part of the Job’ of Researchers in Industry

  • Steven M. Flipse
  • Maarten C. A. van der Sanden
  • Patricia Osseweijer
Original Paper

Abstract

In response to an increasing amount of policy papers stressing the need for integrating social and ethical aspects in Research and Development (R&D) practices, science studies scholars have conducted integrative research and experiments with science and innovation actors. One widely employed integration method is Midstream Modulation (MM), in which an ‘embedded humanist’ interacts in regular meetings with researchers to engage them with the social and ethical aspects of their work. While the possibility of using MM to enhance critical reflection has been demonstrated in academic settings, few attempts have been made to examine its appropriateness in industry. This paper describes the outcomes of a case study aiming to find out firstly whether MM can effectively be deployed to encourage and facilitate researchers to actively include social and ethical aspects in their daily R&D practice, and secondly to what extent the integration activities could form an integral part of the engaged industrial researchers’ professional activities. Our data show that after MM, researchers display increased reflexive awareness on the social and ethical aspects of their work and acknowledge the relevance and utility of such aspects on their daily practice. Also, all participants considered actively reflecting on social and ethical aspects to be part of their work. Future research on the role of MM in industrial settings could focus on how to embed social and ethical integration as a regular part of innovation practice. We suggest that one possibility would be through aligning social and ethical aspects with innovation Key Performance Indicators.

Keywords

Midstream modulation Ethics of science & technology Upstream engagement in industry Responsible innovation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This article is the result of a research project of the CSG Centre for Society and Life Sciences carried out within the research programme of the Kluyver Centre for Genomics of Industrial Fermentation in The Netherlands at the Delft University of Technology, Department of Biotechnology, Section Biotechnology & Society (BTS), funded by The Netherlands Genomics Initiative (NGI)/Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO). We thank Dr. Daan Schuurbiers for providing us with his interview protocol and for his critical comments throughout the study and on the manuscript. Also we thank Dr. Erik Fisher for his critical feedback early on in the study and also on the manuscript. Further thanks go to the BTS-group for critically reviewing the manuscript. But most of all we thank Royal DSM N.V. for hosting this research project, and in particular our five participants.

References

  1. Alegre, J., Chiva, R., & Lapiedra, R. (2009). Measuring innovation in long product development cycle industries: An insight in biotechnology. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 21(4), 535–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barling, A., De Vriend, H., Cornelese, J. A., Ekstrand, B., Hecker, E. F. F., Howlett, J., et al. (1999). The social aspects of food biotechnology: A European view. Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology, 7, 85–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bercovitz, J. E. L., & Feldman, M. P. (2007). Fishing upstream: Firm innovation strategy and university research alliances. Research Policy, 36, 930–948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bovens, M. A. P. (1998). The quest for responsibility (1st ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Calleja-Lopez, A. & Fisher, E. (2009). Dialogues from the Lab: Contemporary Maieutics for Socio-Technical Inquiry. Proceedings of Society for Philosophy and Technology, University of Twente, The Netherlands. July 7-10 2009.Google Scholar
  6. Carolan, M. S. (2007). The precautionary principle and traditional risk assessment: Rethinking how we assess and mitigate environmental threats organization. Environment, 20(1), 5–24.Google Scholar
  7. Collins, H. M., & Evans, R. (2002). The third wave of science studies: Studies of expertise and experience. Social Studies of Science, 32(2), 235–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Conley, S. (2011). Engagement agents in the making: On the front lines of socio-technical integration. commentary on: ‘Constructing productive engagement: Pre-engagement tools for emerging technologies’. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(4), 715–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cozijnsen, A. J., Vrakking, W. J., & Van Ijzerloo, M. (2000). Success and failure of 50 innovation projects in Dutch companies. European Journal of Innovation Management, 3(3), 150–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. DeCarolis, D. M., & Deeds, D. L. (1999). The impact of stocks and flows of organizational knowledge on firm performance: An empirical investigation of the biotechnology industry. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 953–968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Delgado, A., Kjølberg, K. L., & Wickson, F. (2010). Public engagement coming of age: From theory to practice in STS encounters with nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 20(6), 826–845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Doorn, N. (2011). Exploring responsibility rationales in research and development. Science, Technology & Human Values, Online, pp 1–30.Google Scholar
  13. Doorn, N., & Fahlquist, J. N. (2010). Responsibility in engineering: Toward a new role for engineering ethicists. Bulletin of Science Technology Society, 30(3), 222–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. DSM (2012). Our company: Corporate website. Available at http://www.dsm.com/en_US/cworld/public/about/pages/Our_company.jsp. Accessed 16 April 2012.
  15. European Commission. (2011a). Horizon 2020: The framework programme for research and innovation. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Commisttee and the Committee of the Regions, pp 1–14.Google Scholar
  16. European Commission. (2011b). Analysis part I: Investment and performance in R&D: Investing in the future. Innovation Union Competitiveness report 2011, 41–154. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/pdf/competitiveness-report/2011/part_1.pdf, Accessed 16 April 2012.
  17. European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies to the European Commission. (2007). Opinion on the ethical aspects of nanomedicine: Opinion No. 21, Available at http://ec.europa.eu/bepa/european-group-ethics/docs/publications/opinion_21_nano_en.pdf, Accessed 16 April 2012.
  18. Fisher, E. (2006). Embedded nanotechnology policy research. Ogmius, 14, 3–4.Google Scholar
  19. Fisher, E. (2007). Ethnographic invention: Probing the capacity of laboratory decisions. Nanoethics, 1, 155–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fisher, E. (2011). Public science and technology scholars: Engaging whom? Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(4), 607–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fisher, E., & Mahajan, R. L. (2006). Midstream modulation of nanotechnology research in an academic laboratory. Proceedings of ASME international mechanical engineering congress and exposition (IMECE) 2006 in Chicago, Illinois, pp 1–7.Google Scholar
  22. Fisher, E., & Mahajan, R. L. (2010). Embedding the humanities in engineering: Art, dialogue, and a laboratory. In M. E. Gorman (Ed.), Trading zones and interactional expertise: Creating new kinds of collaboration (pp. 209–230). Boston: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Fisher, E., Mahajan, R. L., & Mitcham, C. (2006). Midstream modulation of technology: Governance from within. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 26(6), 485–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fisher, E. & Miller, C. (2009) Contextualizing the engineering laboratory. In S.H. Christensen, M. Meganck, B. Delahousse, B. (Eds.), Engineering in context (pp. 369–381). Palo Alto: Academica Press.Google Scholar
  25. Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1993). Science for the post-normal age. Futures, 25(7), 739–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Guston, D. H., & Sarewitz, D. (2002). Real-time technology assessment. Technology in Society, 24(1–2), 93–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hessels, L. K., Van Lente, H., & Smits, R. (2009). In search of relevance: The changing contract between science and society. Science and Public Policy, 36(5), 387–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jasanoff, S. (2011). Constitutional moments in governing science and technology. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(4), 621–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lucivero, F., Swierstra, T., & Boenink, M. (2011). Assessing expectations: Towards a toolbox for an ethics of emerging technologies. NanoEthics, 5(2), 129–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. The Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117–127.Google Scholar
  31. Patra, D. (2011). Responsible development of nanoscience and nanotechnology: Contextualizing socio-technical integration into the nanofabrication laboratories in the USA. NanoEthics, 5(2), 143–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. (2012). Sustainability of biomass in a bio-based economy, pp 1–22.Google Scholar
  33. Penders, B., Verbakel, J. M. A., & Nelis, A. (2009). The social study of corporate science: A research manifesto. Bulletin of Science Technology Society, 29(6), 439–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Phelps, R., & Fisher, E. (2011). Legislating the laboratory? Promotion and precaution in a nanomaterials company. Methods in Molecular Biology, 726(2), 339–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rip, A. (2006). A co-evolutionary approach to reflexive governance–and its ironies. In J. Voss, D. Bauknecht, & R. Kemp (Eds.), Reflexive governance for sustainable development (pp. 82–100). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  36. Ryan, R., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schot, J., & Rip, A. (1997). The past and future of constructive technology assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 54(2–3), 251–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schuurbiers, D. (2011). What happens in the lab does not stay in the lab: Applying midstream modulation to enhance critical reflection in the laboratory. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(4), 769–788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schuurbiers, D., & Fisher, E. (2009). Lab-scale intervention. EMBO reports Science & Society Series on Convergence Research, 10(5), 424–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stegmaier, P. (2009). The rock ‘n’ roll of knowledge co-production. EMBO reports Science & Society Series on Convergence Research, 10(2), 114–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Swierstra, T., & Jelsma, J. (2006). Responsibility without moralism in techno scientific design practice. Science Technology Human Values, 31(3), 309–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Thoreau, F. (2010). The ‘interpretive flexibility’ of nanotechnologies in context: The case of a leading R&D center in Flanders, Belgium. SpiraL working paper series, pp 1–69. Available at http://www.spiral.ulg.ac.be/uploads/wpapers/Spiral_WP2010-01_THOREAU.pdf, Accessed 16 April 2012.
  43. Van de Poel, I. (2000). On the role of outsiders in technical development. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 12(3), 383–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Van de Poel, I. (2001). The transformation of technological regimes. Research Policy, 32(1), 49–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Van der Burg, S. (2009). Imagining the future of photoacoustic mammography. Science and Engineering Ethics, 15(1), 97–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Webster, A. (2007). Crossing boundaries: social sciences in the policy room. Science, Technology and Human Values, 32, 458–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wilsdon, J. (2005). Paddling upstream: New currents in European technology assessment. In M. Rodemeyer, D. Sarewitz, & J. Wilsdon (Eds.), The future of technology assessment (pp. 22–29). Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.Google Scholar
  48. Wolpert, L. (2007). Is cell science dangerous? Journal on Medical Ethics, 33(6), 345–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wynne, B. (2003). Seasick on the third wave? Subverting the hegemony or propositionalism: Response to Collins and Evans. Social Studies of Science, 33(3), 401–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wynne, B. (2011). Lab work goes social, and vice versa: Strategising public engagement processes. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(4), 791–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steven M. Flipse
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Maarten C. A. van der Sanden
    • 4
  • Patricia Osseweijer
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 5
  1. 1.Faculty of Applied Sciences, Department of Biotechnology, Section Biotechnology and SocietyDelft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands
  2. 2.CSG Centre for Society and the Life SciencesNijmegenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Kluyver Centre for Genomics of Industrial FermentationDelftThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Faculty of Applied Sciences, Science Education and CommunicationDelft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands
  5. 5.BE-BasicDelftThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations