The Why and How of Enabling the Integration of Social and Ethical Aspects in Research and Development
New and Emerging Science and Technology (NEST) based innovations, e.g. in the field of Life Sciences or Nanotechnology, frequently raise societal and political concerns. To address these concerns NEST researchers are expected to deploy socially responsible R&D practices. This requires researchers to integrate social and ethical aspects (SEAs) in their daily work. Many methods can facilitate such integration. Still, why and how researchers should and could use SEAs remains largely unclear. In this paper we aim to relate motivations for NEST researchers to include SEAs in their work, and the requirements to establish such integration from their perspectives, to existing approaches that can be used to establish integration of SEAs in the daily work of these NEST researchers. Based on our analyses, we argue that for the successful integration of SEAs in R&D practice, collaborative approaches between researchers and scholars from the social sciences and humanities seem the most successful. The only way to explore whether that is in fact the case, is by embarking on collaborative research endeavours.
KeywordsSocial and ethical aspects Responsible innovation Science and technology studies Engineering ethics
- 21st Century Nanotechnology Research & Development Act. (2003). Public Law 108–153.Google Scholar
- Bovens, M. (1998). The quest for responsibility. Accountability & citizenship in complex organisations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Calleja-Lopez, A. & Fisher, E. (2009). Dialogues from the lab: Contemporary maieutics for socio-technical inquiry. Proceedings of society for philosophy & technology, University of Twente, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
- Chilvers, J. (2006). Engaging research councils? An evaluation of a Nanodialogues experiment in upstream public engagement. University of Birmingham. Available at http://www.bbsrc.com/web/FILES/Workshops/nanodialogues_evaluation.pdf. Accessed 24 Aug 2012.
- Collingridge, D. (1980). The social control of technology. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
- Doubleday, R. (2004). Political innovation. Corporate engagements in controversy over genetically modified foods (thesis). London: University College London.Google Scholar
- Editorial. (2009). Mind the gap. Nature, 462, 825–826.Google Scholar
- European Commission. (2007). Energy research in the 7th framework programme. pp. 1–30. Available at ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/fp7/energy/docs/energy_research_fp7_en.pdf. Accessed 24 Aug 2012.
- 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 committee and the committee of the regions. pp. 1–14.Google Scholar
- European Commission. (2011b). Analysis Part I: investment and performance in R&D—Investing in the future. Innovation union competitiveness report 2011, pp. 41–154. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/pdf/competitiveness-report/2011/part_1.pdf. Accessed 24 Aug 2012.
- European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies to the European Commission. (2007). Opinion on the ethical aspects of nano medicine—Opinion No. 21. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/bepa/european-group-ethics/docs/publications/opinion_21_nano_en.pdf. Accessed 24 Aug 2012.
- Fisher, E. (2006). Embedded Nanotechnology Policy Research. Ogmius, 14, 3–4.Google Scholar
- Fisher, E., & Mahajan, R. L. (2006). Midstream modulation of nanotechnology research in an academic laboratory. Proceedings of ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress & Exposition (IMECE), Chicago, Illinois, pp. 1–7.Google Scholar
- Fisher, E., & Miller, C. (2009). Contextualizing the engineering laboratory. In S. H. Christensen, M. Meganck, & B. Delahousse (Eds.), Engineering in context (pp. 369–381). Palo Alto: Academica Press.Google Scholar
- Flipse, S.M., Van der Sanden, M.C.A. & Osseweijer, P. (2012). Midstream modulation in biotechnology industry: Redefining what is ‘Part of the Job’ of researchers in industry. Science & Engineering Ethics. Online 25 Oct 2012, pp. 1–24.Google Scholar
- Fuller, S. (2009). The sociology of intellectual life. The career of the mind in and around academy. Coventry: University of Warwick.Google Scholar
- Marshall, J. D., & Toffel, M. W. (2005). Framing the elusive concept of sustainability: A sustainability hierarchy. Policy Analysis, 39(3), 673–682.Google Scholar
- Merton, R. K. (1938/1973). Science and the social order. In Storer, N.W. (Ed.) The sociology of science—Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. pp. 267–278.Google Scholar
- Mitcham, C. (1994). Engineering design research and social responsibility. In K. C. Shrader-Frechette (Ed.), Research ethics (pp. 153–168). Totowa: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
- Osseweijer, P. (2006). A short history of talking biotech: Fifteen years of iterative action research in institutionalising scientists’ engagement in public communication (thesis). Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit.Google Scholar
- Overdevest, C., Huyck Orr, C., & Stepenuck, K. (2004). Volunteer stream monitoring and local participation in natural resource issues. Human Ecology Review, 11, 177–185.Google Scholar
- PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. (2012). Sustainability of biomass in a bio-based economy. pp. 1–22.Google Scholar
- Penders, B. (2008). From seeking healths to finding healths (thesis). Maastricht: Universitaire Pers Maastricht.Google Scholar
- Rip, A. (1981). Maatschappelijke verantwoordelijkeheid van chemici (thesis). Nootdorp: Drukkerij P.Th. v.d. Sande.Google Scholar
- Sarewitz, D. (2005). This won’t hurt a bit: Assessing and governing rapidly advancing technologies in a democracy. In M. Rodemeyer, D. Sarewitz, & J. Wilsdon (Eds.), The future of technology assessment (pp. 14–21). Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.Google Scholar
- Shapin, S. (2008). Who are the scientists of today? Seed magazine 19. Available at http://seedmagazine.com/stateofscience/sos_feature_shapin_p1.html. Accessed 24 Aug 2012.
- Shelley Egan, C. (2010). The ambivalence of promising technology. Humanities, Social Sciences & Law, 4(2), 183–189.Google Scholar
- SIRC (Social Issues Research Council) in partnership with the royal society and the royal institution of Great Britain. (2001). Guidelines on science and health communication. Available at http://www.sirc.org/publik/revised_guidelines.pdf. Accessed 24 Aug 2012.
- Van der Burg, S. (2010). Taking the soft impacts of technology into account: Broadening the discourse in research practice. Social Epistemology, 23(3–4), 301–316.Google Scholar
- Verbeek, P. P. (2006). Materializing Morality—Design ethics and technological mediation. Science, Technology & Human Values, 31(3), 361–380.Google Scholar
- Von Schomberg, R. (2011). Prospects for technology assessment in a framework of responsible research and innovation. In M. Dusseldorp & Beecroft R. (Eds.) Technickfolgen abschätzen lehren. Bildungspotenziale transdisziplinärer Methoden. pp. 39–62.Google Scholar
- 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
- Wilsdon, J., & Willis, R. (2004). See-through science. Why public engagement needs to move upstream. London: Demos.Google Scholar
- Wilsdon, J., Wynne, B., & Stilgoe, J. (2005). The public value of science. Or how to ensure that science really matters. London: Demos.Google Scholar