Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 19, Issue 3, pp 703–725 | Cite as

The Why and How of Enabling the Integration of Social and Ethical Aspects in Research and Development

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


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.


Social and ethical aspects Responsible innovation Science and technology studies Engineering ethics 


  1. 21st Century Nanotechnology Research & Development Act. (2003). Public Law 108–153.Google 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. Beckwith, J., & Huang, F. (2005). Should we make a fuss? A case for social responsibility in science. Nature Biotechnology, 23(12), 1479–1480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bercovitz, J. E. L., & Feldman, M. P. (2007). Fishing upstream: Firm innovation strategy and university research alliances. Research Policy, 36, 930–948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berloznik, R., & Van Langenhove, L. (1998). Integration of technology assessment in R&D management practices. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 58(1–2), 23–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bovens, M. (1998). The quest for responsibility. Accountability & citizenship in complex organisations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Brunner, R. D., & Ascher, W. (1992). Science and social responsibility. Policy Sciences, 25(3), 295–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burningham, K., Barnett, J., Carr, A., Clift, R., & Wehrmeyer, W. (2007). Industrial constructions of publics and public knowledge: A qualitative investigation of practice in the UK chemicals industry. Public Understanding of Science, 16, 23–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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
  10. Calvert, J., & Martin, P. (2009). The role of social scientists in synthetic biology. EMBO Reports, 10, 201–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chilvers, J. (2006). Engaging research councils? An evaluation of a Nanodialogues experiment in upstream public engagement. University of Birmingham. Available at Accessed 24 Aug 2012.
  13. Collingridge, D. (1980). The social control of technology. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  14. 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
  15. Conley, S. N. (2011). Engagement agents in the making: On the front lines of socio-technical integration. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(4), 715–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Davies, S. R. (2008). Constructing communication: Talking to scientists about talking to the public. Science Communication, 29, 413–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Davies, K. G., & Wolf-Phillips, J. (2006). Scientific citizenship and good governance: Implications for biotechnology. Trends in Biotechnology, 24(2), 57–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Davis, M. (2006). Integrating ethics into technical courses: Micro-insertion. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12(4), 717–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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
  20. Doorn, N. (2009). Responsibility ascriptions in technology development and engineering: Three perspectives. Science and Engineering Ethics, 18(1), 69–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Doorn, N. (2012). Exploring responsibility rationales in research and development (R&D). Science, Technology and Human Values, 37(3), 180–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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
  23. Doubleday, R. (2004). Political innovation. Corporate engagements in controversy over genetically modified foods (thesis). London: University College London.Google Scholar
  24. Durant, J. (1999). Participatory technology assessment and the democratic model of the public understanding of science. Science & Public Policy, 26(5), 313–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Editorial. (2004). Going public. Nature, 431, 883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Editorial. (2009). Mind the gap. Nature, 462, 825–826.Google Scholar
  27. European Commission. (2007). Energy research in the 7th framework programme. pp. 1–30. Available at Accessed 24 Aug 2012.
  28. 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
  29. 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 Accessed 24 Aug 2012.
  30. 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 Accessed 24 Aug 2012.
  31. Fisher, E. (2006). Embedded Nanotechnology Policy Research. Ogmius, 14, 3–4.Google Scholar
  32. Fisher, E. (2007). Ethnographic invention: Probing the capacity of laboratory decisions. Nanoethics, 1, 155–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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
  34. 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
  35. 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
  36. 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
  37. Fortuin, F. T. J. M., & Omta, S. W. F. (2007). The dynamics of the strategic network relations between corporate R&D and business: A longitudinal analysis in a large, technology-based multinational company. Journal on Chain & Network Science, 7(2), 95–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Fuller, S. (2009). The sociology of intellectual life. The career of the mind in and around academy. Coventry: University of Warwick.Google Scholar
  39. Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1993). Science for the post-normal age. Futures, 25(7), 739–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Gaskell, G., Allansdottir, A., Allum, N., Castro, P., Esmer, Y., Fischler, C., et al. (2011). The 2010 Eurobaro meter on the life sciences. Nature Biotechnology, 29(2), 113–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Genus, A., & Coles, A. M. (2005). On constructive technology assessment and limitations on public participation in technology assessment. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 17(4), 433–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Gorman, M. E., Werhane, P. H., & Swami, N. (2009). Moral imagination, trading zones and the role of the ethicist in nanotechnology. Nanoethics, 3(3), 185–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Grin, J., & Van der Graaf, H. (1996). Technology assessment as learning. Science, Technology and Human Values, 21, 72–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Groffman, P. M., Stylinski, C., Nisbet, M. C., Duarte, C. M., Jordan, R., Burgin, A., et al. (2010). Restarting the conversation: Challenges at the interface between ecology and society. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 8, 284–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Guston, D. H., & Sarewitz, D. (2002). Real-time technology assessment. Technology in Society, 24(1–2), 93–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Hessels, L. K., Van Lente, H., & Smits, R. (2009). In search of relevance: The changing contract between science and society. Science & Public Policy, 36(5), 387–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Jackson, R., Barbagallo, F., & Haste, H. (2005). Strengths of public dialogue on science-related issues. Critical Review of International Social & Political Philosophy, 8(3), 349–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Johnson, D. G. (2007). Ethics and technology ‘in the Making’: An essay on the challenge of nano ethics. Nanoethics, 1(1), 21–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kaiser, M. (2012). Commentary: Looking for conflict and finding none? Public Understanding of Science, 21, 188–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Koivisto, R., Wessberg, N., Eerola, A., Ahlqvist, T., & Sirkku, K. (2009). Integrating future-oriented technology analysis and risk assessment methodologies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(9), 1163–1176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lengwiler, M. (2008). Participatory approaches in science and technology: Historical origins and current practices in critical perspective. Science, Technology and Human Values, 33(2), 186–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 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
  53. Macilwain, C. (2009). Genetics: Watching science at work. Nature, 462, 840–842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Marris, C., Joly, P. B., & Rip, A. (2008). Interactive technology assessment in the real world. Dual dynamics in an iTA exercise on genetically modified vines. Science, Technology and Human Values, 33(1), 77–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Marshall, J. D., & Toffel, M. W. (2005). Framing the elusive concept of sustainability: A sustainability hierarchy. Policy Analysis, 39(3), 673–682.Google Scholar
  56. 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
  57. 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
  58. Nisbet, M. C., & Scheufele, D. A. (2009). What’s next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. American Journal of Botany, 96(10), 1767–1778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Nordman, A. (2007). If and Then: A critique of speculative nano ethics. Nanoethics, 1, 31–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Nordman, A., & Rip, A. (2009). Mind the gap revisited. Nature Nanotechnology, 4, 273–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Nowotny, H. (2003). Democratising expertise and socially robust knowledge. Science & Public Policy, 30(3), 151–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Nowotny, H., Schott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2003). Introduction: ‘Mode 2′ revisited: The new production of knowledge. Minerva, 41, 179–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 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
  64. 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
  65. Owen, R., & Goldberg, N. (2010). Responsible innovation: A pilot study with the UK engineering and physical sciences research council. Risk Analysis, 30(11), 1699–1707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 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
  67. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. (2012). Sustainability of biomass in a bio-based economy. pp. 1–22.Google Scholar
  68. Penders, B. (2008). From seeking healths to finding healths (thesis). Maastricht: Universitaire Pers Maastricht.Google Scholar
  69. Penders, B., Verbakel, J. M. A., & Nelis, A. (2009a). The social study of corporate science: A research manifesto. Bulletin of Science Technology Society, 29(6), 439–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Penders, B., Vos, R., & Horstman, K. (2009b). Sensitization: Reciprocity and reflection in scientific practice. EMBO Reports, 10, 205–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Radstake, M., Van den Heuvel-Vromans, E., Jeucken, N., Dortmans, K., & Nelis, A. (2009). Societal dialogue needs more than public engagement. EMBO Reports, 10, 313–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Randles, S. (2008). From nano-ethicswash to real-time regulation. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 12, 270–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Ravetz, J. (2004). The post-normal science of precaution. Futures, 36(3), 347–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Rip, A. (1981). Maatschappelijke verantwoordelijkeheid van chemici (thesis). Nootdorp: Drukkerij P.Th. v.d. Sande.Google Scholar
  75. Rip, A. (2009). Futures of ELSA. EMBO Reports, 10, 666–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Roelofsen, A., Boon, W. P. C., Kloet, R. R., & Broerse, J. E. W. (2011). Stakeholder interaction within research consortia on emerging technologies: Learning how and what? Research Policy, 40(3), 341–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Rogers-Hayden, T., & Pidgeon, N. (2007). Moving engagement upstream? Nanotechnologies and the royal society and royal academy of engineering’s inquiry. Public Understanding of Science, 16(3), 345–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Russell, A. W., Vanclay, F. M., & Aslin, H. J. (2010). Technology assessment in social context: The case for a new framework for assessing and shaping technological developments. Impact Assessment & Project Appraisal, 28(2), 109–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 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
  80. 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
  81. 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
  82. Schuurbiers, D., & Fisher, E. (2009). Lab-scale intervention. EMBO Reports, 10(5), 424–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Shapin, S. (2008). Who are the scientists of today? Seed magazine 19. Available at Accessed 24 Aug 2012.
  84. Shatkin, J. A. (2008). Informing environmental decision making by combining life cycle assessment and risk analysis. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 12(3), 278–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Shelley Egan, C. (2010). The ambivalence of promising technology. Humanities, Social Sciences & Law, 4(2), 183–189.Google Scholar
  86. Shove, E., & Rip, A. (2000). Users and unicorns: A discussion of mythical beasts in interactive science. Science & Public Policy, 27(3), 175–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 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 Accessed 24 Aug 2012.
  88. Stegmaier, P. (2009). The rock ‘n’ roll of knowledge co-production. EMBO Reports, 10, 114–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Stirling, A. (2008). Opening up and closing down. Power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Science, Technology and Human Values, 33(2), 262–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Swierstra, T., & Jelsma, J. (2006). Responsibility without moralism in techno scientific design practice. Science, Technology and Human Values, 31(3), 309–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Van de Poel, I. (2000). On the role of outsiders in technical development. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 12(3), 383–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Van der Burg, S. (2009). Imagining the future of photo acoustic mammography. Science and Engineering Ethics, 15(1), 97–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 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
  94. Van Merkerk, R. O., & Smits, R. E. H. M. (2008). Tailoring CTA for emerging technologies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 75(3), 312–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Vanclay, F. (2002). Conceptualising social impacts. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 22, 183–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Verbeek, P. P. (2006). Materializing Morality—Design ethics and technological mediation. Science, Technology & Human Values, 31(3), 361–380.Google Scholar
  97. Verhoog, H. (1981). The responsibilities of scientists. Minerva, 19(4), 582–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 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
  99. Webster, A. (2007). Crossing boundaries: Social science in the policy room. Science, Technology and Human Values, 32, 458–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Whitmer, A., Ogden, L., Lawton, J., Sturner, P., Groffman, P. M., Schneider, L., et al. (2010). The engaged university: Providing a platform for research that transforms society. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 8, 314–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 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
  102. Wilsdon, J., & Willis, R. (2004). See-through science. Why public engagement needs to move upstream. London: Demos.Google Scholar
  103. Wilsdon, J., Wynne, B., & Stilgoe, J. (2005). The public value of science. Or how to ensure that science really matters. London: Demos.Google Scholar
  104. Wolpert, L. (2007). Is cell science dangerous? Journal on Medical Ethics, 33(6), 345–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Wynne, B. (2006). Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science—Hitting the notes, but missing the music? Community Genetics, 9(3), 211–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Ziman, J. M. (1998). Why must scientists become more ethically sensitive than they used to be? Science, 282(5395), 1813–1814.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.Department of Biotechnology, Section Biotechnology and Society, Faculty of Applied SciencesDelft 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