A Mobilising Concept? Unpacking Academic Representations of Responsible Research and Innovation
- 1.5k Downloads
This paper makes a plea for more reflexive attempts to develop and anchor the emerging concept of responsible research and innovation (RRI). RRI has recently emerged as a buzzword in science policy, becoming a focus of concerted experimentation in many academic circles. Its performative capacity means that it is able to mobilise resources and spaces despite no common understanding of what it is or should be ‘made of’. In order to support reflection and practice amongst those who are interested in and using the concept, this paper unpacks understandings of RRI across a multi-disciplinary body of peer-reviewed literature. Our analysis focuses on three key dimensions of RRI (motivations, theoretical conceptualisations and translations into practice) that remain particularly opaque. A total of 48 publications were selected through a systematic literature search and their content was qualitatively analysed. Across the literature, RRI is portrayed as a concept that embeds numerous features of existing approaches to govern and assess emerging technologies. Our analysis suggests that its greatest potential may be in its ability to unify and provide political momentum to a wide range of long-articulated ethical and policy issues. At the same time, RRI’s dynamism and resulting complexity may represent its greatest challenge. Further clarification on what RRI has to offer in practice—beyond what has been offered to date—is still needed, as well as more explicit engagement with research and institutional cultures of responsibility. Such work may help to realise the high political expectations that are attached to nascent RRI.
KeywordsResponsible research and innovation Emerging science and technologies Scientific cultures Responsibility
Research reported in this paper was supported by the Integrated EST Framework (EST-Frame) project (http://estframe.net) funded by the European Commission’s 7th Framework Programme GA No. 288981 (Millar, Smith and Ribeiro) and through the Leverhulme Trust research programme “Making Science Public” (MSP) (RP2011-SP-013; Millar) and it is aligned with work being carried out within the Nottingham BBSRC/EPSRC funded Synthetic Biology Research Centre (Millar). We would like to thank our colleagues within EST-Frame for engaging in several very helpful discussions regarding TA and RRI, as well as to Carmen McLeod (MSP), Sarah Hartley (MSP), and to the editor and two anonymous reviewers for useful comments on previous drafts of this paper.
- Bijker, W. (1995). Sociohistorical technology studies. In S. Jasanoff, G. Markle, J. Petersen, & T. Pinch (Eds.), Handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 229–257). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
- Briggle, A. (2012). Scientific responsibility and misconduct. Encyclopedia of applied ethics (2nd ed., Vol. 4). London: Elsevier Inc.Google Scholar
- Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods (4th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Callon, M., Lascoumes, P., & Barthe, Y. (2009). Acting in an uncertain world: An essay on technical democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Collingridge, D. (1980). The social control of technology. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
- D’Silva, J., Robinson, D. K. R., & Shelley-Egan, C. (2012). A game with rules in the making—How the high probability of waiting games in nanomedicine is being mitigated through distributed regulation and responsible innovation. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 24(6), 583–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Delgado, A., Kjolberg, K. L., & Wickson, F. (2010). Public engagement coming of age: From theory to practice in STS encounters with nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 1, 1–20.Google Scholar
- European Commission (2009). Commission recommendation on a code of conduct for responsible nanosciences and nanotechnologies research and Council conclusions on Responsible nanosciences and nanotechnologies research. Directorate-General for Research Science, Economy and Society. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
- European Commission (2012). Responsible research and innovation. Europe’s ability to respond to societal challenges. Retrieved from: https://ec.europa.eu/research/swafs/pdf/pub_public_engagement/responsible-research-and-innovation-leaflet_en.pdf. Accessed December 24, 2015.
- European Commission (2013). Options for strengthening responsible research and innovation. Report of the Expert Group on the State of Art in Europe on Responsible Research and Innovation. Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, Brussels: Office for Official Publications of the European Union.Google Scholar
- European Commission (2015). Indicators for promoting and monitoring responsible research and innovation. Report from the expert group on policy indicators for responsible research and innovation. Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
- Flipse, S. M., van Der Sanden, M. C. A., Radstake, M., De Winde, J. H., & Osseweijer, P. (2014c). The DNA of socially responsible innovation. EMBO Reports, 15(2), 134–137.Google Scholar
- Higgins, J. P. T., Green, S. (2011). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration. http://www.cochrane-handbook.org. Accessed November 10, 2015.
- Irwin, A. (2008). STS perspectives on scientific governance. In E. J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, & J. Wajcman (Eds.), The handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 583–607). London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Jasanoff, S. (1990). The fifth branch: Science advisers as policy-makers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Jasanoff, S. (2010). A field of its own: The emergence of science and technology studies. In R. Frodeman, J. Thompson, & C. Mitcham (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity (pp. 191–205). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Jonas, H. (1984). The imperative of responsibility: In search of an ethics for the technological age. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Knorr-Cetina, K. D. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Ozdemir, V., Borda-Rodriguez, A., Dove, E. S., Ferguson, L. R., Huzair, F., & Manolopoulos, V. G. (2013). Public health pharmacogenomics and the design principles for global public goods—Moving genomics to responsible innovation). Current Pharmacogenomics and Personalized Medicine, 11(1), 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Parry, S., Faulkner, W., Cunningham-Burley, S., & Marks, N. J. (2012). Heterogeneous agendas around public engagement in stem cell research: The case for maintaining plasticity. Science and Technology Studies, 12(2), 61–80.Google Scholar
- Randles, S., Dorbeck-Jung, B., Lindner, R., & Rip, A. (2014). Where to next for Responsible Innovation? In C. Coenen, A. Dijkstra, C. Fautz, J. Guivant, K. Konrad, C. Milburn, & H. van Lente (Eds.), Innovation and responsibility: Engaging with new and emerging technologies (pp. 19–35). Heidelberg: IOS Press, AKA.Google Scholar
- Rawlins, M. D. (2014). The “Saatchi bill” will allow responsible innovation in treatment. BMJ, 2771(April), 1–2.Google Scholar
- Resnik, D. B. (1998). The ethics of science: An introduction. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Rip, A., Misa, T. J., & Schot, J. (1995). Managing technology in society: The approach of constructive technology assessment. London, UK: Pinter.Google Scholar
- Sutcliffe, H. (2011). A report on responsible research and innovation for the European Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/rri-report-hilary-sutcliffe_en.pdf. Accessed November 10, 2015.
- Swan, P. B. (2000). The role of land grant universities: Responsible Innovation. In The biobased economy of the twenty-first century: Agriculture expanding into health, energy, chemicals, and materials (pp. 85–91). Orlando, FL: NABC REPORT.Google Scholar
- Van der Burg, S. (2010). Shaping the societal impacts of engineering sciences: A reflection on the role of public funding agencies. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 23(1), 25–36.Google Scholar
- von Schomberg, R. (2011). Prospects for technology assessment in a framework of responsible research and innovation. In M. Dusseldorp & R. Beecroft (Eds.), Technikfolgen abscha¨tzen lehren. Bildungspotenziale transdisziplina¨rer Methoden (pp. 39–61). Berlin: Springer.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
- Winner, L. (1986). The whale and the reactor: A search for limits in an age of high technology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- Wynne, B. (2007a). Public participation in science and technology: Performing and obscuring a political–conceptual category mistake. East Asian Science, Technology and Society, 1, 99–110.Google Scholar