Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 21, Issue 5, pp 1159–1180 | Cite as

Standardising Responsibility? The Significance of Interstitial Spaces

  • Fern Wickson
  • Ellen-Marie Forsberg
Original Paper


Modern society is characterised by rapid technological development that is often socially controversial and plagued by extensive scientific uncertainty concerning its socio-ecological impacts. Within this context, the concept of ‘responsible research and innovation’ (RRI) is currently rising to prominence in international discourse concerning science and technology governance. As this emerging concept of RRI begins to be enacted through instruments, approaches, and initiatives, it is valuable to explore what it is coming to mean for and in practice. In this paper we draw attention to a realm that is often backgrounded in the current discussions of RRI but which has a highly significant impact on scientific research, innovation and policy—namely, the interstitial space of international standardization. Drawing on the case of nanoscale sciences and technologies to make our argument, we present examples of how international standards are already entangled in the development of RRI and yet, how the process of international standardization itself largely fails to embody the norms proposed as characterizing RRI. We suggest that although current models for RRI provide a promising attempt to make research and innovation more responsive to societal needs, ethical values and environmental challenges, such approaches will need to encompass and address a greater diversity of innovation system agents and spaces if they are to prove successful in their aims.


Responsible research and innovation Standardisation Nanotechnology CEN ISO Innovation systems 


  1. BASF. (2014). Nanotechnology code of conduct. Last accessed September 01, 2014.
  2. Beck, U. (1986). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. SAGE: London.Google Scholar
  3. Beder, S. (1993). The nature of sustainable development. Scribe: Newham.Google Scholar
  4. Bergek, A., Jacobsson, S., Carlsson, B., Lindmark, S., & Rickne, A. (2008). Analyzing the functional dynamics of technological innovation systems: A scheme of analysis. Research Policy, 37, 407–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bessant, J. (2013). Innovation in the twenty-first century. In R. Owen, J. Bessant, & M. Heintz (Eds.), Responsible innovation. Managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society (pp. 1–26). Wiley: New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blind, K., & Gauch, S. (2009). Research and standardisation in nanotechnology: Evidence from Germany. Journal of Technology Transfer, 34, 320–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bowker, G. C. & Star, S. L. (1999) Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Busch, L. (2012). Standards: Recipes for reality. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. Delemarle, A., & Throne-Holst, H. (2012). The role of standardisation in the shaping of a vision for nanotechnology. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 10, 2. doi: 10.1142/S0219877013400051.Google Scholar
  10. Delgado, A., Kjølberg, K. L., & Wickson, F. (2011). Public engagement coming of age: From theory to practice in STS encounters with nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 20(6), 826–845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Demortain, D. (2011). Scientists and the regulation of risk: Standardising control. Edward Elgar: Cheltenham.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. DuPont, & Environmental Defense. (2007). Nano risk framework. Last accessed September 01, 2014.
  13. European Commission (EC). (2000). Guide to the implementation of directives based on the new approach and the global approach. Last accessed August 31, 2013.
  14. European Commission (EC). (2004). Towards a European strategy for nanotechnology (COM(2004)338). Last accessed August 31, 2013.
  15. European Commission (EC). (2005). Nanosciences and nanotechnologies: An action plan for Europe 20052009 (COM(2005)243). Last accessed August 31, 2013.
  16. European Commission (EC). (2008). Commission Recommendation of 07/02/2008 on a code of conduct for responsible nanosciences and nanotechnologies research (COM(2008)424). Last accessed August 31, 2013.
  17. European Commission (EC). (2012). Responsible research and innovation: Europe’ ability to respond to societal challenges. Last accessed September 01, 2014.
  18. European Commission (EC). (2013). Europe 2020. Last accessed August 30, 2013.
  19. Felt, U., Wynne, B., et al. (2007). Taking European knowledge society seriously. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities: Luxembourg.Google Scholar
  20. Fisher, E., Mahajan, R. L., & Mitcham, C. (2006). Midstream modulation of technology: Governance from within. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 26(6), 485–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Forsberg, E.-M. (2010). The Role of ISO in the governance of nanotechnology. Arbeidsforskningsinstituttet.Google Scholar
  22. Forsberg, E.-M. (2012). Standardisation in the field of nanotechnology: Some issues of legitimacy. Science and Engineering Ethics, 18(4), 719–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Franck, T. M. (1999). Democracy, legitimacy and the rule of law: Linkages. In NYU Law School, Public Law and Legal Theory Working Paper Series, Working Paper 2.Google Scholar
  24. Giddings, B., Hopwood, B., & O’Brien, G. (2002). Environment, economy and society: Fitting them together into sustainable development. Sustainable Development, 10, 187–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Guston, D. (2000). Between politics and science: Assuring the integrity and productivity of research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Guston, D., & Sarewitz, D. (2002). Real-time technology assessment. Technology in Society, 24, 93–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hopwood, B., Mellor, M., & O’Brien, G. (2005). Sustainable development: Mapping different approaches. Sustainable Development, 13, 38–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. ISO. (2011). Business plan ISO/TC 229 nanotechnologies. Last accessed August 30, 2013.
  29. ISO/IEC/GEN. (2001). ISO/IEC statement on consumer participation in standardization work. ISO/IEC/GEN 2001: 01. Accessed February 04, 2011.
  30. Jacob, K., van den Hoven, J., et al. (2013). Options for strengthening responsible research and innovation: Report of the expert group on the state of the art in Europe on responsible research and innovation. European Commission: Brussels.Google Scholar
  31. Jakobs, K. (2006). Shaping user-side innovation through standardization: The example of ICT. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 73(1): 27–40.Google Scholar
  32. Jakobs, K. (2010). Shaping standards: People and voting rights and the case of IEEE 802.11. In Proceedings of the WebIST 2010, Institute for Systems and Technologies of Information, Control and Communication. Google Scholar
  33. Kica, E., & Bowman, D. M. (2012). Regulation by means of standardization: Key legitimacy issues of health and safety nanotechnology standards. Jurimetrics The Journal of Law Science and Technology, 53, 11–56.Google Scholar
  34. Kjølberg, K. (2010). The notion of ‘Responsible Development’ in new approaches to governance of nanosciences and nanotechnologies (PhD Dissertation, University of Bergen). Last accessed August 30, 2013.
  35. Laurent, B. (2011). Democracies on trial. Assembling nanotechnology and its problems. Doctorat Paris Tech.Google Scholar
  36. Lee, R. P. (2009). Agri-food governance and expertise: The production of international food standards. Sociologica Ruralis, 49(4), 415–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lundvall, B.-A. (1992). National systems of innovation: Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  38. Malerba, F. (2006). Sectoral systems: How and why innovation differs across sectors. In J. Fagerberg, D. V. Mowery, & R. R. Nelson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation (pp. 380–406). Oxford University Press: Oxford.Google Scholar
  39. OECD. (2007). Working party on nanotechnology: Vision statement Last accessed August 31, 2013.
  40. Owen, R., Stilgoe, J., Macnaghten, P., Gorman, M., Fisher, E., & Guston, D. (2013) “A Framework for Responsible Innovation.” In Responsible innovation: Managing the responsible innovation of science and innovation in society (pp. 27–50). Wiley: London.Google Scholar
  41. Rip, A., Misa, T., & Schot, J. (Eds.). (1995). Managing technology in society: The approachof constructive technology assessment. London: Thomson.Google Scholar
  42. Responsible NanoCode. (2008). The responsible nanocode. Last accessed August 31, 2013.
  43. Schuurbiers, D., & Fisher, E. (2009). Lab-scale intervention. EMBO Reports, 10, 424–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Scott, W. R. (1987). Organizations: Rational, natural, and open systems (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  45. Stegmaier, P. (2009). The rock ‘n’ roll of knowledge co-production. EMBO Reports, 10, 114–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., & Macnaghten, P. (2013). “Developing a framework for responsible innovation” Research Policy (online first). doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2013.05.008. Last accessed August 30, 2013.
  47. Stirling, A. (2008). Opening up and closing down. Power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Science, Technology and Human Values, 33, 262–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Thoreau, F. (2011). One to rule them all? The standardization of nanotechnologies. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 3, 418–423.Google Scholar
  49. Van den Berghe, F. (2006). Good coffee, bad governance? The legitimacy of FLO. In Center for Human Rights and Global Justice Working Paper Number 12. Google Scholar
  50. van der Burg, S., & Swierstra, T. (2013). Ethics on the laboratory floor. Palgrave Macmillan: Hampshire.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Von Schomberg, R. (2013). A vision of responsible innovation. In R. Owen, M. Heintz, & J. Bessant (Eds.), Responsible innovation: Managing the responsible innovation of science and innovation in society (pp. 51–74). London: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Werle, R., & Iversen, E. J. (2006). Promoting legitimacy in technical standardization. Science, Technology and Innovation Studies, 2, 19–39.Google Scholar
  53. Wickson, F. (2012). Nanotechnology and risk. In D. Maclurcan & N. Radywyl (Eds.), Nanotechnology and global sustainability (pp. 217–240). Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  54. Wickson, F., Gillund, F., & Myhr, A. (2010). Treating nanoparticles with precaution: Recognising qualitative uncertainty in scientific risk assessment. In K. Kjølberg & F. Wickson (Eds.), Nano meets macro (pp. 445–472). Singapore: Pan Stanford Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wilsdon, J., & Willis, R. (2004). See-through science: Why public engagement needs to move upstream. (Demos: London). Last accessed August 20, 2013.
  56. World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Report of the world commission on environment and development: Our common future. General Assembly Resolution 42/187 Last accessed August 30, 2013.
  57. Zwart, H., Landeweerd, L., & van Rooij, A. (2014). Adapt or perish? Assessing the recent shift in the European research funding arena from ‘ELSA’ to ‘RRI’. Life Sciences, Society and Policy, 10(11), 1–19.Google Scholar
  58. Zwart, H., & Nelis, A. (2009). What is ELSA genomics? EMBO Reports, 10, 540–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.GenØk Centre for BiosafetyTromsøNorway
  2. 2.Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied SciencesOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations