Skip to main content

A Mobilising Concept? Unpacking Academic Representations of Responsible Research and Innovation

Science and Engineering Ethics volume 23, pages 81–103 (2017)Cite this article

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Notes

  1. The first search was conducted in July 2014 and the analysis was done between the months of August and December 2014. As of today, a considerable number of new contributions have been published given that the concept of RRI has rapidly gained popularity. In November 2015 we have therefore repeated the exact search to make sure that our review took on board the majority of results, only excluding an acceptable number of studies published between August 2014 and November 2015. We would like to inform the reader that we identified 19 valid results in this search, 4 of which were authored by the same authors included in our sample. This left us with 15 references from new authors, which surely will contribute diverse perspectives, but that we do not consider as an outstanding number of publications for the period considered in the database used. We would also like to acknowledge that the search engine scans only journals indexed in the Web of Knowledge. This limits the results of the analysis, excluding recent specialised journals such as the Journal of Responsible Innovation, as a prominent example.

  2. See http://ec.europa.eu/research/swafs/pdf/rome_declaration_RRI_final_21_November.pdf and https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/responsible-research-innovation. Accessed December 23, 2015.

References

  • Bensaude-Vincent, B. (2013). Ethical perspectives on synthetic biology. Biological Theory, 8(4), 368–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bensaude-Vincent, B. (2014). The politics of buzzwords at the interface of technoscience, market and society: The case of “public engagement in science”. Public Understanding of Science, 23(3), 238–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Betten, A. W., Roelofsen, A., & Broerse, J. E. W. (2013). Interactive learning and action: Realizing the promise of synthetic biology for global health. Systems and Synthetic Biology, 7(3), 127–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Bird, S. J. (2006). Research ethics, research integrity and the responsible conduct of research. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12(3), 411–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boucher, P. (2015). ‘You wouldn’t have your granny using them’: Drawing boundaries between acceptable and unacceptable applications of civil drones. Science and Engineering Ethics. doi:10.1007/s11948-015-9720-7.

    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 

  • Calvert, J., & Martin, P. A. (2009). The role of social scientists in synthetic biology. EMBO Reports, 10(3), 201–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chervenak, F. A., & McCullough, L. B. (2006). Scientifically and ethically responsible innovation and research in ultrasound in obstetrics and gynecology. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology, 28(1), 1–4.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Saille, S. (2015a). Innovating innovation policy: The emergence of “responsible research and innovation”. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 2(2), 152–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Saille, S. (2015b). Dis-inviting the unruly public. Science as Culture, 24(1), 99–107.

    Article  Google 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 

  • Dondorp, W., & de Wert, G. (2011). Innovative reproductive technologies: Risks and responsibilities. Human Reproduction, 26(7), 1604–1608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, C. M. W., & Stemerding, D. (2013). Governing synthetic biology for global health through responsible research and innovation. Systems and Synthetic Biology, 7(3), 139–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dove, E. S., & Ozdemir, V. (2013). All the post-genomic world is a stage: The actors and narrators required for translating pharmacogenomics into public health. Personalized Medicine, 10(3), 213–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dove, E. S., & Ozdemir, V. (2014). The epiknowledge of socially responsible innovation. EMBO Reports, 15(5), 462–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Escareño, L., Salinas-Gonzalez, H., Wurzinger, M., Iñiguez, L., Sölkner, J., & Meza-Herrera, C. (2013). Dairy goat production systems: Status quo, perspectives and challenges. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 45(1), 17–34.

    Article  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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Fisher, E. (2011). Editorial overview: Public science and technology scholars: Engaging whom? Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(4), 607–620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald, D., & Callard, F. (2014). Social science and neuroscience beyond interdisciplinarity: Experimental Entanglements. Theory, Culture & Society, 32(1), 3–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flipse, S. M., De Winde, J. H., Osseweijer, P., & van der Sanden, M. C. A. (2014a). The wicked problem of socially responsible innovation. EMBO Reports, 15(5), 464.

    Article  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 and Engineering Ethics, 19(3), 1141–1164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flipse, S. M., van der Sanden, M. C. A., & Osseweijer, P. (2013). The why and how of enabling the integration of social and ethical aspects in research and development. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19(3), 703–725.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flipse, S. M., van der Sanden, M. C. A., & Osseweijer, P. (2014b). Setting up spaces for collaboration in industry between researchers from the natural and social sciences. Science and Engineering Ethics, 20(1), 7–22.

    Article  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 

  • Foley, R. W., Bennett, I., & Wetmore, J. M. (2012). Practitioners’ views on responsibility: Applying nanoethics. NanoEthics, 6, 231–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forsberg, E. M., Quaglio, G., O’Kane, H., Karapiperis, T., Van Woensel, L., & Arnaldi, S. (2015). Assessment of science and technologies: Advising for and with responsibility. Technology in Society, 42, 21–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaskell, G., Gottweis, H., Starkbaum, J., Gerber, M. M., Broerse, J., Gottweis, U., et al. (2013). Publics and biobanks: Pan-European diversity and the challenge of responsible innovation. European Journal of Human Genetics, 21(1), 14–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Genus, A. (2006). Rethinking constructive technology assessment as democratic, reflective, discourse. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 73(1), 13–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glerup, C., & Horst, M. (2014). Mapping “social responsibility” in science. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 1(1), 31–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guston, D. H. (2013). Understanding “anticipatory governance”. Social Studies of Science, 44(2), 218–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guston, D. H., & Sarewitz, D. (2002). Real-time technology assessment. Technology in Society, 24, 93–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hedgecoe, A. (2010). Bioethics and the reinforcement of socio-technical expectations. Social Studies of Science, 40(2), 163–186.

    Article  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.

  • Horst, M. (2014). On the weakness of strong ties. Public Understanding of Science, 23(1), 43–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Irwin, A. (2014). From deficit to democracy (re-visited). Public Understanding of Science, 23(1), 71–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ishizu, S., Sekiya, M., Ishibashi, K., Negami, Y., & Ata, M. (2007). Toward the responsible innovation with nanotechnology in Japan: our scope. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 10(2), 229–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S. (1990). The fifth branch: Science advisers as policy-makers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S. (2004). The idiom of co-production. In S. Jasanoff (Ed.), States of Knowledge (pp. 1–12). London: Routledge.

    Chapter  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 

  • Jenkins, S. G. (1995). Evaluation of new technology in the clinical microbiology laboratory. Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease, 23(1–2), 53–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, C. B. (2014). Continuous variations: The conceptual and the empirical in STS. Science, Technology and Human Values, 39(2), 192–213.

    Article  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 

  • Kerr, A. (2000). (Re)Constructing genetic disease: The clinical continuum between cystic fibrosis and male infertility. Social Studies of Science, 30(6), 847–894.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knorr-Cetina, K. D. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (2002). Morality and Technology: The end of the means. Theory, Culture & Society, 19(5/6), 247–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Longino, H. E. (2002). Science and the common good: Thoughts on Philip Kitcher’s science, truth, and democracy. Philosophy of Science, 69(4), 560–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mejlgaard, N., & Bloch, C. (2012). Science in society in Europe. Science and Public Policy, 39(6), 695–700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2003). Introduction. ‘Mode 2’ revisited: The new production of knowledge. Minerva, 41, 179–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owen, R., Baxter, D., Maynard, T., & Depledge, M. (2009). Beyond regulation: Risk pricing and responsible innovation. Environmental Science and Technology, 43(18), 6902–6906.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owen, R., & Goldberg, N. (2010). Responsible innovation: A pilot study with the U.K. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council. Risk Analysis, 30(11), 1699–1707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owen, R., Macnaghten, P., & Stilgoe, J. (2012). Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society. Science and Public Policy, 39(6), 751–760.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Özdemir, V., Kolker, E., Hotez, P. J., Mohin, S., Prainsack, B., Wynne, B., et al. (2014). Ready to put metadata on the post-2015 development agenda? Linking data publications to responsible innovation and science diplomacy. OMICS: A Journal of Integrative Biology, 18(1), 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pandza, K., & Ellwood, P. (2013). Strategic and ethical foundations for responsible innovation. Research Policy, 42(5), 1112–1125.

    Article  Google 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 

  • Pellizzoni, L. (2004). Responsibility and environmental governance. Environmental Politics, 13(3), 541–565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pesch, U. (2015). Engineers and active responsibility. Science and Engineering Ethics, 21(4), 925–939.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pidgeon, N., Parkhill, K., Corner, A., & Vaughan, N. (2013). Deliberating stratospheric aerosols for climate geoengineering and the SPICE project. Nature Climate Change, 3(5), 451–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raman, S., Mohr, A., Helliwell, R., Ribeiro, B., Shortall, O., Smith, R. D. J., et al. (2015). Integrating social and value dimensions into sustainability assessment of lignocellulosic biofuels. Biomass and Bioenergy, 82, 49–62.

    Article  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 

  • Reddy, P., Jain, R., & Paik, Y. (2011). Personalized medicine in the age of pharmacoproteomics: A close up on India and need for social science engagement for responsible innovation in post-proteomic biology. Current Pharmacogenomics and Personalized Medicine, 9(1), 67–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reiss, T., & Millar, K. (2014). Introduction to special section. Assessment of emerging science and technology: Integration opportunities and challenges. Science and Public Policy, 41(3), 269–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Resnik, D. B. (1998). The ethics of science: An introduction. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes, R. (2005). Rethinking research ethics. The American Journal of Bioethics, 5(1), 7–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rip, A. (2014). The past and future of RRI. Life Sciences Society and Policy, 10(1), 17.

    Article  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 

  • Robinson, D. K. R. (2009). Co-evolutionary scenarios: An application to prospecting futures of the responsible development of nanotechnology. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(9), 1222–1239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez, H., Fisher, E., & Schuurbiers, D. (2013). Integrating science and society in European Framework Programmes: Trends in project-level solicitations. Research Policy, 42(5), 1126–1137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose, N. (2014). The human brain project: Social and ethical challenges. Neuron, 82(6), 1212–1215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaper-Rinkel, P. (2013). The role of future-oriented technology analysis in the governance of emerging technologies: The example of nanotechnology. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80(3), 444–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schot, J., & Rip, A. (1996). The past and future of constructive technology assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 54, 251–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schuurbiers, D. (2011). What happens in the lab: Applying midstream modulation to enhance critical reflection in the laboratory. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(4), 769–788.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Som, C., Berges, M., Chaudhry, Q., Dusinska, M., Fernandes, T. F., Olsen, S. I., et al. (2010). The importance of life cycle concepts for the development of safe nanoproducts. Toxicology, 269(2–3), 160–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spruit, S. L., Hoople, G. D., & Rolfe, D. A. (2015). Just a cog in the machine? The individual responsibility of researchers in nanotechnology is a duty to collectivize. Science and Engineering Ethics. doi:10.1007/s11948-015-9718-1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, B. C. (2012). Responsible research and innovation in information systems. European Journal of Information Systems, 21(3), 207–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, B. C. (2013). Responsible research and innovation: The role of privacy in an emerging framework. Science and Public Policy, 40(6), 708–716.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, B. C., McBride, N., Wakunuma, K., & Flick, C. (2014). The empathic care robot: A prototype of responsible research and innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 84, 74–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Star, S. L. (2010). This is not a boundary object: Reflections on the origin of a concept. Science, Technology and Human Values, 35(5), 601–617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stilgoe, J., Lock, S. J., & Wilsdon, J. (2014). Why should we promote public engagement with science? Public Understanding of Science, 23(1), 4–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., & Macnaghten, P. (2013). Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy, 42(9), 1568–1580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stinner, D. H., Glick, I., & Stinner, B. R. (1992). Forage legumes and cultural sustainability: Lessons from history. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 40(1–4), 233–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stirling, A. (2012). Opening up the politics of knowledge and power in bioscience. PLoS Biology, 10(1), e1001233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sugarman, J. (2012). Questions concerning the clinical translation of cell-based interventions under an innovation pathway. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 40(4), 945–950.

    Article  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.

  • Te Kulve, H., & Rip, A. (2011). Constructing productive engagement: Pre-engagement tools for emerging technologies. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(4), 699–714.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tran, T., & Daim, T. (2008). A taxonomic review of methods and tools applied in technology assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 75(9), 1396–1405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van den Hove, S., McGlade, J., Mottet, P., & Depledge, M. H. (2012). The innovation Union: A perfect means to confused ends? Environmental Science & Policy, 16, 73–80.

    Article  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 

  • von Schomberg, R. (2013). A vision of responsible research and innovation. In R. Owen, J. Bessant, & M. Heintz (Eds.), Responsible innovation: Managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society (pp. 51–74). Chichester: Wiley.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wickson, F., & Forsberg, E. M. (2014). Standardising responsibility? The significance of interstitial spaces. Science and Engineering Ethics, 21(5), 1159–1180.

    Article  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 

  • Wyatt, S., & Balmer, B. (2007). Home on the range: What and where is the middle in science and technology studies? Science, Technology and Human Values, 32(6), 619–626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wynne, B. (1984). The institutional context of science, models, and policy: The IIASA energy study. Policy Sciences, 17, 277–320.

    Article  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 

  • Wynne, B. (2007b). Dazzled by the mirage of influence? STS–SSK in multivalent registers of relevance. Science, Technology and Human Values, 32(4), 491–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wynne, B. (2011). Lab work goes social, and vice versa: Strategising public engagement processes. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(4), 791–800.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zenko, Z., & Sardi, V. (2014). Systemic thinking for socially responsible innovations in social tourism for people with disabilities. Kybernetes, 43(3), 652–666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zwart, H. E. (2013). From playfulness and self-centredness via grand expectations to normalisation: A psychoanalytical rereading of the history of molecular genetics. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 16(4), 775–788.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

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.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Centre for Applied Bioethics, University of Nottingham, Sutton Bonington Campus, Leicestershire, LE12 5RD, UK

    Barbara E. Ribeiro, Robert D. J. Smith & Kate Millar

  2. Department of Social Science, Health and Medicine, King’s College London, London, WC2R 2LS, UK

    Robert D. J. Smith

Authors
  1. Barbara E. Ribeiro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robert D. J. Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kate Millar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Barbara E. Ribeiro.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ribeiro, B.E., Smith, R.D.J. & Millar, K. A Mobilising Concept? Unpacking Academic Representations of Responsible Research and Innovation. Sci Eng Ethics 23, 81–103 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9761-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9761-6

Keywords

  • Responsible research and innovation
  • Emerging science and technologies
  • Scientific cultures
  • Responsibility