Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp 81–103 | Cite as

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

  • Barbara E. Ribeiro
  • Robert D. J. Smith
  • Kate Millar
Original Paper

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.

Keywords

Responsible research and innovation Emerging science and technologies Scientific cultures Responsibility 

References

  1. Bensaude-Vincent, B. (2013). Ethical perspectives on synthetic biology. Biological Theory, 8(4), 368–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Bird, S. J. (2006). Research ethics, research integrity and the responsible conduct of research. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12(3), 411–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Briggle, A. (2012). Scientific responsibility and misconduct. Encyclopedia of applied ethics (2nd ed., Vol. 4). London: Elsevier Inc.Google Scholar
  8. Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods (4th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Callon, M., Lascoumes, P., & Barthe, Y. (2009). Acting in an uncertain world: An essay on technical democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. Calvert, J., & Martin, P. A. (2009). The role of social scientists in synthetic biology. EMBO Reports, 10(3), 201–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Collingridge, D. (1980). The social control of technology. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  13. 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
  14. de Saille, S. (2015a). Innovating innovation policy: The emergence of “responsible research and innovation”. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 2(2), 152–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. de Saille, S. (2015b). Dis-inviting the unruly public. Science as Culture, 24(1), 99–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. Dondorp, W., & de Wert, G. (2011). Innovative reproductive technologies: Risks and responsibilities. Human Reproduction, 26(7), 1604–1608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dove, E. S., & Ozdemir, V. (2014). The epiknowledge of socially responsible innovation. EMBO Reports, 15(5), 462–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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
  23. 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.
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. Fisher, E. (2011). Editorial overview: Public science and technology scholars: Engaging whom? Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(4), 607–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fitzgerald, D., & Callard, F. (2014). Social science and neuroscience beyond interdisciplinarity: Experimental Entanglements. Theory, Culture & Society, 32(1), 3–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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
  33. Foley, R. W., Bennett, I., & Wetmore, J. M. (2012). Practitioners’ views on responsibility: Applying nanoethics. NanoEthics, 6, 231–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Genus, A. (2006). Rethinking constructive technology assessment as democratic, reflective, discourse. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 73(1), 13–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Glerup, C., & Horst, M. (2014). Mapping “social responsibility” in science. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 1(1), 31–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Guston, D. H. (2013). Understanding “anticipatory governance”. Social Studies of Science, 44(2), 218–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Guston, D. H., & Sarewitz, D. (2002). Real-time technology assessment. Technology in Society, 24, 93–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hedgecoe, A. (2010). Bioethics and the reinforcement of socio-technical expectations. Social Studies of Science, 40(2), 163–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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.
  42. Horst, M. (2014). On the weakness of strong ties. Public Understanding of Science, 23(1), 43–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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
  45. Irwin, A. (2014). From deficit to democracy (re-visited). Public Understanding of Science, 23(1), 71–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Jasanoff, S. (1990). The fifth branch: Science advisers as policy-makers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Jasanoff, S. (2004). The idiom of co-production. In S. Jasanoff (Ed.), States of Knowledge (pp. 1–12). London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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
  50. Jenkins, S. G. (1995). Evaluation of new technology in the clinical microbiology laboratory. Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease, 23(1–2), 53–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Jensen, C. B. (2014). Continuous variations: The conceptual and the empirical in STS. Science, Technology and Human Values, 39(2), 192–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Jonas, H. (1984). The imperative of responsibility: In search of an ethics for the technological age. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  53. Kerr, A. (2000). (Re)Constructing genetic disease: The clinical continuum between cystic fibrosis and male infertility. Social Studies of Science, 30(6), 847–894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Knorr-Cetina, K. D. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Latour, B. (2002). Morality and Technology: The end of the means. Theory, Culture & Society, 19(5/6), 247–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Mejlgaard, N., & Bloch, C. (2012). Science in society in Europe. Science and Public Policy, 39(6), 695–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2003). Introduction. ‘Mode 2’ revisited: The new production of knowledge. Minerva, 41, 179–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Owen, R., Baxter, D., Maynard, T., & Depledge, M. (2009). Beyond regulation: Risk pricing and responsible innovation. Environmental Science and Technology, 43(18), 6902–6906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 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
  63. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Pandza, K., & Ellwood, P. (2013). Strategic and ethical foundations for responsible innovation. Research Policy, 42(5), 1112–1125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 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
  66. Pellizzoni, L. (2004). Responsibility and environmental governance. Environmental Politics, 13(3), 541–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Pesch, U. (2015). Engineers and active responsibility. Science and Engineering Ethics, 21(4), 925–939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 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
  71. Rawlins, M. D. (2014). The “Saatchi bill” will allow responsible innovation in treatment. BMJ, 2771(April), 1–2.Google Scholar
  72. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Resnik, D. B. (1998). The ethics of science: An introduction. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  75. Rhodes, R. (2005). Rethinking research ethics. The American Journal of Bioethics, 5(1), 7–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Rip, A. (2014). The past and future of RRI. Life Sciences Society and Policy, 10(1), 17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Rip, A., Misa, T. J., & Schot, J. (1995). Managing technology in society: The approach of constructive technology assessment. London, UK: Pinter.Google Scholar
  78. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Rose, N. (2014). The human brain project: Social and ethical challenges. Neuron, 82(6), 1212–1215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Schot, J., & Rip, A. (1996). The past and future of constructive technology assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 54, 251–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 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
  86. Stahl, B. C. (2012). Responsible research and innovation in information systems. European Journal of Information Systems, 21(3), 207–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Stahl, B. C. (2013). Responsible research and innovation: The role of privacy in an emerging framework. Science and Public Policy, 40(6), 708–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Stilgoe, J., Lock, S. J., & Wilsdon, J. (2014). Why should we promote public engagement with science? Public Understanding of Science, 23(1), 4–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., & Macnaghten, P. (2013). Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy, 42(9), 1568–1580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 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
  94. Stirling, A. (2012). Opening up the politics of knowledge and power in bioscience. PLoS Biology, 10(1), e1001233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 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.
  97. 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
  98. Te Kulve, H., & Rip, A. (2011). Constructing productive engagement: Pre-engagement tools for emerging technologies. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(4), 699–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 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
  102. 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
  103. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Wickson, F., & Forsberg, E. M. (2014). Standardising responsibility? The significance of interstitial spaces. Science and Engineering Ethics, 21(5), 1159–1180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Wilsdon, J., Wynne, B., & Stilgoe, J. (2005). The public value of science: Or how to ensure that science really matters. London: Demos.Google Scholar
  106. 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
  107. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Wynne, B. (1984). The institutional context of science, models, and policy: The IIASA energy study. Policy Sciences, 17, 277–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. 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
  110. 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
  111. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Wynne, B. (2011). Lab work goes social, and vice versa: Strategising public engagement processes. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(4), 791–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Zenko, Z., & Sardi, V. (2014). Systemic thinking for socially responsible innovations in social tourism for people with disabilities. Kybernetes, 43(3), 652–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Barbara E. Ribeiro
    • 1
  • Robert D. J. Smith
    • 1
    • 2
  • Kate Millar
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Applied BioethicsUniversity of NottinghamLeicestershireUK
  2. 2.Department of Social Science, Health and MedicineKing’s College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations