Advertisement

Responsible Innovation in the US, UK and Denmark: Governance Landscapes

  • Sarah R. DaviesEmail author
  • Maja Horst
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter explores the notion of responsible innovation (RI) as it is currently being imagined in policy and governance practice. It does this in the context of three different countries: the UK, US and Denmark. We ask how RI is being constituted within policy discussion. What is it understood as being? What kinds of actors are implicated in it? And what is its scope, or field of action? In exploring these questions we argue that responsible innovation is currently a largely international discourse, and that it remains unclear, from current policy discussion, how it should be put into practice. Though it is tied to a linear model of science and technology, in which both the process and outputs of scientific research are, through RI, imbued with responsibility, the actors involved and the fields in which they are assumed to operate are exceedingly general. As such, RI appears to be a fundamentally de-individualised process.

Keywords

Responsible innovation Civic epistemology Discourse analysis De-individualisation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Cecilie Glerup and Raffael Himmelsbach for their comments on and help with the preparation of this manuscript.

References

  1. Anderson, Benedict. 2006. Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. Verso Books.Google Scholar
  2. Bauer, Martin W., Nick Allum, and Steve Miller. 2007. What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda. Public Understanding of Science 16(1): 79–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bell, Larry. 2008. Engaging the public in technology policy: A new role for science museums. Science Communication 29(3): 386–398. doi: 10.1177/1075547007311971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Benz, Arthur, and Yannis Papadopoulos (eds.). 2007. Governance and democracy: Comparing national, European and international experiences. London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  5. Besley, J.C. 2010. Imagining public engagement. Public Understanding of Science. doi: 10.1177/0963662510379792.Google Scholar
  6. Brown, Mark B. 2009. Science in democracy: Expertise, institutions, and representation. Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Burchell, Kevin, Sarah Franklin, and Kerry Holden. 2009. Public culture as professional science: Final report of the scope project (Scientists on public engagement: From communication to deliberation). London: LSE.Google Scholar
  8. Davies, Sarah R. 2013. Constituting public engagement meanings and genealogies of PEST in two U.K. studies. Science Communication 35(6): 687–707. doi: 10.1177/1075547013478203.
  9. Davies, Sarah R., Cecilie Glerup, and Maja Horst. 2014. On being responsible: Multiplicity in responsible development. In Responsibility in nanotechnology development, ed. Simone Arnaldi, Arianna Ferrari, Paolo Magaudda, and Francesca Marin, 143–159. Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Department for Innovation Universities and Skills. 2008. A vision for science and society: A consultation on developing a new strategy for the UK. London. Available at: http://interactive.dius.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/.
  11. DG Research. 2011. DG research workshop on responsible research and innovation in Europe. Brussels.Google Scholar
  12. Drenth, P.J.D. 2006. Responsible conduct in research. Science and Engineering Ethics 12(1): 13–21.Google Scholar
  13. Etzkowitz, H., A. Webster, C. Gebhardt, and B.R.C. Terra. 2000. The future of the university and the university of the future: Evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy 29(2): 313–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fairclough, Norman. 2003. Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Falkner, Robert, and Nico Jaspers. 2012. Regulating nanotechnologies: Risk, uncertainty and the global governance gap. Global Environmental Politics 12(1): 30–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ferrari, Arianna, and Alfred Nordmann. 2010. Beyond conversation: Some lessons for nanoethics. NanoEthics 4(2): 171–181. doi: 10.1007/s11569-010-0098-3.
  17. Fischer, Frank. 2009. Democracy and expertise: Reorienting policy inquiry. Oxford: OUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Frankel, M.S. 2000. Scientific societies as sentinels of responsible research conduct. Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine 224(4): 216–219. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1373.2000.22424.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Glerup, Cecilie, and Maja Horst. 2014. Mapping ‘social responsibility’ in science. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 1–20. doi: 10.1080/23299460.2014.882077.
  20. Gregory, Jane, and Simon Jay Lock. 2008. The evolution of ‘public understanding of science’: Public engagement as a tool of science policy in the UK. Sociology Compass 2(4): 1252–1265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Groves, Chris, Lori Frater, Robert Lee, and Elen Stokes. 2011. Is there room at the bottom for CSR? Corporate social responsibility and nanotechnology in the UK. Journal of Business Ethics. doi: 10.1007/s10551-010-0731-7.Google Scholar
  22. Guston, David H. 1999. Evaluating the first U.S. consensus conference: The impact of the citizens’ panel on telecommunications and the future of democracy. Science Technology and Human Values 24(4): 451–482. doi: 10.1177/016224399902400402.
  23. Guston, David H. 2010. The anticipatory governance of emerging technologies. Journal of the Korean Vacuum Society 19(6): 432–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Guston, David H., and Daniel Sarewitz. 2002. Real-time technology assessment. Technology in Society 24(1–2): 93–109. doi: 10.1016/S0160-791X(01)00047-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Harder, Peter, Carl Bache, Mogens Flensted-Jensen, Mikael Rørdam, and Nina Smith. 2010. Samfundets Bevågenhed - Universiteternes Ansvarlighed. Hvad Kan Forskerne, Universiteterne Og Forskningsrådene Selv Gøre? Forskningspolitisk årsmøde 2010. Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab.Google Scholar
  26. Hellström, Tomas. 2003. Systemic innovation and risk: Technology assessment and the challenge of responsible innovation. Technology in Society 25(3): 369–384. doi: 10.1016/S0160-791X(03)00041-1.
  27. Higher Education Funding Council for England, Scottish Funding Council, Higher Education Funding Council for Wales, and Department for Employment and Learning, Northern Ireland. 2010. Research excellence framework impact pilot exercise: Findings of the expert panels. A report to the UK higher education funding bodies by the chairs of the impact pilot panels. Bristol: HEFCE.Google Scholar
  28. Horst, Maja. 2007. Public expectations of gene therapy: Scientific futures and their performative effects on scientific citizenship. Science Technology and Human Values 32(2): 150–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Horst, Maja. 2012. Deliberation, dialogue or dissemination: Changing objectives in the communication of science and technology in Denmark. In The development of public communication of science and technology studies—A comparative approach, edited by Michel Claessens, Bernard Schiele, and Shi Sunke. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  30. Horst, Maja, and Alan Irwin. 2010. Nations at ease with radical knowledge: On consensus, consensusing and false consensusness. Social Studies of Science 40(1): 105–126.Google Scholar
  31. House of Lords. 2000. Third report: Science and society. London: The Stationery Office, Parliament.Google Scholar
  32. Irwin, Alan. 2006. The politics of talk: Coming to terms with the ‘new’ scientific governance. Social Studies of Science 36(2): 299–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Irwin, Alan, Torben Elgaard Jensen, and Kevin E. Jones. 2012. The good, the bad and the perfect—Criticizing engagement practice. Social Studies of Science. doi: 10.1177/0306312712462461.
  34. Jackson, R., Fiona Barbagallo, and Helen Haste. 2005. Strengths of public dialogue on science-related issues. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 8(3): 349–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jasanoff, Sheila. 2005. Designs on nature: Science and democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Jasanoff, Sheila, and Sang-Hyun Kim. 2009. Containing the atom: Sociotechnical imaginaries and nuclear power in the United States and South Korea. Minerva 47(2): 119–146. doi: 10.1007/s11024-009-9124-4.
  37. Joly, Pierre Benoit, and Alain Kaufmann. 2008. Lost in translation? The need for upstream engagement with nanotechnology on trial. Science as Culture 17(3): 225–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jones, Kevin E. 2004. BSE and the Philips report: A cautionary tale about the uptake of ‘risk’. In The governance of knowledge, 161–186. New Brunswick and London: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  39. Jones, Richard. 2008. When it pays to ask the public. Nature Nanotechnology 3(10): 578–579. doi: 10.1038/nnano.2008.288.
  40. Kearnes, Matthew B, and Arie Rip. 2009. The emerging governance landscape of nanotechnology. In Jenseits Von Regulierung: Zum Politischen Umgang Mit Der Nanotechnologie, edited by S Gammel, A Losch, and Alfred Nordmann. Berlin: Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft.Google Scholar
  41. Kjølberg, Kamilla Lein, and Roger Strand. 2011. Conversations about responsible nanoresearch. NanoEthics 5(1): 99–113. doi: 10.1007/s11569-011-0114-2.
  42. Kleinman, Daniel Lee. 1995. Politics on the endless frontier: Postwar research policy in the United States. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Law, John. 1994. Organising modernity: Social ordering and social theory. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  44. Macnaghten, Phil, and Julia S. Guivant. 2011. Converging citizens? Nanotechnology and the political imaginary of public engagement in Brazil and the United Kingdom. Public Understanding of Science 20(2): 207–220. doi: 10.1177/0963662510379084.
  45. Macnaghten, Phil, and Richard Owen. 2011. Good governance for climate-engineering. Nature 479: 293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mahlouji, H., and N. Anaraki. 2009. Corporate social responsibility towards social responsible innovation: A dynamic capability approach. International Review of Business Research Papers 5(6): 185–194.Google Scholar
  47. McCallie, Ellen, L Bell, T Lohwater, J Falk, Jane L. Lehr, B.V. Lewenstein, C Needham, and B Wiehre. 2009. Many experts, many audiences: Public engagement with science and informal science education: A CAISE inquiry group report. Washington DC: Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education (CAISE).Google Scholar
  48. Mejlgaard, Niels. 2009. The trajectory of scientific citizenship in Denmark: Changing balances between public competence and public participation. Science and Public Policy 36(6): 483–496. doi: 10.3152/030234209X460962.
  49. Midttun, A., Gjolberg, M., Kourula, A., et al. 2012. Public policies for corporate social responsibility in four nordic countries: Harmony of goals and conflict of means. Business & Society. Available at: http://bas.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/0007650312450848. Accessed 26 Feb 2013.
  50. Miller, Clark A. 2008. Civic epistemologies: Constituting knowledge and order in political communities. Sociology Compass 2(6): 1896–1919. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2008.00175.x.
  51. Miller, Jon D. 1998. The measurement of civic scientific literacy. Public Understanding of Science 7(3): 203–223. doi: 10.1088/0963-6625/7/3/001.
  52. Miller, Steve. 2001. Public understanding of science at the crossroads. Public Understanding of Science 10(1): 115–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Morris, Jeff, Jim Willis, Domenico De Martinis, Bjorn Hansen, Henrik Laursen, Juan Riego Sintes, Peter Kearns, and Mar Gonzalez. 2010. Science policy considerations for responsible nanotechnology decisions. Nature Nanotechnology 6(2): 73–77. doi: 10.1038/nnano.2010.191.
  54. Nye, David E. 2004. America as second creation: Technology and narratives of new beginnings. Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  55. Owen, Richard, David Baxter, Trevor Maynard, and Michael Depledge. 2009. Beyond regulation: Risk pricing and responsible innovation. Environmental Science and Technology 43(18): 6902–6906. doi: 10.1021/es803332u.
  56. Owen, Richard, and Nicola Goldberg. 2010. Responsible innovation: A pilot study with the U.K. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council. Risk Analysis 30(11): 1699–1707. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01517.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Pellizzoni, Luigi. 2004. Responsibility and environmental governance. Environmental Politics 13(3): 541–565. doi: 10.1080/0964401042000229034.
  58. Roco, Mihail C. 2001. From vision to the implementation of the U.S. national nanotechnology initiative. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 3(1): 5–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Roco, Mihail C., Barbara Harthorn, David Guston, and Philip Shapira. 2011. Innovative and responsible governance of nanotechnology for societal development. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 13: 3557–3590. doi: 10.1007/s11051-011-0454-4.
  60. Royal Society. 1985. The public understanding of science. London: The Royal Society.Google Scholar
  61. Shapira, P., and J. Wang. 2010. Follow the money. Nature 468(7324): 627–628.Google Scholar
  62. Shelley-Egan, Clare. 2009. Mapping ethics in the real world of nanotechnology. In Size matters, legal and social aspects of nanobiotechnology and nano-medicine, ed. J.S. Ach, and C. Weidemann, 147–155. Berlin: LIT Verlag.Google Scholar
  63. Shamir, Ronen. 2008. The age of responsibilization: On market-embedded morality. Economy and Society 37(1): 1–19. doi: 10.1080/03085140701760833.
  64. Stilgoe, Jack. 2012. Taking care of the future—The imperative of responsible innovation. People and Science 22.Google Scholar
  65. Stirling, Andy. 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. doi: 10.1177/0162243907311265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Sutcliffe, H. 2011. A report on responsible research and innovation. http://www.matterforall.org/pdf/RRI-Report2.pdf.
  67. Technology Strategy Board. 2012. Responsible innovation framework. London: Technology Strategy Board.Google Scholar
  68. Thorpe, Charles, and Jane Gregory. 2010. Producing the post-fordist public: The political economy of public engagement with science. Science as Culture 19(3): 273–301. doi: 10.1080/09505430903194504.
  69. Vallentin, S., and Murillo, D. 2012. Governmentality and the politics of CSR. Organization 19(6): 825–843.Google Scholar
  70. Von Schomberg, Rene. 2011. Towards responsible research and innovation in the information and communication technologies and security technologies fields. Brussels: European Commission Services, Directorate General for Research and Innovation.Google Scholar
  71. Wilsdon, James, and Rebecca Willis. 2004. See-through science: Why public engagement needs to move upstream. London: Demos.Google Scholar
  72. Wynne, Brian. 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
  73. Wynne, Brian. 2007. Public participation in science and technology: Performing and obscuring a political conceptual category mistake. East Asian Science Technology and Society An International Journal 1(1): 99–110.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Media, Cognition and CommunicationUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations