Responsible Innovation in the US, UK and Denmark: Governance Landscapes
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.
KeywordsResponsible innovation Civic epistemology Discourse analysis De-individualisation
We would like to thank Cecilie Glerup and Raffael Himmelsbach for their comments on and help with the preparation of this manuscript.
- Anderson, Benedict. 2006. Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. Verso Books.Google Scholar
- Benz, Arthur, and Yannis Papadopoulos (eds.). 2007. Governance and democracy: Comparing national, European and international experiences. London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
- Brown, Mark B. 2009. Science in democracy: Expertise, institutions, and representation. Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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.
- 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/.
- DG Research. 2011. DG research workshop on responsible research and innovation in Europe. Brussels.Google Scholar
- Drenth, P.J.D. 2006. Responsible conduct in research. Science and Engineering Ethics 12(1): 13–21.Google Scholar
- Fairclough, Norman. 2003. Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Ferrari, Arianna, and Alfred Nordmann. 2010. Beyond conversation: Some lessons for nanoethics. NanoEthics 4(2): 171–181. doi: 10.1007/s11569-010-0098-3.
- Glerup, Cecilie, and Maja Horst. 2014. Mapping ‘social responsibility’ in science. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 1–20. doi: 10.1080/23299460.2014.882077.
- 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.
- 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
- 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.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- House of Lords. 2000. Third report: Science and society. London: The Stationery Office, Parliament.Google Scholar
- 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.
- Jasanoff, Sheila. 2005. Designs on nature: Science and democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- 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.
- 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
- Jones, Richard. 2008. When it pays to ask the public. Nature Nanotechnology 3(10): 578–579. doi: 10.1038/nnano.2008.288.
- 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
- Kjølberg, Kamilla Lein, and Roger Strand. 2011. Conversations about responsible nanoresearch. NanoEthics 5(1): 99–113. doi: 10.1007/s11569-011-0114-2.
- Kleinman, Daniel Lee. 1995. Politics on the endless frontier: Postwar research policy in the United States. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
- Law, John. 1994. Organising modernity: Social ordering and social theory. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
- 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.
- 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
- 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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Nye, David E. 2004. America as second creation: Technology and narratives of new beginnings. Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- 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.
- Pellizzoni, Luigi. 2004. Responsibility and environmental governance. Environmental Politics 13(3): 541–565. doi: 10.1080/0964401042000229034.
- 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.
- Royal Society. 1985. The public understanding of science. London: The Royal Society.Google Scholar
- Shapira, P., and J. Wang. 2010. Follow the money. Nature 468(7324): 627–628.Google Scholar
- 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
- Shamir, Ronen. 2008. The age of responsibilization: On market-embedded morality. Economy and Society 37(1): 1–19. doi: 10.1080/03085140701760833.
- Stilgoe, Jack. 2012. Taking care of the future—The imperative of responsible innovation. People and Science 22.Google Scholar
- Sutcliffe, H. 2011. A report on responsible research and innovation. http://www.matterforall.org/pdf/RRI-Report2.pdf.
- Technology Strategy Board. 2012. Responsible innovation framework. London: Technology Strategy Board.Google Scholar
- 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.
- Vallentin, S., and Murillo, D. 2012. Governmentality and the politics of CSR. Organization 19(6): 825–843.Google Scholar
- 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
- Wilsdon, James, and Rebecca Willis. 2004. See-through science: Why public engagement needs to move upstream. London: Demos.Google Scholar
- 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