Advertisement

Exploring Responsible Innovation as a Guiding Concept: The Case of Neuroimaging in Justice and Security

  • Marije de JongEmail author
  • Frank Kupper
  • Anneloes Roelofsen
  • Jacqueline Broerse

Abstract

Although responsible innovation (RI) is to change the scientific system to meet the grand challenges of our time, its criteria are still unclear. This study explores meaning negotiation on RI by academic actors in both formal and informal discourse. In the formal discourse on RI, we identified characteristic shifts, including engagement of societal stakeholders, anticipation and adaptability, broadening, and new insights on impacts and regulation. However, the intended group of scientists themselves were not visibly involved in the formal discussion. Therefore, as a case study, we studied the informal discourse of Dutch scientists in the field of functional neuroimaging relevant to the domain of justice and security. Our findings show that RI is unfamiliar to scientists. We suggest that RI as a guiding concept is in need of operationalization within the specific context in which it is used. A point of entry for such a process is the role responsibility taken on by scientists. Resistance can be expected as RI can be equivocated with a limitation on the autonomy of science. To avoid evasive practices, extra efforts are needed to involve the scientists in a co-constructive process to operationalize RI.

Keywords

Responsible innovation Neuroimaging Security Justice Science and technology 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank the anonymous reviewer for Jacqueline Broerse the helpful comments and suggestions.

References

  1. Allenby, Braden R., and Daniel Sarewitz. 2011. The techno-human condition. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Armstrong, Margaret, Guillaume Cornut, Stéphane Delacôte, Marc Lenglet, Yuval Millo, Fabian Muniesa, Alexandre Pointier, and Yamina Tadjeddine. 2012. Towards a practical approach to responsible innovation in finance: New product committees revisited. Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance 20(2): 2–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barben, Daniel, Erik Fisher, Cynthia Selin, and David H. Guston. 2007. Anticipatory governance of nanotechnology: Foresight, engagement, and integration. The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies 3: 979–1000.Google Scholar
  4. Barré, Rémi. 2011. Responsible innovation: From concepts to practice. Reflecting on a Franco-British workshop. Natures Sciences Sociétés 19(4): 405–409.Google Scholar
  5. Bergquist, Magnus, Jan Ljungberg, and Ulrika Lundh-Snis. 2001. Practising peer review in organizations: A qualifier for knowledge dissemination and legitimization. Journal of Information Technology 16(2): 99–112. doi: 10.1080/02683960122785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bijker, Wiebe E., Thomas P. Hughes, and Trevor J. Pinch (eds.). 1984. The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Borup, Mads, Nik Brown, Kornelia Konrad, and Harro Van Lente. 2006. The sociology of expectations in science and technology. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 18(3–4): 285–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Broerse, Jacqueline E.W. 1998. Towards a new development strategy: How to include small-scale farmers in the technological innovation process. Delft: Eburon.Google Scholar
  9. Broerse, Jacqueline E.W., Janneke E. Elberse, J. Francisca Caron-Flinterman, and Marjolein B.M. Zweekhorst. 2010a. Enhancing a transition towards a needs-oriented health research system through patient participation. In Transitions in health systems: Dealing with persistent problems, ed. J.E.W. Broerse, and J.F.G. Bunders. Amsterdam: VU University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Broerse, Jacqueline E.W., and Joske F.G. Bunders. 2000. Requirements for biotechnology development: The necessity for an interactive and participatory innovation process. International Journal for Biotechnology 2(4): 275–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Broerse, Jacqueline E.W., Marjolein B.M. Zweekhorst, Annemiek J.M.L. van Rensen, and Monique J.M. de Haan. 2010b. Involving burn survivors in agenda setting on burn research: An added value? Burns 36(2): 217–231.Google Scholar
  12. Brown, John Seely, and Paul Duguid. 1996. The social life of documents. First Monday 1 (1–6).Google Scholar
  13. Bunders, Joske F.G. 1990. Biotechnology for small-scale farmers in developing countries. Amsterdam: VU University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Bunders, Joske F.G., and Jacqueline E.W. Broerse. 1991. Appropriate biotechnology in small-scale agriculture: How to reorient research and development. Wallingford: CAB International.Google Scholar
  15. Callon, Michel. 1986. Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieu Bay. In Power, action and belief: A new sociology af knowledge?, ed. John Law, 196–233. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  16. Caron-Flinterman, J. Francisca, Jacqueline E.W. Broerse, and Joske F.G. Bunders. 2005. The experiential knowledge of patients: A new resource for biomedical research? Social Science and Medicine 60(11): 2575–2584. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.11.023.
  17. Caron-Flinterman, J.Francisca, Jacqueline E.W. Broerse, and Joske F.G. Bunders. 2007. Patient partnership in decision-making on biomedical research: Changing the network. Science, Technology and Human Values 32(3): 339–368. doi: 10.1177/0162243906298354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chervenak, Frank A., and Laurence B. McCullough. 2006. Scientifically and ethically responsible innovation and research in ultrasound in obstetrics and gynecology. Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology 28(1): 1–4. doi: 10.1002/uog.2825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. D’Silva, Joel, Douglas K.R. Robinson, and Clare Shelley-Egan. 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 and Strategic Management 24(6): 583–602. doi: 10.1080/09537325.2012.693671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Diefenbach, Thomas. 2009. Are case studies more than sophisticated story telling? Methodological problems of case studies mainly based on semi-structured interviews. Quality and Quantity 43(Article): 875–894. doi: 10.1007/s11135-008-9164-0.
  21. Dondorp, Wybo, and Guido de Wert. 2011. Innovative reproductive technologies: Risks and responsibilities. Human Reproduction 26(7): 1604–1608. doi: 10.1093/humrep/der112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Duke, Daniel L. 1978. Toward responsible innovation. The Educational Forum 42(3): 351–371. doi: 10.1080/00131727809336323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. EC. 2010. Europe 2020 flagship initiative: Innovation union. COM(2010) 546. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  24. EC. 2011a. From challenges to opportunities: Towards a common strategic framework for EU research and innovation funding. Green Paper COM(2011) 48. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  25. EC. 2011b. Horizon 2020—The framework programme for research and innovation. COM(2011) 808 final. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  26. Elberse, Janneke E. 2012. Changing the health research system: Patient participation in health research. ‘s-Hertogenbosch: BOXpress.Google Scholar
  27. Ferrari, Arianna, and Alfred Nordmann. 2010. Beyond conversation: Some lessons for nanoethics. NanoEthics 4(2): 171–181. doi: 10.1007/s11569-010-0098-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fisher, Erik. 2011. Public science and technology scholars: Engaging Whom? Science and Engineering Ethics 17(4): 607–620. doi: 10.1007/s11948-011-9331-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Flyvbjerg, Bent. 2006. Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry 12(2): 219–245. doi: 10.1177/1077800405284363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gibbons, Michael. 1999. Science’s new social contract with society. Nature 402(6761): C81–C84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Godin, Benoît. 1998. Writing performative history: The new New Atlantis? Social Studies of Science 28(3): 465–483. doi: 10.1177/030631298028003004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gomart, Emilie, and Maarten Hajer. 2003. Is that politics? For an inquiry into forms in contemporary politics. In Social studies of science and technology: Looking back, ahead, eds. Bernward Joerges, and Helga Nowotny, 33–61. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  33. Goodenough, Oliver R., and Micaela Tucker. 2010. Law and cognitive neuroscience. Annual Review of Law and Social Science 6(1): 61–92. doi: 10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.093008.131523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Goorden, Lieve, Michiel Van Oudheusden, Johan Evers, and Marian Deblonde. 2008. Lose one another … and find one another in nanospace. ‘nanotechnologies for tomorrow’s society: A case for reflective action research in flanders (NanoSoc)’. NanoEthics 2(3): 213–230. doi: 10.1007/s11569-008-0043-x.
  35. Greely, Henry T. 2007. Neuroscience and criminal justice: Not responsibility but treatment. Kansas Law Review 56: 1103–1138.Google Scholar
  36. 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 101(4): 525–552. doi: 10.1007/s10551-010-0731-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Guston, David H. 2006. Responsible knowledge-based innovation. Society 43(4): 19–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Guston, David H. 2007. Toward centres for responsible innovation in the commercialized university. Public science in liberal democracy: The challenge to science and democracy. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  39. Guston, David H., and Kenneth Keniston. 1994. Introduction: the social contract for science. In The fragile contract. University Science and the Federal Government, ed. David H. Guston, and Kenneth Kenniston, 1–41. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  40. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hessels, Laurens K. 2010. Science and the struggle for relevance. PhD thesis, Universiteit Utrecht, Utrecht.Google Scholar
  42. Ingham, Marc, Françoise de Viron, and Alain Tihon. 2010. Sustaining responsible innovation through responsible finance: Exploring the strategy process and alignment at Triodos Bank. Paper presented at the EBEN conference, March 1.Google Scholar
  43. Irvine, John, and Ben R. Martin. 1984. Foresight in science: Picking the winners. London: Frances Pinter.Google Scholar
  44. Ishizu, Saori, Mizuki Sekiya, Ken-ichi Ishibashi, Yumi Negami, and Masafumi Ata. 2008. Toward the responsible innovation with nanotechnology in Japan: Our scope. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 10(2): 229–254. doi: 10.1007/s11051-007-9306-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Jonas, Hans. 1984. The imperative of responsibility: In search of an ethics for the technological age. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  46. Kaza, Greg. 2006. Regulation of financial derivatives in the US code. Derivatives Use, Trading and Regulation 11(4): 381–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Keulartz, Jozef, Maartje Schermer, Michiel Korthals, and Tsjalling Swierstra. 2004. Ethics in technological culture: A programmatic proposal for a pragmatist approach. Science, Technology and Human Values 29(1): 3–29. doi: 10.1177/0162243903259188.
  48. Kiran, Asle H, H. 2012. Does responsible innovation presuppose design instrumentalism? Examining the case of telecare at home in the Netherlands. Technology in Society 34(3): 216–226. doi: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2012.07.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kloet, Roy R. 2011. Realizing societal ambitions in innovative research programs: The case of the dutch ecogenomics consortium. PhD thesis. Oisterwijk: BOXpress.Google Scholar
  50. Latour, Bruno. 1987. Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Latour, Bruno. 1990. Drawing things together. In Representations in scientific practice, ed. Michael E Lynch, and Steve Woolgar, 19–68. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  52. Laudel, Grit, and Jochen Gläser. 2007. Interviewing scientists. Science, Technology and Innovation Studies 3(2): 91–111.Google Scholar
  53. Law, John. 1992. Notes on the theory of the actor-network: Ordering, strategy, and heterogeneity. Systems practice 5(4): 379–393. doi: 10.1007/bf01059830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Owen, Richard. 2009. A new era of responsible innovation. Planet Earth (autumn):14–15.Google Scholar
  55. Owen, Richard, and Nicola Goldberg. 2010. Responsible innovation: A pilot study with the U.K. engineering and physical sciences research council. Risk analysis: An international journal 30(11): 1699–1707. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01517.x.
  56. Owen, Richard, Phil Macnaghten, and Jack Stilgoe. 2012. Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society. Science and Public Policy 39(6): 751–760. doi: 10.1093/scipol/scs093.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Ozdemir, Vural, Samer A. Faraj, and Bartha M. Knoppers. 2011. Steering vaccinomics innovations with anticipatory governance and participatory foresight. OMICS: A Journal of Integrative Biology 15(9): 637–646. doi: 10.1089/omi.2011.0087.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Pandza, Krsto, and Paul Ellwood. 2013. Strategic and ethical foundations for responsible innovation. Research Policy 42(5): 1112–1125. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.02.007.
  59. Patton, Michael Quinn. 1990. Qualitative research and evaluation methods, 2nd ed. Newbury Park: Sage Publications, Incorporated.Google Scholar
  60. Pavie, Xavier. 2012. The importance of responsible-innovation and the necessity of ‘innovation-care’. ESSEC Working Paper 1203.Google Scholar
  61. Petchesky, Rosalind Pollack. 1987. Fetal images: The power of visual culture in the politics of reproduction. Feminist Studies 13(2): 263–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Polanyi, Michael. 1962. The republic of science: Its political and economic theory. Minerva 1(Autum): 54–73.Google Scholar
  63. Popay, Jennie, and Gareth Williams. 1996. Public health research and lay knowledge. Social Science and Medicine 42(5): 759–768. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(95)00341-X.
  64. Reddy, Panga Jaipal, Rekha Jain, Young-Ki Paik, Robin Downey, Adam S. Ptolemy, Vural Ozdemir, and Sanjeeva Srivastava. 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(3): 159–167. doi: 10.2174/187569211796957557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Rip, Arie. 2004. Strategic research, post-modern universities and research training. Higher Education Policy 17(2): 153–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Rip, Arie. 2005. Technology assessment as part of the co-evolution of nanotechnology and society: The thrust of the TA program in NanoNed. Paper presented at the conference on nanotechnology in science, economy and society, Marburg, 13–15 January.Google Scholar
  67. Rip, Arie. 2012. Technology assessment as a site for STS knowledge and insights. Paper presented at the presentation at the WTMC workshop: Assessing technology assessment, Soeterbeeck, Raventstein, The Netherlands, 2 November.Google Scholar
  68. Roelofsen, Anneloes. 2011. Exploring the future of ecogenomics: Constructive technology assessment and emerging technologies. PhD Thesis, Ridderprint, Ridderkerk, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  69. Schot, Johan, and Arie Rip. 1997. The past and future of constructive technology assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 54(2–3): 251–268. doi: 10.1016/s0040-1625(96)00180-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Schuurbiers, Daan. 2011. What happens in the lab: Applying midstream modulation to enhance critical reflection in the laboratory. Science and Engineering Ethics 17(4): 769–788. doi: 10.1007/s11948-011-9317-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Schuurbiers, Daan. 2012. See ethics as a stimulus and not as an obstacle (Zie ethiek als impuls en niet als belemmering). LEV. November.Google Scholar
  72. Schwartz, Victor E. 1992. Innovation and our product liability system: Let us end the conflict on incentives. Business Economics 27(4): 15.Google Scholar
  73. Scott, Peter, Michael Gibbons, Helga Nowotny, Camille Limoges, Martin Trow, and Simon Schwartzman. 1994. The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Sage Publications Limited.Google Scholar
  74. Shelley-Egan, Clare. 2010. The ambivalence of promising technology. NanoEthics 4(2): 183–189. doi: 10.1007/s11569-010-0099-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Stahl, Bernd Carsten. 2011. IT for a better future: How to integrate ethics, politics and innovation. Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society 9(3): 140–156. doi: 10.1108/14779961111167630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Stinner, Deborah H., Ivan Glick, and Benjamin R. Stinner. 1992. Forage legumes and cultural sustainability—Lessons from history. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 40(1–4): 233–248. doi: 10.1016/0167-8809(92)90095-s.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Sunstein, Cass R. 2002. The paralyzing principle. Regulation 25: 32.Google Scholar
  78. Swierstra, Tsjalling, Niki Vermeulen, Johan Braeckman, and Roel van Driel. 2013. Rethinking the life sciences. EMBO Rep. doi: 10.1038/embor.2013.30. advance online publication.Google Scholar
  79. te Kulve, Haico, and Arie Rip. 2011. Constructing productive engagement: Pre-engagement tools for emerging technologies. Science and Engineering Ethics 17(4): 699–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Tihon, Alain, and Marc Ingham. 2011. The societal system and responsible innovations: Freeing sustainable development from a deadlock. Journal of Innovation Economics 8(2): 11–31. doi: 10.3917/jie.008.0011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Tyl, Benjamin, Jérémy Legardeur, Dominique Millet, André Falchi, and Bertrand Ranvier. 2011. A new approach for the development of a creative method to stimulate responsible innovation. In Global product development, ed. Alain Bernard, 93–104. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Van de Poel, Ibo. 2009. Values in engineering design. In Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences, ed. Anthonie Meijers, 973–1006. Handbook of the philosophy of science. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  83. van den Hove, Sybille, Jacqueline McGlade, Pierre Mottet, and Michael H. Depledge. 2012. The innovation union: A perfect means to confused ends? Environmental Science and Policy 16: 73–80. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2011.11.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. van Est, Rinie, and Frans Brom. 2012. Technology assessment, analytic and democratic practice. In Encyclopedia of applied ethics, ed. Ruth Chadwick, 306–320. Oxford: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. van Lente, Harro. 2012. Navigating foresight in a sea of expectations: Lessons from the sociology of expectations. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 24(8): 769–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Van Oudheusden, Michiel. forthcoming. Broadening ‘Innovation’ through technology assessment in Flanders, Belgium: The Case of Nanotechnologies.Google Scholar
  87. Venier, Sylvia. 2011. BIRD platform for responsible innovation takes wing. Biometric Technology Today 2011(3): 5–7. doi: 10.1016/s0969-4765(11)70055-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Verbeek, Peter-Paul. 2011. Mediated morality. In Moralizing technology: Understanding and designing the morality of things, 1–20. Chicago; London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  89. von Schomberg, René. 2012. Prospects for technology assessment in a framework of responsible research and innovation. Technikfolgen abschätzen lehren: Bildungspotenziale transdisziplinärer Methoden:39.Google Scholar
  90. Yin, Robert K. 2002. Case study research: Design and methods, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marije de Jong
    • 1
    Email author
  • Frank Kupper
    • 1
  • Anneloes Roelofsen
    • 2
  • Jacqueline Broerse
    • 1
  1. 1.Athena Institute, Faculty of Earth and Life SciencesVU University AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.KWF KankerbestrijdingAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations