Exploring Responsible Innovation as a Guiding Concept: The Case of Neuroimaging in Justice and Security
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.
KeywordsResponsible innovation Neuroimaging Security Justice Science and technology
We thank the anonymous reviewer for Jacqueline Broerse the helpful comments and suggestions.
- Allenby, Braden R., and Daniel Sarewitz. 2011. The techno-human condition. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Barré, Rémi. 2011. Responsible innovation: From concepts to practice. Reflecting on a Franco-British workshop. Natures Sciences Sociétés 19(4): 405–409.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Brown, John Seely, and Paul Duguid. 1996. The social life of documents. First Monday 1 (1–6).Google Scholar
- Bunders, Joske F.G. 1990. Biotechnology for small-scale farmers in developing countries. Amsterdam: VU University Press.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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.
- 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
- 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.
- EC. 2010. Europe 2020 flagship initiative: Innovation union. COM(2010) 546. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
- 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
- EC. 2011b. Horizon 2020—The framework programme for research and innovation. COM(2011) 808 final. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
- Elberse, Janneke E. 2012. Changing the health research system: Patient participation in health research. ‘s-Hertogenbosch: BOXpress.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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.
- Greely, Henry T. 2007. Neuroscience and criminal justice: Not responsibility but treatment. Kansas Law Review 56: 1103–1138.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Hessels, Laurens K. 2010. Science and the struggle for relevance. PhD thesis, Universiteit Utrecht, Utrecht.Google Scholar
- 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
- Irvine, John, and Ben R. Martin. 1984. Foresight in science: Picking the winners. London: Frances Pinter.Google Scholar
- Jonas, Hans. 1984. The imperative of responsibility: In search of an ethics for the technological age. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- 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.
- Kloet, Roy R. 2011. Realizing societal ambitions in innovative research programs: The case of the dutch ecogenomics consortium. PhD thesis. Oisterwijk: BOXpress.Google Scholar
- Latour, Bruno. 1987. Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- 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
- Laudel, Grit, and Jochen Gläser. 2007. Interviewing scientists. Science, Technology and Innovation Studies 3(2): 91–111.Google Scholar
- Owen, Richard. 2009. A new era of responsible innovation. Planet Earth (autumn):14–15.Google Scholar
- 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.
- 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.
- Patton, Michael Quinn. 1990. Qualitative research and evaluation methods, 2nd ed. Newbury Park: Sage Publications, Incorporated.Google Scholar
- Pavie, Xavier. 2012. The importance of responsible-innovation and the necessity of ‘innovation-care’. ESSEC Working Paper 1203.Google Scholar
- Polanyi, Michael. 1962. The republic of science: Its political and economic theory. Minerva 1(Autum): 54–73.Google Scholar
- 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.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Roelofsen, Anneloes. 2011. Exploring the future of ecogenomics: Constructive technology assessment and emerging technologies. PhD Thesis, Ridderprint, Ridderkerk, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
- 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
- Schwartz, Victor E. 1992. Innovation and our product liability system: Let us end the conflict on incentives. Business Economics 27(4): 15.Google Scholar
- 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
- Sunstein, Cass R. 2002. The paralyzing principle. Regulation 25: 32.Google Scholar
- 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
- Van Oudheusden, Michiel. forthcoming. Broadening ‘Innovation’ through technology assessment in Flanders, Belgium: The Case of Nanotechnologies.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Yin, Robert K. 2002. Case study research: Design and methods, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar