Responsible Innovation in Developing Countries: An Enlarged Agenda

  • Federico VasenEmail author


The Responsible Research and Innovation framework emerged from the reflection on a socially desirable form of development of emerging technologies in Europe and the United States. In this chapter, I discuss how to further elaborate the framework in order to effectively engage in a dialogue with science, technology and innovation (STI) policy in the developing world, particularly in Latin America. In order to take on this task, I describe first the discussion about uncritical processes of STI policy transfer. Then I analyze the dominant framework of science, technology and innovation policies in the region. Finally, I propose topics that I think should be included in the RRI agenda; themes that will allow the framework to be more responsive to issues related to other geographical contexts. The proposed topics include: (a) expansion of its focus beyond emerging technologies, (b) inclusion of resistance to technologies and contentious politics, (c) global perspective on the production of innovations, (d) building of theoretical links with inclusive innovation frameworks and (d) the development of sensitivity towards intercultural dialogue.


  1. Arancibia, Florencia. 2013. Challenging the bioeconomy: The dynamics of collective action in Argentina. Technology in Society 35: 79–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arocena, Rodrigo, and Judith Sutz. 2000. Looking at national systems of innovation from the south. Industry and Innovation 7: 55–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bauer, Martin, ed. 1995. Resistance to new technology. Nuclear power, information technology and biotechnology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Baya-Lafitte, Nicolas. 2016. Black-boxing sustainable development. Environmental risk assessment on the river Uruguay. In Knowing governance: The epistemic construction of political order, ed. Richard Freeman and Jan-Peter Voß, 237–256. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  5. Beck, Ulrich. 1992. Risk society. Towards a new modernity. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  6. Bortagaray, Isabel, and Natalia Gras. 2014. Science, technology and innovation policies for inclusive development: Shifting trends in South America. In Science, technology and innovation policies for development, ed. Gustavo Crespi and Gabriela Dutrénit, 255–285. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bozeman, Barry, John Hardin, and Albert Link. 2008. Barriers to the diffusion of nanotechnology. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 17: 749–761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Casas, Rosalba, Juan M. Corona, and Roxana Rivera. 2014. Políticas de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación en América Latina: entre la competitividad y la inclusión social. In Perspectivas Latinoamericanas en el Estudios Social de la Ciencia, la Tecnología y el Conocimiento, ed. Pablo Kreimer, Antonio Arellano Hebe Vessuri, and Léa Velho. México: Siglo XXI.Google Scholar
  9. Cozzens, Susan, Judith Sutz. 2012. Innovation in informal settings: a research agenda. Discussion paper for GRIID Network, International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, 2012. Accessed 4 Mar 2016.
  10. Dagnino, Renato, and Hernán Thomas. 2001. Planejamento e políticas públicas de inovação: em direção a um marco de referencia latino-americano. Planejamento e políticas públicas – ppp 23: 205–231.Google Scholar
  11. Dahlman, Carl, Esperanza Lasagabaster, Kurt Larsen, and Karthryn Hoffman. 2014. Inclusive innovation. Harnessing creativity to enhance the economic opportunities and welfare of the poor. Washington, DC: World Bank Group/Trade and Competitiveness.Google Scholar
  12. Delvenne, Pierre, and François Thoreau. 2012. Beyond the ‘charmed circle’ of OECD: New directions for studies of national innovation systems. Minerva 50: 205–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Delvenne, Pierre, Martin Erpicum, Pierre Hupet, and Federico Vasen. 2011. Modernités multiples et critique sociale des technologies en Europe et en Amérique latine. Cahiers de science politique de l’Université de Liège 19.Google Scholar
  14. Elzinga, Aant, and Andrew Jamison. 1995. Changing policy agendas in science and technology. In Handbook of science and technology studies, ed. Sheila Jasanoff, 572–592. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  15. European Union. 2014a. Horizon 2020 Work Programme 2014–2015 16. Science with and for Society. Avaliable at:
  16. European Union. 2014b. Press release. 3353rd Council meeting Competitiveness (Internal Market, Industry, Research and Space) Brussels, 4 and 5 December 2014, Accessed 20 July 2017.
  17. Feld, Adriana. 2015. Ciencia y política(s) en Argentina (1943–1983). Bernal: Universidad Nacional de Quilmes.Google Scholar
  18. Finnemore, Martha. 1993. International organizations as teachers of norms. The United Nations Educational, Scientific,and Cutural Organization and Science Policy. International Organization 47: 565–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fitting, Elizabeth. 2014. “Cultures of corn” and anti-GM activism in Mexico and Colombia. In Food activism. Agency, democracy and economy, ed. Carole Counihan and Valeria Siniscalchi. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  20. Galiay, Philippe. 2014. Responsible research and innovation: A cross cutting issue in Horizon 2020 Accessed 22 July 2017.
  21. Green, Lesley. 2012. Beyond South Africa’s ‘Indigenous knowledge – Science’ wars. South African Journal of Science 108: 44–54.Google Scholar
  22. Guston, David. 2014. Understanding ‘anticipatory governance’. Social Studies of Science 44: 218–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hall, Anthony, and Sue Branford. 2012. Development, dams and Dilma: The sage of Belo Monte. Critical Sociology 38: 851–862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Herrera, Amílcar. 1972. Ciencia y política en América Latina. México: Siglo XXI.Google Scholar
  25. Jasanoff, Sheila. 2005. Designs on nature. Science and democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Kallerud, Egil, Effie Amanatidou, Paul Upham, Mika Nieminen, Antje Klitkou, Dorothy Sutherland, Maria Lima Toivanen, Juha Oksanen, and Lisa Scordato. 2013. Dimensions of research and innovation policies to address grand and global challenges. Oslo: Nordisk institutt for studier av innovasjon, forskning og utdanning.Google Scholar
  27. Keck, Margaret, and Kathryn Sikkink. 1998. Activists beyond borders: Advocacy networks in international politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Knorringa, Peter, Cees van Beers, and André Leliveld. 2012. Frugal innovation in Africa. Tracking Unilever’s washing-powder sachets. In Transforming innovations in Africa: Explorative studies on appropriation in African societies, 59–78. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
  29. Lundvall, Bengt-Ake. 1992. National systems of innovation: An analytical framework. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  30. Macnaghten, Phil, and Julia Guivant. 2011. Converging citizens? Nanotechnology and the political imaginery of public engagement in Brazil and the United Kingdom. Public Understanding of Science 20: 207–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nelkin, Dorothy, ed. 1984. Controversy. Politics of technical decisions. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  32. Nelson, Richard, ed. 1993. National systems of innovation: A comparative analysis. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  33. Olivé, León. 2010. Conocimientos tradicionales e innovación. In Observaciones filosóficas sobre la transdisciplinariedad, ed. Álvaro Peláez and Rodolfo Suárez, 107–129. Barcelona: Anthropos.Google Scholar
  34. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Delopment. 2011. Guidelines for multinational enterprises. 2011 Edition. OECD Publishing. Accessed 20 June 2016.
  35. Origlia, Gabriela. 2015. Famatina: la historia de un pueblo en Argentina que en nueve años expulsó a cuatro mineras. In: BBC Mundo, 11 Nov 2015. Accessed 4 Mar 2016.
  36. Oteiza, Enrique. 1992. El complejo científico y tecnológico argentino en la segunda mitad del siglo XX: la transferencia de modelos institucionales. In La política de investigación científica y tecnológica argentina - historia y perspectivas. Buenos Aires: CEAL.Google Scholar
  37. Owen, Richard, John Bessant, and Maggie Heintz, eds. 2013. Responsible innovation: managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  38. Pansera, Mario. 2014. Discourses of innovation and development: Insights from ethnographic case studies in Bangladesh and India. PhD dissertation, University of Exeter. Accessed 27 June 2016.
  39. Paunov, Caroline. 2013. Innovation and inclusive development: A discussion of the main policy issues. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers, 2013/01. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  40. Pestre, Dominique. 2003. Science, argent et politique. Un essai d’interprétation. Paris: INRA.Google Scholar
  41. Prahalad, Coimbratore K and Ragunath Mashelkar. 2010. Innovation’s Holy Grail. Harvard Business Review, July–August 2010.Google Scholar
  42. Radcliffe, Sarah. 2012. Development for a postneoliberal era? Sumak kawsay, living well and the limits of decolonization in Ecuador. Geoforum 43: 240–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rip, Arie. 2006. Folk theories of nanotechnologists. Science as Culture 15: 349–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. ———. 2014. The past and present of RRI. Life Sciences, Society and Policy 10: 17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Roco, Mihail, Barbara Harthorn, David Guston, and Philip Shapira. 2011. Innovative and responsible governance of nanotechnology for societal development. In Nanotechnology research directions for societal needs in 2020, ed. Mihail Roco, Chad Mirkin, and Mark Hersam, 561–617. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Shiva, Vandana. 1997. Biopiracy. The plunder of nature and knowledge. Cambridge: South End Press.Google Scholar
  47. Stilgoe, Jack, Richard Owen, and Phil Macnaghten. 2013. Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy 42: 1568–1580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Thomas, Hernán. 2012. Tecnologías para la inclusión social en América Latina: de las tecnologías apropiadas a los sistemas tecnológicos sociales. Problemas conceptuales y soluciones estratégicas. In Tecnología, Desarrollo y Democracia, ed. Hernán Thomas, Guillermo Santos, and Mariano Fressoli. Buenos Aires: MINCyT-UNQ.Google Scholar
  49. Thoreau, François. 2013. Embarquement immédiat pour les nanotechnologies responsables. Comment poser et re-poser la question de la réflexivité? PhD dissertation in Social and Political Sciences, University of Liège.Google Scholar
  50. Van den Hoven, Jeroen. 2013. Value sensitive design and responsible innovation. In Responsible innovation: Managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society, ed. R. Owen, J. Bessant, and M. Heintz. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  51. Vara, Ana María. 2007. Sí a las papeleras, no a la vida. En torno a una controversia ambiental inédita en América Latina. Redes. Revista de Estudios Sociales de la Ciencia 25: 15–49.Google Scholar
  52. Varsavsky, Oscar. 1969. Ciencia, política y cientificismo. Buenos Aires: CEAL.Google Scholar
  53. Vasen, Federico. 2016a. ¿Estamos ante un giro poscompetitividad en la política de ciencia, tecnología e innovación? Sociologias (Porto Alegre) 41: 242–268.Google Scholar
  54. Vasen Federico. 2016b. What does a “National Science” Mean? Science Policy, Politics and Philosophy in Latin America. In: Science studies during the Cold War and beyond, ed. Aronova E. and Turchetti S. Palgrave Studies in the History of Science and Technology. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  55. Von Schomberg, René. 2013. A vision of responsible research and innovation. In Responsible innovation. Managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society, ed. Richard Owen, John Bessant, and Maggie Heintz, 51–74. London: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wernink, Tessa, and Carina Strahl. 2015. Fairphone: Sustainability from the inside-out and outside-in. In Sustainable value chain management. Delivering sustainability through the core business, ed. Michael D’heur, 123–140. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  57. Zwart, Hub, Laurens Landeweerd, and Arjan van Rooij. 2014. Adapt or perish? Assessing the recent shift in the European research funding arena from ‘ELSA’ to ‘RRI’. Life Sciences Society and Policy 10.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Instituto de Investigaciones SocialesUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de MéxicoMexico CityMexico

Personalised recommendations