Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Public Participation in the Setting of Research and Innovation Agenda: Virtues and Challenges from a Philosophical Perspective

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Innovation Beyond Technology

Part of the book series: Creative Economy ((CRE))

Abstract

Inclusiveness in scientific research and innovation is more and more valued by many scientific institutions, as attested by the increasing visibility and displayed institutional support in favour of “citizen science”, “participatory science” and other forms of science involving in one way or another lay people. Could science benefit from being more inclusive and, in turn, could society benefit from a more inclusive science? The general aim of this chapter is to investigate how public participation may challenge and renew traditional epistemological and organisational features of scientific research, thereby providing a basis to assess the merits of public participation in this sphere. It will in particular offer epistemological arguments disqualifying common sources of resistance to public participation and discuss pending issues that need to be addressed if one wants to make a strong case in favour of public participation in science. In doing so, the chapter will (hopefully) contribute to going beyond an isolationist, decontextualised view of scientific developments and redefine the role that society is expected to play in new models of scientific research and innovation aiming at a better alignment of its outputs with society needs and interests.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/responsible-research-innovation. Accessed December 2017.

  2. 2.

    For a typology see for instance Bucchini and Neresini (2008).

  3. 3.

    For a useful historical perspective on these STS contributions, see Pestre (2003).

  4. 4.

    See also Wilholt and Glimell (2011) for an analysis of this kind of mode of research oversight that they call “blind delegation”.

  5. 5.

    It has been for instance challenged on the grounds that its underlying linear model of innovation linking fundamental science to technological innovations neglects some degree of independence of the latter from the former (e.g. Rosenberg 1992; Edgerton 2004).

  6. 6.

    Note that utilitarian expectations towards science are by no means new.

  7. 7.

    Wilholt and Glimell (2011: 353) do touch upon this issue when discussing the link made by proponents of the autonomy of science between freedom of research and diversity of approaches favoring the epistemic productivity of science. But they just note that it is a strong assumption and do no further discuss its validity.

  8. 8.

    Classical references on these ideas of plasticity or integrative power are of course Kuhn’s description (1962) of scientists being busy working on resolving anomalies in normal science and Lakatos’ concept of “protective belt” of a research program (1978).

  9. 9.

    Carrier sums up this contrast as follows: “Empirical tests often proceed better by focusing on the pure cases, the idealized ones, because such cases typically yield a more direct access to the processes considered fundamental by the theory at hand. But applied science is denied the privilege of epistemic research to select its problems according to their tractability (…). Practical challenges typically involve a more intricate intertwinement of factors and are thus harder to put under control” (2004: 4).

  10. 10.

    http://www.enseignementsup-recherche.gouv.fr/cid75958/www.enseignementsup-recherche.gouv.fr/cid75958/conseil-strategique-de-la-recherche.html. Accessed August 2016.

  11. 11.

    A more sophisticated philosophical case in favor of a non-objectivist approach to the definition of the goals of science taking the form of a democratisation of the setting of research is offered by Kitcher (2001, Chap. 11).

  12. 12.

    This issue is especially worth being addressed in the case of RRI (Responsible Research and Innovation) actions implemented in H2020.

References

  • Bacon, F. (1627) (1966). New Atlantis. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bedessem, B., & Ruphy, S. (2019). Scientific autonomy and the unpredictability of scientific inquiry: The unexpected might not be where you would expect. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science., 73, 1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becquerel, H. (1896). Sur les radiations émises par phosphorescence. Comptes-rendus de, l’Académie des sciences. C.R. T: Vol. 122, pp. 420–421.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergonié, J., & Tribondeau, L. (1959). Interpretation of some results from radiotherapy and an attempt to determine a rational treatment technique. Yale Journal of Biology & Medicine., 76, 181–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, M. B. (2004). The political philosophy of science policies. Minerva, 42, 77–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bush, V. (1945). Science, the endless frontier. A Report to the President by Vannevar Bush, Director of the Office of Scientific Research and Development. Washington D. C.: National Science Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bucchini, M., & Neresini, F. (2008). Science and public participation. In E. J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, & M. Lynch (Eds.), Handbook of science and technology studies (3rd edn., pp. 449–473). Cambridge, Mass: MIT press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cadogan, J. (2014). Curiosity-driven blue sky research: A threatened vital activity? The learned society of wales.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carrier, M. (2004). Knowledge gain and practical use: Models in pure and applied research. In D. Gillies (Ed.), Laws and models in science (Vol. 1, pp. 17). London: King’s College Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edgerton, D. (2004). The linear model did not exist. Reflections on the history and historiography of science and research in industry in twentieth century. In K. Grandin & N. Wormbs (Ed.), Science-industry nexus: History, policy implications (pp. 31–57). New-York: Watson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Innovation in Innovation: The triple helix of university-Industry-Government relations. Social Science Information, 42, 293–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fert, A. (2007). Interview published in Le Monde, October, 25, 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishkin J. S. (2009). When the people speak. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleming, A. (1929). On the antibacterial action of cultures of a penicillium with special reference to their use in the isolation of B. influenza. Journal of Experimental Pathology, 10, 226–236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grubbe, E. (1949). X-ray treatment: Its origins, birth, and early history. St. Paul, Minneapolis, MN: Bruce Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guston, D. H. (2000). Between politics and science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hacking, I. (1983). Representing and intervening. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hiroi, Y. (2019). Science as care: Science and innovation in post-growth society. In S. Lechevalier (Ed.), Innovation beyond technology (pp. 301–324). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitcher, P. (2001). Science, truth, and democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kourany, J. (2012). The ideal of socially responsible science: Reply to Dupré, Rolin, Solomon, and Giere. Perspectives on Science, 20, 344–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kusago, T. (2019). Post-disaster community recovery and community-based collaborative action research—A case of process evaluation method for community life improvement. In S. Lechevalier (Ed.), Innovation beyond technology (pp. 195–221). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakatos, I. (1978). The methodology of scientific research programs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lieu, C. H., et al. (2013). The association of alternate vegf ligands with resistance to anti-vegf therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer. PLoS ONE, 8(10), e77117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nature. (2017). 542, 391.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pestre, D. (2003). Regimes of knowledge production in society: Towards a more political and social reading. Minerva, 41, 245–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinell, P. (1992). Naissance d’un fléau. Histoire de la lutte contre le cancer en France (1890–1940). Métailié.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polanyi, M. (1962). The republic of science: Its political and economic theory. Minerva, 1, 54–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Potochnik, A. (2017). Idealization and the aims of science. The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg, N. (1992). “Science and technology in the twentieth century”. In Technology and enterprise in historical perspective. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sitohy, B. (2012). Anti-vegf/vegfr therapy for cancer: reassessing the strategies. Cancer Research, 8, 1909–1914.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stokes, D. E. (1997). Pasteur’s quadrant. The Brookings Institution.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilholt, T., & Glimell H. (2011). Conditions of science: The three-way tension of freedom, accountability and utility. In M. Carrier & A. Nordmann (Eds.), Science in the context of application (pp. 351–370). Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilholt, T. (2006). Design rules: Industrial research and epistemic merit. Philosophy of Science, 73(1), 66–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported financially by The French National Agency ANR under grant n° ANR-14-CE31-0003-01 (DEMOCRASCI project).

Many thanks to the PhD students and the post-doc of the project DEMOCRASCI (www.democrasci.com), Ismaël Benslimane, Renaud Fine, Haris Shekeris, and especially Baptiste Bedessem for Sect. 11.3 of the chapter.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Université de Lyon—Jean Moulin, Lyon, France

    Stéphanie Ruphy

Authors
  1. Stéphanie Ruphy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stéphanie Ruphy .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. EHESS, Paris, France

    Sébastien Lechevalier

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Ruphy, S. (2019). Public Participation in the Setting of Research and Innovation Agenda: Virtues and Challenges from a Philosophical Perspective. In: Lechevalier, S. (eds) Innovation Beyond Technology. Creative Economy. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-9053-1_11

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation