Midstream Modulation in Biotechnology Industry: Redefining What is 'Part of the Job' of Researchers in Industry

Science and Engineering Ethics

Volumn 19, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 1141-1164

  Flipse, Steven M ^a,b,c   van der Sanden, Maarten C A ^a   Osseweijer, Patricia ^a,b,c,d  

^a DELFT UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Netherlands)

^b CSG Centre for Society and the Life Sciences   (Netherlands)

^c KLUYVER CENTRE FOR GENOMICS OF INDUSTRIAL FERMENTATION   (Netherlands)

^d BE Basic   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Ethics of science technology; Midstream modulation; Responsible innovation; Upstream engagement in industry

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AWARENESS; BIOTECHNOLOGY; ETHICS; HUMAN; HUMANITIES; METHODOLOGY; PERSONNEL; RESEARCH ETHICS; SCIENCE; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; WORK;

AWARENESS; BIOTECHNOLOGY; ETHICS, RESEARCH; HUMANITIES; HUMANS; RESEARCH DESIGN; RESEARCH PERSONNEL; SCIENCE; SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY; WORK;

EID: 84883811429     PISSN: 13533452     EISSN: 16605454     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11948-012-9411-6     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Alegre, J., Chiva, R., & Lapiedra, R. (2009). Measuring innovation in long product development cycle industries: An insight in biotechnology. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 21(4), 535-546.
2. Barling, A., De Vriend, H., Cornelese, J. A., Ekstrand, B., Hecker, E. F. F., Howlett, J., et al. (1999). The social aspects of food biotechnology: A European view. Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology, 7, 85-93.
3. Bercovitz, J. E. L., & Feldman, M. P. (2007). Fishing upstream: Firm innovation strategy and university research alliances. Research Policy, 36, 930-948.
4. Bovens, M. A. P. (1998). The quest for responsibility (1st ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5. Calleja-Lopez, A. & Fisher, E. (2009). Dialogues from the Lab: Contemporary Maieutics for Socio-Technical Inquiry. Proceedings of Society for Philosophy and Technology, University of Twente, The Netherlands. July 7-10 2009.
6. Carolan, M. S. (2007). The precautionary principle and traditional risk assessment: Rethinking how we assess and mitigate environmental threats organization. Environment, 20(1), 5-24.
7. Collins, H. M., & Evans, R. (2002). The third wave of science studies: Studies of expertise and experience. Social Studies of Science, 32(2), 235-296.
8. Conley, S. (2011). Engagement agents in the making: On the front lines of socio-technical integration. commentary on: 'Constructing productive engagement: Pre-engagement tools for emerging technologies'. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(4), 715-721.
9. Cozijnsen, A. J., Vrakking, W. J., & van Ijzerloo, M. (2000). Success and failure of 50 innovation projects in Dutch companies. European Journal of Innovation Management, 3(3), 150-159.
10. DeCarolis, D. M., & Deeds, D. L. (1999). The impact of stocks and flows of organizational knowledge on firm performance: An empirical investigation of the biotechnology industry. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 953-968.
11. Delgado, A., Kjølberg, K. L., & Wickson, F. (2010). Public engagement coming of age: From theory to practice in STS encounters with nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 20(6), 826-845.
12. Doorn, N. (2011). Exploring responsibility rationales in research and development. Science, Technology & Human Values, Online, pp 1-30.
13. Doorn, N., & Fahlquist, J. N. (2010). Responsibility in engineering: Toward a new role for engineering ethicists. Bulletin of Science Technology Society, 30(3), 222-230.
14. DSM (2012). Our company: Corporate website. Available at http://www. dsm. com/en_US/cworld/public/about/pages/Our_company. jsp. Accessed 16 April 2012.
15. European Commission. (2011a). Horizon 2020: The framework programme for research and innovation. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Commisttee and the Committee of the Regions, pp 1-14.
16. European Commission. (2011b). Analysis part I: Investment and performance in R&D: Investing in the future. Innovation Union Competitiveness report 2011, 41-154. Available at http://ec. europa. eu/research/innovation-union/pdf/competitiveness-report/2011/part_1. pdf, Accessed 16 April 2012.
17. European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies to the European Commission. (2007). Opinion on the ethical aspects of nanomedicine: Opinion No. 21, Available at http://ec. europa. eu/bepa/european-group-ethics/docs/publications/opinion_21_nano_en. pdf, Accessed 16 April 2012.
18. Fisher, E. (2006). Embedded nanotechnology policy research. Ogmius, 14, 3-4.
19. Fisher, E. (2007). Ethnographic invention: Probing the capacity of laboratory decisions. Nanoethics, 1, 155-165.
20. Fisher, E. (2011). Public science and technology scholars: Engaging whom? Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(4), 607-620.
21. Fisher, E., & Mahajan, R. L. (2006). Midstream modulation of nanotechnology research in an academic laboratory. Proceedings of ASME international mechanical engineering congress and exposition (IMECE) 2006 in Chicago, Illinois, pp 1-7.
22. Fisher, E., & Mahajan, R. L. (2010). Embedding the humanities in engineering: Art, dialogue, and a laboratory. In M. E. Gorman (Ed.), Trading zones and interactional expertise: Creating new kinds of collaboration (pp. 209-230). Boston: MIT Press.
23. Fisher, E., Mahajan, R. L., & Mitcham, C. (2006). Midstream modulation of technology: Governance from within. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 26(6), 485-496.
24. Fisher, E. & Miller, C. (2009) Contextualizing the engineering laboratory. In S. H. Christensen, M. Meganck, B. Delahousse, B. (Eds.), Engineering in context (pp. 369-381). Palo Alto: Academica Press.
25. Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1993). Science for the post-normal age. Futures, 25(7), 739-755.
26. Guston, D. H., & Sarewitz, D. (2002). Real-time technology assessment. Technology in Society, 24(1-2), 93-109.
27. Hessels, L. K., van Lente, H., & Smits, R. (2009). In search of relevance: The changing contract between science and society. Science and Public Policy, 36(5), 387-401.
28. Jasanoff, S. (2011). Constitutional moments in governing science and technology. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(4), 621-638.
29. Lucivero, F., Swierstra, T., & Boenink, M. (2011). Assessing expectations: Towards a toolbox for an ethics of emerging technologies. NanoEthics, 5(2), 129-141.
30. McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. The Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117-127.
31. Patra, D. (2011). Responsible development of nanoscience and nanotechnology: Contextualizing socio-technical integration into the nanofabrication laboratories in the USA. NanoEthics, 5(2), 143-157.
32. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. (2012). Sustainability of biomass in a bio-based economy, pp 1-22.
33. Penders, B., Verbakel, J. M. A., & Nelis, A. (2009). The social study of corporate science: A research manifesto. Bulletin of Science Technology Society, 29(6), 439-446.
34. Phelps, R., & Fisher, E. (2011). Legislating the laboratory? Promotion and precaution in a nanomaterials company. Methods in Molecular Biology, 726(2), 339-358.
35. Rip, A. (2006). A co-evolutionary approach to reflexive governance-and its ironies. In J. Voss, D. Bauknecht, & R. Kemp (Eds.), Reflexive governance for sustainable development (pp. 82-100). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
36. Ryan, R., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78.
37. Schot, J., & Rip, A. (1997). The past and future of constructive technology assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 54(2-3), 251-268.
38. Schuurbiers, D. (2011). What happens in the lab does not stay in the lab: Applying midstream modulation to enhance critical reflection in the laboratory. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(4), 769-788.
39. Schuurbiers, D., & Fisher, E. (2009). Lab-scale intervention. EMBO reports Science & Society Series on Convergence Research, 10(5), 424-427.
40. Stegmaier, P. (2009). The rock 'n' roll of knowledge co-production. EMBO reports Science & Society Series on Convergence Research, 10(2), 114-119.
41. Swierstra, T., & Jelsma, J. (2006). Responsibility without moralism in techno scientific design practice. Science Technology Human Values, 31(3), 309-332.
42. Thoreau, F. (2010). The 'interpretive flexibility' of nanotechnologies in context: The case of a leading R&D center in Flanders, Belgium. SpiraL working paper series, pp 1-69. Available at http://www. spiral. ulg. ac. be/uploads/wpapers/Spiral_WP2010-01_THOREAU. pdf, Accessed 16 April 2012.
43. van de Poel, I. (2000). On the role of outsiders in technical development. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 12(3), 383-397.
44. van de Poel, I. (2001). The transformation of technological regimes. Research Policy, 32(1), 49-68.
45. van der Burg, S. (2009). Imagining the future of photoacoustic mammography. Science and Engineering Ethics, 15(1), 97-110.
46. Webster, A. (2007). Crossing boundaries: social sciences in the policy room. Science, Technology and Human Values, 32, 458-478.
47. Wilsdon, J. (2005). Paddling upstream: New currents in European technology assessment. In M. Rodemeyer, D. Sarewitz, & J. Wilsdon (Eds.), The future of technology assessment (pp. 22-29). Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
48. Wolpert, L. (2007). Is cell science dangerous? Journal on Medical Ethics, 33(6), 345-348.
49. Wynne, B. (2003). Seasick on the third wave? Subverting the hegemony or propositionalism: Response to Collins and Evans. Social Studies of Science, 33(3), 401-418.
50. Wynne, B. (2011). Lab work goes social, and vice versa: Strategising public engagement processes. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(4), 791-800.