Responsible Innovation: Multi-Level Dynamics and Soft Intervention Practices

Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society

Volumn , Issue , 2013, Pages 165-183

  Fisher, Erik ^a   Rip, Arie ^b  

^a ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Constructive technology assessment (CTA); Responsible innovation (RI); Socio technical integration research (STIR)

Indexed keywords

EID: 84885615631     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1002/9781118551424.ch9     Document Type: Chapter

References (69)

1. Barben, D., E. Fisher, C. Selin, and D. H. Guston. 2008. Anticipatory governance of nanotechnology: foresight, engagement, and integration, pp. 979-1000 (eds E. J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. E. Lynch, and J. Wajcman), The New Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Cambridge: MIT Press.
2. Cobb, M. 2011. Creating informed public opinion: citizen deliberation about nanotechnologies for human enhancements. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 13(4): 1533-1548.
3. Conley, S.N. (in review) Activating Transformative Capacities: Socio-Technical Integration in Canadian and British Genetics Laboratories (in review).
4. Conley, S.N. 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.
5. Daey Ouwens C, Hoogstraten, P. van Jelsma, J., Prakke, F. and Rip, A. Constructief Technologisch Aspectenonderzoek. Een Verkenning, Den Haag: Staatsuitgeverij (1987) (NOTA Voorstudie 4).
6. Domareski, J. 2011. Responsible innovation network. Genomics and Society: Social Science and Humanities Research in Genomics, (4), Spring,13.
7. Doubleday, R. (2007 The Laboratory Revisited. NanoEthics 1(2), 167-176.
8. DuPont and Environmental Defense (2007) Nano Risk Framework, http://apps.edf.org/documents/6496_nano%20risk%20framework.pdf accessed 23 December 2012.
9. European Commission (2008) European Commissions Code of Conduct for Responsible Nanotechnologies Research, http://.ec.europa.eu/nanotechnology/pdf/nanocode-rec pe0894c-en.pdf, accessed 24 December 2012.
10. Fisher, E. (2005) Lessons learned from the ethical, legal and social implications program (ELSI): planning a societal implications research program for the national nanotechnology program. Technology in Society 27: 321-328.
11. Fisher, E. (2007) Ethnographic invention: probing the capacity of laboratory decisions. Nanoethics 1(2):155-165.
12. Fisher, E. (2009) Legislative and Regulatory Framework. Nanotechnology and FDARegulated Products: The Essential Guide, Food and Drug Law Library, Washington, DC.
13. Fisher, E. 2011. Editorial overview: public science and technology scholars: engaging whom? Science and Engineering Ethics 17(4):607-620.
14. Fisher, E., S. Biggs, S., Lindsay, and J. Zhao. 2010. Research thrives on integration of natural and social sciences. Correspondence. Nature 463 1018.
15. Fisher, E., R.L. Mahajan, and C. Mitcham (2006a) Midstream modulation of technology: governance from within. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society 26 (6):485-496.
16. Fisher, E. and R.L. Mahajan, 2006b. Contradictory intent? US federal legislation on integrating societal concerns into nanotechnology research and development. Science and Public Policy 33(1):5-16.
17. Fisher, E. and Mahajan, R.L. (2006c) Midstream modulation in an academic research laboratory. Proceedings of the American Society for Mechanical Engineers International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, Chicago, Illinois, November 5-10.
18. Fisher, E. and R.L. Mahajan (2010). Embedding the humanities in engineering: Art, dialogue, and a laboratory. in Gorman, M.E. (Ed.), Trading Zones and Interactional Expertise: Creating New Kinds of Collaboration. ed. M.E. Gorman,MIT Press, Cambridge, MA and London, England, pp. 209-230.
19. Flipse, S.M., van der Sanden, M.C.A., and Osseweijer, P. (2012) Midstream modulation in biotechnology industry-redefining what is 'part of the job' of researchers in industry. Science and Engineering Ethics doi: 10.1007/s11948-012-9411-6.
20. Garud R. and Ahlstrom D. (1997) Technology assessment: a socio-cognitive perspective, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management. 14 25-48.
21. Genome British Columbia (2011) Pathways to integration. March 23.
22. Genus, A. (2006), Rethinking constructive technology assessment as democratic, reflective, discourse. Technology Forecasting and Social Change 73, 13-26.
23. Geoghegan-Quinn, M. (2012) http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/geogheganquinn/headlines/speeches/2012/documents/20120423-dialogue-conferencespeech_ en.pdf.
24. Guston, D.H. (2000) Retiring the social contract for science. Issues in Science and Technology (summer) available: http://www.issues.org/16.4/p_guston.htm, accessed 24 December 2012.
25. Guston, D.H. 2006. Responsible knowledge-based innovation. Society 43(4): 19-21.
26. Guston, D.H. 2007. Toward centres for responsible innovation in the commercialized university. Public Science in Liberal Democracy: The Challenge to Science and Democracy, (eds. P.W.B. Phillips and J. Porter) 295-312. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
27. Guston, D. H. and D. Sarewitz. (2002) Real-time technology assessment. Technology in Society 24:93-109.
28. Hill, M. (1997) The Policy Process in the Modern State. Prentice Hall: London.
29. Holbrook, J. B. 2005. Assessing the science-society relation: the case of the US National Science Foundation's second merit review criterion. Technology in Society 27: 437-451.
30. Jones R. (2008) When it pays to ask the public. Nature Nanotechnology 3, 578-579.
31. Karen, P. and Pidgeon, N. (2011) Public Engagement on Geoengineering Research: Preliminary Report on the SPICE Deliberative Workshops. Understanding Risk Working Paper 11-01, June 2011.
32. Krupp, F. and Holliday, C. 2005. Let's get nanotech right. Wall Street Journal Management Supplement, B2.
33. Lasswell, H.D. (1970) Must science serve political power? American Psychologist 25:2, 117-123.
34. Laurent, B. (2011) Democracies on trial. Assembling nanotechnology and its problems. Thèse de Doctorat, Ecole des Mines de Paris.
35. LMC (Local Monitoring Committee) (O. Lemaire, A. Moneyron, J. E. Masson), (2010) "Interactive technology assessment" and beyond: the field trial of genetically modified grapevines at INRA-Colmar, PLoS Biology 8(11), (1-7) (Separately Paginated).
36. Macnaghten, P., and O. Richard (2011) Good governance for geoengineering. Nature 479: 293.
37. Marris, C. Rip, A. and Joly, P.-B. Interactive technology assessment in the real World: dual dynamics in an iTA exercise on genetically modified vines. Science, Technology & Human Values 33(1) (2008) 77-100.
38. McCarthy, E. and C. Kelty. 2010. Nanotechnology and responsibility. Social Studies of Science 40(3) 405-432.
39. Ministerie van Onderwijs en Wetenschappen (1983-1984) Integratie van Wetenschap en Technologie in de Samenleving. Beleidsnota (Policy Memorandum: Integration of Science and Technology in Society),'s-Gravenhage:Tweede Kamer, 18 421, nrs. 1-2.
40. NanoMed (2010) The Report of the Round Table Exercise, A Report on the Nanomedicine Environment. NanoMed Round Table Extended Report, http://www.philosophie.tu-darmstadt.de/media/institut_fuer_philosophie/diesunddas/nordmann/nanomed.pdf accessed 24 December 2012.
41. National Research Council (2006) A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative.
42. National Science and Technology Council Committee on Technology, and Subcommittee on Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology (2011) National Nanotechnology Initiative Strategic Plan, Washington, DC, Government Printing Office, February 2011.
43. Nordmann, A., and Rip, A. (2009) Mind the gap revisited. Nature Nanotechnology 4 273-274.
44. Observatory Nano (2012) Final Observatory NANO 2012 Report. Press Release, March 2012, http://www.innovationsgesellschaft.ch/en/index.php?section=news&cmd =details&newsid=621 accessed 24 December 2012.
45. Owen, R. and Goldberg, N. (2010) Responsible Innovation: A Pilot Study with the U.K.
46. Parandian, A. (2012) Constructive TA of newly emerging technologies. stimulating learning by anticipation through bridging events. PhD thesis, Technical University Delft, defended March 12, 2012.
47. Randles, S., J. Youtie, D. Guston, B. Harthtorn, C. Newfield, P., Shapira, F., Wickson, A., Rip, R., Von Schomberg, N. Pidgeon (2012 A trans-Atlantic conversation on responsible innovation and responsible governance. (eds.H. van Lente, C. Coenen, T. Fleischer et al.), Proceedings of the third S.NET Conference in Tempe, Arizona, November 2011, Heidelberg: Akademische Verlaggesellschaft AKA/IOS Press, pp. 169-179.
48. Rip, A. (2002) Co-Evolution of Science, Technology and Society. Expert Review for the Bundesministerium Bildung and Forschung's Förderinitiative 'Politik, Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft' (Science Policy Studies), Managed by the Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Enschede: University of Twente.
49. Rip, A. (2006) Folk theories of nanotechnologists Science as Culture 15: 349-365.
50. Rip, A. (2010): De facto governance of nanotechnologies. (eds Goodwin, M.; Koops, B.-J.; Leenes, R) Dimensions of Technology Regulation. Nijmegen, pp. 285-308.
51. Rip, A. and te Kulve, H. (2008) Constructive technology assessment and sociotechnical scenarios. (eds E. Fisher, C. Selin, M.W., Jameson) The Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society Volume I: Presenting Futures, Berlin: Springer, pp. 49-70.
52. Rip, A., Misa, T. J. and Schot, J. (eds.), (1995) Managing technology in society. The Approach of Constructive Technology Assessment, London and New York: Pinter Publishers.
53. Rip, A. and Shelley-Egan, C. 2010. Positions and responsibilities in the 'real' world of nanotechnology. (eds Von Schomberg R., Davies S.) Understanding Public Debate on Nanotechnologies: Options for Framing Public Policies: A Working Document by the Services of the European Commission. European Commission, Brussels, pp. 31-38.
54. Roberts, M. R. (2009). Realizing societal benefit from Academic Research: analysis of the National Science foundation's broader impacts criterion. Social Epistemology 23 (3-4): 199-219.
55. Robinson, D.K.R. (2009), Co-evolutionary scenarios: an application to prospecting futures of the responsible development of nanotechnology. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 76, 1222-1239.
56. Robinson, D.K.R. (2010) Constructive technology assessment of emerging nanotechnologies. Experiments in interactions. PhD thesis, defended November 25, 2010.
57. Roco, M. and Bainbridge, W. S., (eds.) (2001: Societal Implications of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers, http://www.wtec.org/loyolainanolNSET.Societal.Implications/nanosi.pdf (accessed 3 December 2008).
58. Roco, M.C., B. Harthorn, D. Guston, P. Shapira (2011), Innovative and responsible governance of nanotechnology for societal development. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 13(9), 3557-3590.
59. Schot, J. and Rip, A. (1997) The past and future of constructive technology assessment, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 54 251-268.
60. Schuurbiers, D. 2011. What happens in the lab: applying mid-stream modulation to enhance critical reflection in the laboratory. Science and Engineering Ethics 17(4):769-88.
61. Selin, C. (2011 Negotiating Plausibility: Intervening in the Future of Nanotechnology. Science and Engineering Ethics 17(4): 723-737.
62. Stephanie, B. and E. Fisher. 2011. Science and technology policy in the making: observation and engagement. Special issue of Science and Engineering Ethics. 17(4): 607-849.
63. Sutcliffe, H. (2011) A Report on Responsible Research and Innovation for the European Commission, Matter, http://ec.europa.eu/research/sciencesociety/document_library/pdf _06/rri-report-hilary-sutcliffe_en.pdf accessed 24 December 2012.
64. US Congress (2003) 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003, Public Law No. 108-153.
65. Von Schomberg, R. (2007) From the Ethics of Technology Towards and Ethics of Knowledge Policy. Working Document of the Service of the European Commission, http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/pdf/ethicsofknowledgepolicy_en.pdf accessed 24 December 2012.
66. Von Schomberg, R.(2011). Towards Responsible Research and Innovation in the Information and Communication Technologies and Security Technologies Fields. European Commission, Brussels.
67. Von Schomberg, R. (2012) Prospects for technology assessment in a framework of responsible research and innovation in a M. Dusseldorp and R. Beecroft (eds), Technikfolgen Abschätzen Lehren. Bildungspotenziale Transdisziplinärer Methoden, Springer Vs Verlaf für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden, pp. 39-61.
68. Von Schomberg, R. and S. Davies (eds.), Understanding public debate on nanotechnologies. Options for Framing Public Policy, Brussels: Commission of the European Communities, (2010).
69. Wynne, B. (2011) Lab work goes social, and vice versa: strategising public engagement processes. Science and Engineering Ethics 17(4): 791-800.