Definitions and Conceptual Dimensions of Responsible Research and Innovation: A Literature Review

Science and Engineering Ethics

Volumn 23, Issue 1, 2017, Pages

  Burget, Mirjam ^a   Bardone, Emanuele ^a   Pedaste, Margus ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TARTU   (Estonia)

Author keywords

Ethics; European union research policy; Horizon 2020; Research governance; Research policy; Responsible innovation; Responsible research and innovation

Indexed keywords

ORGANIZATION; RESEARCH; RESEARCH ETHICS; STANDARDS;

ETHICS, RESEARCH; ORGANIZATIONAL INNOVATION; RESEARCH;

EID: 84964345849     PISSN: 13533452     EISSN: 14715546     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11948-016-9782-1     Document Type: Review

References (71)

1. Adams, B. (2006). Has the Future Already Happened? Paper presented at the International Conference, “Future Matters: Futures Known, Created and Minded,” 4–6 September 2006, Cardiff University.
2. Asante, K., Owen, R., & Williamson, G. (2014). Governance of new product development and perceptions of responsible innovation in the financial sector: insights from an ethnographic case study. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 1(1), 9–30. doi:10.1080/23299460.2014.882552.
3. Barben, D., Fisher, E., Celin, C., & Guston, D. H. (2008). Anticipatory governance of nanotechnology: Foresight, engagement, and integration. In E. J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, & J. Wajcman (Eds.), The handbook of science and technology studies (Third Edition, pp. 979–1000). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. http://cspo.org/legacy/library/090501F5DQ_lib_STSHandbookBarbe.pdf. Accessed 14 Feb 2016.
4. Blok, V., & Lemmens, P. (2015). The emerging concept of responsible innovation: Three reasons why it is questionable and calls for a radical transformation of the concept of innovation. In B. Koops, I. Oosterlaken, H. Romijn, T. Swierstra, & J. van den Hoven (Eds.), Responsible innovation 2: Concepts, approaches, and applications (pp. 19–35). Basel: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-17308-5_2.
5. Borup, M., Brown, N., Konrad, K., & Van Lente, H. (2006). The sociology of expectations in science and technology. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 18, 285–298. doi:10.1080/09537320600777002.
6. Bozeman, B., Rimes, H., & Youtie, J. (2015). The evolving state-of-the-art in technology transfer research: Revisiting the contingent effectiveness model. Research Policy, 44, 34–49. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2014.06.008.
7. Bremer, S., Millar, K., Wright, N., & Kaiser, M. (2015). Responsible techno-innovation in aquaculture: Employing ethical engagement to explore attitudes to GM salmon in Northern Europe. Aquaculture, 437, 370–381. doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2014.12.031.
8. CEC. (2010). Europe 2020: A Strategy for Smart, Sustainable and Inclusive Growth. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities. http://ec.europa.eu/eu2020. Accessed 14 Feb 2016.
9. Chilvers, J. (2010). Sustainable participation? Mapping out and reflecting on the field of public dialogue in science and technology. Harwell: Sciencewise Expert Resource Centre. https://ueaeprints.uea.ac.uk/37545/1/Chilvers_Sustainable_Participation_report.pdf. Accessed 14 Feb 2016.
10. CSO alliance. (2011). Public research should benefit society, not big business: An open letter on the common strategic framework for EU research and innovation funding. Addressed to the president of the European Commission, to commissioners and services of the European Commission, to members of the European Parliament, and to Representatives of Member States, 29 June. http://www.env-health.org/resources/letters/article/to-jose-manuel-d-barroso-president. Accessed 14 Feb 2016.
11. Davis, M., & Laas, K. (2014). ‘Broader impacts’ or ‘responsible research and innovation’? A comparison of two criteria for funding research in science and engineering. Science and Engineering Ethics, 20(4), 963–983. doi:10.1007/s11948-013-9480-1.
12. de Bakker, E., de Lauwere, C., Hoes, A., & Beekman, V. (2014). Responsible research and innovation in miniature: Information asymmetries hindering a more inclusive ‘nanofood’ development. Science and Public Policy, 41, 294–305. doi:10.1093/scipol/scu033.
13. De Martino, M., Errichiello, L., Marasco, A., & Morvillo, A. (2013). Logistics innovation in Seaports: An inter-organizational perspective. Research in transportation business and management, 8, 123–133. doi:10.1016/j.rtbm.2013.05.001. (Port Performance and Strategy).
14. de Saille, S. (2015). Innovating innovation policy: The emergence of ‘responsible research and innovation’. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 2(2), 152–168. doi:10.1080/23299460.2015.1045280.
15. Edelenbosch, R., Kupper, F., & Broerse, J. E. (2013). The application of neurogenomics to education: analyzing guiding visions. New Genetics and Society, 32(3), 285–301. doi:10.1080/14636778.2013.808033.
16. ERAB. (2012). The new renaissance: Will it happen? Innovating Europe out of the crisis. Third and final report of the European research area board. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. http://ec.europa.eu/research/erab/pdf/3rd-erab-final-report_en.pdf. Accessed 14 Feb 2016.
17. European Commission (EC). (2012). Responsible Research and Innovation. Europe’s Ability to Respond to Societal Challenges. https://ec.europa.eu/research/swafs/pdf/pub_public_engagement/responsible-research-and-innovation-leaflet_en.pdf. Accessed 14 Feb 2016.
18. European Commission (EC). (2013). Options for strengthening responsible research and innovation. http://ec.europa.eu/research/swafs/pdf/pub_public_engagement/options-for-strengthening_en.pdf. Accessed 14 Feb 2016.
19. Felt, U. (2014). Within, across and beyond: Reconsidering the role of social sciences and humanities in Europe. Science as Culture, 23(3), 384–396. doi:10.1080/09505431.2014.926146.
20. Fisher, E., & Mahajan, R. L. (2006). Midstream modulation of nanotechnology research in an academic laboratory. In Proceedings of ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress & Exposition (IMECE) (pp. 1–7). Chicago: Illinois. doi:10.1115/IMECE2006-14790.
21. Flipse, S., Sanden, M., & Osseweijer, P. (2013). The why and how of enabling the integration of social and ethical aspects in research and development. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19(3), 703–725. doi:10.1007/s11948-012-9423-2.
22. Forsberg, E., Quaglio, G., O’Kane, H., Karapiperis, T., Van Woensel, L., & Arnaldi, S. (2015). Issues and opinions: Assessment of science and technologies: Advising for and with responsibility. Technology in Society, 42, 21–27. doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2014.12.004.
23. Frewer, L., Gupta, N., George, S., Fischer, A., Giles, E., & Coles, D. (2014). Consumer attitudes towards nanotechnologies applied to food production. Trends In Food Science and Technology, 40, 211–225. doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2014.06.005. (Special Issue: Nanotechnology in Foods: Science behind and future perspectives).
24. Galdon-Clavell, G. (2013). (Not so) smart cities? The drivers, impact and risks of surveillance-enabled smart environments. Science and Public Policy (SPP), 40(6), 717–723. doi:10.1093/scipol/sct070.
25. Grimpe, B., Hartswood, M., & Jirotka, M. (2015). Towards a closer dialogue between policy and practice: Responsible design in HCI. In Proceeding of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2965–2974).
26. Groves, C. (2009). Future ethics: Risk, care and non-reciprocal responsibility. Journal of Global Ethics, 5(1), 17–31. doi:10.1080/17449620902765286.
27. Grunwald, A. (2009). Technology assessment: Concept and methods. In D. M. Gabbay, A. W. M. Meijers, J. Woods, & P. Thagard (Eds.), Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences (Vol. 9, pp. 1103–1146). Amsterdam: North Holland.
28. Guston, D. H., & Sarewitz, D. (2002). Real-time technology assessment. Technology in Society, 24, 93–109. http://archive.cspo.org/documents/realtimeTA.pdf Accessed 14 Feb 2016.
29. Hempel, L., Ostermeier, L., Schaaf, T., & Vedder, D. (2013). Towards a social impact assessment of security technologies: A bottom-up approach. Science and Public Policy (SPP), 40(6), 740–754. doi:10.1093/scipol/sct086.
30. Karinen, R., & Guston, D. H. (2010). Towards anticipatory governance. The experience with nanotechnology. In M. Kaiser (Ed.), Governing future technologies. Nanotechnology and the rise of an assessment regime (pp. 217–232). New York: Springer.
31. Kearnes, M. (2013). Performing synthetic worlds: Situating the bioeconomy. Science and Public Policy (SPP), 40(4), 453–465. doi:10.1093/scipol/sct052.
32. Laroche, G. (2011). Presentation at the responsible innovation workshop. London: French Embassy. www.ambafrance-uk.org/IMG/pdf/Gilles_LAROCHE.pdf. Accessed 14 Feb 2016.
33. Levidow, L., & Neubauer, C. (2014). EU research agendas: Embedding what future? Science as Culture, 23(3), 397–412. doi:10.1080/09505431.2014.926149.
34. Maynard, A. D. (2015). The (nano) entrepreneur’s dilemma. Nature Nanotechnology, 10(3), 199–200. doi:10.1038/nnano.2015.35.
35. Mejlgaard, N., Bloch, C., Degn, L., Nielsen, M. W., & Ravn, T. (2012). Locating science in society across Europe: Clusters and consequences. Science and Public Policy, 39, 741–750.
36. Owen, R., Macnaghten, P., & Stilgoe, J. (2012). Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society. Science and Public Policy (SPP), 39(6), 751–760. doi:10.1093/scipol/scs093.
37. Pellizzoni, L. (2004). Responsibility and environmental governance. Environmental Politics, 13(3), 541–565. doi:10.1080/0964401042000229034.
38. Quay, R. (2010). Anticipatory governance. Journal of the American Planning Association, 76(4), 496–511. doi:10.1080/01944363.2010.508428.
39. Rayner, S., Heyward, C., Kruger, T., Pidgeon, N., Redgwell, C., & Savulescu, J. (2013). The Oxford principles. Climatic Change, 121(3), 499–512. doi:10.1007/s10584-012-0675-2.
40. Regulation (EU) No 1291/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11.12.2013 establishing Horizon 2020-the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014e2020) and repealing Decision No 1982/2006/EC. Off J Eur Union.
41. Robinson, D. K. (2009). Co-evolutionary scenarios: An application to prospecting futures of the responsible development of nanotechnology. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76, 1222–1239. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2009.07.015. (Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA): Impacts and Implications for Policy and Decision Making (The 2008 FTA International Seville Conference).
42. Roco, M. C., Harthorn, B., Guston, D., & Shapira, P. (2011). Innovative and responsible governance of nanotechnology for societal development. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 13(9), 3557–3590. doi:10.1007/s11051-011-0454-4.
43. Rose, N. (2014). NeuroView: The human brain project: social and ethical challenges. Neuron, 82, 1212–1215. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2014.06.001.
44. RRI Tools: building a better relationship between science and society. (2015). www.rri-tools.eu. Accessed 14 Feb 2016.
45. Schaper-Rinkel, P. (2013). The role of future-oriented technology analysis in the governance of emerging technologies: The example of nanotechnology. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80, 444–452. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2012.10.007. (Future-Oriented Technology Analysis).
46. Schot, J., & Rip, A. (1997). The past and future of constructive technology assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 54(2/3), 251. doi:10.1016/S0040-1625(96)00180-1.
47. 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. doi:10.1007/s11948-011-9317-8.
48. Selin, C. (2011). Negotiating plausibility: Intervening in the future of nanotechnology. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17, 723–737. doi:10.1007/s11948-011-9315-x.
49. Serres, M. (1972). Hermes II: L’Interference. Paris: Minuit.
50. Spruit, S. L., Hoople, G. D., & Rolfe, D. A. (2015). Just a Cog in the Machine? The individual responsibility of researchers in nanotechnology is a duty to collectivize. Science and Engineering Ethics, 11(4), 1–17. doi:10.1007/s11948-015-9718-1.
51. Stahl, B. C. (2013). Responsible research and innovation: The role of privacy in an emerging framework. Science and Public Policy (SPP), 40(6), 708–716. doi:10.1093/scipol/sct067.
52. Stahl, B. C., Eden, G., Jirotka, M., & Coeckelbergh, M. (2014a). From computer ethics to responsible research and innovation in ICT. The transition of reference discourses informing ethics-related research in information systems. Information and Management, 51, 810–818. doi:10.1016/j.im.2014.01.001.
53. Stahl, B. C., McBride, N., Wakunuma, K., & Flick, C. (2014b). The empathic care robot: A prototype of responsible research and innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 84, 74–85. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2013.08.001.
54. Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., & Macnaghten, P. (2013). Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy, 42, 1568–1580. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2013.05.008.
55. Stirling, A. (2010). Keep it complex. Nature, 468, 1029–1031. doi:10.1038/4681029a.
56. Sutcliffe, H. (2011). A report on responsible research and innovation. http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/rri-report-hilary-sutcliffe_en.pdf. Accessed 14 Feb 2016.
57. te Kulve, H., & Rip, A. (2011). Constructing productive engagement: Pre-engagementtools for emerging technologies. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17, 699–714. doi:10.1007/s11948-011-9304-0.
58. The Sixth Framework Programme in brief. (2002). http://ec.europa.eu/research/fp6/pdf/fp6-in-brief_en.pdf. Accessed 14 Feb 2016.
59. Torgersen, H., & Schmidt, M. (2013). Frames and comparators: How might a debate on synthetic biology evolve? Futures, 48, 44–54. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2013.02.002.
60. van den Hove, S., McGlade, J., Mottet, P., & Depledge, M. H. (2012). The innovation union: A perfect means to confused ends? Environmental Science and Policy, 16, 73–80. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2011.11.006.
61. van der Burg, S. (2009). Imagining the future of photo acoustic mammography. Science and Engineering Ethics, 15(1), 97–110. doi:10.1007/s11948-008-9079-0.
62. von Schomberg, R. (2007). From the ethics of technology towards and ethics of knowledge policy and knowledge. http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/ethics-of-technology-knowledge-policy_en.pdf. Accessed 14 Feb 2016.
63. von Schomberg, R. (Ed.). (2011). Towards Responsible Research and Innovation in the Information and Communication Technologies and Security Technologies Fields. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/mep-rapport-2011_en.pdf. Accessed 14 Feb 2016.
64. von Schomberg, R. (2013). A vision of responsible research and innovation. In R. Owen, M. Heintz, & J. Bessant (Eds.), Responsible innovation: Managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society (pp. 51–74). New York: Wiley.
65. Wilford, S. H. (2015). What is required of requirements? A first stage process towards developing guidelines for responsible research and innovation. SIGCAS Computers and Society, 45(3), 348–355.
66. 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.
67. Wright, D., & Friedewald, M. (2013). Integrating privacy and ethical impact assessments. Science and Public Policy, 40, 755–766. doi:10.1093/scipol/sct083.
68. Wright, D., Gellert, R., Gutwirth, S., & Friedewald, M. (2011). Minimizing Technology Risks with PIAs, Precaution, and Participation. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 47–54. http://works.bepress.com/michael_friedewald/56/. Accessed 14 Feb 2016.
69. Wynne, B. (1993). Public uptake of science: A case for institutional reflexivity. Public Understanding of Science, 2, 321–337. doi:10.1088/0963-6625/2/4/003.
70. Wynne, B. (2011). Lab work goes social, and vice versa: Strategising public engagement processes. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17, 791–800. doi:10.1007/s11948-011-9316-9.
71. Zwart, H., Laurens, L., & van Rooij, A. (2014). Adapt or perish? Assessing the recent shift in the European research funding arena from ‘ELSA’ to ‘RRI’. Life Sciences, Society and Policy, 10(11), 1–19. doi:10.1186/s40504-014-0011-x.