Adapt or perish? Assessing the recent shift in the European research funding arena from ‘ELSA’ to ‘RRI’

Life Sciences, Society and Policy

Volumn 10, Issue 1, 2014, Pages

  Zwart, Hub ^a   Landeweerd, Laurens ^a   van Rooij, Arjan ^a  

^a RADBOUD UNIVERSITY NIJMEGEN   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84975706388     PISSN: None     EISSN: 21957819     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s40504-014-0011-x     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Blume SS: The development of Dutch science policy in international perspective, 1965–1985. The Hague: RAWB; 1986.
2. Broerse J, de Cock Buning T: Public engagement in science, technology and innovation: the interactive learning and action approach. In Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics I. 2nd edition. Edited by: Chadwick R. Elsevier, Oxford; 2011:674–684.
3. Chadwick R, Zwart H: Editorial: from ELSA to responsible research and promisomics. Life Sciences, Society and Policy 2013, 9: 3. 10.1186/2195-7819-9-3
4. Collingridge D: The social control of technology. St. Martin's Press; London: Pinter, New York; 1980.
5. Cook-Deegan R: The gene wars. Science, politics and the human genome. Norton, New York/London; 1994/1995.
6. Eckenwiler, Lisa A., and Felicia Cohn (eds.). 2007. The ethics of bioethics, mapping the moral landscape. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD; 2007.
7. Freud S: Die Traumdeutung. Gesammelte Werke II/III. Imago, London; 1900/1942.
8. Illich I: Limits to medicine. Medical nemesis: the expropriation of health. Pelican Books, Harmondsworth; 1977.
9. Kay L: Who wrote the book of life? A history of the genetic code. Stanford University Press, Stanford; 2000.
10. Krabbenborg L: Involvement of civil society actors in nanotechnology: creating productive spaces for interaction. Groningen, RUG; 2013.
11. Lacan J: L’instance de la lettre dans l’inconscient ou la raison depuis Freud. In Écrits. Éditions du Seuil, Paris; 1966:493–530.
12. Moor J, Weckert J, Baird D, Nordmann H, Schummer J: Nanoethics: assesing the nanoscale from an ethical point of view. In Discovering the nanoscale. IOS Press, Amsterdam; 2003.
13. NWO. 2012. Maatschappelijk verantwoord innoveren. Derde subsidieronde 2012. Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek, Den Haag; 2012.
14. Owen R, Macnaghten P, Stilgoe J: Responsible research and innovation: from science in society to science for society, with society. Science and Public Policy 2012, 39(6):751–760. 10.1093/scipol/scs093
15. Penders B, Nelis AP: Credibility engineering in the food industry. Science in Context 2011, 24(4):487–515. 10.1017/S0269889711000202
16. Robinson D: Constructive technology assessment of emerging nanotechnologies. Experiments in interactions. 2010.
17. Rodrígueza H, Fishera E, Schuurbiers D: Integrating science and society in European framework programmes: trends in project-level solicitations. Research Policy 2013, 42(5):1126–1137. 10.1016/j.respol.2013.02.006
18. Serres M: Hermes 2: L’interférence. Les Éditions de Minuit, Paris; 1972.
19. Stegmaier P: The rock ‘n’ roll of knowledge co-production. Science and Society Series on convergence research. EMBO Reports 2009, 10(6):114–119.
20. Tallacchini M: Governing by values. EU ethics: soft tool, hard effects. Minerva 2009, 47: 281–306. 10.1007/s11024-009-9127-1
21. Toulmin S: How medicine saved the life of ethics. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 1982, 25: 736–750.
22. van den Hoven J, Jacob K, Nielsen L, Roure F, Rudze L, Stilgoe J, Blind K, Guske A-L, Riera CM: Options for strengthening responsible research and innovation. report of the expert group on the state of art in Europe on responsible research and innovation. European Commission/Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, Brussels; 2013.
23. von Schomberg, R. 2011. Prospects for technology assessment in a framework of responsible research and innovation. In Technikfolgen abschätzen lehren. Bildungspotenziale transdisziplinärer Methoden, ed. M. Dusseldorp and R. Beecroft, 39–61. Dordrecht: Springer.
24. von Schomberg, R. 2012. See ethics as a stimulus, not as an obstacle. Interview. LEV 8, November 2012, 14–18.
25. von Schomberg, R. 2013. In Responsible innovation, ed. R. Owen, M. Heintz, and J. Bessant. London: John Wiley. doi:10.1002/9781118551424.ch3.
26. Wheale, P, R von Schomberg, and P Glasner (eds.). 1998. The social management of genetic engineering. Ashgate, Aldershot; 1998.
27. Wickson F, Strand R, Kjølberg KL: The walkshop approach to science and technology ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics (on-line) 2014.
28. Yesley M: What’s ELSI got to do with it? Bioethics and the human genome project. New Genetics and Society 2008, 27(1):1–6. 10.1080/14636770701843527
29. Zwart H: Consensus formation as a basic strategy in ethics. In Bioethics in a European Perspective. Edited by: Have H, Gordijn B. Kluwer Academic Press, Dordrecht/Boston/London: ; 2001:281–288.
30. Zwart H, et al.: Ethical expertise in policy. In Encyclopaedia of applied ethics. 2nd edition. Edited by: Chadwick R. Elsevier, Oxford; 2012:157–164. 10.1016/B978-0-12-373932-2.00006-5
31. Zwart H: Harvesting results - preparing for the future. Centre for society and the life sciences (CSG) 2008–2013. ᅟ, Nijmegen: 2013; 2013.
32. Zwart H, Nelis A: What is ELSA genomics? Science and society series on convergence research. EMBO Reports 2009, 10(6):1–5. 10.1038/embor.2009.115