Responsible research and innovation as a travesty of technology assessment?

Journal of Responsible Innovation

Volumn 4, Issue 2, 2017, Pages 278-288

  Delvenne, Pierre ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LIÈGE   (Belgium)

Author keywords

politics of TA; responsible research and innovation; Technology assessment

Indexed keywords

EID: 85044835685     PISSN: 23299460     EISSN: 23299037     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/23299460.2017.1328653     Document Type: Letter

References (53)

1. Beck, Ulrich., 1992. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. Vol. 17. London: Sage.
2. Beck, Ulrich, Anthony, Giddens, and Scott, Lash. 1994. Reflexive Modernization: Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
3. Beck, Ulrich, and Edgar, Grande. 2010. “Varieties of Second Modernity: The Cosmopolitan Turn in Social and Political Theory and Research.” The British Journal of Sociology 61 (3): 409–443. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-4446.2010.01320.x
4. Cohen, Leonard., 1992. Anthem. The Future. Leonard Cohen Stranger Music, Inc (BMI).
5. Decker, M., and M., Ladikas. 2004. Bridges between Science, Society and Policy: Technology Assessment between Methods and Impacts. Berlin: Springer.
6. Delvenne, Pierre., 2011. Science, technologie et innovation sur le chemin de la réflexivité. Enjeux et dynamiques du Technology Assessment parlementaire. Louvain La Neuve: Academia Bruylant.
7. Delvenne, Pierre, Nathan, Charlier, Benedikt, Rosskamp, and Michiel, van Oudheusden. 2015. “De-and Re-Institutionalizing Technology Assessment in Contemporary Knowledge-Based Economies.” Technikfolgenabschätzung-Theorie und Praxis 24 (1): 20–29.
8. Delvenne, Pierre, Catherine, Fallon, and Sébastien, Brunet. 2011. “Parliamentary Technology Assessment Institutions as Indications of Reflexive Modernization.” Technology in Society 33 (1): 36–43. doi: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2011.03.004
9. Dodier, Nicolas., 1993. “Les appuis conventionnels de l’action: Eléments de pragmatique sociologique.” Réseaux 11 (62): 63–85.
10. Elliott, Anthony., 2002. “Beck’s Sociology of Risk: A Critical Assessment.” Sociology 36 (2): 293–315. doi: 10.1177/0038038502036002004
11. Fisher, Erik, Roop L., Mahajan, and Carl, Mitcham. 2006. “Midstream Modulation of Technology: Governance from within.” Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 26 (6): 485–496. doi: 10.1177/0270467606295402
12. Foucault, Michel., 2008. The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1978–1979. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
13. Ganzevles, Jurgen, Rinie, van Est, and Michael, Nentwich. 2014. “Embracing Variety: Introducing the Inclusive Modelling of (Parliamentary) Technology Assessment.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 1 (3): 292–313. doi: 10.1080/23299460.2014.968439
14. Goulet, Frédéric., 2016. “Faire science à part. Politiques d’inclusion sociale et recherche agronomique en Argentine.” Diss., Université Paris-Est.
15. Grin, John, Henk, Van de Graaf, and Robertus, Hoppe. 1997. Technology Assessment through Interaction: A Guide. The Hague: Rathenau Institute.
16. Gross, Matthias, and Wolfgang, Krohn. 2005. “Society as Experiment: Sociological Foundations for a Self-Experimental Society.” History of the Human Sciences 18 (2): 63–86. doi: 10.1177/0952695105054182
17. Grunwald, Armin., 1999. “Technology Assessment or Ethics of Technology? Reflections on Technology Development between Social Sciences and Philosophy.” Ethical Perspectives-Katholieke Universiteit Leuven 6 (2): 170–182. doi: 10.2143/EP.6.2.505355
18. Grunwald, Armin., 2014. “Responsible Research and Innovation: An Emerging Issue in Research Policy Rooted in the Debate on Nanotechnology.” In Responsibility in Nanotechnology Development, edited by Simone Arnaldi, Arianna Ferrari, Paolo Magaudda, and Francesca Marin, 191–205. Dordrecht: Springer.
19. Guston, David H., and Daniel, Sarewitz. 2002. “Real-Time Technology Assessment.” Technology in Society 24 (1): 93–109. doi: 10.1016/S0160-791X(01)00047-1
20. Gutwirth, Serge, and Jenneke, Christiaens. 2015. “Les sciences et leurs problèmes: la fraude scientifique, un moyen de diversion?” Revue interdisciplinaire d’études juridiques 73 (1): 21–49. doi: 10.3917/riej.074.0021
21. Hennen, Leonhard., 1999. “Participatory Technology Assessment: A Response to Technical Modernity?” Science and Public Policy 26 (5): 303–312. doi: 10.3152/147154399781782310
22. Hennen, Leonhard, and Linda, Nierling. 2017. “The Politics of Technology Assessment.” Call for Papers, 3rd European Technology Assessment Conference, Cork, May 17–19, 2017. http://cork2017.technology-assessment.info/images/files/Call-for-Papers---The-politics-of-TA.pdf.
23. Horst, Maja., 2014. “On the Weakness of Strong Ties.” Public Understanding of Science 23 (1): 43–47. doi: 10.1177/0963662512473392
24. Jasanoff, Sheila., 2011. Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
25. Joss, Simon., 2000. “Participation in Parliamentary Technology Assessment: From Theory to Practice.” In Parliaments and Technology. The Development of Technology Assessment in Europe, edited by Norman J., Vig and Herbert, Paschen, 325–362. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
26. Joss, Simon, and Sergio, Bellucci, eds. 2002. Participatory Technology Assessment. European Perspectives. London: Center for the Study of Democracy.
27. Klüver, Lars, Rasmus Øjvind, Nielsen, and Marie Louise, Jørgensen, eds. 2016. Policy-Oriented Technology Assessment Across Europe: Expanding Capacities. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
28. Lucivero, Federica, Michiel, van Ouheusden, and Pierre, Delvenne. Forthcoming. “Making the Invisible Visible. Nomativities in Technology Assessment.
29. Méheust, Bertrand., 2009. “La politique de l’oxymore.” Comment ceux qui nous gouvernent nous masquent la réalité du monde.
30. Miller, Clark A., 2008. “Civic Epistemologies: Constituting Knowledge and Order in Political Communities.” Sociology Compass 2 (6): 1896–1919. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2008.00175.x
31. Mythen, Gabe., 2007. “Reappraising the Risk Society Thesis: Telescopic Sight or Myopic Vision?” Current Sociology 55 (6): 793–813. doi: 10.1177/0011392107081986
32. Owen, Richard, Phil, Macnaghten, and Jack, Stilgoe. 2012. “Responsible Research and Innovation: From Science in Society to Science for Society, with Society.” Science and Public Policy 39 (6): 751–760. doi: 10.1093/scipol/scs093
33. PACITA Manifesto. http://www.pacitaproject.eu/ta-manifesto/ (accessed 20 February 2017)
34. Rip, Arie., 2006. “A Co-Evolutionary Approach to Reflexive Governance–and Its Ironies.” In Reflexive Governance for Sustainable Development, edited by J. P., Voss, D., Bauknecht, and R., Kemp, 82–100. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
35. Rip, Arie., 2016. “The Clothes of the Emperor. An Essay on RRI in and around Brussels.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 3 (3): 290–304. doi: 10.1080/23299460.2016.1255701
36. Rip, Arie, Thomas J., Misa, and Johan, Schot, eds. 1995. Managing Technology in Society. New York: Pinter Publishers.
37. Rip, Arie, and Harro, van Lente. 2013. “Bridging the Gap between Innovation and ELSA: The TA Program in the Dutch Nano-R&D Program NanoNed.” NanoEthics 7 (1): 7–16. doi: 10.1007/s11569-013-0171-9
38. Roco, Mihail C., and William Sims, Bainbridge. 2005. “Societal Implications of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology: Maximizing Human Benefit.” Journal of Nanoparticle Research 7 (1): 1–13. doi: 10.1007/s11051-004-2336-5
39. Rose, Nikolas., 1999. Powers of Freedom: Reframing Political Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
40. Schot, Johan, and Arie, Rip. 1997. “The Past and Future of Constructive Technology Assessment.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 54 (2–3): 251–268. doi: 10.1016/S0040-1625(96)00180-1
41. Schumpeter, Joseph., 1942. “Creative Destruction.” Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy 825: 82–85.
42. Thoreau, François., 2013. “Embarquement immédiat pour les nanotechnologies responsables. Comment poser et re-poser la question de la réflexivité?” PhD thesis, Université de Liège.
43. Tyfield, David., 2012. “A Cultural Political Economy of Research and Innovation in an Age of Crisis.” Minerva 50 (2): 149–167. doi: 10.1007/s11024-012-9201-y
44. Van Eijndhoven, Josee CM., 1997. “Technology Assessment: Product or Process?” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 54 (2–3): 269–286. doi: 10.1016/S0040-1625(96)00210-7
45. Van Lente, Harro, Tsjalling, Swierstra, and Pierre-Benoît, Joly. 2017. “Responsible Innovation as a Critique of Technology Assessment.” Journal of Responsible Innovation.
46. Van Oudheusden, Michiel., 2014. “Where are the Politics in Responsible Innovation? European Governance, Technology Assessments, and beyond.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 1 (1): 67–86. doi: 10.1080/23299460.2014.882097
47. Van Oudheusden, Michiel, Nathan, Charlier, Benedikt, Rosskamp, and Pierre, Delvenne. 2015. “Broadening, Deepening, and Governing Innovation: Flemish Technology Assessment in Historical and Socio-Political Perspective.” Research Policy 44 (10): 1877–1886. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2015.06.010
48. Vig, Norman J., and Herbert, Paschen. 2000. Parliaments and Technology: The Development of Technology Assessment in Europe. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
49. Von Schomberg, René. 2007. From the Ethics of Technology towards an Ethics of Knowledge Policy & Knowledge Assessment. Brussels: European Commission.
50. Von Schomberg, René. 2011a. Towards Responsible Research and Innovation in the Information and Communication Technologies and Security Technologies Fields. Brussels: European Commission. https://philpapers.org/archive/VONTRR.pdf (accessed 20 February 2017).
51. Von Schomberg, René. 2011b. “Prospects for Technology Assessment in a Framework of Responsible Research and Innovation.” In Technikfolgen abscha ¨tzen lehren. Bildungspotenziale transdisziplina ¨rer Methoden, edited by M., Dusseldorp and R., Beecroft, 39–61. Wiesbaden: Springer.
52. Wilsdon, James, Jack, Stilgoe, and Brian, Wynne. 2005. The Public Value of Science: Or How to Ensure that Science Really Matters. London: Demos.
53. Winner, Langdon., 1980. “Do Artifacts have Politics?” Daedalus 109 (1): 121–136.