Element contents
The Making of Responsible Innovation
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 July 2020
Summary
Science and technological innovation wield unfathomable power in the shaping of social life and the environment. Yet, the democratic control and shaping of technology remains at best an unfinished project, not least due to dominant paradigms of governance implicitly that have historically delegated the good to market forces. This Element explores responsible innovation as an emergent discourse in governing science and society relations. Specifically, it explores the making of responsible innovation through three lenses: first, as a way of reconfiguring the concept of responsibility in science governance with far-reaching implications for scientific culture and practice; second, as a way of injecting agency through deliberative methods aimed at anticipating and deliberating upon the kinds of possible worlds that science and technology bring into being; and third, as a framework for governing innovation sensitive to the dynamics of specific technologies and to the particular socio-political context in which innovation develops.
Information
- Type
- Element
- Information
- Online ISBN: 9781108871044Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication: 06 August 2020
References
Adam, B. and Groves, C. (2007) Future Matters: Action, Knowledge, Ethics. Boston, MA: Brill.Google Scholar
Adam, B. and Groves, G. (2011) Futures tended: care and future-oriented responsibility. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society 31(1): 17–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
American Meteorological Society (2009) Geoengineering the Climate System: A Policy Statement of the American Meteorological Society. Boston, MA.Google Scholar
Bamberg, M. and Andrews, M. (eds) (2004) Considering Counter-Narratives: Narrating, Resisting, Making Sense. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Barben, D., Fisher, E., Selin, C. and Guston, D. (2008) Anticipatory governance of nanotechnology: foresight, engagement, and integration. In: Hackett, E., Lynch, M. and Wajcman, J. (eds) The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Third edition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 979–1000.Google Scholar
Bellamy, R. and Lezaun, J. (2015). Crafting a public for geoengineering. Public Understanding of Science 26(4): 402–17.Google Scholar
Bellamy, R., Chilvers, J., Vaughan, N. and Lenton, T. (2012) A review of climate geoengineering appraisals. WIREs Climate Change 3(6): 597–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickerstaff, K., Lorenzoni, I., Pidgeon, N., Poortinga, W. and Simmons, P. (2008) Reframing nuclear power in the UK energy debate: nuclear power, climate change mitigation and radioactive waste. Public Understanding of Science 17(2): 145–69.Google Scholar
Bipartisan Policy Centre Task Force on Climate Remediation Research (2011) Geoengineering: A National Strategic Plan for Research on the Potential Effectiveness, Feasibility, and Consequences of Climate Remediation Technologies. Washington, DC: Bipartisan Policy Centre.Google Scholar
Boenink, M., Swierstra, T. and Stemerding, D. (2010) Anticipating the interaction between technology and morality: a scenario study of experimenting with humans in bionanotechnology. Studies in Ethics, Law, and Technology 4(2), https://doi.org/10.2202/1941-6008.1098.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boltanski, L. and Thévenot, L. (1999) The sociology of critical capacity. European Journal of Social Theory 2(3): 359–77.Google Scholar
Brooks, S., Leach, M., Lucas, H. and Millstone, E. (2009) Silver Bullets, Grand Challenges and the New Philanthropy. STEPS Working Paper 24, STEPS Centre, Brighton. Available at: www.ids.ac.uk/files/dmfile/STEPSWorkingPaper24.pdf (Accessed 25 January 2020).Google Scholar
Brown, N. and Michael, M. (2003) A sociology of expectations: retrospecting prospects and prospecting retrospects. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 15(1): 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bush, V. (1945) Science – The Endless Frontier. A Report to the President. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Callon, M. and Rabeharisoa, V. (2004) Gino’s lesson on humanity: genetics, mutual entanglements and the sociologist’s role. Economy and Society 33(1): 1–27.Google Scholar
Callon, M., Lascoumes, P. and Barthe, Y. (2009) Acting in an Uncertain World: An Essay on Technical Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Calvert, J. (2013) Systems biology: big science and grand challenges. BioSocieties 8(4): 466–79.Google Scholar
Chilvers, J. and Kearnes, M. (2016a) Participation in the making. In: Chilvers, J. and Kearnes, M. (eds) Remaking Participation: Science, Environment and Emergent Publics. London: Routledge, pp. 31–64.Google Scholar
Chilvers, J. and Kearnes, M. (eds) (2016b) Remaking Participation: Science, Environment and Emergent Publics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Chilvers, J., Pallett, H. and Hargreaves, T. (2015) Rethinking Energy Participation as Relational and Systemic. London: UKERC.Google Scholar
Chilvers, J., Pallett, H. and Hargreaves, T. (2018) Ecologies of participation in socio-technical change: the case of energy system transitions. Energy Research & Social Science 42: 199–210.Google Scholar
Collingridge, D. (1980) The Social Control of Technology. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Corner, A., Parkhill, K., Pidgeon, N. and Vaughan, N. (2013) Messing with nature? Exploring public perceptions of geoengineering in the UK. Global Environmental Change 23(5): 938–47.Google Scholar
Dacin, M., Goodstein, J. and Scott, W. (2002). Institutional theory and institutional change: introduction to the Special Research Forum. The Academy of Management Journal 45(1): 45–56.Google Scholar
Davies, S., Macnaghten, P. and Kearnes, M. (eds) (2009) Reconfiguring Responsibility: Deepening Debate on Nanotechnology. Durham, UK: Durham University.Google Scholar
de Hoop, E., Pols, A. and Romijn, H. (2016) Limits to responsible innovation. Journal of Responsible Innovation 3(2): 110–34.Google Scholar
de Saille, S. (2015) Innovating innovation policy: the emergence of ‘responsible research and innovation’. Journal of Responsible Innovation 2(2): 152–68.Google Scholar
Delvenne, P. (2017) Responsible research and innovation as a travesty of technology assessment? Journal of Responsible Innovation 4(2): 278–88.Google Scholar
Delvenne, P. and Parotte, C. (2019) Breaking the myth of neutrality: technology assessment has politics, technology assessment as politics. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 139(C): 64–72.Google Scholar
Detienne, M. and Vernant, J.–P. (1978) Cunning Intelligence in Greek Culture and Society (Janet Lloyd, trans). Hassocks, UK: Harvester Press.Google Scholar
DiMaggio, P. and Powell, W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review 48(2): 147–60.Google Scholar
Doezema, T., Forsberg, A.-M., Ludwig, D., Macnaghten, P. and Shelley-Egan, C. (2019) Translation, transduction, and transformation: expanding practices of responsibility across borders. Journal of Responsible Innovation 6(3): 323–31.Google Scholar
Douglas, H. (2003) The moral responsibilities of scientists (tensions between autonomy and responsibility). American Philosophical Quarterly 40(1): 59–68.Google Scholar
Edgerton, D. 2004. The linear model did not exist. In: Grandin, K., Worms, N. and Widmalm, S. (eds) The Science-Industry Nexus: History, Policy, Implications. Sagamore Beach, MA: Science History Publications, pp. 31–57.Google Scholar
Engineering and Physical Science Research Council [EPSRC] (2013) Framework for Responsible Innovation. Available at: www.epsrc.ac.uk/research/framework/ (Accessed 25 January 2020).Google Scholar
Engineering and Physical Science Research Council [EPSRC] (2019) EPSRC Delivery Plan, 2019. Available at: https://epsrc.ukri.org/newsevents/pubs/deliveryplan2019/ (Accessed 25 January 2020).Google Scholar
Entman, R. (1993) Framing: towards clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication 43(4): 51–8.Google Scholar
Etzkowitz, H. and Leydesdorff, L. (2000) The dynamics of innovation: from national systems and ‘mode 2’ to a triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Research Policy 29(2): 109–23.Google Scholar
European Commission (2007) The European Research Area: New Perspectives. Green Paper 04.04.2007. Text with EEA relevance, COM161, EUR 22840 EN. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
European Commission (2013) Fact Sheet: Science with and for Society in Horizon 2020. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/sites/horizon2020/files/FactSheet_Science_with_and_for_Society.pdf (Accessed 25 January 2020).Google Scholar
Felt, U. and Fochler, M. (2010) Machineries for making publics: inscribing and de-scribing publics in public engagement. Minerva 48(3): 219–38.Google Scholar
Felt, U., Schumann, S., Schwarz, C. and Strassnig, M. (2014) Technology of imagination: a card-based public engagement method for debating emerging technologies. Qualitative Research 14(2): 233–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felt, U., Wynne, B., Callon, M., Gonçalves, M., Jasanoff, S., Jepsen, M., Joly, P.–B., et al. (2007). Taking European Knowledge Seriously. Report of the expert group on science and governance to the science, Economy and Society Directorate, EUR 2 (2700). Directorate-General for Research. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Commission. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/european-knowledge-society_en.pdf (Accessed 25 January 2020).Google Scholar
Finkel, A. (2018) What Kind of Society do we want to be? Keynote address by Australian Government Chief Scientist, Human Rights Commission ‘Human Rights and Technology’ Conference, Four Seasons Hotel, Sydney. Available at: www.chiefscientist.gov.au/2018/07/speech-what-kind-of-society-do-we-want-to-be (Accessed 25 January 2020).Google Scholar
Fisher, E. (2019) Learning from failure. Journal of Responsible Innovation 6(3): 259–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, E., Mahajan, R. and Mitcham, C. (2006) Midstream modulation of technology: governance from within. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 26(6): 485–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleck, L. (1979) Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Fleming, J. (2010) Fixing the Sky: The Checkered History of Weather and Climate Control. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Flink, T. and Kaldewey, D. (2018) The new production of legitimacy: STI policy discourses beyond the contract metaphor. Research Policy 47(1): 14–22.Google Scholar
Flyvbjerg, B. (2001) Making Social Science Matter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Forsberg, E.–M., Shelley-Egan, C., Ladikas, M. and Owen, R. (2018) Implementing responsible research and innovation in research funding and research conducting organisations – what have we learned so far? In: Ferri, F., Dwyer, N., Raicevich, S., Grifoni, P., Altiok, H., Andersen, H. T., Laouris, Y. and Silvestri, C. (eds) Governance and Sustainability of Responsible Research and Innovation. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, pp. 3–11.Google Scholar
Funtowicz, S. and Ravetz, J. (1993) Science for the post-normal age. Futures 25(7): 739–55.Google Scholar
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P. and Trow, M. (1994) The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Gobo, G. (2005) Sampling, representativeness and generalizability. In: Gobo, G., Gubrium, J., Seale, C. and Silverman, D. (eds) Qualitative Research Practice. London: Sage, pp. 65–79.Google Scholar
Godin, B. (2006) The linear model of innovation: the historical construction of an analytical framework. Science, Technology and Human Values 31(6): 639–67.Google Scholar
Gomart, E. and Hajer, M. (2003) Is that politics? For an inquiry into forms in contemporary politics. In: Joerges, B. and Nowotny, H. (eds) Social Studies of Science and Technology: Looking Back, Looking Forward. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic, pp. 33–61.Google Scholar
Goodin, R. and Dryzek, J. (2006) Deliberative impacts: the macro-political uptake of mini-publics. Politics and Society 34(2): 219–24.Google Scholar
Grinbaum, A. and Groves, C. (2013) What is ‘responsible’ about responsible innovation? Understanding the ethical issues. In: Owen, R., Bessant, J. and Heintz, M. (eds) Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society. London: Wiley, pp. 119–42.Google Scholar
Grove-White, R. 1991. The emerging shape of environmental conflict in the 1990. Royal Society of Arts 139: 437–47.Google Scholar
Grove-White, R., Macnaghten, P., Mayer, S. and Wynne, B. (1997) Uncertain World: GMOs, Food and Public Attitudes in Britain. Lancaster, UK: CSEC and Unilever.Google Scholar
Grove-White, R., Macnaghten, P. and Wynne, B. (2000) Wising Up: The Public and New Technologies. Lancaster, UK: CSEC and Unilever.Google Scholar
Guston, D. (2014) Understanding ‘anticipatory governance’. Social Studies of Science 44(2): 218–42.Google Scholar
Guston, D. and Sarewitz, D. (2002) Real-time technology assessment. Technology in Society 24(1–2): 93–109.Google Scholar
Hacking, I. (1992) ‘Style’ for historians and philosophers. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 23(1): 1–20.Google Scholar
Hajer, M. (2003) Policy without polity? Policy analysis and the institutional void. Policy Sciences 36(2): 175–95.Google Scholar
Hartley, S., Pearce, W. and Taylor, A. (2017) Against the tide of depoliticisation: the politics of research governance. Policy & Politics 45(3): 361–77.Google Scholar
Hartley, S., McLeod, C., Clifford, M., Jewitt, S. and Ray, C. (2019) A retrospective analysis of responsible innovation for low-technology innovation in the Global South. Journal of Responsible Innovation 6(2): 143–62.Google Scholar
Hennink, M. (2007) International Focus Group Research: A Handbook for the Health and Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hessels, L. and van Lente, H. (2008) Re-thinking new knowledge production: a literature review and a research agenda. Research Policy 37(4): 740–60.Google Scholar
Horlick-Jones, T., Walls, J., Rowe, G., Pidgeon, N., Poortinga, W., Murdock, G. and O’Riordan, T. (2007) The GM Debate: Risk, Politics and Public Engagement. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hulme, M. (2014). Can Science Fix Climate Change? A Case against Climate Engineering. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Ipsos-MORI (2010) Experiment Earth: Report on a Public Dialogue on Geoengineering. Swindon, UK: Natural Environment Research Council. Available at: www.nerc.ac.uk/about/whatwedo/engage/engagement/geoengineering/geoengineering-dialogue-final-report/ (Accessed 25 January 2020).Google Scholar
Irvine, J. and Martin, B. (1984) Foresight in Science: Picking the Winners. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
Irwin, A. (2006) The politics of talk: coming to terms with the ‘new’ scientific governance. Social Studies of Science 36(2): 299–330.Google Scholar
Irwin, A. (2008) STS perspectives on scientific governance. In: Hackett, E., Amsterdamska, O., Lynch, M. and Wajcman, J. (eds) The Handbook of Science and technology Studies, 3rd ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 583–607.Google Scholar
Irwin, A., Jensen, T. and Jones, K. (2013) The good, the bad and the perfect: criticizing engagement practice. Social Studies of Science 43(1): 118–35.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, S. (1990) The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, S. (2003) Technologies of humility: citizen participation in governing science. Minerva 41(3): 223–44.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, S. (ed) (2004) States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and the Social Order. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, S., Hurlbut, J. and Saha, K. (2015) CRISPR democracy: gene editing and the need for inclusive deliberation. Issues in Science and Technology 32(1): 1–14.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, S. (2016) The Ethics of Invention: Technology and the Human Future. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, S. and Simmet, H. (2017) No funeral bells: public reason in a ‘post-truth’ world. Social Studies of Science 47(5): 751–70.Google Scholar
Jump, P. (2014) ‘No regrets’, says outgoing EPSRC chief David Delpy: ‘thick skin’ helped research council boss take the flak for controversial shaping capability measures. Times Higher Education, 17 April 17. Available at: www.timeshighereducation.com/news/no-regrets-says-outgoing-epsrc-chief-david-delpy/2012694.article (Accessed 25 January 2020).Google Scholar
Kearnes, M., Macnaghten, P. and Wilsdon, J. (2006) Governing at the Nanoscale: People, Policies and Emerging Technologies. London: Demos.Google Scholar
Kuhlmann, S., Edler, J., Ordóñez-Matamoros, G., Randles, S., Walhout, B., Gough, C. and Lindner, R. (2015). Responsibility Navigator. Karlsruhe, Germany: Fraunhofer ISI. Available at: www.responsibility-navigator.eu (Accessed 25 January 2020).Google Scholar
Laurent, B. (2011) Technologies of democracy: experiments and demonstrations. Science and Engineering Ethics 17(4): 649–66.Google Scholar
Laurent, B. (2017) Democratic Experiments: Problematizing Nanotechnology and Democracy in Europe and the United States. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lezaun, J. and Soneryd, L. (2007) Consulting citizens: technologies of elicitation and the mobility of publics. Public Understanding of Science 16(3): 279–97.Google Scholar
Lindner, R. (2016) Final Report Summary – RES-AGORA (Responsible Research and Innovation in a Distributed Anticipatory Governance Frame: A Constructive Socio-Normative Approach). Available at: https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/108668/reporting/fr (Accessed 25 January 2020).Google Scholar
Ludwig, D. and Macnaghten, P. (2020) Traditional ecological knowledge in innovation governance: a framework for responsible and just innovation. Journal of Responsible Innovation 7(1): 26–44.Google Scholar
Ludwig, D., Pols, A. and Macnaghten, P. (2018) Organisational review and outlooks: Wageningen University and Research. In: van der Molen, F., Consoli, L., Ludwig, D., Pols, A. and Macnaghten, P. (eds) Report from National Case Study: The Netherlands. Deliverable 9.1. Responsible Research and Innovation Project. Available at: www.rri-practice.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/RRI-Practice_National_Case_Study_Report_NETHERLANDS.pdf (Accessed 25 January 2020).Google Scholar
Ludwig, D., Pols, A. and Macnaghten, P. (2019) Achieving Responsibility at Wageningen University and Research. Wageningen, Netherlands: Communication, Philosophy and Technology. Available at: https://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/fulltext/475712 (Accessed 25 January 2020).Google Scholar
Lund Declaration (2009) The Lund Declaration: Europe Must Focus on the Grand Challenges of Our Time. Swedish EU Presidency, 8 July. Lund, Sweden.Google Scholar
Macnaghten, P. (2004) Animals in their nature: a case study of public attitudes on animals, genetic modification and ‘nature’. Sociology 38(3): 533–51.Google Scholar
Macnaghten, P. (2010) Researching technoscientific concerns in the making: narrative structures, public responses and emerging nanotechnologies. Environment & Planning A 42(1): 23–37.Google Scholar
Macnaghten, P. (2016) The Metis of Responsible Innovation: Helping Society to Get Better at the Conversation between Today and Tomorrow. Inaugural lecture, Wageningen University, Wageningen, Netherlands, 12 July. Available at: https://wurtv.wur.nl/P2G/Player/Player.aspx?id=dIIa2u (Accessed 25 January 2020).Google Scholar
Macnaghten, P (2017) Focus groups as anticipatory methodology: a contribution from science and technology studies towards socially-resilient governance. In: Barbour, R. and Morgan, D. (eds) A New Era of Focus Group Research. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave, pp. 343–63.Google Scholar
Macnaghten, P. and Carro-Ripalda, S. (eds) (2015) Governing Agricultural Sustainability: Global Lessons from GM Crops. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Macnaghten, P. and Chilvers, J. (2014) The future of science governance: publics, policies, practices. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 32(3): 530–48.Google Scholar
Macnaghten, P. and Guivant, J. (2011) Converging citizens? Nanotechnology and the political imaginary of public engagement in Brazil and the UK. Public Understanding of Science 20(2): 207–20.Google Scholar
Macnaghten, P. and Habets, M. (2020 online) Breaking the impasse: Towards a forward-looking governance framework for genome editing with plants. Plants, People, Planet. https://doi.org/10.1002/ppp3.10107.Google Scholar
Macnaghten, P. and Myers, G. (2004) Focus groups: the moderator’s view and the analyst’s view. In: Gobo, G., Gubrium, J., Seale, C. and Silverman, D. (eds) Qualitative Research Practice. London: Sage, pp. 65–79.Google Scholar
Macnaghten, P. and Owen, R. (2011) Good governance for geoengineering. Nature 479: 293.Google Scholar
Macnaghten, P. and Szerszynski, B. (2013) Living the global social experiment: an analysis of public discourse on geoengineering and its implications for governance. Global Environmental Change 23(2): 465–74.Google Scholar
Macnaghten, P., Davies, S. and Kearnes, M. (2019) Understanding public responses to emerging technologies: a narrative approach. Journal of Environmental Planning and Policy 21(5): 504–18.Google Scholar
Macnaghten, P., Owen, R., Stilgoe, J., Wynne, B., Azevedo, A., de Campos, A., Chilvers, J., et al. (2014) Responsible innovation across borders: tensions, paradoxes and possibilities. Journal of Responsible Innovation 1(2): 191–99.Google Scholar
Marres, N. (2007) The issues deserve more credit: pragmatist contributions to the study of public involvement in controversy. Social Studies of Science 37(5): 759–80.Google Scholar
McLeish, T. (2016) The search for affirming narratives for the future governance of technology: reflections from a science–theology perspective on GMFuturos. In: Macnaghten, P. and Carro-Ripalda, S. (eds) Governing Agricultural Sustainability: Global Lessons from GM Crops. London: Routledge, pp. 192–97.Google Scholar
Mercer, A., Keith, D. and Sharp, J. (2011) Public understanding of solar radiation management. Environmental Research Letters 6: 044006.Google Scholar
Merton, R. (1973) The normative structure of science. In: Storer, N. (ed) The Sociology of Science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, pp. 267–78.Google Scholar
Miller, C. (2004) Climate science and the making of a global social order. In: Jasanoff, S. (ed) States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and the Social Order. New York: Routledge, pp. 247–85.Google Scholar
Murphy, J., Parry, S. and Walls, J. (2016) The EPSRC’s policy of responsible innovation from a trading zones perspective. Minerva 54(2): 151–74.Google Scholar
Myers, G. (2004). Matters of Opinion: Dynamics of Talk about Public Issues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
National Council on Bioethics (2012) Emerging Biotechnologies: Technology, Choice and the Public Good. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics.Google Scholar
National Research Council (1983) Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Nordmann, A. (2010) A forensics of wishing: technology assessment in the age of technoscience. Poiesis & Praxis 7(1–2): 5–15.Google Scholar
Nowotny, H., Scott, P. and Gibbons, M. (2001) Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Oliver, C. (2002) The antecedents of deinstitutionalization. Organisational Studies. 13(4): 563–88.Google Scholar
Owen, R. (2013) Techno-visionary science and the governance of intent. Science, Technology and Innovation Studies 9(2): 95–103.Google Scholar
Owen, R. (2014a) The UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council’s commitment to a framework for responsible innovation. Journal of Responsible Innovation 1(1): 113–17.Google Scholar
Owen, R. (2014b) Solar radiation management and the governance of hubris. In: Harrison, R. and Hester, R. (eds) Geoengineering of the Climate System: Issues in Environmental Science and Technology. London: Royal Society of Chemistry, pp. 212–48.Google Scholar
Owen, R. and Pansera, M. (2019) Responsible innovation and responsible research and innovation. In: Simon, D., Kuhlmann, S., Stamm, J. and Canzler, W. (eds) Handbook on Science and Public Policy. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, pp. 26–48.Google Scholar
Owen, R., Macnaghten, P. and Stilgoe, J. (2012) Responsible research and innovation: from science in society to science for society, with society. Science and Public Policy 39(6): 751–60.Google Scholar
Owen, R., Bessant, J. and Heintz, M. (eds) (2013) Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society. London: Wiley.Google Scholar
Owens, S. (2015) Knowledge, Policy, and Expertise: The UK Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution 1970–2011. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Parkhill, K. and Pidgeon, N. (2011) Public engagement on geoengineering research: preliminary report on the SPICE deliberative workshops. Technical report, Understanding Risk Group Working Paper 11-01, Cardiff University School of Psychology. Available at: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/42606893.pdf (Accessed 25 January 2020).Google Scholar
Perrow, C. (1984) Normal Accidents: Living with High-Risk Technologies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Pol, A., Macnaghten, P. and Ludwig, D. (2019) RRI Practice Internal RRI Review. Deliverable D16.3. Responsible Research and Innovation Project. Available at: https://www.rri-practice.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/RRI-Practice-Deliverable-16.3-internal-review-1.pdf (Accessed 15 May 2020).Google Scholar
Polanyi, M. (1962) The republic of science: its political and economic theory. Minerva 1(1): 54–73.Google Scholar
Poumadere, M., Bertoldo, R. and Samadi, J. (2011) Public perceptions and governance of controversial technologies to tackle climate change: nuclear, power, carbon capture and storage, wind and geoengineering. WIREs Climate Change 2(5): 712–27.Google Scholar
Randles, S. (2017). Deepening Deep Institutionalisation. JERRI Project Deliverable D1.2. Available at: www.jerri-project.eu/jerri-wAssets/docs/deliverables/wp-1/JERRI_Deliverable_D1_2_Deepening-Deep-Institutionalisation.pdf (Accessed 25 January 2020).Google Scholar
Randles, S. and Laash, O. (2016) Theorising the normative business model. Organization & Environment 29(1): 53–73.Google Scholar
Reyes-Galindo, L., Monteiro, M. and Macnaghten, P. (2019) ‘Opening up’ science policy: Engaging with RRI in Brazil. Journal of Responsible Innovation 6(3): 353–60.Google Scholar
Ribeiro, B., Smith, R. and Millar, K. (2017) A mobilising concept? Unpacking academic representations of responsible research and innovation. Science and Engineering Ethics 23(1): 81–103.Google Scholar
Rip, A. (2016) The clothes of the emperor: an essay on RRI in and around Brussels. Journal of Responsible Innovation 3(3): 290–304.Google Scholar
Rip, A., Misa, T. and Schot, J. (eds) (1995) Managing Technology in Society: The Approach of Constructive Technology Assessment. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
Roco, M. and Bainbridge, W. (eds) (2003) Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance: Nanotechnology, Biotechnology, Information Technology and Cognitive Science. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
Rogers-Hayden, T. and Pidgeon, N. (2007) Moving engagement ‘upstream’? Nanotechnologies and the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering inquiry. Public Understanding of Science 16(3): 346–64.Google Scholar
Rommetveit, K., van Dijk, N., Gunnarsdottir, K., O’Riordan, K., Gutwirth, S., Strand, R. and Wynne, B. (2019) Working responsibly across boundaries? Some practical and theoretical lessons. In: von Schomberg, R. and Hankins, J. (eds) International Handbook on Responsible Innovation: A Global Resource. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, pp. 83–100.Google Scholar
Rose, N. (2006) The Politics of Life Itself: Biomedicine, Power, and Subjectivity in the Twenty-First Century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Royal Society (1998) Genetically Modified Plants for Food Use. London: The Royal Society.Google Scholar
Royal Society (1999) Review of data on possible toxicity of GM potatoes. Available at: https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/1999/10092.pdf (Accessed 25 January 2020).Google Scholar
Royal Society (2000) Transgenic plants and world agriculture. Available at: https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2000/10062.pdf (Accessed 25 January 2020).Google Scholar
Royal Society (2002) Genetically modified plants for food use and human health – an update. Available at: https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2002/9960.pdf (Accessed 25 January 2020).Google Scholar
Royal Society (2009a) Reaping the benefits: science and the sustainable intensification of global agriculture. Available at: https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/publications/2009/reaping-benefits/ (Accessed 25 January 2020).Google Scholar
Royal Society (2009b) Geoengineering the climate: science, governance and uncertainty. Available at: https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2009/8693.pdf (Accessed 25 January 2020).Google Scholar
Royal Society (2014) Submission to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee’s inquiry on GM foods and application of the precautionary principle in Europe. Available at: https://royalsociety.org/~/media/policy/Publications/2014/response-to-hoc-sandt-committe-inquiry-on-gm.pdf (Accessed 25 January 2020).Google Scholar
Royal Society (2015) Response to the Food Standards Agency call for views on the European Commission proposal on GM food and feed. Available at: https://royalsociety.org/~/media/policy/Publications/2015/28-10-15-food-standards-agency-GM-food-and-feed.pdf (Accessed 25 January 2020).Google Scholar
RRI Tools (2016) Welcome to the RRI Toolkit. Available at: www.rri-tools.eu (Accessed 25 January 2020).Google Scholar
Ruiz, J. (2017) Collection production of discourse: an approach based on the qualitative school of Madrid. In: Barbour, R. and Morgan, D. (eds) A New Era in Focus Group Research. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 277–300.Google Scholar
Sarewitz, D. (1996) Frontiers of Illusion: Science, Technology, and the Politics of Progress. Philadelphia PA: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Schuurbiers, D. (2013) What happens in the lab: applying mid-stream modulation to enhance critical reflection in the laboratory. Science and Engineering Ethics 17(4): 769–88.Google Scholar
Sciencewise-ERC (2018) The government’s approach to public dialogue on science and technology. Available at: https://sciencewise.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Sciencewise-Guiding-Principles-August-2018.pdf (Accessed 25 January 2020).Google Scholar
Scoones, I. (2019). What is Uncertainty and Why Does It Matter? STEPS Working Paper 105, STEPS Centre, Brighton, UK.Google Scholar
Scott, J. (1998) Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Selin, C. (2007) Expectations and the emergence of nanotechnology. Science, Technology & Human Values 32(2): 196–220.Google Scholar
Spence, A., Venables, D., Pidgeon, N., Poortinga, W. and Demski, C. (2010) Public Perceptions of Climate Change and Energy Futures in Britain: Summary Findings of a Survey Conducted in January–March 2010. Technical report, Understanding Risk Working Paper 10-01, Cardiff University School of Psychology. Available at: http://doc.ukdataservice.ac.uk/doc/6581/mrdoc/pdf/6581final_report.pdf (Accessed 25 January 2020).Google Scholar
Stilgoe, J., Lock, S. and Wilsdon, J. (2014) Why should we promote public engagement with science? Public Understanding of Science 23(1): 4–15.Google Scholar
Stilgoe, J., Owen, R. and Macnaghten, P. (2013) Developing a framework of responsible innovation. Research Policy 42(9): 1568–80.Google Scholar
Stirling, A. (2008) ‘Opening up’ and ‘closing down’: power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Science Technology & Human Values 33(2): 262–94.Google Scholar
Stirling, A. (2014) Emancipating Transformations: From Controlling ‘the Transition’ to Culturing Plural Radical Progress. STEPS Working Paper 64, STEPS Centre, Brighton, UK.Google Scholar
Szerszynski, B., Kearnes, M., Macnaghten, P., Owen, R. and Stilgoe, J. (2013) Why SRM geoengineering and democracy won’t mix. Environment and Planning A 45(12): 2809–16.Google Scholar
Thomas, H. and Dagnino, R. (2005) Efectos de transducción: una nueva crítica a la transferencia acrítica de conceptos y modelos institucionales. Ciencia, Docencia y Tecnología 16(31): 9–46.Google Scholar
TNS-BMRB (2010) Synthetic Biology Dialogue. London: ScienceWise, BBSRC and EPSRC. Available at: https://bbsrc.ukri.org/documents/1006-synthetic-biology-dialogue-pdf/ (Accessed 25 January 2020).Google Scholar
US Government Accountability Office Technical Report (2011) Climate Engineering: Technical Status, Future Directions, and Potential Responses. GAO-11-71. Available at: www.gao.gov/assets/330/322208.pdf (Accessed 25 January 2020).Google Scholar
van den Hoven, J. (2013) Value sensitive design and responsible innovation. In: Owen, R., Heintz, M. and Bessant, J. (eds) Responsible Innovation. Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society. London: John Wiley, pp. 75–84.Google Scholar
van den Hoven, J., Vermaas, P. and van de Poel, I. (eds) (2015) Handbook of Ethics, Values, and Technological Design: Sources, Theory, Values and Application Domains. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
van Bouwel, J. and van Oudheusden, M. (2017) Participation beyond consensus? Technology assessments, consensus conferences and democratic modulation. Social Epistemology 31(6): 497–513.Google Scholar
van Oudheusden, M. (2014) Where are the politics in responsible innovation? European governance, technology assessments, and beyond. Journal of Responsible Innovation 1(1): 67–86.Google Scholar
van Oudheusden, M., Charlier, N., Rosskamp, B. and Delvenne, P. (2015) Broadening, deepening, and governing innovation: Flemish technology assessment in historical and socio-political perspective. Research Policy 44(10): 1877–86.Google Scholar
von Schomberg, R. (2013) A vision of responsible research and innovation. In: Owen, R., Bessant, J. and Heintz, M. (eds) Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society. London: Wiley, pp. 51–74.Google Scholar
von Schomberg, R. (2019) Why responsible innovation. In: von Schomberg, R. and Hankins, J. (eds) International Handbook on Responsible Innovation: A Global Resource. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, pp. 12–32.Google Scholar
Voss, J.–P. and Amelung, N. (2016) Innovating public participation methods: technoscientization and reflexive engagement. Social Studies of Science 46(5): 749–72.Google Scholar
Whitrock, C. and Forsberg, E.–M. (2019) Handbook for Organisations Aimed at Strengthening Responsible Research and Innovation. RRI Practice project, Deliverable 17.6. Available at: www.rri-practice.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/RRI-Practice-Handbook-for-Organisations.pdf (Accessed 25 January 2020).Google Scholar
Williams, L., Macnaghten, P., Davies, R. and Curtis, S. (2017) Framing fracking: exploring public responses to hydraulic fracturing in the UK. Public Understanding of Science 26(1): 89–104.Google Scholar
Wilsdon, J. and Willis, B. (2004) See-Through-Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream. London: Demos.Google Scholar
Wynne, B. (1992) Misunderstood misunderstanding: social identities and the public uptake of science. Public Understanding of Science 1(3): 281–304.Google Scholar
Wynne, B. (1996) May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert-lay knowledge divide. In: Lash, S., Szerszynski, B. and Wynne, B. (eds) Risk, Environment and Modernity: Towards a New Ecology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 44–83.Google Scholar
Wynne, B. (2001) Creating public alienation: expert cultures of risk and ethics on GMOs. Science as Culture 2(4): 321–37.Google Scholar
Wynne, B. (2006) Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science: hitting the notes, but missing the music? Community Genetics 9(3): 211–20.Google Scholar
Wynne, B. (2007) Dazzled by the mirage of influence? STS-SSK in multivalent registers of relevance. Science, Technology, & Human Values 32(4): 491–503.Google Scholar
Wynne, B. (2016) Ghosts of the machine: publics, meanings and social science in a time of expert dogma and denial. In: Chilvers, J. and Kearnes, M. (eds) Remaking Participation: Science, Environment and Emergent Publics. London: Routledge, pp. 99–120.Google Scholar
Zwart, H., Landeweerd, L. and 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.Google Scholar
Accessibility standard: Unknown
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this element is currently unknown
and may be updated in the future.
- 56
- Cited by