A Mobilising Concept? Unpacking Academic Representations of Responsible Research and Innovation

This paper makes a plea for more reflexive attempts to develop and anchor the emerging concept of responsible research and innovation (RRI). RRI has recently emerged as a buzzword in science policy, becoming a focus of concerted experimentation in many academic circles. Its performative capacity means that it is able to mobilise resources and spaces despite no common understanding of what it is or should be ‘made of’. In order to support reflection and practice amongst those who are interested in and using the concept, this paper unpacks understandings of RRI across a multi-disciplinary body of peer-reviewed literature. Our analysis focuses on three key dimensions of RRI (motivations, theoretical conceptualisations and translations into practice) that remain particularly opaque. A total of 48 publications were selected through a systematic literature search and their content was qualitatively analysed. Across the literature, RRI is portrayed as a concept that embeds numerous features of existing approaches to govern and assess emerging technologies. Our analysis suggests that its greatest potential may be in its ability to unify and provide political momentum to a wide range of long-articulated ethical and policy issues. At the same time, RRI’s dynamism and resulting complexity may represent its greatest challenge. Further clarification on what RRI has to offer in practice—beyond what has been offered to date—is still needed, as well as more explicit engagement with research and institutional cultures of responsibility. Such work may help to realise the high political expectations that are attached to nascent RRI.

[1]  Maja Horst,et al.  Mapping ‘Social Responsibility’ in Science , 2014 .

[2]  B. Vincent,et al.  Ethical Perspectives on Synthetic Biology , 2013, Biological Theory.

[3]  R. V. Schomberg A Vision of Responsible Research and Innovation , 2013 .

[4]  Maria João Maia Responsible research and innovation in industry , 2019 .

[5]  James Wilsdon,et al.  Why should we promote public engagement with science? , 2014, Public understanding of science.

[6]  C. Jensen Continuous Variations , 2014 .

[7]  Options for Strengthening Responsible Research and Innovation Report of the Expert Group on the State of Art in Europe on Responsible Research and Innovation , 2022 .

[8]  Udo Pesch,et al.  Engineers and Active Responsibility , 2015, Sci. Eng. Ethics.

[9]  Stevienna de Saille Innovating Innovation Policy: The emergence of ‘Responsible Research and Innovation’ , 2015 .

[10]  Zdenka Zenko,et al.  Systemic thinking for socially responsible innovations in social tourism for people with disabilities , 2014, Kybernetes.

[11]  R. Rhodes Rethinking Research Ethics , 2010, The American journal of bioethics : AJOB.

[12]  Luigi Pellizzoni,et al.  Responsibility and Environmental Governance , 2004 .

[13]  A. Irwin From deficit to democracy (re-visited) , 2014, Public understanding of science.

[14]  H. Longino Science and the Common Good: Thoughts on Philip Kitcher’s Science, Truth, and Democracy , 2002, Philosophy of Science.

[15]  Rider W. Foley,et al.  Practitioners’ Views on Responsibility: Applying Nanoethics , 2012 .

[16]  Fern Wickson,et al.  Standardising Responsibility? The Significance of Interstitial Spaces , 2015, Sci. Eng. Ethics.

[17]  Tugrul U. Daim,et al.  A taxonomic review of methods and tools applied in technology assessment , 2008 .

[18]  Brian Wynne,et al.  The institutional context of science, models, and policy: The IIASA energy study , 1984 .

[19]  Brian Balmer,et al.  Home on the Range , 2007 .

[20]  A. Briggle Scientific Responsibility and Misconduct , 2012 .

[21]  Brian Wynne,et al.  Dazzled by the Mirage of Influence? , 2007 .

[22]  W. Dondorp,et al.  Innovative reproductive technologies: risks and responsibilities. , 2011, Human reproduction.

[23]  A. Corner,et al.  Deliberating stratospheric aerosols for climate geoengineering and the SPICE project , 2013 .

[24]  Kate Millar,et al.  Integrating social and value dimensions into sustainability assessment of lignocellulosic biofuels , 2015, Biomass & bioenergy.

[25]  J. D. de Winde,et al.  The DNA of socially responsible innovation , 2014, EMBO reports.

[26]  S. L. Star,et al.  This is Not a Boundary Object: Reflections on the Origin of a Concept , 2010 .

[27]  J. Sölkner,et al.  Dairy goat production systems , 2012, Tropical Animal Health and Production.

[28]  Brian Wynne,et al.  Lab Work Goes Social, and Vice Versa: Strategising Public Engagement Processes , 2011, Sci. Eng. Ethics.

[29]  Michael Grüninger,et al.  Introduction , 2002, CACM.

[30]  Jane Calvert,et al.  The role of social scientists in synthetic biology , 2009, EMBO reports.

[31]  Michael Gibbons,et al.  Introduction: `Mode 2' Revisited: The New Production of Knowledge , 2003 .

[32]  D. Fitzgerald,et al.  Social Science and Neuroscience beyond Interdisciplinarity: Experimental Entanglements , 2015, Theory, culture & society.

[33]  Arie Rip,et al.  The past and future of RRI , 2014, Life sciences, society and policy.

[34]  J. Sugarman Questions concerning the Clinical Translation of Cell-Based Interventions under an Innovation Pathway , 2012, Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics.

[35]  A. Stirling “Opening Up” and “Closing Down” , 2008 .

[36]  Brian Wynne,et al.  Public Engagement as a Means of Restoring Public Trust in Science – Hitting the Notes, but Missing the Music? , 2006, Public Health Genomics.

[37]  S. Jasanoff,et al.  The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers. , 1991 .

[38]  Türkay Dereli,et al.  Ready to put metadata on the post-2015 development agenda? Linking data publications to responsible innovation and science diplomacy. , 2014, Omics : a journal of integrative biology.

[39]  Dirk Stemerding,et al.  Governing synthetic biology for global health through responsible research and innovation , 2013, Systems and Synthetic Biology.

[40]  J. Stilgoe,et al.  Developing a framework for responsible innovation* , 2013, The Ethics of Nanotechnology, Geoengineering and Clean Energy.

[41]  J. Sölkner,et al.  Status quo, perspectives and challenges , 2012 .

[42]  Brian Wynne,et al.  Public Participation in Science and Technology: Performing and Obscuring a Political–Conceptual Category Mistake , 2007 .

[43]  Philip Boucher ‘You Wouldn’t have Your Granny Using Them’: Drawing Boundaries Between Acceptable and Unacceptable Applications of Civil Drones , 2016, Sci. Eng. Ethics.

[44]  W. Bijker Sociohistorical technology studies , 1994 .

[45]  Krsto Pandza,et al.  Strategic and ethical foundations for responsible innovation , 2013 .

[46]  S. Bird Research ethics, research integrity and the responsible conduct of research , 2006 .

[47]  Stevienna de Saille Dis-inviting the Unruly Public , 2015 .

[48]  Bernd Carsten Stahl,et al.  Responsible research and innovation: The role of privacy in an emerging framework , 2013 .

[49]  David Baxter,et al.  Beyond regulation: risk pricing and responsible innovation. , 2009, Environmental science & technology.

[50]  D. Resnik The ethics of science: An introduction , 2005 .

[51]  B. Stinner,et al.  Forage legumes and cultural sustainability: lessons from history , 1992 .

[52]  Simone van der Burg,et al.  Shaping the societal impacts of engineering sciences; a reflection on the role of public funding agencies. , 2010 .

[53]  A. Stirling,et al.  Opening Up the Politics of Knowledge and Power in Bioscience , 2012, PLoS biology.

[54]  Maria Dusinska,et al.  The importance of life cycle concepts for the development of safe nanoproducts. , 2010, Toxicology.

[55]  Erik Fisher,et al.  Editorial Overview - Public Science and Technology Scholars: Engaging Whom? , 2011, Sci. Eng. Ethics.

[56]  Steven M. Flipse,et al.  Midstream Modulation in Biotechnology Industry: Redefining What is ‘Part of the Job’ of Researchers in Industry , 2013, Sci. Eng. Ethics.

[57]  Toward the responsible innovation with nanotechnology in Japan: our scope , 2008 .

[58]  Audley Genus Rethinking constructive technology assessment as democratic, reflective, discourse , 2006 .

[59]  Barbel R. Dorbeck-Jung,et al.  Where to Next for Responsible Innovation , 2014 .

[60]  L. Ferguson,et al.  Public Health Pharmacogenomics and the Design Principles for Global Public Goods - Moving Genomics to Responsible Innovation. , 2013, Current pharmacogenomics and personalized medicine.

[61]  Pablo Kreimer Handbook of science mad Technology Studies, Jasanoff, S., Markle, G., Petersen, J. y Pinch, T. (comps.), London, New Delhi, Thousand Oaks, Sage, 1995, 820 páginas , 1995 .

[62]  L. Winner The Whale and the Reactor , 2020 .

[63]  Nicola J. Marks,et al.  Heterogeneous Agendas around Public Engagement in Stem Cell Research: The Case for Maintaining Plasticity , 2012 .

[64]  Steven M. Flipse,et al.  Setting Up Spaces for Collaboration in Industry Between Researchers from the Natural and Social Sciences , 2014, Sci. Eng. Ethics.

[65]  Nikolas Rose,et al.  The Human Brain Project: Social and Ethical Challenges , 2014, Neuron.

[66]  F. Wickson,et al.  Public engagement coming of age: From theory to practice in STS encounters with nanotechnology , 2011 .

[67]  H. Jonas The Imperative of Responsibility: In Search of an Ethics for the Technological Age , 1985 .

[68]  S. Jenkins,et al.  Evaluation of new technology in the clinical microbiology laboratory. , 1995, Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease.

[69]  Richard Owen,et al.  Responsible Innovation: A Pilot Study with the U.K. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council , 2010, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[70]  J. Stilgoe,et al.  Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society , 2012, Emerging Technologies: Ethics, Law and Governance.

[71]  A. Wieke Betten,et al.  Interactive learning and action: realizing the promise of synthetic biology for global health , 2013, Systems and Synthetic Biology.

[72]  A. Kerr (Re)Constructing Genetic Disease , 2000 .

[73]  Bernadette Bensaude Vincent,et al.  The politics of buzzwords at the interface of technoscience, market and society: The case of ‘public engagement in science’ , 2014, Public understanding of science.

[74]  George Gaskell,et al.  Publics and biobanks: Pan-European diversity and the challenge of responsible innovation , 2012, European Journal of Human Genetics.

[75]  J. D. de Winde,et al.  The wicked problem of Socially Responsible Innovation , 2014, EMBO reports.

[76]  KolkerEugene,et al.  Ready to Put Metadata on the Post-2015 Development Agenda? Linking Data Publications to Responsible Innovation and Science Diplomacy , 2014 .

[77]  A. Bryman Social Research Methods , 2001 .

[78]  Jacqueline McGlade,et al.  The Innovation Union: a perfect means to confused ends? , 2012 .

[79]  Vural Özdemir,et al.  The epiknowledge of socially responsible innovation , 2014, EMBO reports.

[80]  Sheila Ja Sanoff The idiom of co-production: Sheila Jasanoff , 2004 .

[81]  Vural Ozdemir,et al.  All the post-genomic world is a stage: the actors and narrators required for translating pharmacogenomics into public health. , 2013, Personalized medicine.

[82]  Science in Society in Europe , 2012 .

[83]  Arie Rip,et al.  Constructing Productive Engagement: Pre-engagement Tools for Emerging Technologies , 2011, Sci. Eng. Ethics.

[84]  A. Rip,et al.  The past and future of constructive technology assessment , 1997 .

[85]  Clare Shelley-Egan,et al.  A game with rules in the making – how the high probability of waiting games in nanomedicine is being mitigated through distributed regulation and responsible innovation , 2012, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..

[86]  Jack Stilgoe,et al.  The Public Value of Science: Or How to Ensure That Science Really Matters , 2005 .

[87]  P. Schaper-Rinkel,et al.  The role of future-oriented technology analysis in the governance of emerging technologies: The example of nanotechnology , 2013 .

[88]  Maja Horst On the weakness of strong ties , 2014, Public understanding of science.

[89]  David H Guston,et al.  Understanding ‘anticipatory governance’ , 2014, Social Studies of Science.

[90]  H. Zwart From playfulness and self-centredness via grand expectations to normalisation: a psychoanalytical rereading of the history of molecular genetics , 2013, Medicine, health care, and philosophy.

[91]  B. Latour,et al.  Morality and Technology , 2002, The Ethics of Biotechnology.

[92]  Bernd Carsten Stahl,et al.  Responsible research and innovation in information systems , 2012, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[93]  Douglas K. R. Robinson,et al.  Co-evolutionary scenarios: An application to prospecting futures of the responsible development of nanotechnology , 2009 .

[94]  K. Knorr-Cetina,et al.  Epistemic cultures : how the sciences make knowledge , 1999 .

[95]  D. Schuurbiers,et al.  Integrating science and society in European Framework Programmes: Trends in project-level solicitations , 2013 .

[96]  Ellen-Marie Forsberg,et al.  Assessment of science and technologies: Advising for and with responsibility , 2015 .

[97]  M. Callon,et al.  Acting in an Uncertain World: An Essay on Technical Democracy , 2009 .

[98]  Steven M. Flipse,et al.  The Why and How of Enabling the Integration of Social and Ethical Aspects in Research and Development , 2013, Sci. Eng. Ethics.

[99]  Thomas J. Misa,et al.  Managing technology in society: the approach of constructive technology assessment , 1997 .

[100]  D. Collingridge The social control of technology , 1980 .

[101]  J. Higgins,et al.  Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration , 2013 .

[102]  Catherine Flick,et al.  The empathic care robot: A prototype of responsible research and innovation , 2014 .

[103]  Rekha Jain,et al.  Personalized Medicine in the Age of Pharmacoproteomics: A Close up on India and Need for Social Science Engagement for Responsible Innovation in Post-Proteomic Biology. , 2011, Current pharmacogenomics and personalized medicine.

[104]  James McHale,et al.  Introduction to the special section. , 2012, Family process.

[105]  Daan Schuurbiers,et al.  What happens in the Lab: Applying Midstream Modulation to Enhance Critical Reflection in the Laboratory , 2011, Sci. Eng. Ethics.

[106]  R. V. Schomberg Prospects for Technology Assessment in a Framework of Responsible Research and Innovation , 2011 .

[107]  A. Hedgecoe Bioethics and the Reinforcement of Socio-technical Expectations , 2010, Social studies of science.

[108]  Shannon L. Spruit,et al.  Just a Cog in the Machine? The Individual Responsibility of Researchers in Nanotechnology is a Duty to Collectivize , 2016, Sci. Eng. Ethics.

[109]  Hsiu-Fang Hsieh,et al.  Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis , 2005, Qualitative health research.

[110]  David H. Guston,et al.  Real-time technology assessment , 2020, Emerging Technologies: Ethics, Law and Governance.

[111]  Scientifically and ethically responsible innovation and research in ultrasound in obstetrics and gynecology , 2006, Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.