Two decades ago, in 1994, in the context of the 4th EU Framework Programme, ELSA was introduced as a label for developing and funding research into the ethical, legal and social aspects of emerging sciences and technologies. Currently, particularly in the context of EU funding initiatives such as Horizon2020, a new label has been forged, namely Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI). What is implied in this metonymy, this semantic shift? What is so new about RRI in comparison to ELSA? First of all, for both labels, the signifier (S) was introduced in a top-down manner, well before the concept that was signified by it (s) had acquired a clear and stable profile. In other words, the signifier preceded (and helped or helps to shape) the research strategies actually covered by these labels (the precedence of the signifier over the signified: S/s). Moreover, the newness of RRI does not reside in its interactive and anticipatory orientation, as is suggested by authors who introduced the term, but rather in its emphases on social-economic impacts (valorisation, employment and competitiveness).

By studying three cases of obvious failure (Nokia, Baan and LG Philips Displays), this article identifies three causes of failure in business (fallibility, error and flaw) and defines three types of failing firms from these causes (Icari, Fools and Rogues). In this way, this article provides a simple typology of failure, enhancing our understanding of this phenomenon. All too often failure is approached as something to avoid and as something distinctly negative. Being in business is a Sisyphean mission; it is a continuing struggle, and this struggle is the essence of business, not becoming successful and not avoiding failure.

No abstract

In this article the varying methods firms use to innovate are central in an attempt to balance our understanding of innovation processes. Often, research-driven innovation attracts the most attention, obscuring the contributions of other company functions and of external technology. In this article, three key parameters are used to distinguish methods of innovation: scope (of the technological work undertaken), localization (who was involved in the firm) and source of technology (whether internal or external). Firms choose a particular method under the influence of its broader innovation strategy. This framework is used to analyze innovation processes in the fertilizer business of the Dutch chemical company DSM in the period between 1925 and 1970. The example of DSM shows that firms have used different methods of innovation simultaneously, even in high-tech and competitive industries, and well into the twentieth century. To focus only on R&D gives a one-sided view of innovation.

This paper aims to build an integrated account of the history of twentieth-century laboratories. The historical literature is fragmented, which has led to the impression that one type of laboratory has dominated, or has become more important than other types. The university laboratory has also unjustly shaped the conceptualization of other types of laboratory. This paper approaches laboratories as sites of organized knowledge production, and as entities engaged in different activities for different audiences at any point in time. Eight types of laboratory are identified, and their developments in the twentieth century are sketched. The two world wars of that century and models of innovation, building links between knowledge production in the laboratory and the impact of this knowledge outside the laboratory, are important catalysts of this history. The paper underlines that different types of laboratory have existed side by side, and continue to exist side by side.Today knowledge is seen by many to be critically important in our lives and work, yet organized knowledge production in laboratories is a relatively recent phenomenon that is costly, often takes detours or fails altogether. The promises of knowledge, money and data, however, are its motors. This paper attempts to build an integrative historical perspective on laboratories starting from knowledge and its promises.Taking a broad view of the historical literature makes clear that several types of laboratory have existed side by side. Yet the literature is fragmented. Typically, one type of laboratory is central to a particular strand of the literature. 1 Crucially, academic and research and development (R & D) laboratories have attracted much more attention than other laboratories in business and government or laboratories run as stand-alone