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

Abstract

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).

A critical hermeneutic reflection on the paradigm-level assumptions underlying responsible innovation

“…Burget et al 2017;Wickson and Carew 2014;Zwart et al 2014). Moreover, the SOM account has been officially adopted by the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) (EPSRC 2014;Owen 2014), which also (financially) supported the authors' research .…”

“…Moreover, being among the first accounts of RI to be published, the VS account has been widely cited (see Timmermans 2017) and discussed by the literature on RRI (e.g. Davis and Laas 2014;Wickson and Carew 2014;Zwart et al 2014), and used by dedicated RRI projects (see, e.g., GREATProject 2013; RRI Tools Project 2016). And, although they do not build on it, in the discussion of their own SOM account, the authors refer to the VS account as well.…”

“…On the one hand, for example, by incorporating the notion of 'innovation', RI is firmly rooted in the classic economic paradigm (see e.g. Blok and Lemmens 2015;van den Hoven 2013;Zwart et al 2014). On the other hand, by explicitly building on the Ethical Legal and social implications or aspects (ELSI/ELSA), Science and Technology Studies (STS) and Constructive Technology Assessment (CTA) traditions (see, e.g., Fisher and Rip 2013;Grunwald 2011;Stilgoe et al 2013), RI is assumed to be understood and established within a social governanceparadigm.…”

Nanoscale-Technologies as Subjects of Responsible Research and Innovation

“…The contributions to this special section might pave the way forward: a challenge for the future will be for careful specification of the desirability criterion of the RRI concept as far as von Schomberg's notion will be followed in public research and innovation policy (see also critical statements of [6]). Another crucial and still controversial point-even among the authors of this special section-is the question of whether the inclusiveness prerogative in RRI should be fostered while enabling effective co-design of new technologies or whether this will lead to complicity and to quieting of critical debates thereupon (see also [7] on this issue). These and similar needs for clarification of the quite ambitious RRI concept have to be dealt with before the concept can be expected to enter the arena of practical technology governance.…”

Trustworthiness and Responsible Research and Innovation: The Case of the Bio-Economy

“…Parallels have been drawn with approaches such as technology assessment (TA) (Grunwald 2014) and ethical, legal and social assessment (ELSA) (Zwart et al 2014). These latter approaches involve comparable interactive processes between societal actors and reflection on ethical and societal aspects of technological development.…”