Exploring Responsible Innovation as a Guiding Concept: The Case of Neuroimaging in Justice and Security

Abstract

In this chapter, we challenge the presupposed concept of innovation in the responsible innovation literature. As a first step, we raise several questions with regard to the possibility of 'responsible' innovation and point at several difficulties which undermine the supposedly responsible character of innovation processes, based on an analysis of the input, throughput and output of innovation processes. It becomes clear that the practical applicability of the concept of responsible innovation is highly problematic and that a more thorough inquiry of the concept is required. As a second step, we analyze the concept of innovation which is self-evidently presupposed in current literature on responsible innovation. It becomes clear that innovation is self-evidently seen as (1) technological innovation, (2) is primarily perceived from an economic perspective, (3) is inherently good and (4) presupposes a symmetry between moral agents and moral addressees. By challenging this narrow and uncritical concept of innovation, we contribute to a second round of theorizing about the concept and provide a research agenda for future research in order to enhance a less naïve concept of responsible innovation.

Transcranial Electrical Stimulation to Enhance Cognitive Performance of Healthy Minors: A Complex Governance Challenge

“…This is an issue of paramount importance as with new innovations, identified actions usually run counter to existing institutional borders and forces (Kloet et al, 2012; Arentshorst et al, 2014). In the field of Responsible Research and Innovation recent work has started to identify how true responsiveness of actors can be promoted (de Jong, 2015). One way to stimulate action and responsive attitudes is to guide deliberative processes toward the formation of so-called communities of practice (Wenger, 2000).…”

Synthesizing an implementation framework for responsible research and innovation

“…In short, a lack of clarity on what good quality RRI entails appears to form one of the barriers to the implementation of RRI in practice. Or as de Jong et al (2015) put it: "If [R]RI is to be effective as a guiding principle in science, there needs to be a greater, common understanding of what it means in terms of concepts and methodologies. ' We proceed from the premise that more clarity in this respect would allow innovators to adopt more responsible practices.…”

“…Such outcomes have been described as 'socially desirable' impacts (Von Schomberg 2013;Klaassen et al2014;Stahl 2013), when they align with grand or 'societal challenges' (van den Hoven et al 2013), take into account 'societal objectives' (Von Schomberg 2014) or contribute to the 'public or collective good' (de Jong et al 2015). de Jong et al (2015) suggest that responsible outcomes may be relevant or valuable for ethical, social, environmental, scientific, health-related, legal, cultural or political reasons. The resolution of vexing social issues and the contribution to sustainable development receive particular emphasis in the literature and are addressed below.…”

Generative Critique in Interdisciplinary Collaborations: From Critique in and of the Neurosciences to Socio-Technical Integration Research as a Practice of Critique in R(R)I

“…Proponents, by contrast, regard R(R)I as full of potential 'to provide an effective conduit for criticisms and the input of critical thinking and reflexivity into science and innovation' ( [16], p. 64; see also [1]). Along these lines, some contributors to the proceedings on the Dutch RI conference series have referred to R(R)I as partly a 'critical analysis' ( [17], p. 89; [18], p. 71) and 'critical reflection' ( [19], p. 357) on scientific practices, assumptions, and knowledge [20,21]. What these different takes on the relation between R(R)I and critique have in common is that they are prevalent in R(R)I discourses, but do not specify critique.…”