Responsible Innovation: A Pilot Study with the U.K. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council

Abstract

Significant time lags between the development of novel innovations (e.g., nanotechnologies), understanding of their wider impacts, and subsequent governance (e.g., regulation) have led to repeated calls for more anticipatory and adaptive approaches that promote the responsible emergence of new technologies in democratic societies. A key challenge is implementation in a pragmatic way. Results are presented of a study with the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, the largest public funder of basic innovation research in the United Kingdom who, for the first time, asked applicants to submit a risk register identifying the wider potential impacts and associated risks (environment, health, societal, and ethical) of their proposed research. This focused on nanoscience for carbon capture and utilization. Risk registers were completed conservatively, with most identified impacts concerning researchers' health associated with nanoparticle synthesis, handling, and prototype device fabrication, i.e., risks that could be identified and managed with a reasonable level of certainty. Few wider environmental impacts and no future impacts on society were identified, reflecting the often uncertain and unpredictable nature of innovation. However, some applicants addressed this by including investigators with expertise beyond engineering and nanosciences supporting integrated activities that included life cycle and real-time technology assessment, which in some cases were also framed by stakeholder and/or public engagement. Proposals underpinned by a strong commitment to responsible science and innovation promoted continuous reflexivity, embedding a suite of multidisciplinary approaches around the innovation research core to support decisions modulating the trajectory of their innovation research in real-time.

Innovating innovation policy: the emergence of ‘Responsible Research and Innovation’

“…8b.3). In terms of science, technology and innovation (STI) policy, the Commission has been gradually increasing funding streams for research on the social impact of new technologies, and the discursive shift from deficit to engagement can also be seen in the renaming of programmes on Science and Society to Science in Society (Stirling 2006), and in the framing of questions about multilevel governance of emergent fields such as nanotechnology, and what might constitute socially responsible innovation in the face of unknown risk (see, for example, Hellström 2003, EC 2010a, Owen and Goldberg 2010, Grunwald 2012.…”

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

“…In order to develop a more responsible model of innovation, various technology assessment approaches have been developed (see Flipse 2012 for an overview). In these approaches, it is assumed that stakeholders should be involved 'right from the start' in order to incorporate relevant ethical and societal aspects in the innovation process (NWO 2012;Delgado et al 2010;Owen and Goldberg 2010). Von Schomberg for instance defines responsible innovation as a "transparent, interactive process by which societal actors and innovators become mutually responsive to each other with a view to the (ethical) acceptability, sustainability and societal desirability of the innovation process and its marketable products (in order to allow a proper embedding of scientific and technological advances in our society)" (von Schomberg 2013, p. 19).…”

Integrating science and society in European Framework Programmes: Trends in project-level solicitations

“…Policy mandates for sociotechnical integration have been documented in the United States (Bennett and Sarewitz, 2006;Fisher and Mahajan, 2006a), the United Kingdom (Macnaghten et al, 2005;Owen and Goldberg, 2010), Canada (Genome British Columbia, 2011;Ommer and the Coasts Under Stress Research Project Team, 2007), and throughout Europe (Stegmaier, 2009;Goorden et al, 2008). …”