Responsible Innovation: Multi‐Level Dynamics and Soft Intervention Practices

Fisher, Elizabeth; Rip, Arie

doi:10.1002/9781118551424.ch9

Cited by 99 publications

(69 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…5,15 RRI began with an aim to identify and address uncertainties and risks associated with novel areas of research beginning with Nanotechnology 5 and moving to the environmental and health sciences including Geo--engineering 18 and Synthetic Biology. 21 The scope of RRI has since expanded to include Computer Science, Robotics, Informatics and ICT more generally.…”

Section: Responsible Research and Innovation (Rri)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Responsible research and innovation in the digital age

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Responsible Research and Innovation (Rri)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Responsible research and innovation in the digital age

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…4 Also, its emergence under several cognate terms like 'responsible development' as in the case of nanotechnology (Fisher and Rip 2013) has antecedents, as in the discussion of, and movements about, responsibility of scientists, for example around the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists (established in 1945 in response to the atomic bomb), and in the 1960s, about links of science with the military, and emerging environmental issues.…”

Section: A Diagnosis Of the Situation In Three Stepsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus, it might be a passing fashion, but even then it will leave residues, when it is taken up in research funding, research programmes and research performing organizations (cf. Fisher and Rip [2013] on the multilevel nature of the developments).…”

Section: A Diagnosis Of the Situation In Three Stepsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The clothes of the emperor. An essay on RRI in and around Brussels

Rip

2016

Journal of Responsible Innovation

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In its current Framework Programme for Research and Innovation, Horizon 2020, the European Commission identified Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) as a cross-cutting issue. The responsibility for RRI as a cross-cutting issue lies with the subprogramme Science with and for Society (SwafS). A recurrent theme in the SwafS Expert Advisory Group meetings was the lack of clarity about what RRI is supposed to be. This is an entrance point into a broader reflection on RRI discourse being like the new clothes of the emperor -or perhaps there is not even an emperor (yet). What is happening in and around RRI can be interpreted as conferring reality on this emperor (RRI) by clothing him. . This has drawn both scholarly attention (fuelled by project funding from the European Commission), and references from scientific organizations when they explore possibilities to address versions of RRI. When I say 'Brussels', as in my title, I follow a common way of talking to refer to the European Commission and its services, and the activities around them, in this case in particular the Framework Programme Horizon 2020.I have been involved in the activities in 'Brussels' in an Expert Advisory Group (EAG) for the sub-programme Science with and for Society (SwafS), as chair from the start (Spring 2014 to end of 2015), and, since then as vice-chair (the rules for Horizon 2020 do not allow chairs to continue for longer than two years). The responsibility for RRI as a cross-cutting issue in Horizon 2020 lies with this sub-programme SwafS. When I was proposed as chair, I was a bit doubtful because RRI appeared to be an umbrella term covering a number of themes (originally called 'keys') which were not clearly related to RRI (see Appendix 1, on implementation). I had written on RRI myself, drawing attention to its apparently open-ended character by discussing the various levels at which it was played out (Fisher and Rip 2013), and how it could be seen as an attempt at social innovation (Rip 2014a). © 2016 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis GroupThis is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.CONTACT Arie Rip a.rip@utwente.nl JOURNAL OF RESPONSIBLE INNOVATION, 2016 VOL. 3, NO. 3, 290-304 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2016 This doubt was reinforced when a recurrent theme in the EAG meetings was the complaint of its members that it was unclear to them what RRI was supposed to be. 1 These comments eventually led me (as chair) to write a short note on RRI and how we could address it. The note was circulated among the members of the EAG in January 2015; it is reproduced in Appendix 2, an exhibit as it were for the case about RRI I am going to make in this essay.When I ...

show abstract

“…To illustrate, within the research context, scientists have often been considered responsible for advancing knowledge and doing so in compliance with basic ethical and legal norms, for example, but generally not considered ethically responsible for the social, political and cultural impact of their findings or their potential extrascientific uses and misuses [5]. Policy makers, on the other hand, are expected to be responsible for impact assessment and devising regulations and guidelines [6]. The problematic nature of such a fragmented approach to responsibility in research and emerging technologies is highlighted by the discourse on RRI.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neuroethics and Philosophy in Responsible Research and Innovation: The Case of the Human Brain Project

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI)is an important ethical, legal, and political theme for the European Commission. Although variously defined, it is generally understood as an interactive process that engages social actors, researchers, and innovators who must be mutually responsive and work towards the ethical permissibility of the relevant research and its products. The framework of RRI calls for contextually addressing not just research and innovation impact but also the background research process, specially the societal visions underlying it and the norms and priorities that shape scientific agendas. This requires the integration of anticipatory, inclusive, and responsive dimensions, and the nurturing of a certain type of reflexivity among a variety of stakeholders, from scientists to funders. In this paper, we do not address potential limitations but focus on the potential contribution of philosophical reflection to RRI in the context of the Ethics and Society subproject of the Human Brain Project (HBP). We show how the type of conceptual analysis provided by philosophically oriented approaches theoretically and ethically broadens research and innovation within the HBP. We further suggest that overt inclusion of philosophical reflection can promote the aims and objectives of RRI.

show abstract

Responsible Innovation: Multi‐Level Dynamics and Soft Intervention Practices

Cited by 99 publications

References 36 publications

Responsible research and innovation in the digital age

Responsible research and innovation in the digital age

The clothes of the emperor. An essay on RRI in and around Brussels

Neuroethics and Philosophy in Responsible Research and Innovation: The Case of the Human Brain Project

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About