scholarly journals Educating for Responsible Research Practice in Biomedical Sciences

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elianne M. Gerrits ◽  
Annelien L. Bredenoord ◽  
Marc H. W. van Mil
Keyword(s):  
Daily Practice ◽  
Learning Goals ◽  
Responsible Conduct Of Research ◽  
Research Practice ◽  
Biomedical Sciences ◽  
New Developments ◽  
Four Dimensions ◽  
Domain Specific ◽  
Research And Innovation ◽  
Responsible Research

AbstractNew developments in the field of biomedicine can have extensive implications for society. To steer research efforts in a responsible direction, biomedical scientists should contribute to a forward-looking ethical, and societal evaluation of new developments. However, the question remains how to equip students sufficiently with the skills they need to contribute to this evaluation. In this paper, we examine how the four dimensions of Responsible Research and Innovation (anticipation, reflexivity, inclusivity, and responsiveness) inform the identification of learning goals and teaching approaches that contribute to developing these skills in biomedical scientists. We suggest that these educational approaches focus on the skills to anticipate intended and unintended outcomes, reflect on the epistemological and moral aspects of research practice, and be inclusive of the variety of voices in society. We argue that if these dimensions are properly integrated into biomedical curricula, they will help students develop the attitudinal aspects necessary for becoming responsive, and prepare them for implementing the dimensions of responsible research into their daily practice. This paper focuses specifically on skills biomedical scientists need for the responsible conduct of research. Therefore, our analysis results, at least in part, in domain-specific recommendations. We invite educators from other disciplines to do the same exercise, as we believe this could lead to tailored educational approaches by which students from various disciplinary backgrounds learn how they each have a role in contributing to socially robust and morally responsible research practice.

scholarly journals Responsibility versus sustainability, ethics, and societal engagement

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 64-69
Author(s):  
Miltos Ladikas ◽  
Julia Hahn ◽  
Leonhard Hennen ◽  
Constanze Scherz
Keyword(s):  
International Research ◽  
Research Practice ◽  
Technology And Innovation ◽  
Research And Innovation ◽  
Sustainability Ethics ◽  
Science Technology ◽  
National Debate ◽  
National Science ◽  
Responsible Research ◽  
Science Technology And Innovation

We examine the concept of responsible research and innovation (RRI) in Germany in the context of national science, technology and innovation (STI) as well as its legal and normative framework in relation to ethics and societal engagement and compare the results to similar international research. Our analysis shows that responsibility plays a central role in research practice guided by research ethics standards and societal grand challenges. Consequently, there is a significant increase in demands for inclusion and engagement of a wider stakeholder spectrum in STI. Compared to other countries, the concept of RRI in Germany is increasingly superseded by that of sustainability. We argue that responsibility and sustainability are conceptually close and highly interchangeable in the German national debate. We conclude with basic recommendations for greater clarity in research on responsibility and sustainability and the aims of ethics and societal engagement.

scholarly journals Systematic Stakeholder Inclusion in Digital Agriculture: A Framework and Application to Canada

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (12) ◽  
pp. 6879
Author(s):  
Hassan P. Ebrahimi ◽  
R. Sandra Schillo ◽  
Kelly Bronson
Keyword(s):  
Agricultural Sector ◽  
Food System ◽  
News Article ◽  
Test Case ◽  
Stakeholder Groups ◽  
Research And Innovation ◽  
Article Analysis ◽  
Digital Agriculture ◽  
Responsible Research

This study provides a model that supports systematic stakeholder inclusion in agricultural technology. Building on the Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) literature and attempting to add precision to the conversation around inclusion in technology design and governance, this study develops a framework for determining which stakeholder groups to engage in RRI processes. We developed the model using a specific industry case study: identifying the relevant stakeholders in the Canadian digital agriculture ecosystem. The study uses literature and news article analysis to map stakeholders in the Canadian digital agricultural sector as a test case for the model. The study proposes a systematic framework which categorises stakeholders into individuals, industrial and societal groups with both direct engagement and supportive roles in digital agriculture. These groups are then plotted against three levels of impact or power in the agri-food system: micro, meso and macro.

scholarly journals Boundaries Between Research Ethics and Ethical Research Use in Artificial Intelligence Health Research

2021 ◽  
pp. 155626462110027
Author(s):  
Gabrielle Samuel ◽  
Jenn Chubb ◽  
Gemma Derrick
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Societal Impact ◽  
The Past ◽  
Research And Innovation ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Responsible Research ◽  
Past Half

The governance of ethically acceptable research in higher education institutions has been under scrutiny over the past half a century. Concomitantly, recently, decision makers have required researchers to acknowledge the societal impact of their research, as well as anticipate and respond to ethical dimensions of this societal impact through responsible research and innovation principles. Using artificial intelligence population health research in the United Kingdom and Canada as a case study, we combine a mapping study of journal publications with 18 interviews with researchers to explore how the ethical dimensions associated with this societal impact are incorporated into research agendas. Researchers separated the ethical responsibility of their research with its societal impact. We discuss the implications for both researchers and actors across the Ethics Ecosystem.

scholarly journals Contextualizing Security Innovation: Responsible Research and Innovation at the Smart Border?

2021 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nina Klimburg-Witjes ◽  
Frederik C. Huettenrauch
Keyword(s):  
New Technologies ◽  
Border Security ◽  
Responsible Research And Innovation ◽  
Political Agenda ◽  
Socially Responsible ◽  
Political Actors ◽  
Security Technologies ◽  
Research And Innovation ◽  
Societal Needs ◽  
Responsible Research

AbstractCurrent European innovation and security policies are increasingly channeled into efforts to address the assumed challenges that threaten European societies. A field in which this has become particularly salient is digitized EU border management. Here, the framework of responsible research and innovation (RRI) has recently been used to point to the alleged sensitivity of political actors towards the contingent dimensions of emerging security technologies. RRI, in general, is concerned with societal needs and the engagement and inclusion of various stakeholder groups in the research and innovation processes, aiming to anticipate undesired consequences of and identifying socially acceptable alternatives for emerging technologies. However, RRI has also been criticized as an industry-driven attempt to gain societal legitimacy for new technologies. In this article, we argue that while RRI evokes a space where different actors enter co-creative dialogues, it lays bare the specific challenges of governing security innovation in socially responsible ways. Empirically, we draw on the case study of BODEGA, the first EU funded research project to apply the RRI framework to the field of border security. We show how stakeholders involved in the project represent their work in relation to RRI and the resulting benefits and challenges they face. The paper argues that applying the framework to the field of (border) security lays bare its limitations, namely that RRI itself embodies a political agenda, conceals alternative experiences by those on whom security is enacted upon and that its key propositions of openness and transparency are hardly met in practice due to confidentiality agreements. Our hope is to contribute to work on RRI and emerging debates about how the concept can (or cannot) be contextualized for the field of security—a field that might be more in need than any other to consider the ethical dimension of its activities.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document