scholarly journals Responsible innovation in biotechnology: Stakeholder attitudes and implications for research policy

Elem Sci Anth ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pat Roberts ◽  
Joseph Herkert ◽  
Jennifer Kuzma
Keyword(s):  
Focus Groups ◽  
Genetically Modified Organisms ◽  
Technology Development ◽  
Research Policy ◽  
Innovation Policy ◽  
Responsible Innovation ◽  
Research And Innovation ◽  
Positive Attitudes ◽  
Funding Programs ◽  
Research And Innovation Policy

This article explores attitudes of stakeholders involved in biotechnology towards the Responsible Innovation (RI) framework. As a framework for governance, RI has received increasing scholarly attention but has yet to be successfully integrated into U.S. research and innovation policy. Using a mixed methods approach, we analyzed the attitudes of different biotechnology stakeholders, particularly those working in areas related to genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in agriculture and the environment, towards the principles and practices of RI. Homogenous focus groups (organized by stakeholder affiliation) and pre- and post-focus group surveys were used to measure attitudes towards RI. We designed the survey questions according to the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) and examined the agreement of stakeholders with policy core beliefs (general principles of RI) and secondary beliefs (implementation practices of RI). Although all stakeholder groups had neutral to positive attitudes towards RI general principles, we found significant differences in their reactions to the scholarly definitions of RI and in their attitudes towards practices to implement RI. In comparison to government and advocacy groups, stakeholders promoting biotechnology innovations–industry, trade organizations, and academics–had more negative reactions to social science definitions of RI and to RI practices that relinquish control to people outside of technology development pipelines. Qualitative analysis of focus-groups revealed barriers for implementing RI practices. For example, innovators were cynical about including external voices in innovation pathways due to inflexible funding programs and were concerned about potential delays to innovation given the highly competitive environments for financing and patents. In order to help address these tensions, we call for the co-design of RI practices between biotechnology innovators and other stakeholders. The opening-up of biotechnology innovation to RI practices of anticipation, inclusion, responsiveness and reflexivity will likely be important for future, public legitimacy of emerging genetic engineering applications such as gene editing and gene drives.

scholarly journals Empowering civil society through educating about responsible research and innovation

2018 ◽  
Vol 48 ◽  
pp. 01045
Author(s):  
Marta Majorek ◽  
Marta du Vall
Keyword(s):  
Innovation Policy ◽  
Third Sector ◽  
Knowledge And Skills ◽  
Social Actors ◽  
Research And Innovation ◽  
Number Of Factors ◽  
Engagement Process ◽  
Understanding Of Science ◽  
Research And Innovation Policy ◽  
Lack Of Knowledge

Number of factors may be indicated that can negatively affect the willingness of third sector actors and citizens to get involved with research and innovation policy. It is worth referring to these factors as barriers to societal engagement. Six key barriers can be identified: lack of knowledge and skills, lack of relevance, lack of impact, lack of trust and critical views of others, lack of time and finances, and lack of legitimacy. The main purpose of this article is to present some policies and practice options that can help to overcome these barriers. The main focus will be on solving the lack of knowledge and skills of social actors. In this context, the fact that citizens and third sector actors may perceive an engagement process as not relevant to their own interests, concerns, and goals may be indicated as the main cause for their non-involvement. Citizens and third sector actors may refrain from engagement when they fear they lack the necessary knowledge and skills to engage in research or in research and innovation policy. They may also be reluctant to participate when they do not have the basic understanding of science and scientific working methods. The article will propose an overview of policies and activities that can effectively overcome the indicated barriers to engagement.

scholarly journals Corporate R&D intensity decomposition: different data, different results?

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pietro Moncada-Paternò-Castello ◽  
Sara Amoroso ◽  
Michele Cincera
Keyword(s):  
Research And Development ◽  
Analytical Methods ◽  
Innovation Policy ◽  
International Comparisons ◽  
Policy Implications ◽  
Data Sources ◽  
Empirical Results ◽  
Research And Innovation ◽  
Research And Innovation Policy ◽  
First Time

Abstract Research and Development (R&D) indicators are used to facilitate international comparisons and as targets for research and innovation policy. An example of such an indicator is R&D intensity. The decomposition of the aggregate corporate R&D intensity is able to explain the differences in R&D intensity between countries by determining whether is the result of firms’ underinvestment in R&D or of the differences across sectors. Despite its importance, the literature of corporate R&D intensity decomposition has been developed only recently. This article reviews for the first time the different methodological frameworks of corporate R&D intensity decomposition and how they are used in practice, shedding light on why sometimes empirical results seem to be contradictory. It inspects how the use of different data sources and analytical methods affect R&D intensity decomposition results, and what the analytical and policy implications are. The article also provides methodological and analytical guidance to analysts and policymakers.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document