scholarly journals Evolución de la perspectiva responsable en la Ciencia e Innovación (RRI) en España: un análisis de los documentos de gobernanza estratégica

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paula Otero-Hermida
Keyword(s):  
Public Participation ◽  
Innovation Systems ◽  
Responsible Research And Innovation ◽  
European Policy ◽  
European Project ◽  
Research And Innovation ◽  
Governance Of Science ◽  
New Period ◽  
The New Period ◽  
Responsible Research

RRI, or Responsible Research and Innovation, is a recent European policy that aims to bring a reflective and responsible perspective to science and innovation systems and to increase public participation in defining their priorities. The work analyses how the policy is presented and the evolution of its contents in the main documents on the strategic governance of science and innovation in Spain for the periods 2013-2020, as well as for the new period 2021-2027. This document is part of a wider analysis being carried out in 30 countries as part of the European project SUPER_MoRRI.

What’s in a name? Perceptions and promotion of responsible research and innovation practices across Europe

2020 ◽  
Vol 47 (3) ◽  
pp. 360-370 ◽  
Author(s):  
Malene Vinther Christensen ◽  
Mika Nieminen ◽  
Marlene Altenhofer ◽  
Elise Tancoigne ◽  
Niels Mejlgaard ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Civil Society ◽  
Innovation Systems ◽  
Responsible Research And Innovation ◽  
Private Companies ◽  
Civil Society Organisations ◽  
Research And Innovation ◽  
Private And Public ◽  
Future Policy ◽  
Innovation Practices ◽  
Responsible Research

Abstract After a decade of efforts to mainstream Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) across Europe, the policy momentum is now uncertain. We explore how 217 organisations perceive responsibility in relation to their work, what mechanisms they apply to promote responsible practices, and what hindrances to promoting RRI they observe. Most organisations are unfamiliar with RRI but employ diverse perceptions of responsibility and mechanisms to promote it nonetheless. Civil society organisations are primarily outward oriented; collaborating with others and hosting science events. Private companies are more internally focussed and more likely to formalise this effort in strategies and internal guidelines. Universities resemble private companies, while private and public funders use funding-specific tools to incentivise responsible practices. Our results suggest that RRI is still poorly institutionalised and that some areas lack attention among actors in the research and innovation systems. Future policy endeavours might benefit from addressing deficits and tapping into existing perceptions of responsibility.

scholarly journals Turning Straw to Gold: Mobilising Symmetry in Responsible Research and Innovation

2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 223-239 ◽  
Author(s):  
Annapurna Mamidipudi ◽  
Nina Frahm
Keyword(s):  
Global South ◽  
Innovation Systems ◽  
Responsible Research And Innovation ◽  
Research And Innovation ◽  
Local Actors ◽  
Innovation Practices ◽  
Local Innovation Systems ◽  
Responsible Research ◽  
Rice Straw Burning

This article aims to reflect on the role of Science, Technology and Society (STS) research(ers) in co-constructing Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) in the Global South. By reporting on RRI research in the Global South, here the Indo-Dutch NWO-MVI project on rice straw burning in Punjab, we make an argument for approaching RRI as a symmetric process of knowledge production mobilised by local actors and researchers alike. For STS researchers to responsibly engage with local innovation systems, their activities need to go beyond knowledge provision and towards facilitating the ownership and circulation of local meanings and means to responsibly innovate. Rather than understanding RRI as a fixed framework to govern innovation practices, this article reflects on RRI as an approach that combines research with intervention. We propose that following the principle of symmetry can turn RRI into a productive tool for the mobilisation of embedded local principles that can organise innovation systems in a responsible way. In particular, symmetry allows the re-location of meanings and practices of innovation as well as the re-negotiation of multiple notions of responsible governance.

scholarly journals Considering the dilemma of societal alignment: A response

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barbara Ribeiro ◽  
Philip Shapira ◽  
Paul Benneworth ◽  
Lars Bengtsson ◽  
Susanne Bührer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Social Control ◽  
Responsible Research And Innovation ◽  
Technology And Innovation ◽  
Research And Innovation ◽  
Governance Of Science ◽  
Science Technology ◽  
The Social ◽  
Responsible Research ◽  
Science Technology And Innovation

The publication of our article “Introducing the dilemma of societal alignment for inclusive and responsible research and innovation” (Ribeiro et al., 2018) was accompanied by three commentaries (Guston, 2018; Nordmann, 2018; and Kuzma and Roberts, 2018). In the original article, we invoked Collingridge’s dilemma of the social control of technology to introduce a complementary dilemma of “societal alignment” in the governance of science, technology and innovation. Thoughtful and challenging critiques were presented in the three commentaries. In this paper, as completed in June 2019, we respond to those critiques and, in so doing, seek to further clarify and extend our arguments.

scholarly journals Cultural Beliefs and Stakeholder Affiliation Influence Attitudes Towards Responsible Research and Innovation Among United States Stakeholders Involved in Biotechnology and Gene Editing

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Kuzma ◽  
Christopher L. Cummings
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Gene Editing ◽  
Cultural Beliefs ◽  
The United States ◽  
Innovation Systems ◽  
Responsible Research And Innovation ◽  
Core Beliefs ◽  
Research And Innovation ◽  
Positive Attitudes ◽  
Responsible Research

Biotech developers are concerned about the future of gene editing having experienced the contentious history of first-generation GM foods. They have also expressed desires to do better with public engagement in gene-editing innovation. The framework of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) may provide a way forward to act on their desires for greater public legitimacy. However, in the United States, -there has also been reluctance to incorporate RRI into biotechnology innovation systems like gene editing in food and agriculture. In this article, we investigate individual- and group-level factors, including demographic, sociographic, and cultural factors, that influence attitudes towards RRI among biotechnology United States stakeholders. Using the Advocacy Coalition Framework’s (ACF) hierarchy of beliefs as a theoretical guide, biotechnology stakeholders (n = 110) were surveyed about their cultural (deep-core) beliefs and then about their attitudes towards principles (policy-core beliefs) and practices (secondary beliefs) of RRI applied to biotechnology innovation. Through statistical analysis of the results, we found significant relationships between stronger egalitarian cultural-beliefs and positive attitudes towards both the principles and practices of RRI. We also found that participants with higher levels of experience held more positive attitudes towards principles of RRI. In contrast, we found a significant inverse relationship between professional affiliation with industry or trade organizations and attitudes towards RRI practices. With these results, we present a model of factors that influence RRI attitudes for future testing. In closing, we interpret the results in the context of ACF to examine the potential for building cross-sector coalitions for practicing RRI within United States gene-editing innovation systems.

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