scholarly journals Investigación e innovación responsables: retos teóricos y políticos

2016 ◽  
Vol 2017 (83) ◽  
Author(s):  
Andoni Eizagirre
Keyword(s):  
Science And Technology Studies ◽  
Science And Technology ◽  
Political Language ◽  
Critical Dialogue ◽  
Horizon 2020 ◽  
Research And Innovation ◽  
Governance Of Science ◽  
Science Technology ◽  
The One ◽  
Responsible Research

The present article postulates the value of the new ways of looking at the relations between science, technology, public / policies and society. On the one hand, Science and Technology Studies / foreshadow / alternative models for understanding the governance of science. On the other, within the institutional framework at the heart of the “Horizon 2020” strategy, the political language associated with responsible research and innovation (RRI) is gaining in importance, arguing that those who engage in research and engineering activities should do a better job of aligning their processes and outcomes with the values, needs and expectations of European society. The article offers a critical dialogue between the theoretical advances and the new political language, and suggests that the significance, scope and application of an RRI-based focus will depend on the economic and sociopolitical dynamics by which science and technology are instrumentalised and regulated.

Challenges to the Story of Innovation

2020 ◽  
pp. 23-34
Author(s):  
Michiel van Oudheusden
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Political Economy ◽  
Science And Technology Studies ◽  
Science And Technology ◽  
Responsible Research And Innovation ◽  
The Political ◽  
The Public ◽  
Research And Innovation ◽  
Responsible Research ◽  
Technological Decision Making

This chapter sets out the meanings attached to the concept of ‘innovation’ and asks how it has recently come to occupy the political and economic position it now holds. Drawing from science and technology studies, which has long sought to better incorporate the public in technological decision-making, it explores the impetus towards connecting ‘responsibility’ with ‘innovation’ and the context from which this derives. Finally, it examines how this impetus has become incorporated into various frameworks for Responsible (Research and) Innovation, and what is missing from this approach in terms of understanding the place of ‘innovation’ in the present political economy, and the place of politics in innovation.

scholarly journals Science and Technology Studies in Policy: The UK Synthetic Biology Roadmap

2019 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. 34-61 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claire Marris ◽  
Jane Calvert
Keyword(s):  
Synthetic Biology ◽  
Science And Technology Studies ◽  
Science And Technology ◽  
Final Report ◽  
Technology Studies ◽  
Research And Innovation ◽  
Economic Progress ◽  
Uncertain Future ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Responsible Research

In this paper, we reflect on our experience as science and technology studies (STS) researchers who were members of the working group that produced A Synthetic Biology Roadmap for the UK in 2012. We explore how this initiative sought to govern an uncertain future and describe how it was successfully used to mobilize public funds for synthetic biology from the UK government. We discuss our attempts to incorporate the insights and sensibilities of STS into the policy process and why we chose to use the concept of responsible research and innovation to do so. We analyze how the roadmapping process, and the final report, narrowed and transformed our contributions to the roadmap. We show how difficult it is for STS researchers to influence policy when our ideas challenge deeply entrenched pervasive assumptions, framings, and narratives about how technological innovation necessarily leads to economic progress, about public reticence as a roadblock to that progress, and about the supposed separation between science and society. We end by reflecting on the constraints under which we were operating from the outset and on the challenges for STS in policy.

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 Diversifying the Deliberative Turn: Toward an Agonistic RRI

2021 ◽  
pp. 016224392110672
Author(s):  
Deborah Scott
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Deliberative Democracy ◽  
Science And Technology Studies ◽  
Science And Technology ◽  
Political Field ◽  
Research And Innovation ◽  
Contemporary Science ◽  
Decision Making Processes ◽  
Responsible Research ◽  
Opening Up

In its “deliberative turn,” the field of science and technology studies (STS) has strongly advocated opening up decision-making processes around science and technology to more perspectives and knowledges. While the theory of democracy underpinning this is rarely explicitly addressed, the language and ideas used are often drawn from deliberative democracy. Using the case of synthetic biology and Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI), this paper looks at challenges of public engagement and finds parallels in long-standing critiques of deliberative democracy. The paper suggests that STS scholars explore other theories of decision-making and explores what an RRI grounded in agonistic pluralism might entail. An agonistic RRI could develop empirical research around questions of power relations in contemporary science and technology, seek to facilitate the formation of political publics around relevant issues, and frame different actors’ stances as adversarial positions on a political field rather than “equally valid” perspectives.

scholarly journals Introduction: Talking STS

2018 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 179 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fadhila Mazanderani ◽  
Isabel Fletcher ◽  
Pablo Schyfter
Keyword(s):  
Science And Technology Studies ◽  
Science Studies ◽  
Science And Technology ◽  
Fiftieth Anniversary ◽  
Technology And Society ◽  
Technology Studies ◽  
Science Technology ◽  
The Future ◽  
History Of ◽  
The University

Talking STS is a collection of interviews and accompanying reflections on the origins, the present and the future of the field referred to as Science and Technology Studies or Science, Technology and Society (STS). The volume assembles the thoughts and recollections of some of the leading figures in the making of this field. The occasion for producing the collection has been the fiftieth anniversary of the founding of the University of Edinburgh’s Science Studies Unit (SSU). The Unit’s place in the history of STS is consequently a recurring theme of the volume. However, the interviews assembled here have a broader purpose – to present interviewees’ situated and idiosyncratic experiences and perspectives on STS, going beyond the contributions made to it by any one individual, department or institution. Both individually and collectively, these conversations provide autobiographically informed insights on STS. Together with the reflections, they prompt further discussion, reflection and questioning about this constantly evolving field.

scholarly journals THE NEW BRAZILIAN LEGAL FRAMEWORK OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (6) ◽  
pp. 39-50
Author(s):  
Dercio Luiz Reis ◽  
Marcelo Albuquerque de Oliveira ◽  
Sicy Rusalka Goes de Melo Barreto ◽  
Gabriela De Mattos Veroneze ◽  
Ana Nubia dos Santos de Oliveira
Keyword(s):  
Cost Reduction ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Science And Technology ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Productivity Cost ◽  
Research And Innovation ◽  
Innovation Activities ◽  
Brazilian Legislation ◽  
Science Technology ◽  
Support Seeking

The recognition of science and technology as a risk activity, focusing on results rather than procedures, means that researchers are more effectively engaged in activities involving innovation. The purpose of this article is to analyze the applicability of law known as the Legal Framework of Science and Technology, and it was constructed with bibliographical support seeking to contribute to a different view of the control organs regarding the research. The new Brazilian legislation brings with it the expectation that research and market have a process of approximation, reducing the distance between the knowledge produced in universities and their transformation into wealth. The possibilities arising from the new legislation tend to have effects in solving problems of quality, productivity, cost reduction, with the possibility of incorporating benefits to production and competitiveness, with the introduction of technology, methods and processes aligned with lean production. It concludes that the Legal Framework for Science and Technology, with its specific purpose of reducing bureaucracy in the country's research and innovation activities in general, is an important instrument in the integration of the academic and scientific community at all levels, and companies, representing a new path to boost the process of education.

scholarly journals Games as (Not) Culture: A Critical Policy Analysis of the Economic Agenda of Horizon 2020

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (8) ◽  
pp. 902-922 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carlo Perrotta ◽  
Chris Bailey ◽  
Jim Ryder ◽  
Mata Haggis-Burridge ◽  
Donatella Persico
Keyword(s):  
Development Program ◽  
Critical Examination ◽  
European Network ◽  
Critical Policy Analysis ◽  
Horizon 2020 ◽  
Research And Innovation ◽  
Medium Enterprise ◽  
Policy Priority ◽  
Critical Policy ◽  
Responsible Research

This article presents a critical examination of European policy in relation to gamification. We begin by describing how gamification “traveled” as an idea, evolving from controversial yet persuasive buzzword to legitimate policy priority. We then focus on how gamification was represented in Horizon 2020: the flagship European Research & Development program from 2014 to 2020, worth nearly €80 billion of funding. The article argues that the ethically problematic aspects of gamification were removed through a process of policy capture that involved its assimilation in an established European network of research and small and medium enterprise (SME) actors. This process of “ethical neutering” is also observable in the actual funding calls, where the problematic assumptions of gamification around agency and manipulation are made invisible through a superficial commitment to vague and ill-defined criteria of responsible research and innovation.

scholarly journals Responsible Research and Innovation in secondary school science classrooms: experiences from the project Irresistible

2017 ◽  
Vol 89 (2) ◽  
pp. 211-219 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan Apotheker ◽  
Ron Blonder ◽  
Sevil Akaygun ◽  
Pedro Reis ◽  
Lorenz Kampschulte ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Secondary School ◽  
School Science ◽  
Responsible Research And Innovation ◽  
Science Center ◽  
Scientific Content ◽  
Science Classrooms ◽  
Horizon 2020 ◽  
Research And Innovation ◽  
Science Educators ◽  
Responsible Research

AbstractResponsible Research and Innovation has become a core concept in many of the Horizon 2020 programs. In this article the concept of RRI is discussed in context of secondary education, and the interpretation used within the project ‘Irresistible’ is introduced. In the article several ways in which RRI can be incorporated in science classrooms are discussed, connected to the teaching of contemporary research taking place in universities as well as recent innovations coming from industry. The presented modules are designed in groups in which teachers work together with researchers, science educators and science center experts. As one of the educational approaches used in the modules, students created exhibits in which both the scientific content as well as the RRI concepts related to the content are demonstrated for the general public. These exhibits have been very successful as a learning tool.

A Field of Its Own

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sheila Jasanoff
Keyword(s):  
Science And Technology Studies ◽  
Science And Technology ◽  
Technology And Society ◽  
University Administrators ◽  
Critical Perspective ◽  
Technology Studies ◽  
Graduate Degrees ◽  
Science Technology ◽  
Innovative Work

This chapter presents science and technology studies (STS) as a new island in a preexisting disciplinary archipelago. As a field, STS combines two strands of work dealing, respectively, with the nature and practices of science and technology (S&T) and the relationships between science, technology, and society. As such, STS research focuses on distinctive objects of inquiry and employs novel discourses and methods. The field confronts three significant barriers to achieving greater intellectual coherence, and institutional recognition. First, it must persuade skeptical scientists and university administrators of the need for a critical perspective on S&T. Second, it must demonstrate that traditional disciplines do not adequately analyze S&T. Third, it has to overcome STS scholars’ reluctance to create intellectual boundaries and membership criteria that appear to exclude innovative work. A generation of scholars with graduate degrees in STS are helping to meet these challenges.

Disciplinary Translations

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 230-250
Author(s):  
Casper Bruun Jensen
Keyword(s):  
Science And Technology Studies ◽  
Science And Technology ◽  
Research Community ◽  
The Other ◽  
Literary Studies ◽  
Knowledge Change ◽  
Technical Mediation ◽  
The One ◽  
Nonhuman Agency ◽  
Instructive Case

Early in his career, Bruno Latour’s limited readership consisted mainly of the research community in science and technology studies (STS) that he helped to inaugurate. Today the situation could hardly be more different. Latour is now subject to the “translations”—the processes by which ideas travel—that he has provided such powerful tools for analyzing. He has become a “mutable mobile”—eminently transportable but always changing as he goes—that in different contexts exists as a variety of conceptual characters or figurations. As the Latour network continues to see significant extensions and transformations, it offers an instructive case for understanding the potentials and dynamics of traveling texts and ideas—and of their relation to existing disciplinary formations—as ecologies of knowledge change. This article examines the reception and adaptation of Latour’s ideas in two quite different intellectual contexts: anthropology and literary studies. The proliferation of Latour figurations is shown to be a consequence of interactions between, on the one hand, existing disciplinary constellations of ideas, concerns, and practices, and, on the other hand, his own often ambiguous arguments on topics including theory and method, nonhuman agency and politics, and technical mediation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document