Scientific ideologies on the move: Sino-British exchanges, scientific freedoms and the governance of science in Britain, 1961–1966

In the early 1960s, amidst a period of considerable debate surrounding how civil science in Britain should be governed, British scientists—especially those associated with the Royal Society—and their counterparts in the People's Republic of China (PRC) began tentative exchange programmes. Although such unusual interactions between Cold War adversaries were enabled by claims that science was a universal and apolitical phenomenon, the ways in which institutional and individual participants were embroiled in these domestic debates illuminate how their ideological outlooks shaped their views on exchange and on the science they encountered. By focusing on three interrelated exchanges during this period—an individual scientist's visit to the PRC, a Royal Society delegation to China, and a larger research programme bringing junior Chinese researchers to Britain—I argue that participating British scientists' conceptualizations of ‘scientific freedom’ framed how they judged science in China, and the value of these exchanges; their observations and actions during these interactions reflected their views on domestic British debates over the governance of science. This study thereby sheds light on how the ideological attitudes of participants of science diplomacy shape its practice.

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

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.

Considering the dilemma of societal alignment: A response

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.

Can bioethics be an honest way of making a living? A reflection on normativity, governance and expertise

The authority of bioethics as a field of inquiry and of bioethicists as scholars with a distinctive expertise is being questioned on various fronts. Sarah Franklin’s 2019 Nature commentary ‘Ethical research – the long and bumpy road from shirked to shared’ is the latest example . In this paper, we respond to these challenges by focusing on two key issues. First, we discuss the theory and practice of bioethics. We argue that both of these endeavours are fundamental components of this field of inquiry and that bioethics cannot be reduced to the contribution that it makes to the production of biopolicy, as Franklin suggests. Second, we contend that bioethicists have distinctive skills and knowledge that place them at an epistemic advantage in discussing normative questions. Hence, we reject views that deny the specific contribution that bioethicists can bring to assessing the ethics and governance of science and technology. We conclude by arguing that—despite formal and substantive differences between disciplines—philosophers, social scientists and other scholars should join forces and engage in critical friendships rather than turf wars to move towards the just governance of science and technology.