Responsibility through Anticipation? The ‘Future Talk’ and the Quest for Plausibility in the Governance of Emerging Technologies

In anticipatory governance (AG) and responsible innovation (RI), anticipation is a key theoretical and practical dimension for promoting a more responsible governance of new and emerging sciences and technologies. Yet, anticipation has been subjected to a range of criticisms, such that many now see it as unnecessary for AG and RI. According to Alfred Nordmann, practices engaging with ‘the future’, when performed under certain conditions, may reify the future, diminish our ability to see what is happening, and/or reproduce the illusion of control over the future. Several authors have stressed that these critiques fail to capture the heterogeneous character of anticipatory practices, and yet research on the question of what particular kind of socio-epistemic engagements with ‘the future’ AG and RI aim to enact through anticipation remains fragmentary and their underlying rationale under-theorised. This article aims to advance the theoretical characterisation and problematisation of anticipation as key interventive tools for AG and RI. By distinguishing between four modes of anticipation and heuristically testing them against Nordmann’s critiques, the article argues that despite his assessment failing to recognise the heterogeneity of anticipatory practices considered valuable for AG and RI, it reinforces the relevance of performing certain modes of anticipatory exercises, namely critical-hermeneutic ones. Thus, anticipation continues to be a necessary heuristic dimension for AG and RI. More concretely, the article maintains that such anticipatory heuristics may find their radical constructive and critical-reflective character in the dynamics of inclusive scrutiny and negotiation about the (im)plausibility and (un)desirability of the envisioned or (co-)created futures.

Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI): Scientometric Analysis

Innovation and research in various fields should be done responsibly. In the last years, there is this responsibility towards different stakeholders. One of the most important stakeholders are the community and the society. In this context, the concept of social responsibility and social innovation has become very widespread. The purpose of this study was scientometric analysis of concepts in the field of responsible innovation and responsible research. R software has been used to achieve this purpose. In this study, by analyzing the information extracted from related articles (572 articles from Web of Science), the new concept of RRI and the network of researchers in this regard have been identified and analyzed. In this study, based on a systematic literature review (SLR) and scientometric methods, the evolution of the concept of “Responsible Research” and “Responsible Innovation” in the literature is investigated. Also, the selected articles identified by the SLR method from different textual dimensions regarding journals, collaboration network, co-citation network, collaboration worldmap, historical direct citation network, and emergence of new concepts are analyzed. The results of this study indicate the development of related concepts in the literature in recent years and indicate the need for further studies in this regard.

Responsible Innovation Definitions, Practices, and Motivations from Nanotechnology Researchers in Food and Agriculture

The growth of responsible innovation (RI) scholarship has been mirrored by a proliferation of RI definitions and practices, as well as a recognition of the importance of context for RI. This study investigates how researchers in the field of nanotechnology for food and agriculture (nano-agrifoods) define and practice RI, as well as what motivations they see for pursuing RI. We conducted 20 semi-structured interviews with nano-agrifood researchers from industry and academia in the USA, where we asked them to describe their RI definitions, practices, and motivations. We analyzed the emergent themes from these interviews, including how the themes aligned with four prominent RI principles (anticipation, inclusion, reflexivity, responsiveness). We found that nano-agrifood researchers largely focused their descriptions of RI definitions, practices, and motivations around a narrow envisioning of the RI principle of anticipation — emphasizing product safety, efficacy, and efficiency. We also found noteworthy tensions surrounding the less frequently mentioned RI principles. For example, some researchers envisioned inclusion as a way to align products with industry interests while others saw it as a way to align products with the public good. Concerning motivations for RI, some researchers viewed RI as a way to protect one’s reputation and avoid lawsuits while others viewed it as a way to improve human well-being and solve societal problems. Given these findings, future efforts to foster RI within nano-agrifoods should promote discussions among researchers concerning what it means to responsibly innovate and what practices this could entail, particularly beyond ensuring product safety, efficacy, and efficiency.

Understanding the perceptions of UK COVID-19 contact tracing app in the BAME community in Leicester

Purpose Digital contact tracing technologies are critical to the fight against COVID-19 in many countries including the UK. However, a number of ethical, legal and socio-economic concerns that can affect uptake of the app have been raised. The purpose of this research is to explore the perceptions of the UK digital contact tracing app in the Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) community in Leicester and how this can affect its deployment and implementation. Design/methodology/approach Data was collected through virtual focus groups in Leicester, UK. A total of 28 participants were recruited for the study. All participants are members of the BAME community, and data was thematically analysed with NVivo 11. Findings A majority of the participants were unwilling to download and use the app owing to legal and ethical concerns. A minority were willing to use the app based on the need to protect public health. There was a general understanding that lack of uptake will negatively affect the fight against COVID-19 in BAME communities and an acknowledgement of the need for the government to rebuild trust through transparency and development of regulatory safeguards to enhance privacy and prevent misuse. Originality/value To the best of the authors’ knowledge, the research makes original contributions being the first robust study conducted to explore perceptions of marginalised communities, particularly BAME which may be adversely impacted by the deployment of the app. By exploring community-based perceptions, this study further contributes to the emerging citizens’ perceptions on digital contact tracing which is crucial to the effectiveness and the development of an efficient, community-specific response to public attitudes towards the app. The findings can also help the development of responsible innovation approaches that balances the competing interests of digital health interventions with the needs and expectations of the BAME community in the UK.

Towards Responsible Artificial Intelligence in Long-term Care: A Scoping Review on Practical Approaches

Background and Objectives Artificial intelligence (AI) is widely positioned to become a key element of intelligent technologies used in the long-term care (LTC) for older adults. The increasing relevance and adoption of AI has encouraged debate over the societal and ethical implications of introducing and scaling AI. This scoping review investigates how the design and implementation of AI technologies in LTC is addressed responsibly: so called responsible innovation (RI). Research Design and Methods We conducted a systematic literature search in five electronic databases using concepts related to LTC, AI and RI. We then performed a descriptive and thematic analysis to map the key concepts, types of evidence and gaps in the literature. Results After reviewing 3,339 papers, 25 papers were identified that met our inclusion criteria. From this literature, we extracted three overarching themes: user-oriented AI innovation; framing AI as a solution to RI issues; and context-sensitivity. Our results provide an overview of measures taken and recommendations provided to address responsible AI innovation in LTC. Discussion and Implications The review underlines the importance of the context of use when addressing responsible AI innovation in LTC. However, limited empirical evidence actually details how responsible AI innovation is addressed in context. Therefore, we recommend expanding empirical studies on RI at the level of specific AI technologies and their local contexts of use. Also, we call for more specific frameworks for responsible AI innovation in LTC to flexibly guide researchers and innovators. Future frameworks should clearly distinguish between RI processes and outcomes.

Responsible innovation in health and health system sustainability: Insights from health innovators’ views and practices

Although healthcare managers make increasingly difficult decisions about health innovations, the way they may interact with innovators to foster health system sustainability remains underexplored. Drawing on the Responsible Innovation in Health (RIH) framework, this paper analyses interviews ( n=37) with Canadian and Brazilian innovators to identify: how they operationalize inclusive design processes; what influences the responsiveness of their innovation to system-level challenges; and how they consider the level and intensity of care required by their innovation. Our qualitative findings indicate that innovators seek to: 1) engage stakeholders at an early ideation stage through context-specific methods combining both formal and informal strategies; 2) address specific system-level benefits but often struggle with the positioning of their solution within the health system; and 3) mitigate staff shortages in specialized care, increase general practitioners’ capacity or patients and informal caregivers’ autonomy. These findings provide empirical insights on how healthcare managers can promote and organize collaborative processes that harness innovation towards more sustainable health systems. By adopting a RIH-oriented managerial role, they can set in place more inclusive design processes, articulate key system-level challenges, and help innovators adjust the level and intensity of care required by their innovation.