RRI Tools

• Politicizing Responsible Innovation: Responsibility as Inclusive Governance. Andoni Eizagirre, Hannot Rodríguez and Andoni Ibarra. International Journal of Innovation Studies 1, 20 (2017 )

Abstract

This paper aims to provide the historical and conceptual bases underlying the inclusionary transition of European innovation policy, and critical analysis of the difficulties relating to the political nature of this transition. In the 50s and 60s of last century, linear innovation models operated on the basis of a clear division of roles among the different actors in innovation and fundamentally economistic-based strategies. The following decades saw innovation policies progressively recognize the multi-dimensional and complex nature of innovation and the need to make adjustments, but always in explicit response to the competitiveness imperative. More recent RRI (Responsible Research and Innovation) strategy within the European Union, in contrast, demands opening up the whole innovation process (including values and motivations) to collective decision, i.e., approaching responsible innovation as inclusive innovation. This paper appraises this important development primarily on the basis of in-depth analysis of the main policy literature on innovation, and also on the grounds of related academic literature. As a result, we conclude that the bid for collaboration models cohabits constitutively with another set of dynamics aimed at strengthening centralized and prescriptive forms of innovation. In other words, that inclusionary or political eagerness represented through RRI must grapple with the strategic imperative of competitiveness and economic development. Hence, fundamental tension exists, which should be elucidated in light of the objectives, demands and considerations that are integrated, and cease to be integrated, in innovation dynamics and trajectories.

Content

Introduction

The Innovation Imperative: Privilege and Exclusion

Pluralizing Innovation: The Value of Complexity and Open Dynamics

Socio-Technical Integration and RRI: Towards Inclusive Innovation

Conclusions

References

• [1]
  Aho, E., 2006. Creating an Innovative Europe. Report of the Independent Expert Group on R&D and Innovation appointed following the Hampton Court Summit. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg. Google Scholar
• [2]
  Arocena, R., Sutz, J., 2013. Innovación y democratización del conocimiento como contribución al desarrollo inclusivo, in: Dutrénit, G., Sutz, J. (Eds), Sistemas de Innovación para un Desarrollo Inclusivo: La Experiencia Latinoamericana. Foro Consultivo Cientifico y Tecnológico, Ciudad de México, Mexico</r>pp. 19–34. (In Spanish)|. Google Scholar
• [3]
  Bauer, M., 2015. Atoms, Bytes & Genes: Public Resistance and Techno-Scientific Response. Routledge, London, UK. Google Scholar
• [4]
  Beck, U., 1995. Ecological Politics in an Age of Risk (Translated by Amos Weisz). Polity Press, Cambridge, UK. Google Scholar
• [5]
  Biegelbauer, P., Borrás, S. (Eds), 2003. Innovation Policies in Europe and the US: The New Agenda. Ashgate Publishing Co., Burlington, VT, USA. Google Scholar
• [6]
  Boden M, Johnston R, Scapolo F. The role of FTA in responding to grand challenges: A new approach for STI policy?. Sci Public Policy, 2012, 39: 135-139 CrossRef Google Scholar
• [7]
  Bolay, J.C., Schmid, M., Tejada, G., Hazboun, E. (Eds), 2012. Technologies and Innovations for Development: Scientific Cooperation for a Sustainable Future. Springer-Verlag France, Paris, France. Google Scholar
• [8]
  Bush, V., 1945. Science: The Endless Frontier. National Science Foundation (NSF), Washington, DC, USA. Google Scholar
• [9]
  Callon, M., Lascoumes, P., Barthe, Y., 2009. Acting in an Uncertain World: An Essay on Technical Democracy. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA. Google Scholar
• [10]
  Castells, M., 2012. Networks of Outrage and Hope: Social Movements in the Internet Age. Polity Press, Cambridge and Malden, MA, USA. Google Scholar
• [11]
  Chesbrough, H., 2003. Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA, USA. Google Scholar
• [12]
  Clarysse B, Wright M, Lockett A, Van de Velde E, Vohora A. Spinning out new ventures: a typology of incubation strategies from European research institutions. J Business Venturing, 2005, 20: 183-216 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
• [13]
  Council of the European Union, 2002. Council decision of 30 September 2002 adopting a specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration: Integrating and strengthening the European research area (2002–2006). Official Journal of the European Communities 294, 1–43. Google Scholar
• [14]
  Council of the European Union, 2014. Council directive 2014/87/Euratom of 8 July 2014 amending Directive 2009/71/Euratom establishing a community framework for the nuclear safety of nuclear installations. Official Journal of the European Union, 219, 42–52. Google Scholar
• [15]
  Cranor, C.F., 2011. Legally Poisoned: How the Law Puts Us at Risk from Toxicants. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, USA. Google Scholar
• [16]
  Dalli, J., 2010. Innovation needs to be in tune with the broad values of society (SPEECH/10/741). EuropaBio Event: The Role of Biotechnology in Europe’s Responsible Innovation, Brussels, Belgium, 9 December 2010. Google Scholar
• [17]
  David, K., Thompson, P.B. (Eds), 2008. What Can Nanotechnology Learn from Biotechnology? Social and Ethical Lessons for Nanoscience from the Debate over Agrifood Biotechnology and GMOs. Academic Press, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Google Scholar
• [18]
  Davies, S.R., Horst, M., 2015. Responsible innovation in the US, UK and Denmark: Governance landscapes, in: Koops, B.J., Oosterlaken, I., Romijn, H., Swierstra, T., van den Hoven, J. (Eds), Responsible Innovation 2: Concepts, Approaches, and Applications. Springer, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 37–56. Google Scholar
• [19]
  Desouza, K.C., Awazu, Y., Jha, S., Dombrowski, C., Papagari, S., Baloh, P., Kim, J.Y., 2008. Customer-driven innovation. Research-Technology Management 51, 35–44. Google Scholar
• [20]
  Dickson, D., 1984. The New Politics of Science. Pantheon Books, New York, NY, USA. Google Scholar
• [21]
  European Commission (EC), 2001. European Governance: A White Paper, COM (2001) 428 Final (25.7.2001), Brussels, Belgium. Available online: http://aei.pitt.edu/1188/1/european_governance_wp_COM_2001_428.pdf(accessed on 15 February 2017). Google Scholar
• [22]
  EC, 2002. Science and Society: Action Plan. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg. Google Scholar
• [23]
  EC, 2003. Report from the Commission on European Governance. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg. Google Scholar
• [24]
  EC, 2004. Towards a European Strategy for Nanotechnology. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg. Google Scholar
• [25]
  EC, 2005. Social Values, Science and Technology, Special Eurobarometer 225/Wave 63.1—TNS Opinion & Social, Brussels. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf(accessed on 15 February 2017). Google Scholar
• [26]
  EC, 2007. Work Programme 2007—Capacities, Part 5: Science in Society, C(2007)563 (26.02.2007), The Seventh Framework Programme, Brussels. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/fp7/88164/s_wp_200701_en.pdf (accessed on 15 February 2017). Google Scholar
• [27]
  EC, 2010. A Rationale for Action. Accompanying document to the communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions “Europe 2020 Flagship Initiative Innovation Union”, SEC(2010) 1161 Final (6.10.2010), Brussels. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/pdf/rationale_en.pdf (accessed on 15 February 2017). Google Scholar
• [28]
  EC, 2011. Horizon 2020—The Framework Programme for Research and Innovation, COM(2011) 808 Final (30.11.2011), Brussels. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/research/horizon2020/pdf/proposals/com(2011)_808_final.pdf (accessed on 15 February 2017). Google Scholar
• [29]
  EC, 2013. Horizon 2020—Work Programme 2014–2015: 16. Science with and for Society, C(2013) 8631 (10 December 2013), Brussels. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/wp/2014_2015/main/h2020-wp1415-swfs_v1.0_en.pdf(accessed on 15 February 2017). Google Scholar
• [30]
  Eizagirre A. Las percepciones sociales en Europa sobre el rol de la ciencia y la tecnología. res47, 2013, 47: 67-78 CrossRef Google Scholar
• [31]
  Ely, A., Smith, A., Stirling, A., Leach, M., Scoones, I., 2013. Innovation politics post-Rio+20: Hybrid pathways to sustainability? Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 31, 1063–1081. Google Scholar
• [32]
  Felt, U., Wynne, B., Callon, M., 2007. Science and Governance: Taking European Knowledge Society Seriously (EUR 22700). European Commission, Brussels, Belgium. Google Scholar
• [33]
  Fisher, E., Schuurbiers, D., 2013. Socio-technical integration research: Collaborative inquiry at the midstream of research and development, in: Doorn, N., Schuurbiers, D., van de Poel, I., Gorman, M.E. (Eds), Early Engagement and New Technologies: Opening up the Laboratory. Springer, Dordrecht, the Netherlands, pp. 97–110. Google Scholar
• [34]
  Geoghegan-Quinn, M., 2012. Keynote Speech. In Proceedings of Science in Dialogue Conference, Odense, Denmark, 23–25 April 2012. Google Scholar
• [35]
  Godin, B., 2010. The Making of Science, Technology and Innovation Policy: Conceptual Frameworks as Narratives, 1945–2005. Centre Urbanisation Culture Société, Montreal, Italy. Google Scholar
• [36]
  Godin, B., 2015. Innovation Contested: The Idea of Innovation over the Centuries. Routledge, London, UK. Google Scholar
• [37]
  Goldman, M., 2012. The innovative medicines initiative: A European response to the innovation challenge. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics 91, 418–425. Google Scholar
• [38]
  Greenberg, D.S., 1967. The Politics of Pure Science. New American Library, New York, NY, USA. Google Scholar
• [39]
  Greiving, S., 2009. Goverscience Seminar on Inclusive Risk Governance (EUR 23910). Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg. Google Scholar
• [40]
  Hart, D.H., 1998. Forged Consensus: Science, Technology, and Economic Policy in the United States, 1921–1953. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, USA. Google Scholar
• [41]
  Hommels, A., Mesman, J., Bijker, W.E. (Eds), 2014. Vulnerability in Technological Cultures. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA. Google Scholar
• [42]
  Irwin, A., Jensen, T.E., Jones, K., 2013. The good, the bad and the perfect: Criticizing engagement practice. Social Studies of Science 4, 119–136. Google Scholar
• [43]
  Jacob, K., van den Hoven, J., Nielsen, L., Roure, F., Rudze, L., Stilgoe, J., Riera, C.M., 2013. Options for Strengthening Responsible Research and Innovation. Report of the Expert Group on the State of Art in Europe on Responsible Research and Innovation (EUR 25766). Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. Google Scholar
• [44]
  Jasanoff, S. (Ed), 2004. States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and Social Order. Routledge, New York, NY, USA. Google Scholar
• [45]
  Kleinman, D.L., Cloud-Hansen, K.A., Handelsman, J. (Eds), 2014. Controversies in Science and Technology. Volume 4: From Sustainability to Surveillance. Oxford University Press, New York, NY, USA. Google Scholar
• [46]
  Lassman, P., 2011. Pluralism. Polity Press, Cambridge and Malden, MA, USA. Google Scholar
• [47]
  Leach, M., Scoones, I., Stirling, A., 2010. Dynamic Sustainabilities: Technology, Environment, Social Justice. Routledge, London, UK. Google Scholar
• [48]
  Leach, M., Scoones, I., Wynne, B. (Eds), 2005. Science and Citizens: Globalisation & the Challenge of Engagement. Zed Books, London, UK. Google Scholar
• [49]
  Levidow, L., Neubauer, C., 2014. EU research agendas: Embedding what future? Science as Culture 23, 397–412. Google Scholar
• [50]
  Levidow, L., Oreszczyn, S., 2012. Challenging unsustainable development through research cooperation. Local Environment: The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability 17, 35–56. Google Scholar
• [51]
  Lockie, S., Sonnenfeld, D.A., Fisher, D.R. (Eds), 2014. Routledge International Handbook of Social and Environmental Change. Routledge, London, UK. Google Scholar
• [52]
  Lundvall, B.Å. (Ed), 1992. National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning. Pinter Publishers, London, UK. Google Scholar
• [53]
  Marklund, G., Vonortas, N., Wessner, C. (Eds), 2009. The Innovation Imperative: National Innovation Strategies in the Global Economy. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham and Northampton, MA, USA. Google Scholar
• [54]
  Miettinen, R., 2013. Innovation, Human Capabilities, and Democracy. Towards an Enabling Welfare State. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. Google Scholar
• [55]
  Obama, B., 2009. A Strategy for American Innovation. National Economic Council and Office of Science and Technology Policy, Washington, D.C., USA. Google Scholar
• [56]
  OECD, 1963. The Proposed Standard Practice for Surveys of Research and Experimental Development. OECD, Paris, France. Google Scholar
• [57]
  OECD, 1968. Gaps in Technology: General Report. OECD, Paris, France. Google Scholar
• [58]
  OECD, 1971. The Conditions of Success in Technological Innovation. OECD, Paris, France. Google Scholar
• [59]
  OECD, 1972. Science, Growth and Society: A New Perspective. OECD, Paris, France. Google Scholar
• [60]
  OECD, 1980. Technical Change and Economic Policy. OECD, Paris, France. Google Scholar
• [61]
  OECD, 1988. New Technologies in the 1990s: A Socio-Economic Strategy. OECD, Paris, France. Google Scholar
• [62]
  OECD, 1991a. Choosing Priorities in Science and Technology. OECD, Paris, France. Google Scholar
• [63]
  OECD, 1991b. Technology in a Changing World. OECD, Paris, France. Google Scholar
• [64]
  OECD, 1992. Technology and the Economy: The Key Relationships. OECD, Paris, France. Google Scholar
• [65]
  OECD, 1996. The Knowledge-Based Economy. OECD, Paris, France. Google Scholar
• [66]
  OECD, 1997. Economic Globalization and the Environment. OECD, Paris, France. Google Scholar
• [67]
  OECD, 1999. Managing Innovation Systems. OECD, Paris, France. Google Scholar
• [68]
  OECD, 2001. Innovative Networks: Co-operation in National Innovation Systems. OECD, Paris, France. Google Scholar
• [69]
  OECD, 2005. Governance of Innovation Systems. OECD, Paris, France. Google Scholar
• [70]
  OECD, 2010. The OECD Innovation Strategy: Getting a Head Start on Tomorrow. OECD, Paris, France. Google Scholar
• [71]
  Owen R, Macnaghten P, Stilgoe J. Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society. Sci Public Policy, 2012, 39: 751-760 CrossRef Google Scholar
• [72]
  Owen, R., Stilgoe, J., Macnaghten, P., Gorman, M., Fisher, E., Guston, D., 2013. A framework for responsible innovation, in: Owen, R., Bessant, J., Heintz, M. (Eds), Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society. Wiley, Chichester, UK, pp. 27–50. Google Scholar
• [73]
  Pellizzoni, L., Ylönen, M. (Eds), 2012. Neoliberalism and Technoscience: Critical Assessments. Ashgate Publishing, Farnham, UK. Google Scholar
• [74]
  Penfield T, Baker M J, Scoble R, Wykes M C. Assessment, evaluations, and definitions of research impact: A review. Res Evaluation, 2014, 23: 21-32 CrossRef Google Scholar
• [75]
  Perkmann M, Tartari V, McKelvey M, Autio E, Broström A, D’Este P, Fini R, Geuna A, Grimaldi R, Hughes A, Krabel S, Kitson M, Llerena P, Lissoni F, Salter A, Sobrero M. Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations. Res Policy, 2013, 42: 423-442 CrossRef Google Scholar
• [76]
  Polanyi, M., 1961. The republic of science: Its political and economic theory. Minerva 1, 54–74. Google Scholar
• [77]
  Rip, A., 2014. The past and future of RRI. Life Sciences, Society and Policy 10, 17, doi:0.1186/s40504-014-0017-4. Google Scholar
• [78]
  Rip, A., Kemp, R., 1998. Technological change, in: Rayner, S., Malone, L. (Eds), Human Choice and Climate Change (Vol. 2). Battelle Press, Columbus, OH, USA, pp. 327–399. Google Scholar
• [79]
  Rodríguez H. From objective to constituted risk: an alternative approach to safety in strategic technological innovation in the European Union. J Risk Res, 2016, 19: 42-55 CrossRef Google Scholar
• [80]
  Rodríguez H, Fisher E, Schuurbiers D. Integrating science and society in European Framework Programmes: Trends in project-level solicitations. Res Policy, 2013, 42: 1126-1137 CrossRef Google Scholar
• [81]
  Sarewitz, D., 1996. Frontiers of Illusion: Science, Technology, and the Politics of Progress. Temple University Press, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Google Scholar
• [82]
  Scoones, I., Leach, M., Newell, P. (Eds), 2015. The Politics of Green Transformation. Routledge, London, UK. Google Scholar
• [83]
  Shrader-Frechette, K., 2007. Taking Action, Saving Lives: Our Duties to Protect Environmental and Public Health. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. Google Scholar
• [84]
  Siune, K., Markus, E., Calloni, M., Felt, U., Gorski, A., Grunwald, A., Rip, A., de Semir, V., Wyatt, S., 2009. Challenging Futures of Science in Society: Emerging Trends and Cutting-Edge Issues (EUR 24039). Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. Google Scholar
• [85]
  Smith A, Voß J P, Grin J. Innovation studies and sustainability transitions: The allure of the multi-level perspective and its challenges. Res Policy, 2010, 39: 435-448 CrossRef Google Scholar
• [86]
  Stančič, Z., 2007. Foreword, in: Braithwaite, M., Fries, R., Zadrozny, T., Wuiame, N., Anasagasti-Corta, M., Ings, N. (Eds), Integrating Science in Society Issues in Scientific Research: Main Findings of the Study on the Integration of Science and Society Issues in the Sixth Framework Programme (EUR 22976). Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, p. 1. Google Scholar
• [87]
  Stilgoe J, Owen R, Macnaghten P. Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Res Policy, 2013, 42: 1568-1580 CrossRef Google Scholar
• [88]
  Stirling, A., 2008. “Opening up” and “closing down”: Power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Science, Technology & Human Values 33, 262–294. Google Scholar
• [89]
  Strauss S. Pharma embraces open source models. Nat Biotechnol, 2010, 28: 631-634 CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
• [90]
  Sykes, K., Macnaghten, P., 2013. Responsible innovation: Opening up dialogue and debate, in: Owen, R., Bessant, J., Heintz, M. (Eds), Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society. Wiley, Chichester, UK, pp. 85–107. Google Scholar
• [91]
  Thayyil, N., 2014. Biotechnology Regulation and GMOs: Law, Technology and Public Contestations in Europe. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham and Northampton, MA, USA. Google Scholar
• [92]
  Tosun J. Agricultural Biotechnology in Central and Eastern Europe: Determinants of Cultivation Bans. Sociol Ruralis, 2014, 54: 362-381 CrossRef Google Scholar
• [93]
  Van den Hove, S., McGlade, J., Mottet, P., Depledge, M., 2012. The innovation union: A perfect means to confused ends? Environmental Science and Policy 12, 73–80. Google Scholar
• [94]
  van Oudheusden M. Where are the politics in responsible innovation? European governance, technology assessments, and beyond. J Responsible Innovation, 2014, 1: 67-86 CrossRef Google Scholar
• [95]
  Verganti, R., 2009. Design-Driven Innovation: Changing the Rules of Competition by Radically Innovating What Things Mean. Harvard Business Press, Boston, MA, USA. Google Scholar
• [96]
  Vessuri H. Introduction to special section: The use of knowledge for social cohesion and social inclusion. Sci Public Policy, 2012, 39: 545-547 CrossRef Google Scholar
• [97]
  Vogel, D., 2012. The Politics of Precaution: Regulating Health, Safety, and Environmental Risks in Europe and the United States. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, USA. Google Scholar
• [98]
  Von Hippel, E., 2004. Democratizing Innovation. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA. Google Scholar
• [99]
  Von Schomberg, R., 2013. A vision of responsible research and innovation, in: Owen, R., Bessant, J., Heintz, M. (Eds), Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society. Wiley, Chichester, UK, pp. 51–74. Google Scholar
• [100]
  Von Schomberg, R., 2015. From “Responsible Development of Technologies” to Responsible Innovation. Adapted from J. Britt Holbrook and Carl Mitcham. Ethics, Science, Technology, and Engineering: A Global Resource (2nd ed.). Gale Publishing, Farmington Hills, MI, USA. Google Scholar
• [101]
  Voß, J.P., Bauknecht, D., Kemp, R. (Eds), 2006. Reflexive Governance for Sustainable Development. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham and Northampton, MA, USA. Google Scholar
• [102]
  Weinberg, A.M., 1967. Reflections on Big Science. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA. Google Scholar
• [103]
  Wickson, F., Wynne, B., 2012. Ethics of science for policy in the environmental governance of biotechnology: MON810 maize in Europe. Ethics, Policy & Environment 15, 321–340. Google Scholar
• [104]
  Ziman, J., 1998. Why must scientists become more ethically sensitive than they used to be? Science 282, 1813–1814. Google Scholar