La confianza pública en las instituciones reguladoras del riesgo: tres modelos de confianza para tres desafíos del análisis del riesgo

Los estudios sociales del riesgo han dignificado la resistencia social al progreso científico-tecnológico por medio del análisis acerca de las relaciones de confianza entre el público y las instituciones expertas encargadas de la seguridad. Estos análisis han contribuido notablemente a desmontar la idea de que la resistencia social al desarrollo de la ciencia y la tecnología industrialmente guiado es consecuencia de una actitud irracional del público hacia los riesgos verdaderos de ese desarrollo. Los argumentos utilizados para ello pueden clasificarse en tres modelos para la comprensión de las relaciones de confianza: modelo competencial, modelo cultural y modelo relacional. Cada uno de estos modelos apela a un desafío básico al que debe enfrentarse el análisis institucional del riesgo para verse legitimado. Respectivamente: desafío epistemológico, desafío axiológico y desafío reflexivo. Estos desafíos se presentarán a la luz de la regulación europea de los organismos modificados genéticamente

Nanotechnology and Risk Governance in the European Union: the Constitution of Safety in Highly Promoted and Contested Innovation Areas

[EN]The European Union (EU) is strategically committed to the development of nanotechnology and its industrial exploitation. However, nanotechnology also has the potential to disrupt human health and the environment. The EU claims to be committed to the safe and responsible development of nanotechnology. In this sense, the EU has become the first governing body in the world to develop nanospecific regulations, largely due to legislative action taken by the European Parliament, which has compensated for the European Commission’s reluctance to develop special regulations for nanomaterials. Nevertheless, divergences aside, political bodies in the EU assume that nanotechnology development is controllable and take for granted that both the massive industrial use of nanomaterials and a high level of environmental and health protection are compatible. However, experiences such as the European controversy over agri-food biotechnology, which somewhat delegitimized the regulatory authority of the EU over technological safety and acceptability, arguably show that controllability assumptions are contestable on the grounds of alternative socio-economic and cultural preferences and values. Recently developed inclusive governance models on safety and innovation, such as"Responsible Research and Innovation" (RRI), widelyclaim that a diversity of considerations and issues areintegrated into R&D processes. Even so, the possibility of more radically alternative constitutions of sociotechnical safety seems to be seriously limited by the current ideology of innovation and economic imperatives of the global, knowledge-based, capitalist economy.This work is based mainly upon research supported by the Basque Government’s Department of Education, Universities and Research under a Postdoctoral Fellowship for the Improvement of Research Personnel in a Foreign Country (grant BFI08.183). It has also been supported by the Basque Government’s Department of Education, Language Policy and Culture (grant IT644-13), the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness and the European Regional Development Fund (grant FFI2015-69792-R), and the University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU (grant EHUA15/13). The author also wishes to thank Heather A. Okvat for her assistance in revising the initial, original version of the article, and to two anonymous reviewers for their constructive and thorough comments on the present version. Any shortcomings in the work remain the responsibility of the author

From objective to constituted risk: an alternative approach to safety in strategic technological innovation in the European Union

El artículo se publicó en 2014 online, y en 2016 en papel. Se ha utilizado esta segunda fecha como referencia a la hora de introducir los datos (p. ej., la paginación del artículo).[EN]Safety is a legitimate means of limiting technological innovation in our societies. However, the potential socio-economic impact of curtailing techno-industrial progress on the grounds of safety means that risk governance policies tend to restrict the range of legitimate approaches to safety on the principle that it can only be discussed in the frame of an allegedly objective scientific representation of risk. In European risk governance, socio-economic factors such as the underlying innovation rationales and goals are not openly considered to be related to the constitution of safety, but tend largely to be treated as factors of subjective reaction toward risk and technology. This paper seeks to overcome that approach by proposing a “constitutive” understanding of how risk and socio-economic factors and dynamics relate, focusing in particular on the “safe and responsible” development of nanotechnology in the European Union (EU). I argue that risk is constituted according to socio-economic considerations, and that the controllability of the environmental and health risks of nanotechnology in the EU are assumed on principle in the very strong institutional commitment to the industrial exploitation of nanotechnology R&D. Using a constitutive approach, we may legitimately conceive a broader set of potential safety scenarios, while at the same time highlighting major obstacles to implementing more critical constitutions of techno-industrial risk in the framework of a highly competitive knowledge-based global economy.This work was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness under Grants FFI2011-24414 and FFI2012-33550; and the Basque Government’s Department of Education, Language Policy and Culture under Grant IT644-13. The author would like to thank an anonymous reviewer for helpful feedback and constructive criticism of an earlier version. Any limitations and shortcomings of the work remain the responsibility of the author

Anticipatory responsible innovation: Futures construction in the face of the techno-economic imperative

The call for the development of more responsible research and innovation has increasingly permeated European Union research and development policies. Specifically, under the auspices of approaches such as "Responsible Research and Innovation" (RRI) and "Open Science" these policies conceive of the need to make innovation dynamics radically open and debatable, even with regard to the underlying preferences and expectations shaping them. Responsibility has thus been conceived in eminently anticipatory terms, that is, in terms of collectively taking care in the present of the futures enabled through innovation practices. This normative conception, which emphasises the politicisation of the ways futures are constructed through innovation and goals they are oriented towards, is nonetheless realised within a context where the prevailing way of approaching the future with regard to innovation systems is highly committed to a capitalist imperative of technological progress and economic growth. This article argues that while anticipation - understood as an interventive practice - can deploy valuable responsibilisation heuristics, their degree of disruptiveness, or openness, may depend on how such interventive practice engaging with futures deals with this techno-economic commitment, or imperative

Anticipatory responsible innovation: Futures construction in the face of the techno-economic imperative

The call for the development of more responsible research and innovation has increasingly permeated European Union research and development policies. Specifically, under the auspices of approaches such as “Responsible Research and Innovation” (RRI) and “Open Science”, these policies conceive of the need to make innovation dynamics radically open and debatable, even with regard to the underlying preferences and expectations shaping them. Responsibility has thus been conceived in eminently anticipatory terms, that is, in terms of collectively taking care in the present of the futures enabled through innovation practices. This normative conception, which emphasises the politicisation of the ways futures are constructed through innovation and goals they are oriented towards, is nonetheless realised within a context where the prevailing way of approaching the future with regard to innovation systems is highly committed to a capitalist imperative of technological progress and economic growth. This article argues that while anticipation – understood as an interventive practice – can deploy valuable responsibilisation heuristics, their degree of disruptiveness, or openness, may depend on how such interventive practice engaging with futures deals with this techno-economic commitment, or imperative

Responsible Innovation in the contexts of the European Union and China: Differences, challenges and opportunities

The European Union (EU) has increasingly promoted “Responsible Innovation” (RI) policies in order to better harmonize technological progress with societal interest. RI has also triggered the attention of China, where it is included in the 13th Five-Year National Science and Technology Innovation Program (2016). However, each actor approaches RI in a different way. These differences could arguably be explained by three contextual factors: core values, goals of innovation and institutionalization logic. Taking into account the complex and global character of innovation-related challenges such as climate change, socio-cultural heterogeneity needs to be given serious consideration in order to achieve more effective RI dynamics in terms of anticipation, constituting common visions and goals and developing more coordinated international governance.Author #1’s contribution was supported by the National Natural Science Youth Foundation of China under Grant 71704090; and the China National Postdoctoral Science Foundation under Grant 2017M610097. Author #2’s contribution was supported by the University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU under Grant EHUA15/13; the Basque Government Departments of Education, Language Policy and Culture (under Grant IT644-13) and Education (under Grant IT1205-19); and the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness and the European Regional Development Fund under Grant FFI2015-69792-R

Filosofía y trabajo social a través de una propuesta ABP

Duración (en horas): Más de 50 horas Destinatario: EstudianteEste recurso educativo ha sido diseñado para la asignatura "Filosofía y trabajo social" (6 créditos ECTS), que es una asignatura de tipo obligatorio que se imparte en el segundo cuatrimestre del primer curso del Grado en Trabajo Social. La aplicación del recurso abarca la totalidad de la duración de la asignatura (es decir, el cuatrimestre entero). El objetivo de la propuesta, basada en la metodología "Aprendizaje Basado en Problemas" (ABP), es que el alumnado sea capaz de identificar, valorar y comparar las distintas alternativas de acción del ejercicio profesional del trabajo social en relación a las principales cuestiones epistemológicas, éticas y lógicas que rodean a ese ejercicio. En este caso, el desarrollo de esas competencias se fundamenta en un escenario de intervención profesional centrado en un usuario dependiente del alcohol. Al partir de un escenario problemático verosímil, se pretende que los/as alumnos/as del grado de trabajo social ahonden en los fundamentos filosóficos de la profesión de una manera más práctica y natural