Social labs as temporary intermediary learning organizations to help implement complex normative policies.:The case of Responsible Research and Innovation in European science governance

Purpose: This study aims to discuss science governance in Europe and the network of associated nonprofit institutions. The authors posit that this network, which comprises both (partial) learning organizations and non-learning organizations, has been observed to postpone taking up “responsibility” as an issue in science governance and funding decisions. Design/methodology/approach: This paper discusses the challenge of learning and policy implementation within the European science governance system. By exploring how learning on responsible innovation (RI) in this governance system can be provoked, it addresses the question how Senge’s insights in organizational learning can clarify discourses on and practices of RI and responsibility in research. This study explores the potential of a new organizational form, that of Social Labs, to support learning on Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) in standing governance organizations. Findings: This study concludes that Social Labs are a suitable format for enacting the five disciplines as identified by Senge, and a Social Lab may turn into a learning organization, be it a temporary one. Responsibility in research and innovation is conducive for learning in the setting of a Social Lab, and Social Labs act as intermediary organizations, which not merely pass on information among actors but also actively give substantive shape to what they convey from a practice-informed, normative orientation. Research limitations/implications: This empirical work on RRI-oriented Social Labs therefore suggests that Social Lab–oriented temporary, intermediary learning organizations present a promising form for implementing complex normative policies in a networked, nonhierarchical governance setting. Practical implications: Based on this research funding and governance organizations in research, policy-makers in other domains may take up and create such intermediary organizations to aid learning in (science) governance. Social implications: This research suggests that RRI-oriented Social Labs present a promising form for implementing complex normative policies, thus integrate learning on and by responsible practices in various governance settings. Originality/value: European science governance is characterized by a network of partial Learning Organization (LOs) and Non-Learning Organization (nLOs) who postpone decision-making on topics around “responsibility” and “solving societal challenges” or delegate authority to reviewers and individual actors, filtering possibilities for collaborative transformation toward RRI. social lab (SLs) are spaces that can address social problems or social challenges in an open, action-oriented and creative manner. As such, they may function as temporary, intermediary LOs bringing together diverse actors from a specific context to work on and learn about issues of science and society where standing organizations avoid doing so. Taken together, SLs may offer temporary organizational structures and spaces to move beyond top-down exercise of power or lack of real change to more open, deliberative and creative forms of sociopolitical coordination between multiple actors cutting across realms of state, practitioners of research and innovation and civil society. By taking the role of temporary LOs, they may support existing research and innovation organizations and research governance to become more flexible and adaptive.</p

Safe and Sound? Scientists’ Understandings of Public Engagement in Emerging Biotechnologies

Science communication is a widely debated issue, particularly in the field of biotechnology. However, the views on the interface between science and society held by scientists who work in the field of emerging biotechnologies are currently insufficiently explored. Therefore filling this gap is one of the urgent desiderata in the further development of a dialogue-oriented model of science-public interaction. Against this background, this article addresses two main questions: (1) How do the persons who work in the field of science perceive the public and its involvement in science? (2) What preferred modes of communication are stressed by those scientists? This research is based on a set of interviews with full professors from the field of biotechnology with a special focus on synthetic biology. The results show that scientists perceive the public as holding a primarily risk-focused view of science. On the one hand, different forms of science communication are thereby either seen as a chance to improve the public acceptance of science in general and one field of research in particular. On the other hand, the exchange with the public is seen as a duty because the whole of society is affected by scientific innovation. Yet, some of the stakeholders' views discussed here conflict with debates on public engagement in technological innovation

The synthetic biology puzzle: a qualitative study on public reflections towards a governance framework, in: Systems and Synthetic Biology

Synthetic biology is currently one of the most debated emerging biotechnologies. The societal assessment of this technology is primarily based on contributions by scientists and policy makers, who focus mainly on technical challenges and possible risks. While public dialogue is given, it is yet rather limited. This study explores public debates concerning synthetic biology based on a focus group study with citizens from Austria and Germany and contextualises the analysed public views with content from policy reports and previous empirical studies on public engagement. The findings suggest that discussants favoured a gradual implementation process of synthetic biology, which is receptive to questions about the distribution of possible benefits. The discussed topics correspond in many ways with content from policy reports and former investigations, yet the emphasis of the discussions was different for many aspects

The privacy-reciprocity connection in biobanking: Comparing German with UK strategies.

In recent years, the adequacy of the &#39;gift&#39; model of research participation has been increasingly questioned. This study used focus groups to explore how potential and actual participants of biobanks in the UK and Germany negotiate the relationship between concerns over privacy protection, reciprocity and benefit sharing. In Germany, 15 focus groups (n = 151) were conducted: 11 general public groups (n = 116) and 4 with former cohort study participants including the KORA and the Popgen cohort study (n = 35). In the UK, 9 focus groups (n = 61) were conducted: 4 general public groups (n = 33) and 5 with UK Biobank and European Huntington&#39;s Disease (Euro-HD) Registry biorepository participants (n = 28). Forms of reciprocity were found to partially mitigate potential and actual biobank participants&#39; concerns over personal privacy risks and future unintended consequences of biobank in both Germany and the UK. Specifically, notions of individual reciprocity were at the forefront in the context of personal disadvantages to participation, while communal reciprocity was prominent when potential and actual participants were discussing the uncertainty of the long-term nature of biobanking. The research indicates that reciprocity can be viewed as a mode to deal with individuals&#39; concerns about participating in a biobank, both by acting as a return &#39;favor&#39; or &#39;gift,&#39; and through establishing an ongoing relationship between participants, researchers and society. It is suggested that future biobanking projects will need to flexibly combine individual and communal forms of reciprocity if they are to recruit and maintain sufficient numbers of participants