A Conceptual Proposal for Responsible Innovation

International audienceThe concept of Responsible Innovation holds that any innovation should take into account the balance of economic, ethical, social and sustainable aspects throughout the entire project in a manner that shows care for the future being constructed. However, as this concept is recent, originates in the context of the European Union and addresses issues of the Global North, critics have called for improvements in the way the concept is formulated. This article aims to establish a broader perspective to support the development of the concept of Responsible Innovation, which means discussing its main premises to highlight its critical aspects related to contextual terms, supporting a view to adapt it for use in different countries under various requirements and circumstances, thus facilitating its implementation on the path to innovation. Thus, an integrative review was developed. From an analysis of articles chosen based on research criteria, a useful theoretical framework was formed to fill the gaps in Responsible Innovation , comparing its perspectives to a traditional innovation, establishing a concept capable of yielding the expected benefits

Responsible Reporting: Neuroimaging News in the Age of Responsible Research and Innovation

Besides offering opportunities in both clinical and non-clinical domains, the application of novel neuroimaging technologies raises pressing dilemmas. 'Responsible Research and Innovation' (RRI) aims to stimulate research and innovation activities that take ethical and social considerations into account from the outset. We previously identified that Dutch neuroscientists interpret "responsible innovation" as educating the public on neuroimaging technologies via the popular press. Their aim is to mitigate (neuro)hype, an aim shared with the wider emerging RRI community. Here, we present results of a media-analysis undertaken to establish whether the body of articles in the Dutch popular press presents balanced conversations on neuroimaging research to the public. We found that reporting was mostly positive and framed in terms of (healthcare) progress. There was rarely a balance between technology opportunities and limitations, and even fewer articles addressed societal or ethical aspects of neuroimaging research. Furthermore, neuroimaging metaphors seem to favour oversimplification. Current reporting is therefore more likely to enable hype than to mitigate it. How can neuroscientists, given their self-ascribed social responsibility, address this conundrum? We make a case for a collective and shared responsibility among neuroscientists, journalists and other stakeholders, including funders, committed to responsible reporting on neuroimaging research