Public perceptions and community issues

This paper is the seventh in a series of 8 that make up the evidence base for SDC report 'The role of nuclear power in a low carbon economy'.Publisher PD

Responsible innovation and the reshaping of existing technological trajectories: the hard case of genetically modified crops

In this article, I argue that if frameworks of responsible innovation are to prove successful in aligning innovation dynamics with societal values, they will have to demonstrate their capacities to shape existing technological trajectories, alongside those that remain ‘in-the-making’. Reporting on a major research project as written up in the edited volume, Governing Agricultural Sustainability, I outline the dynamics of and responses to genetically modified (GM) crops in three Global South settings – in Brazil on GM soya, in India on GM cotton and in Mexico on GM maize. Using the ‘anticipation-inclusion-reflexivity-responsiveness’ (AIRR) framework, I explore the potential of responsible innovation to reconfigure the debate on the governance of GM foods and crops and to move the debate away from its current polemic and impasse

An unfinished journey? Reflections on a decade of responsible research and innovation

We reflect on a decade of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) as a discourse emerging from the European Commission (EC) 10 years ago. We discuss the foundations for RRI, its emergence during the Seventh Framework programme and its subsequent evolution during Horizon 2020. We discuss how an original vision for RRI became framed around five so-called ‘keys’: gender, open access, science communication, ethics and public engagement. We consider the prospects for RRI within the context of the EC’s Open Science agenda and Horizon Europe programme, before closing with some reflections on the contribution RRI has made to debates concerning the relationship between science, innovation and society over the last decade.</p

An unfinished journey? Reflections on a decade of responsible research and innovation, Journal of Responsible Innovation

We reflect on a decade of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) as a discourse emerging from the European Commission (EC) 10 years ago. We discuss the foundations for RRI, its emergence during the Seventh Framework programme and its subsequent evolution during Horizon 2020. We discuss how an original vision for RRI became framed around five so-called ‘keys’: gender, open access, science communication, ethics and public engagement. We consider the prospects for RRI within the context of the EC’s Open Science agenda and Horizon Europe programme, before closing with some reflections on the contribution RRI has made to debates concerning the relationship between science, innovation and society over the last decade

The politics of knowledge in inclusive development and innovation

This book develops an integrated perspective on the practices and politics of making knowledge work in inclusive development and innovation. While debates about development and innovation commonly appeal to the authority of academic researchers, many current approaches emphasize the plurality of actors with relevant expertise for addressing livelihood challenges. Adopting an action-oriented and reflexive approach, this volume explores the variety of ways in which knowledge works, paying particular attention to dilemmas and controversies. The six parts of the book address the complex interplay of knowledge and politics, starting with the need for knowledge integration in the first part and decolonial perspectives on the politics of knowledge integration in the second part. The following three parts focus on the practices of inclusive development and innovation through three major themes of transformative learning, evidence, and digitization. The final part of the book addresses the governance of knowledge and innovation in the light of political struggles about inclusivity. Exploring conceptual and practical themes through case studies from the Global North and South, this book will be of great interest to students, scholars and practitioners researching and working in development studies, epistemology, innovation studies, science and technology studies and sustainability studies more broadly

What’s wrong with global challenges?

Global challenges such as climate change, food security, or public health have become dominant concerns in research and innovation policy. This article examines how responses to these challenges are addressed by governance actors. We argue that appeals to global challenges can give rise to a ‘solution strategy’ that presents responses of dominant actors as solutions and a ‘negotiation strategy’ that highlights the availability of heterogeneous and often conflicting responses. On the basis of interviews and document analyses, the study identifies both strategies across local, national, and European levels. While our results demonstrate the co-existence of both strategies, we find that global challenges are most commonly highlighted together with the solutions offered by dominant actors. Global challenges are ‘wicked problems’ that often become misframed as ‘tame problems’ in governance practice and thereby legitimise dominant responses

What's wrong with global challenges?

Global challenges such as climate change, food security, or public health have become dominant concerns in research and innovation policy. This article examines how responses to these challenges are addressed by governance actors. We argue that appeals to global challenges can give rise to a ‘solution strategy’ that presents responses of dominant actors as solutions and a ‘negotiation strategy’ that highlights the availability of heterogeneous and often conflicting responses. On the basis of interviews and document analyses, the study identifies both strategies across local, national, and European levels. While our results demonstrate the co-existence of both strategies, we find that global challenges are most commonly highlighted together with the solutions offered by dominant actors. Global challenges are ‘wicked problems’ that often become misframed as ‘tame problems’ in governance practice and thereby legitimise dominant responses

The societal roles and responsibilities of plant scientists in the context of genome-edited crops

Societal Impact Statement The societal debate on the use of genome-edited crops has been polarised from the start. While policymakers struggle to democratically resolve this dilemma, plant scientists have been criticised for taking up advocative roles and thereby risking further polarisation. This study demonstrates how plant scientists themselves perceive their roles and responsibilities. Indeed, those scientists active in the debate were found to fulfil advocative roles, and there seems to be an underlying, persistent?and very traditional?view on roles and responsibilities of scientists within the community. Critical reflection on this view is required for better democratic dialogue and decision-making. More interdisciplinary interaction could facilitate this reflection. Summary In this paper, we examine how plant scientists from Wageningen University and Research (WUR) demarcate their roles and responsibilities in relation to the societal impact of their research, in response to calls for public legitimacy of their research, and within the societal debate on the governance of genome-edited crops (GE crops) in Europe. We analysed 16 semi-structured interviews, 5-day journals, and (social) media contributions of plant scientists at WUR. Our study demonstrates that the perceived roles and responsibilities of the interviewees were aligned with the ideal of the scientist as value-free, as separate from society, and as producing knowledge that leads to unproblematic societal benefits through industry. When confronted with the polarised debate on the governance of genome editing (GE) technology, the reflexivity that our respondents had demonstrated in general, tended to be dispersed. Respondents rarely considered the GE crop debate, or their own position, to be value-based. Those respondents active in the debate were found to fulfil advocative roles, and they struggled to recognise the validity of viewpoints other than their own. We hypothesise that this decreased reflexive capacity is a product of the long-term polarisation of the GM/GE debate, mediated by both their conceptual alignment with the linear model of innovation and their limited interactions outside of their field. In order to better align the perspectives of social and natural scientists on the topic of science-responsibility, and to constructively contribute to the debate on GE crops, we argue for more interaction between the these two communities

Inovação responsável através de fronteiras: tensões, paradoxos e possibilidades

In March 2014 a group of early career researchers and academics from São Paulo state and from the UK met at the University of Campinas to participate in a workshop on ‘Responsible Innovation and the Governance of Socially Controversial Technologies’. In this Perspective we describe key reflections and observations from the workshop discussions, paying particular attention to the discourse of responsible innovation from a cross-cultural perspective. We describe a number of important tensions, paradoxes and opportunities that emerged over the three days of the workshop

Nanotechnology, governance, and public deliberation: What role for the Social Sciences?

In this article we argue that nanotechnology represents an extraordinary opportunity to build in a robust role for the social sciences in a technology that remains at an early, and hence undetermined, stage of development. We examine policy dynamics in both the United States and United Kingdom aimed at both opening up, and closing down, the role of the social sciences in nanotechnologies. We then set out a prospective agenda for the social sciences and its potential in the future shaping of nanotechnology research and innovation processes. The emergent, undetermined nature of nanotechnologies calls for an open, experimental, and interdisciplinary model of social science research