The past and future of RRI

(Re)imagining purpose: A framework for sustainable nanotechnology innovation

To fully understand and predict the impact of nanotechnologies, a truly multidisciplinary approach is required. However, the practicalities relating to how innovation, commercialisation, risk assessment, informatics, and governance in nanotechnology should intersect remain somewhat of a black box. To begin to shed light on this intersection, we identify a need to place 'purpose' at the heart of the nanotechnology innovation ecosystem. There is a growing appetite for responsible, sustainable, and purposeful innovation from business, financiers, regulators, consumers, and other stakeholders - an appetite that we foresee will permeate all spheres of commercialisation, including that of nanotechnology. Ultimately, nanotechnologies will only have the ability to sustainably address the global challenges of the 21st century if they are developed and implemented with purpose, and in full consideration of their social and environmental impacts. We (re)define purpose as it relates to sustainable nanotechnology innovation, in an effort to create a more-broadly shared language that can bridge the diverse stakeholder needs and perspectives that are required to address these challenges. To enable innovation, standardisation, promote interdisciplinarity, increase transparency, and enhance regulatory and corporate accountability, we propose a four stage, principles-based framework for purposeful nanotechnology development. This framework offers a practical way forward for nanotechnology innovation, shedding light on how nano-impact can be approached by multidisciplinary teams and describing how interrelated systems and stakeholders can interact successfully to achieve shared goals.

Responsible innovation in stem cell research: using responsibility as a strategy

Responsible innovation has been introduced as an important condition for advancing the field of regenerative medicine. This is reflected in the frequent references to responsible research conduct and responsible innovation in guidelines and recommendations in academic literature. The meaning of responsibility, how responsibility could be fostered and the context in which responsibilities should be enacted, however, remain unclear. The goal of this paper is to clarify the concept of responsibility in stem cell research and to illustrate how this concept could inform strategies to deal effectively with the ethical implications of stem cell research. Responsibility can be dissected into four categories: responsibility-as-accountability, responsibility-as-liability, responsibility-as-an-obligation and responsibility-as-a-virtue. The authors focus on responsible research conduct and responsible innovation in general to move beyond the scope of research integrity and illustrate that different notions of responsibility have different implications for how stem cell research is organized.

Practice of responsible research and innovation in the formulation and revision of ethical principles of molecular robotics in Japan

The consideration of Ethical, Legal, and Social Issues (ELSI) is essential in technologically advanced countries to maximize benefits and minimize potential risks of emerging science and technologies (S&T). Currently, in scientific policy, discussions about ELSI have been conducted using the framework of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI). This study examines a current and significant case study in Japan, Molecular Robotics (Molbot), to discuss and practice RRI in emerging science. In the case of Molbot, the research community spontaneously set out to create a framework of ethical principles in collaboration with social scientists. This was done by looking at previous similar cases and conducting workshops for the consideration of ELSI in future scenarios. This process of creating and accepting the ethical principles of Molecular Robotics by the community is significant for this field as it shows the appearance of scientific autonomy by Molbot researchers. Furthermore, this process can be regarded as the co-production of knowledge on ELSI and RRI at the early stage of research and development in an interdisciplinary research field and serve as the start of a blueprint for other emerging S&T seeking a favorable relationship with society.

Public Engagement Practices in EC-Funded RRI Projects: Fostering Socio-Scientific Collaborations

The ‘ambiguity’ of Research and Innovation (R&I) within the present contemporary society triggers increasing manifestations of public concerns concerning science. Apart from some implications it has, this mistrust also functions as a stimuli towards integrating the public view and public (social) needs into the development and implementation of R&I policies. With reference to European communities, the European Commission (EC) has provided funding to various projects aiming to capitalise on the concept of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) and the RRI ‘key’ of Public Engagement (PE) in order to engage the public in R&I, enhance a human-centric and inclusive R&I approach, and ultimately foster a mutually responsible relation between science and society. This study aims to examine how PE practices are implemented within the context of EC-funded projects addressing RRI-driven public engagement. Seventeen PE practices that have been implemented during the lifespan of five EC projects were qualitatively and thematically analysed. The identified themes indicate the implementation patterns of PE and contribute to reaching a set of conclusions towards realising a participatory, human-centric and inclusive R&I, fostering in its own turn future socio-scientific collaborations. Policy-makers, researchers, practitioners and stakeholders interested in public engagement in R&I can capitalise on the study’s conclusions and contribute to manifestations of responsible innovation.

Technological Innovation and Agrifood Systems Resilience: The Potential and Perils of Three Different Strategies

The interest in technological innovation has burgeoned in recent years. Theory and research support the vital role of innovative technologies in enhancing agrifood systems resilience. In this theoretical contribution, focusing on different sets of technologies, we present three technological innovation strategies, discuss their potential for strengthening resilience, and expose some open issues that need to be addressed. Responsible technological innovation arose as a response to the growing concerns about the possible unintended impacts of mega-technological trends, like digital farming tools or nanotechnologies, on agrifood systems. Although responsibly innovating is far from easy, and despite the gaps between theoretical ideals and innovation praxis, responsible technological innovation is a promising development since it can prevent counterintuitive effects of technologies on resilience. On the other hand, poly-innovation emerged as a social practice in which internetworking technologies facilitate—and create bundles with—organizational, social, and business innovation. In that strategy, technology represents a mediator of resilience-enhancing social behavior. However, by promoting the uberization of agrifood systems, poly-innovation is associated with various uncertainties. Finally, micro-innovation refers to the incremental adaptations of existing technologies or the development of new ones through bricolage and tinkering. The commercialization of such innovations through open design can increase the resilience of small-scale farming, especially in low-income countries. Nonetheless, the lack of financial resources, technical assistance, and institutional support hamper the full exploitation of micro-innovation.

The 'ethic of knowledge' and responsible science: Responses to genetically motivated racism

This study takes off from the ethical problem that racism grounded in population genetics raises. It is an analysis of four standard scientific responses to the problem of genetically motivated racism, seen in connection with the Human Genome Diversity Project (HGDP): (1) Discriminatory uses of scientific facts and arguments are in principle 'misuses' of scientific data that the researcher cannot be further responsible for. (2) In a strict scientific sense, genomic facts 'disclaim racism', which means that an epistemically correct grasp of genomics should be ethically justified. (3) Ethical difficulties are issues to be 'resolved' by an ethics institution or committee, which will guarantee the ethical quality of the research scrutinized. (4) Although population genetics occasionally may lead to racism, its overall 'value' for humankind justifies its cause as a desirable pursuit. I argue that these typical responses to genetically motivated racism supervene on a principle called the 'ethic of knowledge', which implies that an epistemically correct account has intrinsic ethical value. This principle, and its logically related ideas concerning the ethic of science, effectively avoids a deeper ethical question of responsibility in science from being raised.

Research evaluations for an energy transition? Insights from a review of Swedish research evaluation reports

Energy efficiency is identified as a vital area for addressing sustainability challenges of our time. Governments throughout the world invest vast amounts of resources in research, for advancing knowledge on energy efficiency, and for fostering innovations that can support a transition towards a more sustainable energy system. Evaluation can be an important component in transition processes, for setting directions, assessing outcomes, and enhancing learning. In Sweden, evaluations are undertaken to assess the contribution of energy research to national goals and are also regularly undertaken for individual research programmes and institutions to assess processes and effects. Thus, in a context where evaluations are conducted at different levels and with different objectives, the connectivity between them becomes complex and often unclear. This study focuses on how research is evaluated and how individual evaluations frame and relate the evaluand to an energy transition. By reviewing 20 Swedish evaluations of research for energy efficiency in buildings, we seek to provide insights on the operationalization, analysis, and assessment of the evaluations. The results reveal that evaluations often deploy a systems perspective that frames the initiatives in a larger societal perspective, crucial for supporting a transition. They also highlight a heterogeneity within the undertaking of the evaluation: from a generally wide operationalization—to a more narrow analysis focusing on programme level outcomes—to a wider assessment of impacts and relevance for society and different actors. In all, the full potential of individual research evaluations is still to be harnessed through deliberate evaluation approaches.

Roadmap for Innovators in the Process of Innovation for Development

This study aims to provide valuable insights into the process of innovation for development. We selected the “Reinvent the Toilet Challenge”, an initiative of the Gates Foundation, with the objective of creating sustainable sanitation solutions for the 2.5 billion people across the globe who lack access to safe and affordable sanitation. The Naturally Acceptable and Technologically Sustainable (NATS) team at the Asian Institute of Technology (AIT), Thailand was appointed by the Gates Foundation to serve as an innovative fecal sludge management (FSM) hub in Southeast Asia and collaborate with other researchers in the region, as well as with other teams from around the world to develop innovative FSM techniques that can help to solve the world sanitation problem. By gaining insights into how innovators interact with key stakeholders, we can understand the process of innovation for development and the role of innovation brokers in the innovation process, and then suggest a roadmap from the perspective of responsible research and innovation (RRI) to guide innovators, project leaders, industry partners, local government, and policy makers in the process of innovation for development.

Consolidating RRI and Open Science: understanding the potential for transformative change

In European research and innovation policy, Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) and Open Science (OS) encompass two co-existing sets of ambitions concerning systemic change in the practice of research and innovation. This paper is an exploratory attempt to uncover synergies and differences between RRI and OS, by interrogating what motivates their respective transformative agendas. We offer two storylines that account for the specific contexts and dynamics from which RRI and OS have emerged, which in turn offer entrance points to further unpacking what 'opening up' to society means with respect to the transformative change agendas that are implicit in the two agendas. We compare differences regarding the 'how' of opening up in light of the 'why' to explore common areas of emphasis in both OS and RRI. We argue that while both agendas align with mission-oriented narratives around grand societal challenges, OS tends to emphasize efficiency and technical optimisation over RRI's emphasis on normative concerns and democracy deficits, and that the two agendas thus contrast in their relative legitimate emphasis on doable outcomes versus desirable outcomes. In our conclusion, we reflect on the future outlook for RRI and OS' co-existence and uptake, and on what their respective ambitions for transformation might mean for science-society scholars and scholarship.

Responsible Innovation for Sustainable Development Goals in Business: An Agenda for Cooperative Firms

In this contribution, we explore the possibilities of Responsible Innovation (RI) to assess and support the engagement of businesses in the spectrum of Social and Solidarity Economy (SSE) and, in particular, cooperatives to the implementation of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) at the firm level. We conduct a critical review of the academic literature on sustainable development and responsible innovation, focusing on the role of business to identify how firms in the spectrum of SSE can contribute through responsible innovation to the sustainable development agenda and how firms in the spectrum of SSE can benefit from it. Results suggest that firms can benefit from responsible innovation in the transformation of their business models. On the other hand, firms in the spectrum of SSE contribute to extending the scope of SDGs to business, not focusing on what cooperatives do by their nature (e.g., principles and values), but their contribution to key horizontal enablers (e.g., partnership and innovation) for the integration of firms in the sustainable development agenda. To our knowledge, this is the first time that the relationship between SSE firms and RI is assessed from the perspective of firms’ contribution to SDGs. Further research is needed to sophisticate the translation of particular tools developed in the framework of RI to firms in the spectrum of SSE and, in particular, cooperative firms.

Practices of Responsible Research and Innovation: A Review

This paper presents results of a systematic literature review of RRI practices which aimed to gather insights to further both the theoretical and practical development of RRI. Analysing practices of RRI and mapping out main approaches as well as the values, dimensions or characteristics pursued with those practices, can add to understanding of the more conceptual discussions of RRI and enhance the academic debate. The results, based on a corpus of 52 articles, show that practices already reflect the rich variety of values, dimensions and characteristics provided in the main definitions in use, although not all are addressed yet. In fact, articles dealing with uptake of RRI practices may be improved by including more methodological information. RRI practices may further the conceptual debate by including more reflection, and these may foster mutual responsiveness between theory and practice by early anticipating impacts.

Constructing Alternative Socio-technical Worlds: Re-imagining RRI through SRI in India

While Responsible Research and Innovation has the potential for democratising the governance of research and innovation, translating it in the Global South would need dialogues and engaging with the plural knowledge systems and ongoing experiments on innovation at the margins that seek to construct alternatives. Entrenched power relations in the South do not allow for public dialogues that allows for society to engage with, if not speak back, to scientists in co-creating newer knowledge. Through the case study of the System of Rice Intensification (SRI), an agroecological innovation that arose outside the formal research establishment, we show how vulnerable farming communities can proactively co-create alternatives to existing dilemmas in Indian agriculture. Re-imaging RRI in India, we suggest, requires closer attention to the role of civil society organisations in creating innovation spaces through informal and heterogeneous networks of social learning. Networks, we suggest, allow for better expression of creative dissent that could open newer vistas and alternative framing of knowledge. The RRI agenda is thus incomplete without an engagement with the politics of knowledge, and scientific controversies reveal technological lock-ins that hinders alternative framings and pathways.

Discussion structures as tools for public deliberation

We propose the use of discussion structures as tools for analyzing policy debates in a way that enables the increased participation of lay stakeholders. Discussion structures are argumentation-theoretical tools that can be employed to tackle three barriers that separate lay stakeholders from policy debates: difficulty, magnitude, and complexity. We exemplify the use of these tools on a debate in research policy on the question of responsibility. By making use of discussion structures, we focus on the argumentative moves performed by the parties involved in this debate. We conclude by discussing advantages and limitations of discussion structures and we trace several opportunities for further research on these instruments.

Research Profiling for Responsible and Sustainable Innovations

The issues of responsible and sustainable innovations have been attracting the growing attention of the ranks of scholars in recent years. However, this amassing productivity in the field has not been mapped and profiled thoroughly, yet. Therefore, the aim of the paper is to map the research output related to the concepts of responsible and sustainable innovations with the method of research profiling. The analysis consists of three components: general research profiling, subject area profiling and topic profiling conducted with the use of Scopus database. The research process is directed at answering three research questions: (1) who are the main contributors within the scholarly community? why? so what? (2) how is the research output distributed among subject areas? why? so what? (3) what are the central topics and issues discussed within the research field? why? so what? First of all, key contributing countries, research institutions, journals, and authors are identified in order to characterize the scholarly community working in the field. Secondly, research output is profiled through the prism of respective subject areas. This type of profiling aims at discovering varieties among key journals, authors and core references distributed across various subject areas. Thirdly, topic analysis is conducted in order to point out most crucial aspects studied in the body of literature in the field. The research sample consists of 1,083 publications indexed in Scopus database, including the phrases ‘responsible innovation’ or ‘sustainable innovation’ within their titles, keywords, and abstracts (topic search). The findings from the general research profiling confirm the growing interest of academia in exploring and investigating the issues of responsible and sustainable innovations. The leading contributors in the field are scholars and research institutions from the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Dutch universities and research centers occupy three top three positions in regard to the number of publications. Among them, Delft University of Technology is the unquestionable leader. Journal of Cleaner Production and Journal of Responsible Innovation are found to be the most prolific and highly recognized source titles in the field. Subject area profiling shows a relatively high level of interrelatedness among the four leading subject areas i.e., Business, Management and Accounting, Engineering, Social Sciences, and Environmental Science in regard to authors, source titles and core references. Topic profiling indicates two leading thematic streams in the research field focused on the features and core aspects of responsible and sustainable innovations, and the relationships of the concept with people (human, humans), research, ethics, and technology. Discussion of research findings is focused around comparing and contrasting three overlapping concepts (i.e., responsible research and innovation, responsible innovation, and sustainable innovation), providing the critical assessment of the reasons for the scholarly research to have developed along with certain patterns and identifying unexplored aspects or possible future avenues of research.

Responsible for Responsibility? A Study of Digital E-health Startups

Responsible innovation (RI) has received increased attention from policymakers and academics as a solution to grand challenges and is viewed as the main driver for innovation. The United Nations has suggested 17 Sustainable Development Goals and responsible innovation can be seen as a tool that allows the movement of society towards reducing inequality, coping with environmental challenges and sustaining countries’ economic and societal development. Our knowledge of how businesses act responsibly in solving these challenges is scarce. An inductive analysis of 14 e-health startups in Norway, shows that responsibility is highly prevalent. Entrepreneurs have instant contact with users (patients or healthcare professionals), which increases inclusiveness, anticipation and reflection as the main elements of responsibility. However, firms’ contextual and strategic awareness of responsibility remains low, which means an absence of focused strategies to exercise responsibility. Consequently, entrepreneurial startups are prevented from reaching broader stakeholders and fully reflecting the knowledge obtained. Moreover, RI activities are often bundled with other activities on the “path” to successful commercialization. This paper contributes to and enriches the current RI understanding from a firm perspective and suggests some implications for practitioners as well as policymakers to enhance sustainable development in the healthcare sector.

Devices of Responsibility: Over a Decade of Responsible Research and Innovation Initiatives for Nanotechnologies

Responsible research and innovation (RRI) has come to represent a change in the relationship between science, technology and society. With origins in the democratisation of science, and the inclusion of ethical and societal aspects in research and development activities, RRI offers a means of integrating society and the research and innovation communities. In this article, we frame RRI activities through the lens of layers of science and technology governance as a means of characterising the context in which the RRI activity is positioned and the goal of those actors promoting the RRI activities in shaping overall governance patterns. RRI began to emerge during a time of considerable deliberation about the societal and governance challenges around nanotechnology, in which stakeholders were looking for new ways of integrating notions of responsibility in nanotechnology research and development. For this reason, this article focuses on nanotechnology as the site for exploring the evolution and growth of RRI.

Constructing future scenarios as a tool to foster responsible research and innovation among future synthetic biologists

The emerging field of synthetic biology, the (re-)designing and construction of biological parts, devices and systems for useful purposes, may simultaneously resolve some issues and raise others. In order to develop applications robustly and in the public interest, it is important to organize reflexive strategies of assessment and engagement in early stages of development. Against this backdrop, initiatives related to the concept of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) have also appeared. This paper describes such an initiative: the construction of future scenarios to explore the plausibility and desirability of potential synthetic biology innovations. We guided teams of synthetic biology students who participated in the large international Genetically Engineered Machines (iGEM) competition, in constructing scenarios aimed at exploring the plausibility and desirability of potential synthetic biology innovations. In this paper we aim to examine to what extent, and how, constructing such future scenarios contributes to RRI. In order to do so, we conducted observations and interviews to understand what kind of learning and reflection was promoted by constructing the scenarios in terms of four dimensions, which are discussed prominently in the literature on RRI: anticipation, inclusion, reflexivity and responsiveness. While we focus on how constructing future scenarios can contribute to strengthening RRI at a project (and individual) level, we also consider how far our experiment may foster RRI in the iGEM competition in general, and perhaps even inspire constructive collaboration between 'social scientists' and 'natural scientists' in the context of larger scientific research programmes.

Anticipating health innovations in 2030-2040: Where does responsibility lie for the publics?

Considering that public engagement is pivotal to the mission of Responsible Research and Innovation, this article's aim is to examine how members of the public conceive of the relationship between responsibility and prospective health technologies. We organized four face-to-face deliberative workshops and an online forum wherein participants were invited to comment on scenarios involving three fictional technologies in 2030 and 2040. Our analyses describe how participants anticipated these technologies' impacts and formulated two conditions for their use: they should (1) be embedded within professional care and services and (2) include social protection of individual freedom and privacy. By clarifying what technological direction shall be avoided and who shall act responsibly, these conditions emphasize our participants' understanding of society as much as their understanding of science. For new technologies to be deployed in socially responsible ways, public engagement methods should be developed alongside public governance and regulatory strategies.

Risk analysis and technology assessment in support of technology development: Putting responsible innovation in practice in a case study for nanotechnology

Governments invest in "key enabling technologies," such as nanotechnology, to solve societal challenges and boost the economy. At the same time, governmental agencies demand risk reduction to prohibit any often unknown adverse effects, and industrial parties demand smart approaches to reduce uncertainties. Responsible research and innovation (RRI) is therefore a central theme in policy making. Risk analysis and technology assessment, together referred to as "RATA," can provide a basis to assess human, environmental, and societal risks of new technological developments during the various stages of technological development. This assessment can help both governmental authorities and innovative industry to move forward in a sustainable manner. Here we describe the developed procedures and products and our experiences to bring RATA in practice within a large Dutch nanotechnology consortium. This is an example of how to put responsible innovation in practice as an integrated part of a research program, how to increase awareness of RATA, and how to help technology developers perform and use RATA. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2018;14:9-16. © 2017 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC).

Working with bacteria and putting bacteria to work: The biopolitics of synthetic biology for energy in the United Kingdom

The UK government has made significant investment into so called 'fourth-generation' biofuel technologies. These biofuels are based on engineering the metabolic pathways of bacteria in order to create products compatible with existing infrastructure. Bacteria play an important role in what is promoted as a potentially new biological industrial revolution, which could address some of the negative environmental legacies of the last. This article presents results from ethnographic research with synthetic biologists who are challenged with balancing the curiosity-driven and intrinsically fulfilling scientific task of working with bacteria, alongside the policy-driven task of putting bacteria to work for extrinsic economic gains. In addition, the scientists also have to balance these demands with a new research governance framework, Responsible Research and Innovation, which envisions technoscientific innovation will be responsive to societal concerns and work in collaboration with stakeholders and members of the public. Major themes emerging from the ethnographic research revolve around stewardship, care, responsibility and agency. An overall conflict surfaces between individual agents assuming responsibility for 'stewarding' bacteria, against funding systems and structures imposing responsibility for economic growth. We discuss these findings against the theoretical backdrop of a new concept of 'energopolitics' and an anthropology of ethics and responsibility.

Reflection as a Deliberative and Distributed Practice: Assessing Neuro-Enhancement Technologies via Mutual Learning Exercises (MLEs)

In 1968, Jürgen Habermas claimed that, in an advanced technological society, the emancipatory force of knowledge can only be regained by actively recovering the 'forgotten experience of reflection'. In this article, we argue that, in the contemporary situation, critical reflection requires a deliberative ambiance, a process of mutual learning, a consciously organised process of deliberative and distributed reflection. And this especially applies, we argue, to critical reflection concerning a specific subset of technologies which are actually oriented towards optimising human cognition (neuro-enhancement). In order to create a deliberative ambiance, fostering critical upstream reflection on emerging technologies, we developed (in the context of a European 7^th Framework Programme project on neuro-enhancement and responsible research and innovation, called NERRI) the concept of a mutual learning exercise (MLE). Building on a number of case studies, we analyse what an MLE involves, both practically and conceptually, focussing on key aspects such as ambiance and expertise, the role of 'genres of the imagination' and the profiles of various 'subcultures of debate'. Ideally, an MLE becomes a contemporary version of the Socratic agora, providing a stage where multiple and sometimes unexpected voices and perspectives mutually challenge each other, in order to strength-en the societal robustness and responsiveness of emerg-ing technologies.

A Mobilising Concept? Unpacking Academic Representations of Responsible Research and Innovation

This paper makes a plea for more reflexive attempts to develop and anchor the emerging concept of responsible research and innovation (RRI). RRI has recently emerged as a buzzword in science policy, becoming a focus of concerted experimentation in many academic circles. Its performative capacity means that it is able to mobilise resources and spaces despite no common understanding of what it is or should be 'made of'. In order to support reflection and practice amongst those who are interested in and using the concept, this paper unpacks understandings of RRI across a multi-disciplinary body of peer-reviewed literature. Our analysis focuses on three key dimensions of RRI (motivations, theoretical conceptualisations and translations into practice) that remain particularly opaque. A total of 48 publications were selected through a systematic literature search and their content was qualitatively analysed. Across the literature, RRI is portrayed as a concept that embeds numerous features of existing approaches to govern and assess emerging technologies. Our analysis suggests that its greatest potential may be in its ability to unify and provide political momentum to a wide range of long-articulated ethical and policy issues. At the same time, RRI's dynamism and resulting complexity may represent its greatest challenge. Further clarification on what RRI has to offer in practice-beyond what has been offered to date-is still needed, as well as more explicit engagement with research and institutional cultures of responsibility. Such work may help to realise the high political expectations that are attached to nascent RRI.

ELSA and RRI--Editorial

This editorial presents the background for the article collection 'ELSA and RRI'. It sets the stage for the topics discussed in the collection and briefly presents the different contributions. It concludes by opening up for continued discussion of the relations between ELSA and RRI.