Paper long abstract:

Developing better technology and innovation processes and outcomes that reflect both excellent science and the incorporation of societal values and needs is increasingly framed as Responsible Research and Innovation. RRI involves a shift in responsibility; a shift of thinking in terms of individualist and consequentialist notions of responsibility to thinking in terms of collective and distributed responsibility. In RRI literature, responsibility is understood as responsible process and acceptable outcome. In practice, a methodology to identify and classify responsible research and innovation efforts still misses. Within the EU FP7 project RRI Tools, we started the development of such methodology by identifying key characteristics of RRI in terms of process requirements and outcomes and integrating them into a working definition of RRI.

We separate outcomes of RRI into learning outcomes (engaged publics, responsible actors and responsible institutions), research and innovation outcomes (ethically acceptable research and innovation, sustainable research and innovation and societally desirable research and innovation) and societal outcomes (solutions to Grand Challenges). The process requirements refer to the research and innovation process itself (diversity), the relationship of research and innovation to the societal context (inclusion, meaningful openness), the possible and desirable future outcomes (anticipation, reflection) and the aspired courses of action (responsiveness, adaptive change). Operationalisation of these outcomes and process requirements will provide a basis for the identification and classification of practices in RRI.

Paper long abstract:

Emerging technologies, such as nanotechnologies show promise to address the grand challenges of providing clean water, low-carbon energy, and abundant food supplies. Despite such promise, evidence suggests that contemporary approaches to nanotechnology innovation and governance over-emphasize commercial value, not public value in water, energy and food sectors. Responsible innovation is currently conceptualized as a set of 'good' processes including anticipation, engagement, reflexivity and responsiveness. However, these processes remain silent to the question of "to what end", which is too often absent regarding the normative objectives of innovation. This study aims to synthesize process-oriented responsibilities, as well as responsibilities as objectives. This article attempts to sink a strong normative anchor into the shifting sands of responsible innovation. Exemplary responsibilities are operationalized for relevant stakeholder groups, across the phases of nanotechnology innovation. The framework is tested with empirical evidence of stakeholders' responsibilities. The synthesis offers both a design framework for the governance of emerging technologies and an assessment tool to evaluate and reform current governance structures.

Paper long abstract:

Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) is a relatively new and still developing approach within the debate about the organization and steering of research processes as well as of STI policy. In evolving frameworks for RRI, public engagement and deliberation processes are integral elements which are supposed to support the creation of socially robust knowledge and to open up research and innovation processes. The aim of this contribution is to present research results based on an examination of the recently introduced RRI Unit within the Fraunhofer Society, where elaborated participatory methods are developed and implemented. In line with the project Res-AGorA, in which the authors are involved and which seeks to develop a governance framework for RRI, this contribution assesses the role public engagement can play within such a future governance framework. In order to do this, we examine explicit and implicit understandings of engagement processes and mechanisms and assess the governance arrangements in place, actors involved and de facto governance practices. While doing this, two interrelated levels of analysis are of relevance. First, we want to learn something THROUGH engagement by analyzing translations between the societal sphere (represented by individual citizens) and decision-making in questions related to science, technology and innovation. What needs to be considered here are, e.g., type and degree of institutionalization of public engagement as well as predominant power structures. Second, we also want to learn ABOUT engagement by taking into account potential changes in understandings of processes and actors and the role of public engagement as a governance tool.

Paper long abstract:

Responsible research and innovation as a concept holds the ambition to steer scientific and innovation endeavors towards more societally desirable ends, incorporating societal perspectives along the way. The move towards RRI entails a shift from individual to collective responsibility. Responsibility is regarded as responsible process and acceptable outcome. A major challenge is to decide when a research and innovation project is to be considered responsible with respect to process and outcome. The EU FP7 project RRI Tools crafted a working definition for RRI consisting of a list of process requirements and outcomes. Here, we use this conceptualization of RRI to evaluate the Dutch RRI project "Neurosciences in Dialogue" that focused on the responsible use of neuroimaging in the respective domains of healthcare, education and justice & security, domain of security and justice. In this project researchers and societal stakeholders have been involved in an interactive learning process to stimulate developments towards shared desirable applications with few, or at least manageable, negative impacts. The formulation of context-specific challenges will help us to critically delineate the key aspects of RRI and to assess the value for each. In remaining critical of the added value of RRI as a concept, and the key requirements through which RRI can be made practical and feasible, there is the opportunity to circumvent RRI becoming business as usual.

Paper long abstract:

The "RRI" label was coined by the DG Research of the European Commission in the '2000s and it is part of on-going reflection on changing relations between Research, Innovation, and the wider Society. In so-called "knowledge societies", innovation is considered as the solution to important societal challenges; at the same time legitimization of innovation is at issue since, in so-called "risk societies", there is a strong attention to its negative effects (be they direct/indirect, intentional or not). In this perspective, one of the key questions is related to the possible (medium to long term) effects of RRI. This question may be framed as an issue of institutionalization and we may want to consider how RRI, as an emergent field, comes along with new actors, discourses, competences, practices, rules, standards, etc. A first step in this research developed within the ResAGorA FP7 project consisted in studying the academic literature with a scientometric methodology. A second step, presented here, consisted in the quali-quanti analysis of the main published documents, be they academic or not, which use the 'RRI' label. A content ('RRI' definition used, stakes, conceptual references, etc.) and meta-data (type of document, authors' status, institutions, etc.) analysis allowed us to look for possible relationships between them all. Of course, such a scope is limited since RRI emerges in various spaces and not only within the published arena (e.g. also in blogs, press articles…). However, this analysis allows us to formulate a first set of hypothesis on the possible futures of RRI.

Paper long abstract:

Ex-ante assessments and ex-post evaluations are not only instruments for quality control of research, development and innovation projects, but, much more, mechanisms to shape and steer research whole policy programmes. This paper turns to the European Security Research Programme (ESRP) and its pursuit of high-tech surveillance, detection and pattern recognition technologies. It examines the (in-)adequacy of the existing evaluation and assessment instruments to guarantee that the ESRP delivers on its primary objective, that is, enhancing security in society. Instead, predominant frames of innovation as a growth-oriented and market-driven endeavour mislead toward promoting industrial leadership and export competitiveness at the cost of demand-driven understandings of challenges, desirable goals, and acceptable procedures of R&D. Despite the fact that civil security features as a "societal challenge", it is evaluated and assessed along econometric indicators, and not along its societal impact, while civil societal stakeholders are absent from the policy formulation process. The institutionalisation of participative Societal Impact Assessments could provide, first, alternative problem definitions and prioritisations; Second, they should generate awareness about 2nd-order non-intended effects of the high-tech solutions themselves; Third, they should foster a more legitimate, accountable, and fair (in terms of benefit- and risk-sharing) research process. The author draws upon official EU policy documents, such as programmatic papers, assessments, and interim evaluations, upon his experience from a multi-stakeholder EU security research project, as well as upon his participation as an evaluator and expert at consultations on the ethical and societal impact assessment of the ESRP.