Paper short abstract:

How is social science considered in the innovation policies of Australia and the EU? This paper considers how social science can promote innovations that respond to social needs through four modes: ownership, alliance building, deliberation, and contemplation.

Paper long abstract:

Governing agencies in many advanced countries have responded to recent health and environmental controversies by calling for the integration of social scientists into a variety of scientific and technical research settings. Often, these integrated projects have lead to a frustration that "too many in the physical and life sciences dismiss social sciences as having a 'service' role, being allowed to observe what they do but not disturb it" (Viseu 2015). This paper contributes to 'post-ELSI' (Rabinow and Bennett 2012) discussions of public participation (Chilvers and Kearnes 2015) in two ways. First, I consider the roll of social science in innovation policies of Australia and the EU. I argue the Sept 2015 rollout of a 'National Innovation and Science Agenda' in Australia lacks any reference to social use, values or needs, instead promoting the privatisation of knowledge. This suggests an intensification of 'venture science' in which economic value and scientific facts are coproduced (Rajan 2006). Secondly, the paper then examines lessons from the EU, included the RRI framework, to consider ways social science can capitalise on its integrated, if subordinated, 'care' role (Martin, Myers et al. 2015) to promote innovations that respond to social needs in new ways. The paper uses practical examples to interrogate four interacting modes of responsibility across European and Australian institutions: ownership, alliance building, deliberation, and contemplation. These four axes beg the question of how integrated social science might be subject to RRI in addition to being an agent of democratisation or beacon of public values.