The Ebola epidemic in West Africa between 2014 and 2015 was the deadliest since the discovery of the virus four decades ago. With the second-largest outbreak of Ebola virus disease currently raging in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, (DRC) it is clear that lessons from the past can be quickly forgotten—or be incomplete in the first instance. In this article, we seek to understand the health challenges facing marginalised people by elaborating on the multiple dimensions of marginalisation in the case of the West Africa Ebola epidemic. We trace and unpack modes of marginalisation, beginning with the "outbreak narrative" and its main components and go on to examine other framings, including the prioritisation of the present over the past, the positioning of 'Us versus Them'; and the marginalisation—in responses to the outbreak—of traditional medicine, cultural practices and other practices around farming and hunting. Finally, we reflect on the 'lessons learned' framing, highlighting what is included and what is left out. In conclusion, we stress the need to acknowledge—and be responsive to—the ethical, normative framings of such marginalisation. ; publishedVersion
AbstractThe Collingridge dilemma—the problem of reacting to emerging technology either "too early" or "too late"—is one that is readily recognized by developers and promoters of nanotechnologies. One response can be found in the rise of a discourse of "responsible development" in the science and innovation policy landscape. While a number of commentators have discussed the potential of such initiatives, it remains unclear how responsible development is actually being configured "on the ground," in private sector nanotechnology. This paper addresses this question by analyzing empirical engagements in Europe and the United States in order to map industry operationalizations of "responsibility" in these contexts. We show that a number of different articulations of "responsibility" are present, including as a response to public lack of trust and perceived public pressure, and as the management of risk. We close by relating these findings to the theoretical literature on responsibility, other contemporary accounts of the ways in which responsible development can be operationalized, and the possibilities that these articulations of responsibility may open up.
AbstractIn 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 ondoableoutcomes versusdesirableoutcomes. 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.
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. ; CSE would like to acknowledge previous research carried out as part of the Responsible Research and Innovation in Practice (RRI-Practice) project, funded by the European Commission's Horizon 2020 Science with and for Society programme (grant no. 709637). RN would like to acknowledge funding from the Programme on Responsible Innovation and Corporate Social Responsibility at The Research Council of Norway (Crosssover reseach 2 grant no. 247727). ; publishedVersion
International audience ; 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 the activity in shaping 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 realm for exploring the evolution and growth of RRI.
International audience ; 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 the activity in shaping 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 realm for exploring the evolution and growth of RRI.
Responsible research and innovation (RRI) has emerged in recent years, especially in Europe, as a science policy framework that (a) seeks to align technological innovation with broader social values and (b) supports institutional decisions concerning the goals and trajectories of research and innovation under conditions of uncertainty, ambiguity and ignorance. Rather than relying simply on consumer choice and market mechanisms on the one hand, or risk-based regulation on the other, RRI seeks to determine what constitute the goals, purposes and trajectories of (and alternatives to) technoscience and innovation, and thus the directions towards which these should be oriented, suggesting that these should be underpinned by shared public values. In addition to this overall philosophy of RRI, the European Commission has focused on five constituent policy keys (sometimes called pillars) of RRI that have their historical roots in the Science-in-Society programme; namely societal engagement, gender in research, open access, science education, and ethics. Action on these keys is seen as integral to an RRI approach and to Europe's ability to respond to societal challenges. A further issue in the European context concerns how to 'federate' the RRI community in the EU and promote institutional changes to foster RRI in research institutions (a topic addressed at the European Commission RRI conference in Rome November 2014). This implies engaging stakeholders, research organisations, universities, funding agencies and public authorities in RRI. Some European research conducting and research funding organisations have begun to make formal policy commitments to RRI; others have developed RRI programmes and others still have embedded explicit RRI elements within broader programmes of emerging technologies and innovation. The European Commission's 'open to the world' agenda implies involving non-European countries in the RRI discourse. However, beyond Europe, in emerging economies in the Global South (Brazil, India and China) and also in some advanced economies (Japan, Australia), there is little awareness of the concept of RRI, although some elements of the EC's constituent keys have been taken up as thematic priorities by national research organisations. Considerable work needs to be done before RRI is recognised as a concept that offers traction in non-European contexts and research initiatives. There is a dearth of research that has assessed the challenges, efficacy and impact of the ongoing programmes on RRI, partly due to a lack of standardised methodologies that would be required to produce comparative results, and partly because these initiatives are themselves quite new. The project Responsible Research and Innovation in Practice (RRI-Practice), funded by the European Commission Horizon 2020 Science-with-and-for-Society programme (grant no 709 637), is an attempt to respond to this situation. The RRI-Practice project intends to advance European and global awareness of RRI, support its implementation in practice and provide a solid empirical knowledge base on RRI implementation. The main aim of RRI-Practice is to analyse RRI related discourses and pathways to implementation, including barriers and drivers, in a number of research conducting and research funding organisations worldwide, in order to identify, understand, disseminate and promote RRI implementation best practices that can be scaled up at European and global levels. The project started September 2016 and has so far concentrated on mapping the national RRI discourse in the 12 partner countries. As part of this work, national workshops have been held. This paper will present the analytic concept of the project and the results from the workshops, and will reflect on challenges identified in the work so far. ; publishedVersion
This book offers the policy-maker or decision-maker key insights and practical information regarding the features of ethics frameworks best suited to the ethical assessment of human cognitive enhancement (HCE) applications, such as pharmaceutical cognitive enhancers and noninvasive brain stimulation techniques. This book takes as its departure point the entrenched philosophical debate between opponents and proponents of HCE and the increased feasibility of some applications of HCE. Recent calls for policy-making in the area of human enhancement reflect the need to find a balance between addressing current ethical issues and issues that are more speculative in nature or are underpinned by abstract philosophical concepts. Practical ethical approaches for policy or decision-making should enable the development of an evidence base for the risks and benefits of HCE applications. Moreover, such practical approaches should also incorporate a broader range of value bases that would facilitate convergence regarding certain decisions and judgements. This book identifies and evaluate tools that help us to go beyond polarised philosophical debates in order to assist practical decision makers in concrete ethical deliberation and decision-making. The focus is on systematic methods with which to identify relevant ethical values and assess the impacts of an HCE application on those values in order to facilitate decision-making regarding the ethical acceptability or desirability of the application
Zugriffsoptionen:
Die folgenden Links führen aus den jeweiligen lokalen Bibliotheken zum Volltext:
Leading RRI researchers and practitioners, together with policymakers and stakeholder organisations, discussed the state-of-the-art and future perspectives for RRI at the 'Pathways to Transformation' conference in June 2019, an event which was extended beyond Brussels, for instance by ca. 330 original tweets and ca. 840 retweets from ca. 160 unique accounts. In the conference, many participants expressed their concern about an uncertain future for RRI in the EC. As a result, numerous largescale EU-funded RRI projects signed a Joint Declaration, urging the European Commission to make RRI a key objective of the upcoming framework programme, Horizon Europe - a plea to both mainstream the approach across the programme and provide specific resources for strengthening the RRI knowledge base. As the Horizon Europe programme is being forged, it is timely to present the Declaration for a broader audience.
