Suchergebnisse

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

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. ; publishedVersion ; © The Author(s). 2020 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Since the 1980's, there has been a marked increase in disclosures of fraud in research. Cases of scientific fraud and misconduct do not only damage society's confidence in research, they also contribute to reduce the trustworthiness in research in itself. Research ethics, however, involve much more than investigations of misconduct. How can we encourage good scientific practice? What does honest research entail? Which gray areas exist, and when is the limit to misconduct crossed? How should allegations of misconduct be handled? What are the consequences of fraud, and what sanctions should follow? In this anthology, Norwegian researches contribute to the discussion of various perspectives on scientific integrity and misconduct. The purpose of this book is not to give unequivocal or definitive answers to what scientific misconduct is, but to convey a diversity of positions and perspectives. Some of these are overlapping, others contradictory - which also reflects the field internationally. This anthology is an important resource for students and researchers, particularly in education and training. In addition, it will also provide insights for others involved in the prevention of misconduct and the promotion of good scientific practice.

Frontmatter -- Preface: Converging technologies from the nanoscale require enhanced ethics -- Forewords -- Acknowledgments -- Contents -- Introduction: Overall vision of ethics in nanotechnology developments -- Embedding ethics in nanomedicine: Europe acted promptly -- List of contributing authors -- About the editors -- Part I: Highlights of ethics in nanotechnology -- 1 Nanoethics: Giving orientation to societal reflection -- Part II: Nanotechnology and ethical reflections -- 2 Toward a revitalized vision of ethics and safety for the revolutionary nanotechnologies -- 3 Nanotechnology: Ethical guidelines for a disruptive technology -- 4 Defining the nanoethics frontier -- 5 Application of nanotechnology for dental implants -- 6 Nanomaterial characterization for nanoethics -- Part III: Health, environment and industrial aspects of nanoethics -- 7 Ethical aspects of nanomaterials in industry -- 8 Militarization of nanotechnology -- 9 Nanotechnology in food: Ethics, industry practices, and regulatory frameworks -- 10 Ethical challenge of nanomedicine -- 11 Nanofood and ethical issues -- Part IV: Nanotechnology governance: Societal and legal aspects -- 12 Nanoethics for safe work: philosophical foundations of safer nanodesign protecting workplace health -- 13 Twenty years of nanoethics: Challenges, clarifications, and achievements -- Part V: Nanotechnology philosophy: Dilemmas and ethical issues -- 14 Christian thinking and acting in nanotechnologies: Reflection based on the principles and values of the Social Teaching of the Church based on apps concerning old people -- 15 Calibrating the balance: The ethics of regulating the production and use of nanotechnology applications -- 16 Importance of social morals in nanotechnology -- 17 Revitalizing nanoethics: Nanotechnology at the center of nanoethics -- Conclusion -- Index