Rearch Policy 42 (2013) 1568–1580
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Rearch
Policy
j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e :w w w.e l s e v i e r.c o m /l o c a t e /r e s p o
qualify
l
Developing a framework for responsible innovation ଝ
Jack Stilgoe a ,∗,Richard Owen b ,1,Phil Macnaghten c ,d
a
University of Exeter Business School/Department of Science and Technology Studies,University College London,Gower Street,London WC1E 6BT,UK b
University of Exeter Business School,Rennes Drive,Exeter EX44PU,UK c
Department of Geography,Science Laboratories,Durham University,South Road,Durham DH13LE,UK d
Department of Science and Technology Policy,Institute of Geosciences,P.O.Box 6152,State University of Campinas –UNICAMP,13083-970Campinas,SP,Brazil
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 16July 2012
Received in revid form 7May 2013Accepted 17May 2013
Available online 13 June 2013
Keywords:
Responsible innovation Governance
Emerging technologies Ethics
Geoengineering
a b s t r a c t
The governance of emerging science and innovation is a major challenge for contemporary democracies.In this paper we prent a framework for understanding and supporting efforts aimed at ‘responsible innovation’.The framework was developed in part through work with one of the first major rearch projects in the controversial area of geoengineering,funded by the UK Rearch Councils.We describe this ca study,and how this became a location to articulate and explore four integrated dimensions of responsible innovation:anticipation,reflexivity,inclusion and responsiveness.Although the frame-work for responsible innovation was designed for u by the UK Rearch Councils and the scientific communities they support,we argue that it has more general application and relevance.
© 2013 The Authors. Published by Elvier B.V. All rights rerved.
1.Introduction
1.1.Responsibility,science and innovation
Responsible innovation is an idea that is both old and new.Responsibility has always been an import
ant theme of rearch and innovation practice,although how it has been framed has varied with time and place.Francis Bacon’s imperative to support sci-ence ‘for the relief of man’s estate’,the institutionalisation and professionalisation of science from the 17th century onwards,Van-nevar Bush’s (1945)‘Endless Frontier’,JD Bernal’s (1939)arguments for science in the rvice of society and Michael Polanyi’s (1962)‘Republic of Science’counter-argument have all contained partic-ular notions of responsibility.
Science has been conventionally invoked by policy as eman-cipatory.This has allowed scientists and innovators considerable freedom from political accountability.From this perspective,the role responsibilities of scientists –to produce reliable knowledge –and their wider moral responsibilities to society are imagined to be conflicted.The perceived high value of knowledge to society
ଝThis is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licen,which permits unrestricted u,distribution and reproduction in any medium,provided the original author and source are credited.∗Corresponding author.Tel.:+4402076797197.
E-mail address:j.stilgoe@ucl.ac.uk , (J.Stilgoe),r.j.owen@exeter.ac.uk (R.Owen),p.m.macnaghten@durham.ac.uk (P.Macnaghten).1
Tel.:+4401392723458.
swap是什么意思
means that such role responsibilities typically trump any wider social or moral obligations (Douglas,2003).Although frequent objections from university scientists suggest a permanent assault on their autonomy,much of the constitution of Polanyi’s (1962)lf-governing ‘Republic of Science’survives to this day.
In the cond half of the 20th century,as science and innova-tion have become increasingly intertwined and formalid within rearch policy (Kearnes and Wienroth,2011),and as the power of technology to produce both benefit and harm has become clearer,debates concerning responsibility have broadened (Jonas,1984;Collingridge,1980;Beck,1992;Groves,2006).We have en recog-nition and negotiation of the responsibilities of scientists beyond tho associated with their professional roles (e.g.Douglas,2003;Mitcham,2003).We have en scientists’own ideas of ‘rearch integrity’change in respon to societal concerns (Mitcham,2003;Steneck,2006).In the 1970s,biologists in the nascent field of recombinant DNA rearch sought to ‘take responsibility’for the possible hazards their rearch might unleash,with a meeting at Asilomar in 1975and a subquent moratorium.2Concerns about the ‘dual u’of emerging technologies and the limits of lf-regulation,visible in physicists’agonising about nuclear fission prior to the Manhattan project (We
art,1976),resurfaced in 2012with the recent controversy over the publishing of potentially
2
We should point out that this meeting was criticid,both at the time (Rogers,1975)and in later scholarship (Wright,2001;Nelkin,2001)as being motivated by an attempt to escape top-down regulation rather than to ‘take responsibility’
0048-7333/$–e front matter © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elvier B.V. All rights rerved./10.spol.2013.05.008
J.Stilgoe et al./Rearch Policy42 (2013) 1568–15801569
dangerous rearch onflu virus(Kair and Moreno,2012). The negotiation of responsibility between practicing scientists, innovators and the outside world remains an important and contested area of debate to this day.
Rearch in Science and Technology Studies(STS)suggests that conceptions of responsibility should build on the understand-ing that science and technology are not only technically but also socially and politically Winner,1977).Latour (2008)suggests that science does not str
aightforwardly reveal real-ity through techniques of simplification and purification aimed at further mastery.As Callon et al.(2009)point out,science and technology can,paradoxically,add to our n of uncertainty and ignorance.They tend to produce a“continuous movement toward a greater and greater level of attachments of things and people at an ever expanding scale and at an ever increasing degree of inti-macy”(Latour,2008,p.4,italics in original).The obrvations suggest that unforeen impacts–potentially harmful,potentially transformative–will be not just possible but probable(Hacking, 1986).
停机英文Responsibility in governance has historically been concerned with the‘products’of science and innovation,particularly impacts that are later found to be unacceptable or harmful to society or the environment.Recognition of the limitations of governance by market choice has led to the progressive introduction of post hoc, and often risk-bad regulation.This has created a well-established division of labour that reflects a conquentialist framing of respon-sibility,as accountability or liability(Pellizzoni,2004;Grinbaum and Groves,2013).With innovation,the past and prent however do not provide a reasonable guide to the future(Adam and Groves, 2011),so such retrospective accounts of responsibility are inher-ently limited.We face a dilemma of control(Collingridge,1980),in that we lack the evidence on which to govern technologies before patho
logies of path dependency(David,2001),technological lock-in(Arthur,1989),‘entrenchment’(Collingridge,1980)and closure (Stirling,2007)t in.
We have(pre-)cautionary tales of risks who effects did not materiali for many years,where potential threats were foreen but ignored or where only certain risks were considered relevant (Hoffmann-Riem and Wynne,2002;EEA,2001,2013).Governance process,often premid on formal risk asssment,have done little to identify in advance many of the most profound impacts that we have experienced through innovation,with the2008finan-cial crisis being the most disruptive recent example(Muniesa and Lenglet,2013).Bioethics,another major governance respon,has drawn criticism for privileging individual ethical values such as autonomy over tho such as solidarity that might lead to a genuine ‘public ethics’(Nuffield Council on Bioethics,2012;also Prainsack and Buyx,2012)and,in its conquentialist version,rving to bol-ster the narrow instrumental expectations of innovators in some areas(Hedgecoe,2010).
Callon et al.(2009)u the metaphor of science and technol-ogy‘overflowing’the boundaries of existing scientific regulatory institutional frameworks.They point to the need for new‘hybrid forums’that will help our democracies to be“enriched,expanded, able to absorb the debates and con-troversies surrounding science and technology”(Callon et al., 2009,p.9).Such c
ontroversies have demonstrated that pub-lic concerns cannot be reduced to questions of risk,but rather encompass a range of concerns relating to the purpos and motivations of rearch(Grove-White et al.,2000;Wynne,2002; Grove-White et al.,1997;Macnaghten and Szerszynski,2013; Stilgoe,2011),joining a stream of policy debate about the direc-tions of innovation(Smith et al.,2005;Stirling,2008;Morlacchi and Martin,2009;Fisher et al.,2006;Flanagan et al.,2011). Yet,despite efforts at enlarging participation(e,for example, RCEP,1998;Hou of Lords,2000;Wilsdon and Willis,2004)current forms of regulatory governance offer little scope for broad ethical reflection on the purpos of science or innova-tion.
1.2.A new scientific governance?
One alternative to a conquentialist model of responsibility has been to succumb to moral luck(Williams,1981),to hope that an appeal to unpredictability and an inability to‘reasonably foree’will allow us to escape moral accountability for our actions.Dis-satisfaction with both this approach and risk-bad regulation has moved attention away from accountability,liability and evidence towards tho future-oriented dimensions of responsibility–care and responsiveness–that offer greater potential to accommodate uncertainty and allow reflection on purpos and values(Jonas, 1984;Richardson,1999;Pellizzoni,2004;Groves,2006;Adam and Groves,2011).
Emerging technologies typically fall into what Hajer(2003)calls an‘institutional void’.There are few agreed structures or rules that govern them.They are therefore emblematic of the move from old models of governing to more decentralid and open-ended gov-ernance,which takes place in new places–markets,networks and partnerships as well as conventional policy and politics(Hajer and Wagenaar,2003).
A number of multi-level,non-regulatory forms of science and innovation governance have taken this forward-looking view of responsibility,building on insights from STS that highlight the social and political choices that stabili particular innovations (Williams and Edge,1996;Pinch and Bijker,1984;Winner,1986). New models of anticipatory governance(Barben et al.,2008; Karinen and Guston,2010)Constructive,Real-Time and other forms of technology asssment(Rip et al.,1995;Guston and Sarewitz, 2002;Grin and Grunwald,2000),upstream engagement(Wynne, 2002;Wilsdon and Willis,2004),value-nsitive design(Friedman, 1996;van den Hoven et al.,2012)and socio-technical integra-tion(Fisher et al.,2006;Schuurbiers,2011)have emerged.The have been complemented by policy instruments such as normative codes of conduct(e,for example,European Commission,2008), standards,certifications and accreditations,running alongside expert reports,technology asssments and strategic roadmaps. Such initiatives have,to varying deg
rees,attempted to introduce broader ethical reflection into the scientific and innovation pro-cess,breaking the existing moral division of labour described above. They have attempted to open up science and innovation(Stirling, 2008)to a wider range of inputs,notably through the creation of new spaces of‘public dialogue’(Irwin,2006).
The other important aspect of a forward-looking view of respon-sibility in science and innovation is that it is shared(Richardson, 1999;Mitcham,2003;Von Schomberg,2007).The unpredictability of innovation is inherently linked to its collective nature.Follow-ing Callon’s account of innovation as‘society in the making’(Callon, 1987),we can e that implications are‘systemic’,coming from the interplay of the technical and the social(Hellström,2003).This sug-gests that scientists,rearch funders,innovators and others have a collective political responsibility(Grinbaum and Groves,2013)or co-responsibility(Mitcham,2003).This reflects understanding that while actors may not individually be irresponsible people,it is the often complex and coupled systems of science and innovation that create what Ulrich Beck(2000)calls‘organid irresponsibility’.3 We can point to‘cond-order’(Illies and Meijers,2009)or‘meta-task’responsibilities(van den Hoven,1998;van den Hoven et al., 3von Schomberg(2013)suggests four categories of irresponsible innovation that typically manifest:Technology push,Neglect of ethical principles,Policy Pull and Lack of precaution and foresight.
1570J.Stilgoe et al./Rearch Policy42 (2013) 1568–1580
2012)of ensuring that responsible choices can be made in the future,through anticipating and gaining knowledge of possible conquences and building capacity to respond to them.
This reframing of responsibility and the approaches aimed at opening up scientific governance described above provide impor-tant foundations for responsible innovation.The phra,sometimes lengthened to‘responsible rearch and innovation’,is starting to appear in academic and policy literature(Guston,2006;Hellström, 2003;von Schomberg,2011a,2011b;Lee,2012;Sutcliffe,2011; Owen and Goldberg,2010;Owen et al.,2012;Randles et al.,2012), but it is still lacking conceptual weight.Around nanotechnology and other emerging areas of science and technology,Rip(2011) identifies a move from a discour of responsible science to one of ‘responsible governance’.US nanotechnology debates have tended to u the phra‘responsible development’(Kjølberg,2010).But the meaning of such terms remains contested.Rather than rep-renting a clear novel governance paradigm,we might instead e responsible innovation as a location for making n of the move from the governance of risk to the governance of innova-tion itlf(Felt et al.,2007).In the following ctions we develop the concepts and associated literatures to articulate a framework for responsible innovation.This has been informed by a geoengi-neering re
arch project in which we were involved.Finally,we offer some conclusions on how this framework might be taken for-ward,bad in part on our experiences within this ca study of technoscience-in-the-making.
2.Four dimensions of responsible innovation
von Schomberg(2011a)offers the following definition of Responsible Rearch and Innovation:
“A transparent,interactive process by which societal actors and innovators become mutually responsive to each other with a view to the(ethical)acceptability,sustainability and societal desirability of the innovation process and its marketable prod-ucts(in order to allow a proper embedding of scientific and technological advances in our society).”
This definition is anchored to European policy process and values.As we will discuss in thefinal ction of this paper,our framework has similar elements but emerges from a different con-text.We offer a broader definition,bad on the prospective notion of responsibility described above:
“Responsible innovation means taking care of the future through collective stewardship of science and innovation in the prent.”
The dimensions that make up our framework originate from a t of questions that have emerged as important within pub-lic debates about new areas of science and technology.The are questions that public groups typically ask of scientists,or would like to e scientists ask of themlves.Table1draws on Macnaghten and Chilvers’(forthcoming)analysis of cross-cutting public concerns across17UK public dialogues on science and technology and categoris the questions as to whether they relate to the products,process or purpos of innovation.Con-ventional governance focus on product questions,particularly tho of technological risk,which can obscure areas of uncertainty and ignorance about both risks and benefits(Hoffmann-Riem and Wynne,2002;Stirling,2010).Tools of ethical governance and rearch integrity move into questions of process,especially when human volunteers and animals are involved in experimentation. Approaches to responsible innovation extend the governance discussion to encompass questions of uncertainty(in its multiple forms),purpos,motivations,social and political constitutions, trajectories and directions of innovation.
If we take the questions to reprent aspects of societal concern and interest in rearch and innovation,responsible inno-vation can be en as a way of embedding deliberation on the within the innovation process.The four dimensions of responsi-ble innovation we propo(anticipation,refle
xivity,inclusion and responsiveness)provide a framework for raising,discussing and responding to such questions.The dimensions are important char-acteristics of a more responsible vision of innovation,which can,in our experience,be heuristically helpful for governance.We will go on to describe one application of our framework at a project level, where the main actors were the project scientists,rearch fun-ders,stakeholders and ourlves.However,the framework may be applicable at other levels,such as with the development of policy or thematic programmes(e Fisher and Rip,2013).Each dimen-sion demands particular explanation,but the lines between them are blurred.We therefore end this ction by discussing the impor-tance of integration.For each dimension,we explain the conceptual and policy background,give meaning to the term,describe some mechanisms and approaches that might articulate the dimension in practice and offer criteria and conditions for effective innovation governance.
2.1.Anticipation
The call for improved anticipation in governance comes from a variety of sources,from political and environmental concerns with the pace of social and technical Toffler,1970),to schol-arly(and latterly,policy)critiques of the limitations of top-down risk-bad models of governance to encapsulate the social,ethi-cal and political stakes associated with technoscientific advances (amon
gst others,e Wynne,1992,2002;RCEP,1998;Jasanoff, 2003;Henwood and Pidgeon,2013).The detrimental implications of new technologies are often unforeen,and risk-bad estimates of harm have commonly failed to provide early warnings of future effects(European Environment Agency,2001,2013;Hoffmann-Riem and Wynne,2002).Anticipation prompts rearchers and organisations to ask‘?’questions(Ravetz,1997),to con-sider contingency,what is known,what is likely,what is plausible and what is possible.Anticipation involves systematic thinking aimed at increasing resilience,while revealing new opportunities for innovation and the shaping of agendas for socially-robust risk rearch.
The attempt to improve foresight in issues of science and inno-vation is a familiar theme in science and innovation policy(Martin,
Table1
Lines of questioning on responsible innovation.
Product questions Process questions Purpo questions
How will the risks and benefits be distributed?How should standards be drawn up and applied?Why are rearchers doing it?
What other impacts can we anticipate?How should risks and benefits be defined and measured?Are the motivations transparent and in
忘记的反义词是什么the public interest?
How might the change in the future?Who is in control?Who will benefit?
mwjWhat don’t we know about?Who is taking part?What are they going to gain?
What might we never know about?Who will take responsibility if things go wrong?What are the alternatives?
How do we know we are right?
J.Stilgoe et al./Rearch Policy42 (2013) 1568–15801571
2010).This is not to say there is a shortage of future-gazing.Indeed, there is a growing literature in STS concerned with scientists’and innovators’‘imaginaries’of the future(van Lente,1993;Brown et al.,2000;Fortun,2001;Brown and Michael,2003;Hedgecoe and Martin,2003;Fujimura,2003;Borup et al.,2006;Selin,2007).The expectations work not just to predict but also to shape desirable futures a
nd organi resources towards them(te Kulve and Rip, 2011).Rearch in genomics and nanotechnology has,for example, been shown to carry highly optimistic promis of major social and industrial transformation,suggesting a need for what Fortun(2005) calls‘an ethics of promising’to instil some form of responsibility in dintangling prent hype from future reality(Brown,2003). Any process of anticipation therefore faces a tension between pre-diction,which tends to reify particular futures,and participation, which eks to open them up.
Upstream public engagement(Wilsdon and Willis,2004)and Constructive Technology Asssment(Rip et al.,1995)are two techniques that involve anticipatory discussions of possible and desirable futures.Guston and Sarewitz’s(2002)‘Real-Time Tech-nology Asssment’is another model of what they call‘anticipatory governance’(e also Barben et al.,2008;Karinen and Guston, 2010).Anticipation is here distinguished from prediction in its explicit recognition of the complexities and uncertainties of sci-ence and society’s co-evolution(Barben et al.,2008).Methods of foresight,technology asssment,horizon scanning or scenario planning can be important techniques,although ud narrowly they risk exacerbating technological determinism.Scenarios(Selin, 2011;Robinson,2009)and vision asssment(Grin and Grunwald, 2000)have been ud in various ttings.Some Miller and Bennett,2008)have also sug
gested that socio-literary techniques drawing on sciencefiction may be powerful ways to democrati thinking about the future.
Much of the academic literature here makes the point that suc-cessful anticipation also requires understanding of the dynamics of promising that shape technological futures(Borup et al.,2006; Selin,2011;van Lente and Rip,1998).Anticipatory process need to be well-timed so that they are early enough to be constructive but late enough to be meaningful(Rogers-Hayden and Pidgeon,2007). The plausibility of scenarios is an important factor in their success (Selin,2011;von Schomberg,2011c)and we should not underes-timate the work involved in building robust tools for anticipation (Robinson,2009).We must also recogni institutional and cul-tural resistance to anticipation.As Guston(2012)points out,a lack of anticipation may not just be a product of reductionism and dis-ciplinary siloes.It may,at least in part,be intentional as scientists ek to defend their autonomy(Guston,2012).
2.2.Reflexivity
Responsibility demands reflexivity on the part of actors and institutions,but this is not straightforwardly defined.Lynch(2000) unpacks the word‘reflexivity’to reveal its multiple meanings an
d modes of engagement with social worlds.Social theorists (Beck,1992;Beck et al.,1994)have argued that reflexivity is a condition of contemporary modernity.Scientists’own version of reflexivity often echoes Popper’s(1963)argument that lf-referential critique is an organising principle of science(Lynch, 2000).We would argue,following Wynne(1993),that there is a demonstrated need for institutional reflexivity in governance. Reflexivity,at the level of institutional practice,means holding a mirror up to one’s own activities,commitments and assumptions, being aware of the limits of knowledge and being mindful that a particular framing of an issue may not be universally held. This is cond-order reflexivity(Schuurbiers,2011)in which the value systems and theories that shape science,innovation and their governance are themlves scrutinid.Unlike the private,professional lf-critique that scientists are ud to,responsibility makes reflexivity a public matter(Wynne,2011).免费词典
Mechanisms such as codes of conduct,moratoriums and the adoption of standards may build this cond-order reflexivity by drawing connections between external value systems and scien-tific practice(Busch,2011;von Schomberg,2013).Recent attempts to build reflexivity have tended to focus at the laboratory level, often with the participation of social scientists or philosophers. The argument is that in the bottom-up,lf-governing world of science,laboratory reflexivity becomes a vital lever for opening up alternatives through enhancing the“reflections of natural scien-tists on the socio-ethical c
ontext of their work”(Schuurbiers,2011, p.769;also e Schuurbiers and Fisher,2009).Approaches such as ‘midstream modulation’(Fisher et al.,2006;Fisher,2007)and‘eth-ical technology asssment’(Swierstra et al.,2009)give familiar ethnographic STS laboratory studies an interventionist turn(e Doubleday,2007for a similar approach).Rosalyn Berne’s(2006) account of her interviews with nanoscientists suggests a similar intention.The conversation becomes a tool for building reflexivity. Wynne(2011)concludes that,while this work has been demon-strably successful in beginning to build reflexivity at the laboratory level,such concepts and practices need to be extended to include rearch funders,regulators and the other institutions that com-pri the patchwork of science governance(a conclusion that has also surfaced from public dialogues in areas of synthetic biology and TNS-BRMB,2010)).The institutions have a respon-sibility not only to reflect on their own value systems,but also to help build the reflexive capacity within the practice of science and innovation.
Building actors’and institutions’reflexivity means rethink-ing prevailing conceptions about the moral division of labour within science and innovation(Swierstra and Rip,2007).Reflexivity directly challenges assumptions of scientific amorality and agnos-ticism.Reflexivity asks scientists,in public,to blur the boundary between their role responsibilities and wider,moral responsibili-ties.It therefore demands openness and leadership within cultures of science and innovation.
bic是什么意思2.3.Inclusion
The waning of the authority of expert,top-down policy-making has been associated with a ri in the inclusion of new voices in the governance of science and innovation as part of a arch for legiti-macy(Irwin,2006;Felt et al.,2007;Hajer,2009).Over the last two decades,particularly in Northern Europe,new deliberative forums on issues involving science and innovation have been established, moving beyond engagement with stakeholders to include mem-bers of the wider RCEP,1998;Grove-White et al.,1997; Wilsdon and Willis,2004;Stirling,2006;Macnaghten and Chilvers, forthcoming).
The small-group process of public dialogue,ufully described as‘mini-publics’by Goodin and Dryzek(2006),include connsus conferences,citizens’juries,deliberative mapping, deliberative polling and focus groups(e Chilvers,2010).Often under the aegis of quasi-governmental institutions such as Sciencewi-ERC in the UK or the Danish Board of Technology,the can,according to the UK government,“enable[public]debate to take place‘upstream’in the scientific and technological process”(HM Treasury/DTI/DfES,2004,p.105;e also Royal Society/Royal Academy of Engineering,2004).Additionally,we can point to the u of multi-stakeholder partnerships,forums,the inclusion of lay members on scientific advisory committees,and other hybrid
mechanisms that attempt to diversify the inputs to and delivery of governance(Callon et al.,2009;Bäckstrand,2006;Brown,2002).
The practice of the exercis in inclusive governance and their impact on policymaking has been uneven,and has attracted
1572J.Stilgoe et al./Rearch Policy42 (2013) 1568–1580
substantial critique(among others,e Horlick-Jones et al.,2007; Kerr et al.,2007;Rothstein,2007).Public engagement practition-ers can be accud of following an emerging orthodoxy,with an assumed reasoning that“the technical is political,the political should be democratic and the democratic should be participatory”(Moore,2010,p.793).In respon,STS scholarship has begun to problemati public dialogue as a public good in itlf(e Chilvers,2009).The proliferation of participatory approaches activities has led to arguments for greater clarity about the meth-ods of participation,the purpos for which they are ud and the criteria against which they might be evaluated(Rowe and Frewer,2000,2005).In addition,a growing body of critique has developed,drawing attention to,among other things:framing effects within dialogue process which can reinforce existing relations of professional power and deficit understandings of the public(Wynne,
2006;Kerr et al.,2007),thus constituting,at times,a new“tyranny”with questionable benefits(Cooke and Kothari,2001);the ways in which engagement process construct particular kinds of publics that respond to contingent political imaginaries(Lezaun and Soneryd,2007;Macnaghten and Guivant, 2011;Michael and Brown,2005);and the diver,occasionally competing motivations that underpin dialogue(e Fiorino,1989; Stirling,2008;Macnaghten and Chilvers,forthcoming).
Irwin and colleagues suggest,however,that“the(often implicit) evocation of the highest principles that engagement might ideally fulfil can make it difficult to acknowledge and pay rious attention to the varieties of engagement that are very much less than perfect but still somehow‘good”’(Irwin et al.,2013,p.120).The importance of public dialogue in“opening up”(Stirling,2008)framings of issues that challenge entrenched assumptions and commitments has been emphasid(Lövbrand et al.,2011).And while there has been a resistance to attempts to procedurali public dialogue for fear that it becomes another means of closure(Wynne,2005;Stirling,2008) or technocracy(Ro,1999;Lezaun and Soneryd,2007),there have been efforts to develop criteria aimed at asssing the quality of dialogue as a learning exerci.On the latter,Callon et al.(2009, p.160)offer three criteria:intensity–how early members of the public are consulted and how much care is given to the compo-sition of the discussion group;openness–how diver the group is and wh
o is reprented;and quality–the gravity and continu-ity of the discussion.In relation to what actually is at stake in the advance of new science and technology,Grove-White et al.(2000) argue that public dialogue needs to open up discussion of future social worlds(building on the dimension of anticipation)in ways that critically interrogate the‘social constitutions’inherent in tech-nological options–that is,the distinctive t of social,political and ethical implications that their development would likely bring into being(e Macnaghten,2010for an articulation of this approach with respect to nanotechnology and Macnaghten and Szerszynski, 2013on geoengineering).
disruptiveProcess of inclusion inevitably force consideration of ques-tions of power.Agencies commissioning such exercis,facilitators and public participants may all have different expectations of the instrumental,substantive or normative benefits of dialogue (Stirling,2008).There should be room therefore for public and stakeholder voices to question the framing assumptions not just of particular policy issues(Grove-White et al.,1997;Jasanoff,2003), but also of participation process themlves(van Oudheusden, 2011).Obrved bottom-up changes within innovation process may engender greater inclusion.Ur-driven(von Hippel,1976, 2005),open(Chesbrough,2003),open source(Raymond,1999), participatory(Buur and Matthews,2008)and networked innova-tion(Powell et al.,1996)all suggest the possibility of including new voices in discussions of the ends as well as the
means of innova-tion,although it remains to be en whether,first,the trends are as widespread and disruptive as their proponents claim and cond,whether they in reality remble outsourcing rather than genuine forms of‘collective experimentation’(Callon et al.,2009,p.18).
It is far from clear whether current or past attempts at pub-lic engagement,taken together,can be said to constitute a new governance paradigm.Rather,they might be regarded as a pro-cess of‘ongoing experimentation’(Lövbrand et al.,2011,p.487), a symptom of changes in governance rather than a centrepiece, mixing old and new governance assumptions(Irwin,2006).Such process might therefore be considered legitimate if their ambi-tions are modest and if the STS scholars who advocate dialogue are willing“to put their own normative commitments through the test of deliberation”(Lövbrand et al.,2011,p.489).Attention has also been drawn to the“institutional preconditions for delibera-tion”(Lövbrand et al.,2011,p.491).Dryzek(2011)argues that deliberative process are only part of the‘deliberative systems’that are required to confer legitimacy(e also Goodin and Dryzek, 2006).
乐加乐英语2.4.Responsiveness
There exist a range of process through which questions of responsible innovation can be asked(s
ee Table2).Some of the process focus questioning on the three dimensions of respon-sible innovation above.A few approaches,such as Constructive Technology Asssment(Rip et al.,1995),Real-Time Technology Asssment(Guston and Sarewitz,2002),midstream modula-tion(Fisher et al.,2006)and anticipatory governance(Barben et al.,2008),ek to interrogate multiple dimensions.However, for responsible innovation to have purcha,it must also ek to respond to such questions.
Responsible innovation requires a capacity to change shape or direction in respon to stakeholder and public values and chang-ing circumstances.The limited capacity for empowering social agency in technological choice and the modulation of innova-tion trajectories has been a significant criticism of the impact of public Stirling,2008;Macnaghten and Chilvers, forthcoming).We must therefore consider how systems of inno-vation can be shaped so that they are as responsive as possible. Pellizzoni describes responsiveness as“an encompassing yet sub-stantially neglected dimension of responsibility”(Pellizzoni,2004, p.557).Drawing an explicit link to inclusion,he suggests that responsiveness is about adjusting cours of action while recog-nising the insufficiency of knowledge and control(with echoes of Collingridge’s aspiration of‘corrigibility’(Collingridge,1980)).Its two aspects relate to the two meanings of the word respond–to react and to answer(Pellizzoni,2004).
Responsiveness involves responding to new knowledge as this emerges and to emerging perspectives,views and norms.
For responsible innovation to be responsive,it must be situ-ated in a political economy of science governance that considers both products and purpos.In the UK,Europe and perhaps more broadly,we can point to growing policy interest in‘grand chal-lenges’(Lund Declaration,2009).von Schomberg(2013)contends that the central challenge of responsible innovation is to become more responsive to societal challenges.But such challenges are not preordained,nor are they uncontested.
rulesThere are various mechanisms that might allow innovation to respond to improved anticipation,reflexivity and inclusion.In some cas,application of the precautionary principle,a moratorium or a code of conduct may be appropriate.Existing approaches to technology asssment and foresight may be widened to engender improved responsiveness(von Schomberg,2013).Value-nsitive design(Friedman,1996)suggests the possibility of designing par-ticular ethical values into technology.As we describe in the next ction’s ca study,techniques such as stage-gating can also create new,responsive governance choices.
