This paper makes an original contribution to the responsible research and innovation (RRI) discourse, with an inquiry into the extent to which risk, risk assessment, or risk management, including ethical and social issues, is relevant to companies. As a core component of the higher or "meta-responsibility" of RRI, an investigation of practices and attitudes towards risks can provide us with a window into companies' attitudes towards responsible innovation that is rooted in real-world experiences. Drawing upon data from 30 in-depth interviews and a large Delphi study, we reveal different underlying attitudes towards risk governance for individuals working in the information and communication technology (ICT) industry. For some companies, there is already an obvious degree of alignment with RRI values. For others, framing of the RRI discourse in terms of ethical and societal risks may help to promote understanding and uptake. Results from the interviews suggest that lack of awareness of the full extent of ethical and societal risks associated with research and innovation in the ICT industry may act as a barrier to engagement with RRI, and educational activities may be needed to rectify this situation. Results from the Delphi survey suggest that when presented with simple information about potential ethical and societal risks, industry personnel can easily recognise the main risks and provide clear opinions about how they should be addressed. The relationship between risk governance and RRI warrants further investigation as it is an essential facet of RRI.

There is now almost a decade of experience with RRI (Responsible Research and Innovation), including a growing emphasis on RRI in industry. Based on our experiences in the EU-funded project PRISMA, we find that the companies we engaged could be motivated to do RRI, but often only after we first shifted initial assumptions and strategies. Accordingly, we formulate six lessons we learned in the expectation that they will be relevant both for RRI in industry as well as for the future of RRI more broadly. These lessons are: (1) Strategize for stakeholder engagement; (2) Broaden current assessments; (3) Place values center stage; (4) Experiment for responsiveness; (5) Monitor RRI progress; and (6) Aim for shared value.

Responsible development of any technology, including nanotechnology, requires protecting workers, the first people to be exposed to the products of the technology. In the case of nanotechnology, this is difficult to achieve because in spite of early evidence raising health and safety concerns, there are uncertainties about hazards and risks. The global response to these concerns has been the issuance by authoritative agencies of precautionary guidance to strictly control exposures to engineered nanomaterials (ENMs). This commentary summarizes discussions at the “Symposium on the Health Protection of Nanomaterial Workers” held in Rome (25 and 26 February 2015). There scientists and practitioners from 11 countries took stock of what is known about hazards and risks resulting from exposure to ENMs, confirmed that uncertainties still exist, and deliberated on what it would take to conduct a global assessment of how well workers are being protected from potentially harmful exposures.

No abstract

No abstract