Improve alignment of research policy and societal values

Novitzky, Peter; Bernstein, Michael J.; Blok, Vincent; Braun, Róbert; Chan, Tung Tung; Lamers, Wout S.; Loeber, Anne; Meijer, Ingeborg; Lindner, Ralf; Grießler, Erich

doi:10.1126/science.abb3415

Cited by 73 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…"Improve alignment of research policy and societal values"(Novitzky et al 2020). 4 This lack of visibility initiated a critical response from scholars and practitioners of RRI(Gerber et al 2020) 5 A very few SwafS calls for proposalsand thus stemmed projectshave been devoted to Responsible Innovation and industrial actors.6 https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/open-innovation-open-science-open-world-visioneurope…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

RRI legacies: co-creation for responsible, equitable and fair innovation in Horizon Europe

Robinson

Simone²,

Mazzonetto³

2020

Journal of Responsible Innovation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The H2020 framework programme has been a key driver and catalyst of Responsible Research and Innovation, in Europe and beyond. We argue that the new framework programme, Horizon Europe, shifts the focus away from the research and knowledge production emphasis of H2020 to innovation, placing new requirements on RRI and the RRI community. The "new policy experiment" of Missions and Open Innovation 2.0 can and should be seen an opportunity to leverage the insights gained from the past decade of activities in RRI and to extend and improve, particularly with regards to fair and equitable co-creation activities. With the increase focus on innovation, novel and responsible ways of innovating and co-creating must be embedded in these activities to reinforce the link between science, innovation and society. In this perspective, we argue that co-creation can act as a linking-pin between the open science emphasis of H2020 and the open innovation accent of Horizon Europe. PaperResponsible Research and Innovation (RRI) is a democratization process leading to connecting science to the values and interests of European citizens by mean of participatory processes (Mazzonetto and Simone 2018). In Europe, RRI is exemplified by what has been described as "the Responsible Research and Innovation policy experiment" 1 in the European Commission, embodied by, but not exclusive to, the Science With and For Society programme (SwafS) in the Horizon2020 framework programme (European Commission, 2020). With activities spanning almost 8 years, this RRI policy experiment has led to RRI being embedded and integrated in a wide variety of projects, programmes and other activities based on six keys and a number of process requirements, 2 becoming an invoked and needed approach for properly governing potential controversial innovative technologies (i.e. genome editing, AI, 1 Van Oudheusden and Shelley-Egan (2020) Call for proposals: Special Issue: RRI Futures -Learning from a decade of Responsible Research and Innovation. Journal of Responsible Innovation.2 Implementing RRI requires the collaboration of various stakeholders in order to achieve solutions (both products and processes) which are ethically acceptable, sustainable and socially desirable (Von Schomberg, 2013). The EC has adopted key thematic elements (ethics, gender, public engagement, open access, science education -and governance as overarching sixth key) and acknowledged the existence of process requirements -among which anticipation, reflexivity, inclusiveness and responsiveness (Stilgoe et al. 2013) are often emphasized. RRI indicators to guide science governance have also evolved since the beginning of the Horizon 2020 Framework Programme, resulting in a set of RRI performance indicators (MORRI indicators) which are currently under revision and refinement by the Horizon 2020 funded SwafS project called SUPER MoRRI.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

RRI legacies: co-creation for responsible, equitable and fair innovation in Horizon Europe

Robinson

Simone²,

Mazzonetto³

2020

Journal of Responsible Innovation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This might include empirical exploration of organisational decoupling (Bromley andPowell, 2017), recoupling (Hallett, 2010) and how this might be influenced by relationships of mutual dependency, accountability and power, such as may exist between research funders, universities and disciplines within these (Kern et al, 2018). It also offers potential to provide insights for case studies of institutionalisation of other policy-relevant cognates (Forsberg, 2014) of which the EC discourse of RRI (Novitzky et al, 2020) is just one.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This latter period has witnessed a shift in policy emphasis at the EPSRC towards embedding RI into organisational practice, with the ambition for this to become 'business as usual' for both itself and the research communities in universities that it funds (EPSRC, 2019). This has mirrored a policy ambition by the EC over the last five years to 'mainstream' RRI across Europe (Novitzky et al, 2020;Rome Declaration, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Organisational institutionalisation of responsible innovation

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We describe the institutionalisation of responsible innovation (RI) over the last decade at the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) and universities funded by it as a focal point for RI in the UK. Drawing on organisational theory we identify factors influencing the dynamics of RI institutionalisation, including forces of legitimation, entrepreneurship and decoupling. We report significant institutionalisation at the EPSRC prior to 2013, when it published its RI policy. Notwithstanding instances of experimentation and assimilation since, we report limited institutionalisation within research communities in universities as RI has encountered competing institutional logics, responsibility norms and epistemic practices. Our findings suggest an ongoing and dynamic process of translation that reflects RI's status as a performative and contested discourse 'in the making'.

show abstract

“…RRI has arisen as a science policy measure to establish codes of responsible conduct in science and to enable inclusive and sustainable research and innovation processes [1,4,14]. This policy-driven initiative was introduced to tackle lack of public faith in science and evidence-based policy-making, as well as to increase the ability of democratic societies to address challenges associated with emerging and disruptive technologies [15].…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

RRI and Corporate Stakeholder Engagement: The Aquadvantage Salmon Case

Callegari

Михайлова

2021

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Declining public trust in science and innovation triggered the emergence and development of the responsible research and innovation (RRI) concept among policymakers and academics. Engaging stakeholders in the early phases of innovation processes has been identified as a major driver of inclusive, responsible, and sustainable development. Firms however have often adopted practices entirely opposite to those being advocated within the RRI framework, namely, reducing external interaction with stakeholders, focusing on exclusive communication with the scientific community and legal authorities while avoiding the social spotlight. We illustrate these practices, their causes and consequences using the case of the Aquadvantage salmon, the first genetically modified (GM) animal approved to petition for the United States (US) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for human consumption. We find that such practices heighten the risk of social backlash, being undesirable from the perspective of both the organizations involved and society at large. Stakeholder engagement remains necessary in order to gain the minimum social acceptance required for contentious innovative products to enter the market. However, stakeholder engagement must be selective, focused on pragmatic organizations whose aims and interests are sufficiently broad to potentially align with corporate interests. Strategic stakeholder engagement offers a meeting point between the transformative aspirations of RRI framework proponents and legitimate business interests.

show abstract

Improve alignment of research policy and societal values

Abstract: The EU promotes Responsible Research and Innovation in principle, but implementation leaves much to be desired

Cited by 73 publications

References 11 publications

RRI legacies: co-creation for responsible, equitable and fair innovation in Horizon Europe

RRI legacies: co-creation for responsible, equitable and fair innovation in Horizon Europe

Organisational institutionalisation of responsible innovation

RRI and Corporate Stakeholder Engagement: The Aquadvantage Salmon Case

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About