Liminal innovation practices: questioning three common assumptions in responsible innovation

Mertens, Mayli

doi:10.1080/23299460.2018.1495031

Cited by 23 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The tide of governance is changing toward more participatory approaches and politicization of planetary health. There is also the rise of the field of responsible innovation (Felt et al, 2018;Mertens, 2018;Umbrello, 2018), which is part of a ''larger democracy movement within science and culture at large'' (Frodeman, 2019;von Schomberg and Hankins, 2019). The three key framings I have proposed for innovation in governance for planetary health are summarized in Table 1.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Innovating Governance for Planetary Health with Three Critically Informed Frames

Özdemir

2019

OMICS: A Journal of Integrative Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In May 2019, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services warned that ''around one million animal and plant species are now threatened with extinction.'' In September 2019, Naomi Klein, an astute writer on environmental change, described the interconnected social and ecological breakdowns on the planet in a new book. Ecological crises noted by these and other scholars speak well to the rise of planetary health as a new scholarship. Loss of biodiversity has manifold negative impacts on health, for example, rise of zoonotic infections and changes in healthy microbiome. But reducing our ecological footprints is not enough. We ought to change mindsets, the narrow science, and technology governance regimes that value nature and other life forms instrumentally by their usefulness to us. I describe three new, broader and critically informed, frames on governance for planetary health. First, I explain why we ought to acknowledge animal sentience, for example, as recognized in Article 13 of the Lisbon Treaty in 2009. I describe how political determinants of health, power, and agency operate at multiple sociological and planetary loci, not only among human beings but also at human and nonhuman animal interfaces. Second, planetary health calls for a shift toward ecological and political determinants beyond a narrow anthropocentric view, while resisting the entrenched dogma of exponential growth with finite planetary natural resources. Third, for critically informed governance of emerging technologies in planetary health (e.g., glycomics, artificial intelligence, health care robots), I refer to a question highlighted recently (Frodeman, 2019): ''When Plato (more exactly, Juvenal) asked who guards the guardians, he was questioning whether any group can be trusted to look past its own interests for the common good.'' Hence, it is time we broaden the question ''Who will guard the guardians?'' beyond the scientific community, to actors in science policy as well. Policy questions cannot be limited to ''which social issues emerge from a new technology?'' but ought to include, ''who should be framing science and technology policy, and why?'' Youth leaders of the global climate movement such as Greta Thunberg and others are now rightly asking these epistemological questions that might contribute toward a new social contract on health for all sentient beings on planet Earth. While ecological changes accelerate and a new space industry is emerging, governance for planetary health will continue to be at the epicenter of systems thinking, responsible innovation and science policy in the 21st century.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Innovating Governance for Planetary Health with Three Critically Informed Frames

Özdemir

2019

OMICS: A Journal of Integrative Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Investigating cEEG in practice is possible by looking specifically at ICUs that have already installed cEEG for research purposes. Although cEEG-based information in these contexts should not be used for prognostication due to its experimental status, such liminal innovation practices [40] already show how the technology influences-and is itself influenced by-the sociomaterial network it becomes part of. Thus, Mertens conducted ethnographic fieldwork in two Dutch hospitals and, in order to contextualize the findings in Dutch practice, one hospital in the United States.…”

Section: Fieldwork: Practices and Peoplementioning

confidence: 99%

Chasing Certainty After Cardiac Arrest: Can a Technological Innovation Solve a Moral Dilemma?

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When information on a coma patient’s expected outcome is uncertain, a moral dilemma arises in clinical practice: if life-sustaining treatment is continued, the patient may survive with unacceptably poor neurological prospects, but if withdrawn a patient who could have recovered may die. Continuous electroencephalogram-monitoring (cEEG) is expected to substantially improve neuroprognostication for patients in coma after cardiac arrest. This raises expectations that decisions whether or not to withdraw will become easier. This paper investigates that expectation, exploring cEEG’s impacts when it becomes part of a socio-technical network in an Intensive Care Unit (ICU). Based on observations in two ICUs in the Netherlands and one in the USA that had cEEG implemented for research, we interviewed 25 family members, healthcare professionals, and surviving patients. The analysis focuses on (a) the way patient outcomes are constructed, (b) the kind of decision support these outcomes provide, and (c) how cEEG affects communication between professionals and relatives. We argue that cEEG can take away or decrease the intensity of the dilemma in some cases, while increasing uncertainty for others. It also raises new concerns. Since its actual impacts furthermore hinge on how cEEG is designed and implemented, we end with recommendations for ensuring responsible development and implementation.

show abstract

“…First of all, the exploration of existing practices of valuing is still important, since it provides a baseline to assess what might change if a new technology is introduced in this practice. More importantly, if new technologies are experimented with in existing practices (as is the case in clinical research, for example), this opens up a space of 'liminal innovation' (Mertens 2018). These liminal practices, where a technology is used for research purposes, enable the exploration of how technology-in-use impacts valuation and vice versa.…”

Section: Putting a Practice-based Approach To Values In Perspectivementioning

confidence: 99%

Values in responsible research and innovation: from entities to practices

Boenink

Kudina

2020

Journal of Responsible Innovation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article explores the understanding of values in Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI). First, it analyses how two mainstream RRI approaches, the largely substantial one by Von Schomberg and the procedural one by Stilgoe and colleagues, identify and conceptualize values. We argue that by treating values as relatively stable entities, directly available for reflection, both fall into an 'entity trap'. As a result, the hermeneutic work required to identify values is overlooked. We therefore seek to bolster a practice-based take on values, which approaches values as the evolving results of valuing processes. We highlight how this approach views values as lived realities, interactive and dynamic, discuss methodological implications for RRI, and explore potential limitations. Overall, the strength of this approach is that it enables RRI scholars and practitioners to better acknowledge the complexities involved in valuing.

show abstract

Liminal innovation practices: questioning three common assumptions in responsible innovation

Cited by 23 publications

References 46 publications

Innovating Governance for Planetary Health with Three Critically Informed Frames

Innovating Governance for Planetary Health with Three Critically Informed Frames

Chasing Certainty After Cardiac Arrest: Can a Technological Innovation Solve a Moral Dilemma?

Values in responsible research and innovation: from entities to practices

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About