Midstream Modulation of Technology: Governance From Within

Fisher, Elizabeth; Mahajan, Roop L.; Mitcham, Carl

doi:10.1177/0270467606295402

Cited by 302 publications

(233 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

220

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These developments played out in the context of 'reflexive modernization' (Beck 1992;Beck, Giddens, and Lash 1994;Beck and Grande 2010) in which modern societies and institutions are thrown back on themselves. From that perspective, the addition of the wor(l)d 'responsible' next to 'innovation' reasserts the possibility of modulating the co-evolution of science and technology in society (Fisher, Mahajan, and Mitcham 2006;Rip 2006) and sustains the modernist fiction that the side effects of industrial modernity can be kept under control. Nevertheless, one can still argue that this is exactly what TA has been doing for the last five decades, so why would we need a new concept, if it turns out to be just old wine in new bottles?…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Responsible research and innovation as a travesty of technology assessment?

Delvenne

2017

Journal of Responsible Innovation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The relation between technology assessment (TA) and responsible research and innovation (RRI) is a very topical (and controversial) issue, as TA is clearly enveloped in AQ2 ¶ broader science, technology and innovation (STI) processes, such as the EU-wide shift towards RRI. In this short response to van Lente et al AQ3 ¶.'s essay, I first stress that this contribution has several merits; for example, it points to pervasive challenges for TA communities, such as the issue of including normative concerns when assessing innovations, it opens these challenges to debate, without shying away from engaging TA communities. However, I disagree with the authors' claim that RRI would be 'a next step of TA' or even a 'form of TA'. In my essay, I explain why I believe RRI is different from TA and why, rather than a critique of TA, RRI could instead lead to a travesty of TA, threatening the vitality and the uniqueness of TA institutions in the long-term. Under the spell of RRI, TA risks being reduced to a role of mere provider of ex-ante impact assessments. I conclude that following the money attached to RRI has a price that TA institutions should carefully, critically and reflexively consider before they pay. In the early nineteenth century, the English author Mary Shelley published a novel entitled 'Frankenstein; or, the Modern Prometheus' that tells the story of Victor Frankenstein, a young scientist who creates a grotesque but intelligent monster in a scientific experiment. Two centuries later, both the nature and the space of experiments have changed drastically. While experiments are still generally thought of as actions or operations undertaken to test a scientific hypothesis in settings detached from the rest of society (e.g. in scientific laboratories), I suggest situating responsible research and innovation (RRI) in a more macro-sociological understanding of 'experiment', one that implies a process of societal self-experimentation (Gross and Krohn 2005), and with social scientists and technology assessment (TA) practitioners partaking in the experiment as observing participants. 1 RRI's origins are often attributed to René Von Schomberg, 2 a Dutch philosopher with a background in science and technology studies (STS) and TA. Rather than in a scientific lab, it is from within the European Commission that Von Schomberg imagined the world of RRI (2011aRRI ( , 2011b. Like a modern Victor Frankenstein, the inventor now has to follow his conceptual creature and to face its intended and unintended consequences, ' (Van Oudheusden 2014, 2). It is also a label 'that may intuitively feel right, but which exhibits a lack of clarity in terms of definition, practice and, at a policy level, motivation ' (Owen, Macnaghten, and Stilgoe 2012, 752). In spite of its indistinctness, RRI's 'impressive' 'career through the realms of national and European policy' (Van Lente, Swierstra, and Joly 2017) and in academia deserves due attention, especially when it meets older traditions, philosophies and practices purportedly in line wi...

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Responsible research and innovation as a travesty of technology assessment?

Delvenne

2017

Journal of Responsible Innovation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…6 See also Rosenberg (1994); Arthur (1994);David (1997). 7 For examples see Bimber (2000); Schot & Rip (1997); Guston & Sarewitz (2002);Fisher et al (2006); Barben et al (2008); Guston (2011Guston ( , 2014; von Schomberg (2012); Wynne (2011);Owen et al (2012); Stilgoe et al (2013 The HBP Ethics and Society Subproject has built on the AREA approach, rather than that suggested by the EU itself. 10 We have also stressed the need for RRI in practice to be integrated across the whole pathway of research.…”

Section: Responsible Research and Innovation (Rri)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is sometimes assumed that 'upstream engagement' involves embedding RRI into large multidisciplinary research projects from the outset, and thus will ensure that scientists and engineers will become more reflexive in their work from a very early stage, bringing societal considerations to bear on the development of new scientific and technological research from the start (see for instance, Wilsdon and Wills 2004; see also Fisher et al 2006). In our experience, the 'from the outset' part of the assumption might be a useful to envision as textbook ideal but is questionable in practice.…”

Section: The Synchrony Miragementioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the case of the HBP, it was simply not possible to build RRI into the work of the researchers 'from the outset' in a way that one might imagine an ideal example of anticipatory governance (Guston 2014) or mid-stream modulation (Fisher et al 2006) would do. In fact, in many labs, much of the scientific research that would come to be within the HBP had already been underway for some time.…”

Section: The Synchrony Miragementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The integrated ethics and society programme of the Human Brain Project: reflecting on an ongoing experience

Aicardi

Reinsborough

Rose

2017

Journal of Responsible Innovation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Det är också på detta sätt artikeln relaterar till tidigare och existerande former och försök att skapa reflexiva innovationsprocesser. Den beskrivning Fisher et al (2006) ger kan användas för att belysa detta. Teknikvärdering (TA) bygger på en tanke om att man, någorlunda säkert, kan fastställa olika tekniska lösningars egenskaper och effekter, och låta detta utgöra bas för beslut «upstream» och reglering «downstream».…”

Section: Syftet Med Artikeln äR Att Diskutera Organiseringen Av Svensunclassified

Den svenska modellen för nanoteknik – mer effektiv än reflexiv?

Fogelberg

2008

Etikk Praksis - Nord J Appl Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Midstream Modulation of Technology: Governance From Within

Cited by 302 publications

References 24 publications

Responsible research and innovation as a travesty of technology assessment?

Responsible research and innovation as a travesty of technology assessment?

The integrated ethics and society programme of the Human Brain Project: reflecting on an ongoing experience

Den svenska modellen för nanoteknik – mer effektiv än reflexiv?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About