Responsible innovation for decent nonliberal peoples: a dilemma?

Abstract

It is hard to disagree with the idea of responsible innovation (henceforth, RI), as it enables policymakers, scientists, technology developers, and the public to better understand and respond to the social, ethical, and policy challenges raised by new and emerging technologies. RI has gained prominence in policy agenda in Europe and the United States over the last few years. And, along with its rising importance in policy-making, there is also a burgeoning research literature on the topic. Given the historical context of which RI emerges, it should not be surprising that the current discourse on RI is predominantly based on liberal democratic values. Yet, the bias towards liberal democratic values will inevitably limit the discussion of RI, especially in the cases where liberal democratic values are not taken for granted. As such, there is an urgent need to return to the normative foundation of RI, and to explore the notion of 'responsible innovation' from nonliberal democratic perspectives. Against this background, this paper seeks to demonstrate the problematic consequences of RI solely grounded on or justified by liberal democratic values. This paper will cast the argument in the form of a dilemma to be labelled as The Decent Nonliberal Peoples' Dilemma and use it to illustrate the problems of the Western bias.

Innovation for Society: Towards a Typology of Developing Innovations by Social Entrepreneurs

“…Another limitation is the fact that the concept of responsible innovation emerged from a predominantly European discourse, and is consequently based on liberal democratic values (Wong 2016). Which is why, among other reasons, the research lens of responsible research and innovation cannot be used one-on-one with innovation in the global south (Macnaghten et al 2014).…”

Responsible research and innovation in contrasting innovation environments: Socio-Technical Integration Research in Hungary and the Netherlands

“…For instance, of the thirteen countries in which STIR studies have so far been carried out, only Hungary (and possibly China) can be considered to be developing. And while there are increasing instances of studies pertaining to RRI more general being carried out in developing countries (e.g., de Hoop et al, 2016), RRI itself is arguably based on democratic and liberal values (such as freedom, participation and equality), and on "Western ethics" (Wong 2016 Wong 2016) showed that when integrating RRI in different -nonliberalcultures, ethics, religion, values, culture, or innovation environment of the country concerned should be taken into account. Wong (2016) details this dilemma and emphasizes: since research and innovation have global nature owing to international cooperation, the understanding of 'responsibility' may differ causing conflicts.…”

Different Angles on Climate Justice: Insights from Non-Domination and Mutual Recognition

“…39 See, e.g. Wong (2015Wong ( , 2016 on how current debates on the ethics of geo-engineering omit concerns that are important from a non-Western perspective. 40 See e.g.…”