From responsible research to responsible innovation: challenges in implementation

Joyce Tait

From responsible research to responsible innovation: challenges in implementation

View Fulltext

Author(s): Joyce Tait ¹
- Affiliations: 1: Innogen Institute, University of Edinburgh, Old Surgeons Hall, High School Yards, Edinburgh EH1 1LZ, UK
Source: Volume 1, Issue 1, June 2017, p. 7 – 11
DOI: 10.1049/enb.2017.0010 , Online ISSN 2398-6182

This is an open access article published by the IET under the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/)

Received 14/03/2017, Accepted 12/04/2017, Published 18/05/2017

This study proposes a new approach to the responsible development of innovative products, processes and services by companies and organisations operating in the bioeconomy and related industry sectors. It departs from much of the recent and currently available research on responsible research and innovation in that it recognises the very different challenges faced by innovating organisations, compared to conventional approaches with a strong emphasis on upstream engagement. It attempts to move away from the politicised perspectives that have dominated many engagement initiatives on disruptive innovations like synthetic/engineering biology, and to focus on practical downstream outcomes, the extent to which they will fulfil the aspirations of ordinary citizens, and will comply with prevailing industry norms of responsible behaviour. The proposed consolidated responsible innovation framework builds on the framework developed in 2012 by the then Technology Strategy Board, implemented using the anticipate, reflect, engage and act approach devised by UK research councils. It distinguishes between routine, company-specific aspects of responsibility, expected to be addressed within an organisation's standard operating procedures, and project-specific aspects requiring regular appraisal throughout the development of an innovation. It is designed to be simple and feasible for a company to implement within a commercial environment.

References

1. 1)
  - 35. Chataway, J., Tait, J., Wield, D.: ‘The governance of agro- and pharmaceutical biotechnology innovation: public policy and industrial strategy’, Technol. Anal. Strategic Manage., 2006, 18, (2), pp. 1–17 (doi: 10.1080/09537320600624063).
2. 2)
  - 36. Tait, J., Banda, G.: ‘Proportionate and adaptive governance of innovative technologies: the role of regulations, guidelines and standards’. British Standards Institution, 2016, http://www.bsigroup.com/research-pagit-uk, accessed 12 March2017.
3. 3)
  - 5. Synthetic Biology Leadership Council: ‘Biodesign for the Bioeconomy: UK synthetic biology strategic plan’ (SBLC, 2016) https://connect.innovateuk.org/documents/2826135/31405930/BioDesign+for+the+Bioeconomy+2016+DIGITAL+updated+21_03_2016.pdf/d0409f15-bad3-4f55-be03-430bc7ab4e7e, accessed 12 March2017.
4. 4)
  - 12. Von Schomberg, R.: ‘An appraisal of the working in practice of directive 90/220/EEC on the deliberate release of genetically modified organisms’. (STOA Panel, European Parliament, 1998), http://www.iatp-web.us/iatp/files/An_Appraisal_of_the_Working_in_Practice_of_Dir.pdf, accessed 12 March2017.
5. 5)
  - 25. EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation, Horizon 2020: ‘Responsible Research and innovation: a cross-cutting issue’. (DG RTD B7-Science with and for Society, 2014, https://ec.europa.eu/research/swafs/pdf/presentation_Galiay.pdf, accessed 12 March2017.
6. 6)
  - 26. Horizon 2020: ‘Work programme 2016-2017: science with and for society’, (European Commission, 2016) http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/wp/2016_2017/main/h2020-wp1617-swfs_en.pdf, accessed 12 March2017.
7. 7)
  - 6. Tait, J., Wield, D., Chataway, J., et al: ‘Health Biotechnology to 2030’. (OECD International Futures Project, 2008), http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/12/10/40922867.pdf, accessed 8th March2017, p. 51.
8. 8)
  - 22. Adams, J.: ‘Hypermobility: a challenge for governance’. InLyall, C., Tait, J. (Eds): ‘New modes of governance’ (Ashgate Publishing Ltd., 2005), pp. 123–137.
9. 9)
  - 24. Sunstein, C.R.: ‘Going to extremes: how like minds unite and divide’ (Oxford University Press, 2009).
10. 10)
  - 27. Macnaghten, P., Owen, R., Jackson, R.: ‘Synthetic biology and the prospects for responsible innovation’, Essays Biochem, 2016, 60, (4), pp. 347–355, (doi: 10.1042/EBC20160048).
11. 11)
  - 1. Willetts, D.: ‘Eight great technologies’ (Policy Exchange, 2013), https://policyexchange.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/eight-great-technologies.pdf, accessed 12 March2017.
12. 12)
  - 13. Tait, J.: ‘Upstream engagement and the governance of science: the shadow of the GM crops experience in Europe’. EMBO Reports, 2009, vol. 10, pp. 18–22.
13. 13)
  - 30. Stirling, A.: ‘Intolerance: retain healthy scepticism’, Nature, 2016, 471, p. 4458.
14. 14)
  - 28. Kuntz, M.: ‘Scientists should oppose the drive of postmodern ideology’, Trends Biotechnol., 2016, 34, (12), pp. 943–945 (doi: 10.1016/j.tibtech.2016.08.008).
15. 15)
  - 16. Bhattachary, D., Calitz, J.P., Hunter, A.: ‘Synthetic biology dialogue’, (Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) and ScienceWise, 2010, http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/web/FILES/Reviews/1006-synthetic-biology-dialogue.pdf, accessed 12 March2017.
16. 16)
  - 2. European Political Strategy Centre: ‘Opportunity now: Europe's mission to innovate’ (EPSC Strategic Notes, no. (15), 5th July2016), https://ec.europa.eu/epsc/sites/epsc/files/strategic_note_issue_15.pdf, accessed 8 March2017.
17. 17)
  - 15. Anon: ‘Editorial: going public’, Nature, 2004, vol. 431, p. 883 (doi: 10.1038/431883a).
18. 18)
  - 4. Chambers, G., Dreisin, A., Pragnell, M.: ‘The British bioeconomy: an assessment of the impact of the bioeconomy on the UK economy’. Capital Economics, Report to BBSRC, 2015, http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/documents/capital-economics-british-bioeconomy-report-11-june-2015/, accessed 12 March2017.
19. 19)
  - 7. European Union: ‘Responsible Research and Innovation: Europe's ability to respond to societal challenges’. (EU, 2012) https://ec.europa.eu/research/swafs/pdf/pub_public_engagement/responsible-research-and-innovation-leaflet_en.pdf, accessed 12th March2017.
20. 20)
  - 8. Zwart, H., Landeweerd, L., van Rooij, H.: ‘Adapt or perish? Assessing the recent shift in the European research funding arena from ‘ELSI’ to ‘RRI’, Life Sci. Soc. Policy, 2014, 10, (11), pp. 1–19, doi:10.1186/s40504-014-0011-x, http://www.lsspjournal.com/content/10/1/11.
21. 21)
  - 19. Jones, R.: ‘When it pays to ask the public’, Nat. Nanotechnol., 2008, 3, pp. 578–579 (doi: 10.1038/nnano.2008.288).
22. 22)
  - 29. Kuntz, M.: ‘Science and postmodernism: from right-thinking to soft despotism’, Trends Biotechnol., 2017, TIBTEC 1470, doi: 10.1016/j.tibtech.2017.02.006.
23. 23)
  - 18. Landeweerd, L., Townend, D., Mesman, J., et al: ‘Reflections on different governance styles in regulating science: a contribution to ‘Responsible Research and Innovation’, Life Sci. Soc. Policy, 2015, 11, (8), pp. 1–22, doi: 10.1186/s40504-015-0026-y.
24. 24)
  - 17. Stilgoe, J., Kearnes, M.: ‘Nanodialogues report: engaging research councils’ (Demos, London, 2007) http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20091004173547/http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/CMSWeb/Downloads/Other/NanodialogueEngagingResearchCouncilsReport.pdf, accessed 12 March2017.
25. 25)
  - 11. Millstone, E., Brunner, E., Mayer, S.: ‘Beyond ‘substantial equivalence’, Nature, 1999, 401, pp. 525–526 (doi: 10.1038/44006).
26. 26)
  - 20. Tait, J.: ‘Bringing it all together’. In annual report of the government chief scientific adviser: innovation: managing risk not avoiding it; evidence and case studies, 2014, pp. 129–136, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/381906/14-1190b-innovation-managing-risk-evidence.pdf, accessed 12 March2017.
27. 27)
  - 23. Tait, J.: ‘More faust than frankenstein: the European debate about risk regulation for genetically modified crops’, J .Risk Res., 2001, 4, (2), pp. 175–189 (doi: 10.1080/13669870010027640).
28. 28)
  - 9. Wynne, B.: ‘Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science – hitting the notes but missing the music’, Community Genet., 2006, 9, pp. 211–220.
29. 29)
  - 31. Wynne, B.: ‘Intolerance: science informs, not defines’, Nature, 2016, 471, p. 305 (doi: 10.1038/471305b).
30. 30)
  - 33. TSB: ‘Responsible innovation framework for commercialisation of research findings’, TSB, 2012, http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130221185318/www.innovateuk.org/_assets/responsible_innovation.pdf, accessed 12 March2017.
31. 31)
  - 32. Beddington, J.: ‘Intolerance: UK chief scientist responds’, Nature, 2016, 471, p. 448 (doi: 10.1038/471448d).
32. 32)
  - 21. Mittra, J., Mastroeni, M., Tait, J.: ‘Engaging with uncertainty and risk in agricultural biotechnology regulation: delivering safety and innovation’. Innogen Institute Report, 2014, http://innogen.ac.uk/downloads/Final-Report_140429.pdf, accessed 12 March2017.
33. 33)
  - 3. OECD: ‘The bioeconomy to 2030: designing a policy agenda’ (OECD, Paris, International Futures Programme, 2009), http://www.oecd.org/futures/long-termtechnologicalsocietalchallenges/40922867.pdf, accessed 12 March2017.
34. 34)
  - 10. Mayer, S., Stirling, A.: ‘Finding a precautionary approach to technological developments – lessons for the evaluation of GM crops’, J. Agric. Environ. Ethics, 2002, 15, pp. 57–71 (doi: 10.1023/A:1013866125341).
35. 35)
  - 14. Willis, R., Wilsdon, J.: ‘See-through science – why public engagement needs to move upstream’ (Demos, London, UK, 2004).
36. 36)
  - 34. EPSRC: ‘Anticipate, reflect, engage and act (AREA)’, http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/research/framework/area/, accessed 3 March2017.

Login

Not registered yet?

Share

Tools

Login to add to favourites

Key

From responsible research to responsible innovation: challenges in implementation

References

Related content