Comunicación anticipatoria de la ciencia. Una arquitectura relacional para la toma de decisiones

Palabras clave: comunicación, ciencia, RRI, gobernanza, anticipación.

Resumen

Este artículo analiza la potencialidad que un marco basado en la gobernanza anticipatoria y en el principio-guía RRI (Responsible Research and Innovation) puede proporcionar para la formulación de una comunicación anticipatoria de la ciencia capaz de impulsar un proceso emergente y participativo. Con este fin, se critica el concepto de RRI entendido como “RRI-diálogo deliberativo” para complementarlo con una visión “RRI- gobernanza anticipatoria” en la que la comunicación pueda establecerse mediante la coproducción y negociación de imaginarios futuros sobre los lugares de intersección cotidianos de los actores societales en un sistema sociotécnico, orientada al proceso de toma de decisiones. Como resultado, se propone una arquitectura relacional para la comunicación anticipatoria de la ciencia.

##plugins.generic.paperbuzz.metrics##

Cargando métricas ...

Biografía del autor/a

Hugo Rubio, Universidad del País Vasco UPV/EHU

Hugo Rubio (hugoruve@gmail.com) es máster y doctor en “filosofía, ciencia y valores” (Universidad del País Vasco UPV/EHU, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid y Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México). Es, además, ingeniero industrial (Universidad de Navarra), máster en dirección de empresas (Universidad de Deusto), MBA (Warwick University) y diplomado en marketing (Chartered Institute of Marketing). Ha desempeñado su carrera profesional en la industria de las tecnologías de la información (ORCID 0000-0001-8309-0942).

Citas

Anderson, B. (2010). Preemption, precaution, preparedness: Anticipatory action and future geographies. Progress in Human Geography, 34(6), 777–798. doi:10.1177/0309132510362600

Barben, D., Fisher, E., Selin, C. y Guston, D. H. (2008). Anticipatory Governance of Nanotechnology: ht, Engagement, and Integration. En E. J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch y J. Wajcman (Eds.), The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Third Edition (pp. 979–1000). Cambridge: MIT Press.

Bielak, A., Campbell, A., Pope, S., Schaefera, K. y Shaxson, L. (2008). From Science Communication to Knowledge Brokering: The Shift from ‘Science Push’ to ‘Policy Pull’. En D. Cheng, M. Claessens, T. Gascoigne, J. Metcalfe, B. Schiele y S. Shi (Eds.), Communicating Science in Social Contexts. New models, new practices (pp. 201–226). Dordrecht: Springer.

Blok, V. (2019). From participation to interruption: Toward an ethics of stakeholder engagement, participation and partnership in CSR and responsible innovation. En R. von Schomberg y J. Hankins (Eds.), International Handbook on Responsible Innovation: A Global Resource (pp. 243–257). Cheltenham y Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

Böhle, K. y Bopp, K. (2014). What a Vision: The Artificial Companion. A Piece of Vision Assessment Including an Expert Survey. Science, Technology & Innovation Studies, 10(1), 155–186.

Borrás, S. y Edler, J. (2014). The Governance of Socio-Technical Systems: Explaining Change. Cheltenham y Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

Callon, M., Lascoumes, P. y Barthe, Y. (2009). Acting in an Uncertain World: An Essay on Technical Democracy. Cambridge, MA y Londres: MIT Press.

Davies, S. R. y Selin, C. (2012). Energy Futures: Five Dilemmas of the Practice of Anticipatory Governance. Environmental Communication: A Journal of Nature and Culture, 6(1), 119–136. doi:10.1080/17524032.2011.644632

Davies, S. R., McCallie, E., Simonsson, E., Lehr, J. y Duensing, S. (2009). Discussing dialogue: perspectives on the value of science dialogue events that do not inform policy. Public Understanding of Science, 18(3), 338–353. doi:10.1177/0963662507079760

Davies, S. R., Selin, C., Gano, G. y Pereira, A. (2012). Citizen engagement and urban change: Three case studies of material deliberation. Cities, 29(6), 351–357. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2011.11.012

Dietz, T. (2013). Bringing values and deliberation to science communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 110(3), 14081–14087. doi:10.1073/pnas.1212740110

Druckman, J. N. (2015). Communicating Policy-Relevant Science. PS: Political Science and Politics, 48(1), 58–69. doi:10.1017/S1049096515000438

European Commission (2002). Science and Society Action Plan. Luxemburgo: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

Felt, U. y Fochler, M. (2010). Machineries for Making Publics: Inscribing and De-scribing Publics in Public Engagement. Minerva, 48(3), 219–238. doi:10.1007/s11024-010-9155-x

Fischhoff, B. (2013). The sciences of science communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 110(3), 14033–14039. doi:10.1073/pnas.1213273110

Fisher, E. (2007). Ethnographic Invention: Probing the Capacity of Laboratory Decisions. Nanoethics, 1(2), 155–165. doi:10.1007/s11569-007-0016-5

Freedman, L. (2016). Estrategia. Madrid: La Esfera.

Grand, A., Holliman, R., Thomas, J., Smidt, S., Scanlon, E. y Whitelegg, E. (2009). Engaging through dialogue: international experiences of Café Scientifique. En R. Holliman, J. Thomas, S. Smidt, E. Scanlon y E. Whitelegg (Eds.), Practising Science Communication in the Information Age: Theorising Professional Practices (pp. 209–226). Nueva York: Oxford University Press.

Gross, M. (2017). Shaping new horizons. Proactionary attitudes, precautionary principles and the experimentalities of science in society. En G. Verscharagen, G. Vandermoere, L. Braeckmans y B. Segaert (Eds.), Imagined Futures in Science, Technology and Society (pp. 206–208). Londres y Nueva York: Routledge.

Grunwald, A. (2014). The hermeneutic side of responsible research and innovation. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 1(3), 274–291. doi:10.1080/23299460.2014.968437

Grunwald, A. (2016). The Hermeneutic Side of Responsible Research and Innovation. Londres: ISTE; Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Guston, D. H. (2014). Understanding ‘anticipatory governance’. Social Studies of Science, 44(2), 218–242. doi:10.1177/0306312713508669

Irwin, A. y Michael, M. (2003). Science, social theory and public knowledge. Maidenhead y Filadelfia, PA: Open University Press.

Kirkman, R. (2009). At Home in the Seamless Web: Agency, Obduracy, and the Ethics of Metropolitan Growth. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 34(2), 234–258. doi:10.1177/0162243907309631

Konrad, K. E., van Lente, H., Groves, C. y Selin, C. (2016). Performing and Governing the Future in Science and Technology. En U. Felt, R. Fouché, C. A. Miller y L. Smith-Doerr (Eds.), The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Fourth Edition (pp. 465–493). Cambridge, MA y Londres: The MIT Press.

Latour, B. (2008). Reensamblar lo social: una introducción a la teoría del actor-red. Buenos Aires: Manantial.

Lichtenstein, S. y Slovic, P. (2006). The Construction of Preference. Nueva York: Cambridge University Press.

Lösch, A., Heil, R. y Schneider, C. (2017). Responsibilization through visions. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 4(2), 138–156. doi:10.1080/23299460.2017.1360717

Marres, N. (2005). No Issue, No Public: Democratic Deficits after the Displacement of Politics. Ámsterdam. Ipskamp Printpartners.

Marres, N. (2012). Material Participation: Technology, the Environment and Everyday Publics. Londres. Palgrave Macmillan.

Marx, L. (2010). Technology: The Emergence of a Hazardous Concept. Technology and Culture, 64(3), 561–577. Recuperado dehttps://www.jstor.org/stable/40971194

Nabatchi, T. (2012). Putting the “Public” Back in Public Values Research: Designing Participation to Identify and Respond to Values. Public Administration Review, 72(5), 699–708. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02544.x

Nordmann, A. (2014). Responsible innovation, the art and craft of anticipation. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 1(1), 87–98. doi:10.1080/23299460.2014.882064

Powell, M. C. y Colin, M. (2009). Participatory Paradoxes: Facilitating Citizen Engagement in Science and Technology From the Top-Down? Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 29(4), 325–342. doi:10.1177/0270467609336308

Rawlings, K. C. (2012). Attending Tocqueville's School. Examining the Intrapersonal, Political, and Civic Effects of Nonprofit-Board Participation. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 34(3), 320–356. doi:10.2753/ATP1084-1806340301

Rip, A. (2006). A co-evolutionary approach to reflexive governance-and its ironies. En J.-P. Voß, D. Bauknecht y R. Kemp (Eds.), Reflexive Governance for Sustainable Development (pp. 82–100). y Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

Scharpf. F. W. (2009). Legitimacy in the Multilevel European Polity. MPIfG Working Paper 09/1. Colonia: Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.

Schuurbiers, D. y Fisher, E. (2009). Lab-scale intervention. Science & Society Series on Convergence Research. EMBO Reports, 10(5), 424–427. doi:10.1038/embor.2009.80

Selin, C., Rawlings, K. C., de Ridder-Vignone, K., Sadowski, J., Altamirano Allende, C., Gano, G., Davies, S. R. y Guston, D. H. (2017). Experiments in engagement: Designing public engagement with science and technology for capacity building. Public Understanding of Science, 26(6), 634–649. doi:10.1177/0963662515620970

Selin, C., Kimbell, L., Ramírez, R. y Bhatti, Y. (2015). Scenarios and design: Scoping the dialogue space. Futures, 74, 4–17. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2015.06.002

Simis, M. J., Madden, H., Cacciatore, M. A. y Yeo S. K. (2016). The lure of rationality: Why does the deficit model persist in science communication? Public Understanding of Science, 25(4), 400–414. doi:10.1177/0963662516629749

Star, S. L. (2010). This is Not a Boundary Object: Reflections on the Origin of a Concept. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 35(5), 601–617. doi:10.1177/0162243910377624

Stilgoe, J., Owen, R. y Macnaghten, P. (2013). Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy, 42(9), 1568–1580. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2013.05.008

te Kulve, H. y Rip, A. (2011). Constructing Productive Engagement: Pre-engagement Tools for Emerging Technologies. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(4), 699–714. doi:10.1007/s11948-011-9304-0

te Kulve, H., Konrad, K., Alvial Palavicino, C. y Walhout, B. (2013). Context Matters: Promises and Concerns Regarding Nanotechnologies for Water and Food Applications. NanoEthics, 7(1), 17–27. doi:10.1007/s11569-013-0168-4

Townsend, P. L. y Gebhardt, J. E. (2003). The Leadership-Teamship-Followership Continuum. Leader to Leader, 29, 18–21. doi:10.1002/ltl.33

Volker, T. (2017). Preserving landscapes and reordering science-society relations. Imagining the future in transdisciplinary sustainability research. En G. Verschraegen, G. Vandermoere, L. Braeckmans y B. Segaert (Eds.), Imagined Futures in Science, Technology and Society (pp. 114–136). Londres y Nueva York: Routledge.

von Schomberg, R. (2011). Towards Responsible Research and Innovation in the Information and Communication Technologies and Security Technologies Fields. Bruselas: European Commission.

von Schomberg, R. (2013). A Vision of Responsible Research and Innovation. En R. Owen, J. Bessant y M. Heintz (Eds.), Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society (pp. 51–74). Chichester: Wiley.

Publicado
2020-09-17
Cómo citar
Rubio, H. (2020). Comunicación anticipatoria de la ciencia. Una arquitectura relacional para la toma de decisiones. Caleidoscopio - Revista Semestral De Ciencias Sociales Y Humanidades, 24(43). https://doi.org/10.33064/41crscsh1820
Sección
Dossier