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

Hugo Rubio

doi:10.33064/41crscsh1820

Authors

Hugo Rubio Universidad del País Vasco UPV/EHU http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8309-0942

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.33064/41crscsh1820

Keywords:

communication, science, RRI, governance, anticipation

Abstract

This paper analyses the potential that a framework based on anticipatory governance and the RRI (Responsible Research and Innovation) guiding-principle may provide so as to formulate anticipatory science communication that is capable of fostering an emergent and participatory process. To this end, the RRI concept understood as an “RRI-deliberative” dialogue is reviewed so that it can be complemented by a “RRI-anticipatory governance” vision where the communication process can be established by co-producing and negotiating future imaginaries concerning the societal actors’ day-to-day points of intersection, and oriented towards a sociotechnical decision-making process. As a result, a relational architecture for anticipatory science communication is proposed.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Author Biography

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).

References

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.