Innovar la gobernanza de la investigación y la innovación: la experimentación de prácticas deliberativas en Europa

Oier Imaz; Andoni Eizagirre

doi:10.33064/43crscsh1987

Authors

Oier Imaz Mondragon Unibertsitatea https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0941-1685
Andoni Eizagirre Mondragon Unibertsitatea https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1829-6108

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.33064/43crscsh1987

Keywords:

responsible innovation, RRI, governance, co-responsibility, deliberation, Europe

Abstract

Within the framework of European research policy, there is a growing tendency to open up debate on the definition of problems and the expected benefits of solving them. This has taken the form of what has been called “RRI” (Responsible Research and Innovation), conceived as a guiding principle for innovation aimed at addressing major social challenges on the basis of a process of mutual responsibility facilitated by the institutionalization of effective governance mechanisms. In this paper, we argue that the practical development of integrative and deliberative governance mechanisms helps to facilitate the integration of actors with a potential interest in sociotechnical research processes. For this purpose, we outline a number of consultative processes conducted in Europe that aim to improve co-responsibility by involving the public. Our review highlights some tensions affecting the different conceptions of participation and deliberation, the institutional design of initiatives and the phase of investigation for their implementation. The paper suggests the need to innovate democratic experiences by focusing on the early stages of scientific and technological activities and promoting the epistemic and social contribution made by actors in order to strengthen reflexivity and mutual responsibility in the research governance system.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Author Biographies

Oier Imaz, Mondragon Unibertsitatea

Oier Imaz (oimaza@mondragon.edu) es doctor en Filosofía (Universidad del País Vasco UPV/EHU y Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México UNAM) y en Ciencias Políticas (Vrije Universiteit Brussel VUB), Profesor de Mondragon Unibertsitatea e investigador en el Instituto LANKI. Desde 2011 es miembro del grupo de investigación PRAXIS del Sistema Universitario Vasco (grupo tipo A), donde su investigación se ha centrado en el análisis de modelos deliberativos de gobernanza aplicados a la innovación responsable (ORCID 0000-0003-0941-1685).

Andoni Eizagirre, Mondragon Unibertsitatea

Andoni Eizagirre (aeizagirre@mondragon.edu) es doctor en Filosofía y Profesor de Mondragon Unibertsitatea. Realizó su tesis doctoral en el Programa de Formación de Doctores del Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. Miembro del grupo de investigación PRAXIS del Sistema Universitario Vasco (grupo tipo A), en la actualidad está desarrollando una investigación sobre el sentido y significado de la investigación e innovación responsables (ORCID 0000-0002-1829-6108).

References

Arnaldi, S. Gorgoni, G. y Pariotti, E. (2016). Responsible Research and Innovation as a governance paradigm: what is new? En S. Kuhlmann, G. Ordóñez-Matamoros, R. Lindner, S. Randles, B. Bedsted, G. Gorgoni, R. Griessler, A. Loconto y N. Mejlgaard (Eds.), Key results of the Res-AGorA Project (pp. 20–30). Recuperado de http://publica.fraunhofer.de/eprints/urn_nbn_de_0011-n-4088979.pdf

Beck, U. (1992). Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. Londres: Sage.

de Saille, S. (2015). Innovating innovation policy: the emergence of ‘Responsible Research and Innovation’. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 2(2), 152–168. doi:10.1080/23299460.2015.1045280

Delgado, A., Kjølberg, K. L. y Wickson, F. (2011). Public engagement coming of age: From theory to practice in STS encounters with nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 20(6), 826–845. doi:10.1177/0963662510361054

Douglas, H. E. (2003). The Moral Responsibilities of Scientists (Tensions between Autonomy and Responsibility). American Philosophical Quarterly, 40(1), 59–68.

Eizagirre, A. (2013). Las percepciones sociales en Europa sobre el rol de la ciencia y la tecnología. Revista de Estudios Sociales, 48, 67–78. doi:10.7440/res47.2013.05

Eizagirre, A. (2017). Investigación e innovación responsables: retos teóricos y políticos. Sociologia, Problemas e Práticas, 83, 99–116.

Eizagirre, A., Rodríguez, H. e Ibarra, A. (2017). Politicizing Responsible Innovation: Responsibility as Inclusive Governance. International Journal of Innovation Studies, 1(1), 20–36. doi:10.3724/SP.J.1440.101003

European Commission (2001). European Governance: A White Paper. Bruselas: Commission of the European Communities.

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

European Commission (2011). Horizon 2020. The Framework Programme for Research and Innovation. Bruselas: Commission of the European Communities.

European Commission (2012). Responsible Research and Innovation: Europe’s Ability to Respond to Societal Challenges. Luxemburgo: Publications Office of the European Union.

European Commission (2015). Horizon 2020. Work Programme 2014–2015: 16. Science with and for Society. Bruselas: Commission of the European Communities.

Environmental risk, public trust and perceived exclusion from risk management. En G. Böm, J. Nerb, T. McDaniels y H. Spada (Eds.), Environmental Risks: Perception, Evaluation and Management (pp. 221–248). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Fung, A. (2003). Survey Article: Recipes for Public Spheres: Eight Institutional Design Choices and Their Consequences. Journal of Political Philosophy, 11(3), 338–367. doi:10.1111/1467-9760.00181

Fung, A. (2006). Varieties of Participation in Complex Governance. Public Administration Review, 66(1), 66–75. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00667.x

Gavelin, K., Wilson, R. y Doubleday, R. (2007). Democratic technologies? The final report of the Nanotechnology Engagement Group (NEG). Londres: Involve Foundation.

Gianni, R. y Goujon, P. (2014). Analytical Grid Report to the EC. En R. Gianni y P. Goujon, Governance of Responsible Innovation (GREAT). (pp. 83–91). Recuperado de http://www.great-project.eu/deliverables_files/deliverables02.

Gianni, R., Goujon, P., Reber, B. e Ikonen, V. (2016). Development of a Model of Responsible Innovation. Governance of Responsible Innovation (GREAT). Recuperado de http://www.great-project.eu/Deliverables11.

Irwin, A., Jensen, T. E. y Jones, K. (2013). The good, the bad and the perfect: Criticizing engagement practice. Social Studies of Science, 43(1), 119–136. doi:10.1177/0306312712462461

Jasanoff, S. (2012). Science and Public Reason. Londres: Routledge.

Kuhlmann, S., Edler, J., Ordóñez-Matamoros, G., Randles S., Walhout, B., Gough, C. y Lindner, R. (2016). Responsibility Navigator. Karlsruhe: Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research.

Lindner, R., Kuhlmann, S. y Walhout, B. (2016). Developing an Orientating Framework for Strategic Reflection: The Res-AGorA Responsibility Navigator. Theorie und Praxis, 25(2), 66–71.

Lindner, R., Kuhlmann, S., Randles, S., Bedsted, B., Gorgoni, G., Griessler, E., Loconto, A. y Mejlgaard, N. (2016). Navigating Towards Shared Responsibility in Research and Innovation: Approach, Process and Results of the Res-AGorA Project. Karlsruhe: Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research.

Lund Declaration (2009). Europe Must Focus on the Grand Challenges of our Time. En U. Svedin (rapporteur), New Worlds – New Solutions. Research and Innovation as a Basis for Developing Europe in a Global Context (The Swedish EU Presidency Conference – Final report) (pp. 40–41). Lund (Suecia), 7-8 de julio de 2009.

Owen, R. (2018). Foreword. From responsible innovation to responsible innovation systems. En R. Gianni, J. Pearson y B. Reber (Eds.), Responsible Research and Innovation: From Concepts to Practices (pp. ix–xiv). Londres: Routledge.

Owen, R., Macnaghten, P. y Stilgoe, J. (2012). Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society. Science and Public Policy, 39(6), 751–760. doi:10.1093/scipol/scs093

Parkinson, J. y Mansbridge, J. (Eds.) (2012). Deliberative Systems: Deliberative Democracy at the Large Scale. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pellé, S. y Reber, B. (2014). Determination of Responsible Innovation Models. Governance of Reponsible Innovation (GREAT). Recuperado de http://www.great-project.eu/research/Responsible_Innovation_Model_Report_versionforsubmission.docx.

Rip, A. (2010). De Facto Governance of Nanotechnologies. En M. Goodwin, B. J. Koops y R. Leenes (Eds.), Dimensions of Technology Regulation. Conference proceedings of TILTing Perspectives on Regulating Technologies (pp. 285–308). Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers.

Rodríguez, H., Eizagirre, A. e Ibarra, A. (2019). Dynamics of responsible innovation constitution in European Union research policy: tensions, possibilities and constraints. En R. von Schomberg y J. Hankins (Eds.), International Handbook on Responsible Innovation: A Global Resource (pp. 167–180). Cheltenham y Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

Sarewitz, D. (1996). Frontiers of Illusion: Science, Technology and the Politics of Progress. Filadelfia: Temple University Press.

Scholl, G. y Petschow, U. (2012). Overview of a Set of Deliberative Processes on Nano. En H. Throne-Holst, G. Scholl, E. Stø y P. Strandbakken (Eds.), Consumers and Nanotechnology: Deliberative Processes, Social Barriers and Methodologies (pp. 17–26). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Schuurbiers, D. (2014a). Identifying needs for outreach and dialogue on nanotechnologies in Europe. NanoDiode Consortium. Recuperado de https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/109051_en.html.

Schuurbiers, D. (2014b). Analysing previous experiences and European projects on nanotechnology outreach and dialogue and identifying best practices. NanoDiode Consortium. Recuperado de https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/109051_en.html

Sjöberg, L. (2000). Consequences matter, ‘risk’ is marginal. Journal of Risk Research, 3(3), 287–295. doi:10.1080/13669870050043189

Stirling, A. (2005). Opening up or closing down? Analysis, participation and power in the social appraisal of technology. En M. Leach, I. Scoones y B. Wynne (Eds.), Science and Citizens. Globalization & the Challenge of Engagement (pp. 218–231). Londres: Zed Books.

Stø, E. (2010). Executive summary from the NANOPLAT project. Development of a Platform for Deliberative Processes on Nanotechnology in the European Consumer Market. NANOPLAT Consortium. Recuperado de https://cordis.europa.eu/result/rcn/45892_en.html.

Stø, E. (2012). Citizens’ Nano Conference in Denmark. En H. Throne-Holst, G. Scholl, E. Stø y P. Strandbakken (Eds.), Consumers and Nanotechnology: Deliberative Processes, Social Barriers and Methodologies (pp. 31–44). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Stø, E. y Scholl, G. (2012). Conclusions: Towards a Third Generation of Deliberative Processes. En H. Throne-Holst, G. Scholl, E. Stø, y P. Strandbakken (Eds.), Consumers and Nanotechnology: Deliberative Processes, Social Barriers and Methodologies (pp. 17–26). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Stø, E., Scholl, G., Jègou, F. y Strandbakken, P. (2010). The Future of Deliberative Processes on Nanotechnology. En R. von Schomberg y S. Davies (Eds.), Understanding Public Debate on Nanotechnologies. Options for Framing Public Policy (pp. 53–81). Luxemburgo: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

Strandbakken, P. (2012). Citizens’ Conference, Île-de-France. En H. Throne-Holst, G. Scholl, E. Stø, y P. Strandbakken (Eds.), Consumers and Nanotechnology: Deliberative Processes, Social Barriers and Methodologies (pp. 81–92). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Strandbakken, P. y Throne-Holst, H. (2016). Report on third generation deliberative processes. NanoDiode Consortium. Recuperado de http://www.nanodiode.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/NanoDiode-D3_1-Report-of-the-third-generation-deliberative-processes.pdf.

Throne-Holst, H., Scholl, G., Stø, E. y Strandbakken, P. (Eds.) (2012). Consumers and Nanotechnology: Deliberative Processes, Social Barriers and Methodologies. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

van Broekhuizen, P. (2016). NANODIODE Report Summary. NanoDiode Consortium. Recuperado de https://cordis.europa.eu/result/rcn/191879_en.html.

von Schomberg, R. (2006). From the Ethics of Technology towards an Ethics of Knowledge Policy & Knowledge Assessment: A working document from the European Commission Services. Luxemburgo: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

von Schomberg, R. (2010). Organising Collective Responsibility: On Precaution, Codes of Conduct and Understanding Public Debate. En U. Fiedeler, C. Coenen, S. R. Davies y A. Ferrari (Eds.), Understanding Nanotechnology. Philosophy, Policy and Publics (pp. 61–70). Heidelberg: Akademische Verlagsgessellschaft.

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

von Schomberg, R. (2014). The Quest for the ‘Right’ Impacts of Science and Technology: A Framework for Responsible Research and Innovation. En J. van den Hoven, N. Doorn, T. Swierstra, B.-J. Koops y H. Romijn (Eds.), Responsible Innovation 1: Innovative Solutions for Global Issues (pp. 33–50). Dordrecht: Springer.

Walhout, B., Kuhlmann, S., Dorbeck-Jung, B., Edler, J., Randles, S. y Gee, S. (2014). Research Heuristics and Key Concepts. Governance framework for Responsible Research and Innovation (Res-AGorA). Recuperado de http://res-agora.eu/assets/Res-AGorA_321427_Del_2-2_updated.pdf.

Wickson, F. y Forsberg, E. (2015). Standardising Responsibility? The Significance of Interstitial Spaces. Science and Engineering Ethics, 21(5), 1159–1180. doi:10.1007/s11948-014-9602-4

Wynne, B. (1982). Institutional Mythologies and Dual Societies in the Management of Risk. En H. Kunreuther y E. Ley (Eds.). The Risk Analysis Controversy: An Institutional Perspective (pp. 127–143). Berlín y Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.