Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Exploring Responsible Innovation as a Guiding Concept: The Case of Neuroimaging in Justice and Security

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Responsible Innovation 2

Abstract

Although responsible innovation (RI) is to change the scientific system to meet the grand challenges of our time, its criteria are still unclear. This study explores meaning negotiation on RI by academic actors in both formal and informal discourse. In the formal discourse on RI, we identified characteristic shifts, including engagement of societal stakeholders, anticipation and adaptability, broadening, and new insights on impacts and regulation. However, the intended group of scientists themselves were not visibly involved in the formal discussion. Therefore, as a case study, we studied the informal discourse of Dutch scientists in the field of functional neuroimaging relevant to the domain of justice and security. Our findings show that RI is unfamiliar to scientists. We suggest that RI as a guiding concept is in need of operationalization within the specific context in which it is used. A point of entry for such a process is the role responsibility taken on by scientists. Resistance can be expected as RI can be equivocated with a limitation on the autonomy of science. To avoid evasive practices, extra efforts are needed to involve the scientists in a co-constructive process to operationalize RI.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    www.hersenenencognitie.nl/contents/1038?locale=en.

  2. 2.

    This research project at the VU University Amsterdam is funded by the Dutch NWO program “Responsible Innovation”.

  3. 3.

    The change in the software used was not a methodological choice but a pragmatic one, with respect to user friendliness.

  4. 4.

    In Dutch ‘maatschappelijk verantwoord innoveren’, which can be translated as “societally responsible innovation”.

  5. 5.

    All but one interviews were conducted with a single scientist.

References

  • Allenby, Braden R., and Daniel Sarewitz. 2011. The techno-human condition. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, Margaret, Guillaume Cornut, Stéphane Delacôte, Marc Lenglet, Yuval Millo, Fabian Muniesa, Alexandre Pointier, and Yamina Tadjeddine. 2012. Towards a practical approach to responsible innovation in finance: New product committees revisited. Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance 20(2): 2–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barben, Daniel, Erik Fisher, Cynthia Selin, and David H. Guston. 2007. Anticipatory governance of nanotechnology: Foresight, engagement, and integration. The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies 3: 979–1000.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barré, Rémi. 2011. Responsible innovation: From concepts to practice. Reflecting on a Franco-British workshop. Natures Sciences Sociétés 19(4): 405–409.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergquist, Magnus, Jan Ljungberg, and Ulrika Lundh-Snis. 2001. Practising peer review in organizations: A qualifier for knowledge dissemination and legitimization. Journal of Information Technology 16(2): 99–112. doi:10.1080/02683960122785.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bijker, Wiebe E., Thomas P. Hughes, and Trevor J. Pinch (eds.). 1984. The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borup, Mads, Nik Brown, Kornelia Konrad, and Harro Van Lente. 2006. The sociology of expectations in science and technology. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 18(3–4): 285–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broerse, Jacqueline E.W. 1998. Towards a new development strategy: How to include small-scale farmers in the technological innovation process. Delft: Eburon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broerse, Jacqueline E.W., Janneke E. Elberse, J. Francisca Caron-Flinterman, and Marjolein B.M. Zweekhorst. 2010a. Enhancing a transition towards a needs-oriented health research system through patient participation. In Transitions in health systems: Dealing with persistent problems, ed. J.E.W. Broerse, and J.F.G. Bunders. Amsterdam: VU University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broerse, Jacqueline E.W., and Joske F.G. Bunders. 2000. Requirements for biotechnology development: The necessity for an interactive and participatory innovation process. International Journal for Biotechnology 2(4): 275–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broerse, Jacqueline E.W., Marjolein B.M. Zweekhorst, Annemiek J.M.L. van Rensen, and Monique J.M. de Haan. 2010b. Involving burn survivors in agenda setting on burn research: An added value? Burns 36(2): 217–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, John Seely, and Paul Duguid. 1996. The social life of documents. First Monday 1 (1–6).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bunders, Joske F.G. 1990. Biotechnology for small-scale farmers in developing countries. Amsterdam: VU University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bunders, Joske F.G., and Jacqueline E.W. Broerse. 1991. Appropriate biotechnology in small-scale agriculture: How to reorient research and development. Wallingford: CAB International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callon, Michel. 1986. Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieu Bay. In Power, action and belief: A new sociology af knowledge?, ed. John Law, 196–233. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caron-Flinterman, J. Francisca, Jacqueline E.W. Broerse, and Joske F.G. Bunders. 2005. The experiential knowledge of patients: A new resource for biomedical research? Social Science and Medicine 60(11): 2575–2584. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.11.023.

  • Caron-Flinterman, J.Francisca, Jacqueline E.W. Broerse, and Joske F.G. Bunders. 2007. Patient partnership in decision-making on biomedical research: Changing the network. Science, Technology and Human Values 32(3): 339–368. doi:10.1177/0162243906298354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chervenak, Frank A., and Laurence B. McCullough. 2006. Scientifically and ethically responsible innovation and research in ultrasound in obstetrics and gynecology. Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology 28(1): 1–4. doi:10.1002/uog.2825.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Silva, Joel, Douglas K.R. Robinson, and Clare Shelley-Egan. 2012. A game with rules in the making—how the high probability of waiting games in nanomedicine is being mitigated through distributed regulation and responsible innovation. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 24(6): 583–602. doi:10.1080/09537325.2012.693671.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diefenbach, Thomas. 2009. Are case studies more than sophisticated story telling? Methodological problems of case studies mainly based on semi-structured interviews. Quality and Quantity 43(Article): 875–894. doi:10.1007/s11135-008-9164-0.

  • Dondorp, Wybo, and Guido de Wert. 2011. Innovative reproductive technologies: Risks and responsibilities. Human Reproduction 26(7): 1604–1608. doi:10.1093/humrep/der112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duke, Daniel L. 1978. Toward responsible innovation. The Educational Forum 42(3): 351–371. doi:10.1080/00131727809336323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EC. 2010. Europe 2020 flagship initiative: Innovation union. COM(2010) 546. Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • EC. 2011a. From challenges to opportunities: Towards a common strategic framework for EU research and innovation funding. Green Paper COM(2011) 48. Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • EC. 2011b. Horizon 2020—The framework programme for research and innovation. COM(2011) 808 final. Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elberse, Janneke E. 2012. Changing the health research system: Patient participation in health research. ‘s-Hertogenbosch: BOXpress.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrari, Arianna, and Alfred Nordmann. 2010. Beyond conversation: Some lessons for nanoethics. NanoEthics 4(2): 171–181. doi:10.1007/s11569-010-0098-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, Erik. 2011. Public science and technology scholars: Engaging Whom? Science and Engineering Ethics 17(4): 607–620. doi:10.1007/s11948-011-9331-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flyvbjerg, Bent. 2006. Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry 12(2): 219–245. doi:10.1177/1077800405284363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, Michael. 1999. Science’s new social contract with society. Nature 402(6761): C81–C84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godin, Benoît. 1998. Writing performative history: The new New Atlantis? Social Studies of Science 28(3): 465–483. doi:10.1177/030631298028003004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gomart, Emilie, and Maarten Hajer. 2003. Is that politics? For an inquiry into forms in contemporary politics. In Social studies of science and technology: Looking back, ahead, eds. Bernward Joerges, and Helga Nowotny, 33–61. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodenough, Oliver R., and Micaela Tucker. 2010. Law and cognitive neuroscience. Annual Review of Law and Social Science 6(1): 61–92. doi:10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.093008.131523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goorden, Lieve, Michiel Van Oudheusden, Johan Evers, and Marian Deblonde. 2008. Lose one another … and find one another in nanospace. ‘nanotechnologies for tomorrow’s society: A case for reflective action research in flanders (NanoSoc)’. NanoEthics 2(3): 213–230. doi:10.1007/s11569-008-0043-x.

  • Greely, Henry T. 2007. Neuroscience and criminal justice: Not responsibility but treatment. Kansas Law Review 56: 1103–1138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groves, Chris, Lori Frater, Robert Lee, and Elen Stokes. 2011. Is there room at the bottom for CSR? Corporate social responsibility and nanotechnology in the UK. Journal of Business Ethics 101(4): 525–552. doi:10.1007/s10551-010-0731-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guston, David H. 2006. Responsible knowledge-based innovation. Society 43(4): 19–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guston, David H. 2007. Toward centres for responsible innovation in the commercialized university. Public science in liberal democracy: The challenge to science and democracy. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guston, David H., and Kenneth Keniston. 1994. Introduction: the social contract for science. In The fragile contract. University Science and the Federal Government, ed. David H. Guston, and Kenneth Kenniston, 1–41. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hellström, Tomas. 2003. Systemic innovation and risk: Technology assessment and the challenge of responsible innovation. Technology in Society 25(3): 369–384. doi:10.1016/s0160-791x(03)00041-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hessels, Laurens K. 2010. Science and the struggle for relevance. PhD thesis, Universiteit Utrecht, Utrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingham, Marc, Françoise de Viron, and Alain Tihon. 2010. Sustaining responsible innovation through responsible finance: Exploring the strategy process and alignment at Triodos Bank. Paper presented at the EBEN conference, March 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irvine, John, and Ben R. Martin. 1984. Foresight in science: Picking the winners. London: Frances Pinter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ishizu, Saori, Mizuki Sekiya, Ken-ichi Ishibashi, Yumi Negami, and Masafumi Ata. 2008. Toward the responsible innovation with nanotechnology in Japan: Our scope. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 10(2): 229–254. doi:10.1007/s11051-007-9306-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonas, Hans. 1984. The imperative of responsibility: In search of an ethics for the technological age. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaza, Greg. 2006. Regulation of financial derivatives in the US code. Derivatives Use, Trading and Regulation 11(4): 381–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keulartz, Jozef, Maartje Schermer, Michiel Korthals, and Tsjalling Swierstra. 2004. Ethics in technological culture: A programmatic proposal for a pragmatist approach. Science, Technology and Human Values 29(1): 3–29. doi:10.1177/0162243903259188.

  • Kiran, Asle H, H. 2012. Does responsible innovation presuppose design instrumentalism? Examining the case of telecare at home in the Netherlands. Technology in Society 34(3): 216–226. doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2012.07.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kloet, Roy R. 2011. Realizing societal ambitions in innovative research programs: The case of the dutch ecogenomics consortium. PhD thesis. Oisterwijk: BOXpress.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, Bruno. 1987. Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, Bruno. 1990. Drawing things together. In Representations in scientific practice, ed. Michael E Lynch, and Steve Woolgar, 19–68. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laudel, Grit, and Jochen Gläser. 2007. Interviewing scientists. Science, Technology and Innovation Studies 3(2): 91–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Law, John. 1992. Notes on the theory of the actor-network: Ordering, strategy, and heterogeneity. Systems practice 5(4): 379–393. doi:10.1007/bf01059830.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owen, Richard. 2009. A new era of responsible innovation. Planet Earth (autumn):14–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Owen, Richard, and Nicola Goldberg. 2010. Responsible innovation: A pilot study with the U.K. engineering and physical sciences research council. Risk analysis: An international journal 30(11): 1699–1707. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01517.x.

  • Owen, Richard, Phil Macnaghten, and Jack Stilgoe. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ozdemir, Vural, Samer A. Faraj, and Bartha M. Knoppers. 2011. Steering vaccinomics innovations with anticipatory governance and participatory foresight. OMICS: A Journal of Integrative Biology 15(9): 637–646. doi:10.1089/omi.2011.0087.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pandza, Krsto, and Paul Ellwood. 2013. Strategic and ethical foundations for responsible innovation. Research Policy 42(5): 1112–1125. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.02.007.

  • Patton, Michael Quinn. 1990. Qualitative research and evaluation methods, 2nd ed. Newbury Park: Sage Publications, Incorporated.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pavie, Xavier. 2012. The importance of responsible-innovation and the necessity of ‘innovation-care’. ESSEC Working Paper 1203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petchesky, Rosalind Pollack. 1987. Fetal images: The power of visual culture in the politics of reproduction. Feminist Studies 13(2): 263–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polanyi, Michael. 1962. The republic of science: Its political and economic theory. Minerva 1(Autum): 54–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popay, Jennie, and Gareth Williams. 1996. Public health research and lay knowledge. Social Science and Medicine 42(5): 759–768. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(95)00341-X.

  • Reddy, Panga Jaipal, Rekha Jain, Young-Ki Paik, Robin Downey, Adam S. Ptolemy, Vural Ozdemir, and Sanjeeva Srivastava. 2011. Personalized medicine in the age of pharmacoproteomics: A close up on india and need for social science engagement for responsible innovation in post-proteomic biology. Current Pharmacogenomics and Personalized Medicine 9(3): 159–167. doi:10.2174/187569211796957557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rip, Arie. 2004. Strategic research, post-modern universities and research training. Higher Education Policy 17(2): 153–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rip, Arie. 2005. Technology assessment as part of the co-evolution of nanotechnology and society: The thrust of the TA program in NanoNed. Paper presented at the conference on nanotechnology in science, economy and society, Marburg, 13–15 January.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rip, Arie. 2012. Technology assessment as a site for STS knowledge and insights. Paper presented at the presentation at the WTMC workshop: Assessing technology assessment, Soeterbeeck, Raventstein, The Netherlands, 2 November.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roelofsen, Anneloes. 2011. Exploring the future of ecogenomics: Constructive technology assessment and emerging technologies. PhD Thesis, Ridderprint, Ridderkerk, The Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schot, Johan, and Arie Rip. 1997. The past and future of constructive technology assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 54(2–3): 251–268. doi:10.1016/s0040-1625(96)00180-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schuurbiers, Daan. 2011. What happens in the lab: Applying midstream modulation to enhance critical reflection in the laboratory. Science and Engineering Ethics 17(4): 769–788. doi:10.1007/s11948-011-9317-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schuurbiers, Daan. 2012. See ethics as a stimulus and not as an obstacle (Zie ethiek als impuls en niet als belemmering). LEV. November.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, Victor E. 1992. Innovation and our product liability system: Let us end the conflict on incentives. Business Economics 27(4): 15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, Peter, Michael Gibbons, Helga Nowotny, Camille Limoges, Martin Trow, and Simon Schwartzman. 1994. The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Sage Publications Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shelley-Egan, Clare. 2010. The ambivalence of promising technology. NanoEthics 4(2): 183–189. doi:10.1007/s11569-010-0099-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, Bernd Carsten. 2011. IT for a better future: How to integrate ethics, politics and innovation. Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society 9(3): 140–156. doi:10.1108/14779961111167630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stinner, Deborah H., Ivan Glick, and Benjamin R. Stinner. 1992. Forage legumes and cultural sustainability—Lessons from history. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 40(1–4): 233–248. doi:10.1016/0167-8809(92)90095-s.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sunstein, Cass R. 2002. The paralyzing principle. Regulation 25: 32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swierstra, Tsjalling, Niki Vermeulen, Johan Braeckman, and Roel van Driel. 2013. Rethinking the life sciences. EMBO Rep. doi:10.1038/embor.2013.30. advance online publication.

    Google Scholar 

  • te Kulve, Haico, and Arie Rip. 2011. Constructing productive engagement: Pre-engagement tools for emerging technologies. Science and Engineering Ethics 17(4): 699–714.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tihon, Alain, and Marc Ingham. 2011. The societal system and responsible innovations: Freeing sustainable development from a deadlock. Journal of Innovation Economics 8(2): 11–31. doi:10.3917/jie.008.0011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyl, Benjamin, Jérémy Legardeur, Dominique Millet, André Falchi, and Bertrand Ranvier. 2011. A new approach for the development of a creative method to stimulate responsible innovation. In Global product development, ed. Alain Bernard, 93–104. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Van de Poel, Ibo. 2009. Values in engineering design. In Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences, ed. Anthonie Meijers, 973–1006. Handbook of the philosophy of science. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • van den Hove, Sybille, Jacqueline McGlade, Pierre Mottet, and Michael H. Depledge. 2012. The innovation union: A perfect means to confused ends? Environmental Science and Policy 16: 73–80. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2011.11.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Est, Rinie, and Frans Brom. 2012. Technology assessment, analytic and democratic practice. In Encyclopedia of applied ethics, ed. Ruth Chadwick, 306–320. Oxford: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • van Lente, Harro. 2012. Navigating foresight in a sea of expectations: Lessons from the sociology of expectations. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 24(8): 769–782.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Oudheusden, Michiel. forthcoming. Broadening ‘Innovation’ through technology assessment in Flanders, Belgium: The Case of Nanotechnologies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Venier, Sylvia. 2011. BIRD platform for responsible innovation takes wing. Biometric Technology Today 2011(3): 5–7. doi:10.1016/s0969-4765(11)70055-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verbeek, Peter-Paul. 2011. Mediated morality. In Moralizing technology: Understanding and designing the morality of things, 1–20. Chicago; London: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Schomberg, René. 2012. Prospects for technology assessment in a framework of responsible research and innovation. Technikfolgen abschätzen lehren: Bildungspotenziale transdisziplinärer Methoden:39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, Robert K. 2002. Case study research: Design and methods, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank the anonymous reviewer for Jacqueline Broerse the helpful comments and suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Athena Institute, Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, VU University Amsterdam, de Boelelaan 1085, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Marije de Jong, Frank Kupper & Jacqueline Broerse

  2. KWF Kankerbestrijding, Delflandlaan 17, 1062 EA, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Anneloes Roelofsen

Authors
  1. Marije de Jong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Frank Kupper
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anneloes Roelofsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jacqueline Broerse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marije de Jong .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Tilburg Law School, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands

    Bert-Jaap Koops

  2. Philosophy section, Faculty of TPM, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

    Ilse Oosterlaken

  3. Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands

    Henny Romijn

  4. Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, University of Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands

    Tsjalling Swierstra

  5. Philosophy Section, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

    Jeroen van den Hoven

Appendix

Appendix

See Fig. 4.2.

Fig. 4.2
figure 2

Systematic literature search flow chart

Full size image

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

de Jong, M., Kupper, F., Roelofsen, A., Broerse, J. (2015). Exploring Responsible Innovation as a Guiding Concept: The Case of Neuroimaging in Justice and Security. In: Koops, BJ., Oosterlaken, I., Romijn, H., Swierstra, T., van den Hoven, J. (eds) Responsible Innovation 2. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17308-5_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation