La constitución de las políticas de investigación e innovación responsablestensiones en la instrumentalización y la regulación

  1. Andoni Eizagirre 1
  1. 1 Universidad de Mondragón/Mondragon Unibertsitatea
    info

    Universidad de Mondragón/Mondragon Unibertsitatea

    Mondragón, España

    ROR https://ror.org/00wvqgd19

Revista:
Política y sociedad

ISSN: 1130-8001,  1988-3129

Año de publicación: 2016

Título del ejemplar: El saber social de los griegos antiguos. En recuerdo de Enrique Gómez Arboleya

Volumen: 53

Número: 3

Páginas: 815-836

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.5209/REV_POSO.2016.V53.N3.48761 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Política y sociedad

Resumen

La política científica y tecnológica europea ha propuesto alinear mejor el proceso y los resultados de las actividades de investigación e ingeniería con los valores, las necesidades y las expectativas de la sociedad europea. No obstante, esta progresiva radicalización de la narrativa, como respuesta a las demandas de mayor responsabilidad, debe lidiar con otros discursos del presente que operan como prescripciones ideológicas y conciben la innovación como motor de la competitividad económica. Hay una tensión de base que se evidencia en la aparente paradoja del nuevo contexto social de la actividad científicotecnológica sometida, por un lado, a una creciente demanda de modelos responsables de investigación e innovación y, por otro, instrumentalizada para resultados macroeconómicos. Nuestra estrategia de análisis sugiere rescatar esta cuestión ligada a los intereses que concurren en la generación del conocimiento, los criterios que rigen las dinámicas del régimen científico-tecnológico y los valores que orientan las políticas científicas. En la tensión de base encontramos una infinidad de elementos heterogéneos que en ocasiones se contradicen y que disputan entre sí por formas alternativas de instrumentalizar y regular las dinámicas del sistema de ciencia, tecnología e innovación. En la gobernanza de esa tensión se constituye el modelo de investigación e innovación que las políticas europeas y nacionales desarrollan como respuesta a los desafíos globales.

€ Ver financiación

Información de financiación

La elaboración de este artículo ha contado con el apoyo del Departamento de Educación, Política Lingüística y Cultura del Gobierno Vasco (IT644-13).

Financiadores

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Barben, D. (2007): “Changing Regimes of Science and Politics: Comparative and Transnational Perspectives for a World in Transition”, Science and Public Policy, 34 (1), pp. 55-69.
  • Bauer, M. (2015): Atoms, Bytes & Genes: Public Resistance and Techno-Scientific Response, London, Routledge.
  • Bauer, M., R. Shukla y N. Allum (eds.) (2012): The Culture of Science: How the Public Relates to Science Across the Globe, London, Routledge.
  • Beck, U. (1995): Ecological Politics in an Age of Risk, Cambridge, Polity Press.
  • Beck, U. (2008): La sociedad del riesgo mundial: en busca de la seguridad perdida, Barcelona, Ediciones Paidós Ibérica.
  • Bernal, J.D. (2010): The Social Function of Science, London, Faber & Faber.
  • Berman, E.P. (2012): Creating the Market University: How Academic Science Became an Economic Engine, Princeton, Princeton University Press.
  • Berman, E.P. (2014): “Not Just Neoliberalism: Economization in U.S. Science & Technology Policy”, Science, Technology, & Human Values, 39, pp. 397-431.
  • Besley, J. (2013): “The state of public opinion research on attitudes and understanding of science and technology”, Bulletin of Science, Technology, and Society, 33 (1/2), pp. 12-20.
  • Boden, M., R. Johnston y F. Scapolo (eds.) (2012): “The Role of FTA in Responding to Grand Challenges”, Science and Public Policy, special section, 39 (2), pp. 135-283.
  • Bonneuil, C. y L. Levidow (2012): “How does the World Trade Organization know? The mobilization and staging of scientific expertise in the GMO trade dispute”, Social Studies of Science, 42 (1), pp. 75-100.
  • Bouder, F., D. Slavin y R. Lofstedt (2007): The Tolerability of Risk. A New Framework for Risk Managament, London, Routledge.
  • Bozeman, B. (2007): Public Values and Public Interest, Washington, DC, Georgetown University Press.
  • Bozeman, B. y D. Sarewitz (2011): “Public Value Mapping and Science Policy Evaluation”, Minerva, 49, pp. 1-23.
  • Brown, N. (2003): “Hope Against Hype: Accountability in Biopasts, Presents and Futures”, Science Studies, 16 (2), pp. 3-21.
  • Brown, N. y M. Michael (2003): “A Sociology of Expectations: Retrospecting Prospects and Prospecting Retrospects”, Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 15 (1), pp. 3-18.
  • Brown, N., M. Borup, K. Konrad y H. van Lente (2006): “The Sociology of Expectations in Science and Technology”, Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 18 (3/4), pp. 285-444.
  • Bush, V. (1945): Science: The Endless Frontier, Washington, D.C., NSF.
  • Clark, L.F. (2013): “Framing the uncertainty of risk: Models of governance for genetically modified foods”, Science and Public Policy, 40 (4), pp. 479-491.
  • Coenen, C. y E. Simakova (eds.) (2013): “Governance of Technovisionary Sciences”, Science, Technology & Innovation Studies, special section, 9 (2), pp. 3-103.
  • Coozens, S., E. Kallerud, L. Ackers, B. Gill, J. Harper, T. Santos Pereira y N. ZarbAdami (2007): Problems of Inequality in Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy, Project Deliverable #2, James Martin Institute for Science and Civilization.
  • Dickson, D. (1984): The New Politics of Science, New York, Pantheon.
  • Douglas, M. y A. Wildavsky (1982): Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technological and Environmental Dangers, Berkeley, University of California Press
  • Eizagirre, A. (2011): “La precaución como principio de acción sostenible”, Isegoría, 44, pp. 303-324.
  • Eizagirre, A. (2013): “Las percepciones sociales en Europa sobre el rol de la ciencia y la tecnología”, Revista de Estudios Sociales, 47, pp. 67-78.
  • Elzinga, A. (2012): “Features of the current science policy regime: Viewed in historical perspective”, Science and Public Policy, 39 (4), pp. 416-428.
  • Elzinga, A. y A. Jamison. 1995. “Changing Policy Agendas in Science and Technology”, en S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J.C. Peterson y T. Pinch (eds.), Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, 572-597. London: Sage.
  • Engdahl. E. y R. Lidskog (2014): “Risk, communication and trust: Towards an emotional understanding of trust”, Public Understanding of Science, 23 (6), pp. 703-717.
  • Escobar, A. (2012): “Más allá del desarrollo: postdesarrollo y transiciones hacia el pluriverso”, Revista de antropología social, 21, pp. 23-62
  • Espluga Trenc, J., J. et al. (2014): “Factores que inhiben la movilización social: el caso del área petroquímica de Tarragona”, Revista Española de Investigaciones Sociológicas, 146, pp. 191-216.
  • Felt, U. (2007): Science and governance: Taking European knowledge society seriously, Brussels: European Commission, EUR 22700.
  • Foray, D., D. Mowery y R. Nelson (eds.) (2012): “The need for a new generation of policy instruments to respond to the Grand Challenges”, Research Policy, special section, 41 (10), pp. 1697-1792.
  • Glerup, C. y M. Horst (2014): “Mapping Social Responsibility in Science”, Journal of Responsible Innovation, 1 (1), pp. 31-50.
  • Godin, B. (2005): Science, Accounting and Statistics: the Input-Output Framework. Quebec, Project on the History and Sociology of S&T StatisticsWorking Paper No. 31.
  • Godin, B. (2007): “Science, Accounting and Statistics: The Input-Output Framework”, Research Policy, 36 (9), pp. 1388-1403.
  • Godin, B. (2010): The Making of Science, Technology and Innovation Policy: Conceptual Frameworks as Narratives 1945-2005, Montreal, Centre Urbanisation Culture Société.
  • Godin, B. (2015): Innovation Contested: The Idea of Innovation over the Centuries, London, Routledge.
  • Godin, B. & C. Doré (2005): Measuring the Impacts of Science: Beyond the Economic Dimension, Montreal, Centre Urbanisation Culture Société.
  • Godin, B. y J.P. Lane (2013): “`Pushes and Pulls´: The Hi(story) of the Demand Pull Model of Innovation”, Science, Technology and Human Values, 38(5), pp. 621-54.
  • Golding, D. (1992): “A Social and Programmatic History of Risk Research”, en S. Krimsky y D. Golding (eds.), Social Theories of Risk, pp. 23-52, Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.
  • Hackett, E.J. (1990): “Science as a Vocation in the 1990s: The Organizational Culture of Academic Science”, Journal of Higher Education, 61(3), pp. 241-279.
  • Harmon, S., G. Laurie y G. Haddow (2013): “Governing risk, engaging publics and engendering trust: New horizons for law and social science?”, Science and Public Policy, 40 (1), pp. 25-33.
  • Horst, M. (2007): “Public Expectations of Gene Therapy: Scientific Futures and their Performative Effects on Scientific Citizenship”, Science, Technology and Human Values, 32 (2), pp. 150-171.
  • Irwin, A. y B. Wynne (1996): Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  • Irwin, A., T.E. Jensen y K. Jones (2013): “The good, the bad and the perfect: criticizing engagement practice”, Social Studies of Science, 4 (1), pp. 119-136.
  • Jamison, A. (2012): “Science and Technology in Postwar Europe”, en D. Stone (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Postwar European History, pp. 630-648, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
  • Jasanoff, S. (1990): The Fifth Branch: Scientific Advisors as Policymakers, Cambridge, Harvard University Press.
  • Jasanoff, S. (2012): Science and Public Reason, London, Routledge.
  • Kallerud, E. (2012): Goals conflict and goal alignment in science, technology and innovation policy discourse, NIFU Nordic Institute for Studies inInnovation, Research and Education. Disponible en: http://www.csiic.ca/PDF/Kallerud.pdf [Consulta: 17 de diciembre de 2013]
  • Kallerud, E. y I. Ramberg (2002): “The order of discourse in surveys of public understanding of science”, Public Understanding of Science, 11 (3), pp. 213-224.
  • Kallerud, E., E. et al. (2013): Dimensions of research and innovation policies to address grand and global challenges, Working Paper 13/2013, Oslo, Nordisk institutt for studier av innovasjon, forskning og utdanning.
  • Kriebel, D. et al. (2001): “The Precautionary Principle in Environmental Science”, Environmental Health Perspectives, 109 (9), pp. 871-876.
  • Lash, S., B. Szerszynski y B. Wynne (1996): Risk, Environment and Modernity: Towards a New Ecology, London, Sage.
  • Laspra, B. y E. Muñoz (eds.) (2014): Culturas científicas e innovadoras, Progreso social, Ciudad de Buenos Aires, Eudeba.
  • Leach, M., I. Scoones y B. Wynne (eds.) (2005): Science and Citizens: Globalisation & The Challenge of Engagement, London, Zed Books.
  • Lentchs, J. y P. Weingart (eds.) (2011): The Politics of Scientific Advice, Institutional Design for Quality Assurance, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  • Levidow, L. y S. Carr (2010): GM Food on Trial: Testing European Democracy, London, Routledge.
  • Lofstedt, R.E. (2008): Risk Management in Post-Trust Societies, London, Routledge.
  • Maasen, S. y P. Weingart (eds.) (2005): Democratization of Expertise?: Exploring Novel Forms of Scientific Advice in Political Decision-Making, Berlin, Springer.
  • Marklund, G., N. Vonortas y Ch. Wessner (eds.) (2009): The Innovation Imperative: National Innovation Strategies in the Global Economy, Cheltenham. UK, Edward Elgar
  • McDaniels, T. y M. Small (eds.) (2004): Risk Analysis and Society: An Interdisciplinary Characterization of the Field, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  • Miettinen, R. (2013): Innovation, Human Capabilities, and Democracy. Towards an Enabling Welfare State, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
  • Millstone, E. et. al. (2004): Science in trade disputes related to potential risk: comparative case studies, Sevilla, European Commission.
  • Moore, K., D. Kleinman, D. Hess y S. Frickel (2011): “Science and neoliberal globalization: A political sociological approach”, Theory and Society, 40, pp. 505532.
  • Otway, H. y B. Wynne (1989): “Risk Communication: Paradigm and Paradox”, Risk Analysis, 9 (2), pp. 141–145.
  • Polanyi, M. (1962): “The Republic of Science: Its Political and Economic Theory”, Minerva 1, pp. 54-73.
  • Renn, O. (1992): “Concepts of risk: A clarification”, en S. Krimsky y D. Golding (eds.): Social Theories of Risk, pp. 53-79, Westport, CT, Greenwood Publishing Group.
  • Renn, Ortwin (2008): Risk Governance. Coping with Uncertainty in a Complex World, London, Earthscan.
  • Renn, O. (2014): “Towards a Socio-Ecological Foundation for Environmental Risk Research”, en S. Lockie, D. Sonnenfeld y D. Fisher (eds.): Routledge International Handbook of Social and Environmental Change, pp. 207-220, London, Rotledge: 207-220
  • Reynolds, L. y B. Szerszynski (2012): “Neoliberalism and Technology: Perpetual Innovation or Perpetual Crisis?”, en L. Pellizzoni y M. Ylonen (eds.). Neoliberalism and Technoscience: Critical Assessments, pp. 27-46, Farnham, Ashgate Publishing.
  • Rosa, E., O. Renn y A. McCright (2014): The Risk Society Revisited. Social Theory and Governance, Philadelphia,Temple University Press.
  • Salomon, J-J. (2000): “L´OECD et les politiques scientifiques”, Revueu pour l´histoire du CNRS, 3, pp. 40-58.
  • Sarewitz, D. (1996): Frontiers of Illusion: Science, Technology and the Politics of Progress, Philadelphia, Temple of University Press.
  • Sarewitz, D. (2007): “Does Science Policy Matter”, Issues in Science and Technology, 3, pp. 31-38.
  • Sarewitz, D. et al. (2004): “Science Policy in Its Social Context”, Philosophy Today, pp. 67-83.
  • Scoones, I., M. Leach y P. Newell (eds.) (2015): The Politics of Green Transformation, London, Routledge.
  • Selin, C. (2007): “Expectations and the Emergence of Nanotechnology”, Science, Technology and Human Values, 32 (2), pp. 196-220.
  • Shrader-Frechette, K. (1991): Risk and Rationality: Philosophical Foundations for Populist Reforms, Berkeley, University of California Press.
  • Shrader-Frechette, K. (2007): Taking Action, Saving Lives: Our Duties to Protect Environmental and Public Health, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
  • Slaughter, S. y G. Rhoades (2004): Academic Capitalism and the New Economy: Markets, State, and Higher Education, Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins University Press.
  • Stephan, P. (2012): How Economics Shapes Science, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.
  • Sugiman, T. (2012): “Lessons learned from the 2011 debacle of the Fukushima nuclear power plant”, Public Understanding of Science, 23 (3), pp. 254-267.
  • Todt, O. (2011): “The limits of policy: Public acceptance and the reform of science and technology governance”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78 (6), pp. 902-909.
  • Todt, O. y J.L. Luján (2014): “Values and Decisions: Cognitive and Noncognitive Values in Knowledge Generation and Decision Making”, Science, Technology & Human Values September, 39 (5), pp. 720-743
  • Vessuri, H. (ed.) (2012): “The use of knowledge for social cohesion and social inclusion”, Science and Public Policy, special section, 39 (5), pp. 545-617.
  • Von Roten, F. e Y. de Roten (2013): “Statistics in science and in society: From a stateof-the-art to a new research agenda”, Public Understanding of Science, 22 (7), pp. 768-784.
  • 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, UK, Wiley.
  • Waterton, C., R. Ellis y B. Wynne (2013): Barcoding Nature: Shifting Cultures of Taxonomy in an Age of Biodiversity Loss, London, Routledge.
  • Woodhouse, E. y D. Sarewitz (2007): “Science Policies for Reducing Societal Inequities”, Science and Public Policy, 34 (2), pp. 139-150.
  • Wilsdon, J., B. Wynne y J. Stilgoe (2005): The Public Value of Science: Or How to Ensure that Science Really Matters, London, Demos.
  • Wynne, B. (2002): “Risk and Environment as Legitimatory Discourses of Technology: reflexivity inside-out”, Current Sociology, 50 (3), pp. 459-477.
  • Wynne, B. (2007): “Indigenous Knowledge and Modern Science as Ways of Knowing and Living Nature: The Contexts and Limits of Biosafety Risk Assessment”, en T. Traavik y L. Li Ching (eds.): Biosafety First. Holistic Approaches to Risk and Uncertainty in Genetic Engineering and Genetically Modified Organisms, Malaysia, Third World Network and GenØk.
  • Wynne, B. (2008): “Public participation in science and technology: Performing and Obscuring a Political-Conceptual Category Mistake”, East Asian Science, Technology and Society: An International Journal, 1 (1), pp. 99-110.
  • Ziman, J. (1998): “Why Must Scientists Become More Ethically Sensitive Than They Used to Be?”, Science, 282 (5395), pp. 1813-181.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet