¿Nuevos patrones de investigación? Dinámicas de apertura y cierre en el proceso de integración socio-técnica

  1. Eizagirre, Andoni 1
  1. 1 Universidad de Mondragón, España
Revista:
Arbor: ciencia, pensamiento y cultura

ISSN: 0210-1963

Año de publicación: 2019

Volumen: 195

Número: 794

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.3989/ARBOR.2019.794N4002 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Arbor: ciencia, pensamiento y cultura

Resumen

The formulation of research and development policies is being transformed in a novel way in the most recent documents coming out of Europe. One notable peculiarity is that research patterns are moving toward scientific-technological practices that are more interactive among the various actors of society. Thus, the first measures in response to the complex nature of research are being revealed in strategies for the promotion of entrepreneurial and collaborative attitudes among academic-business actors in research and development. Other approaches are superimposed on these initiatives, approaches that transcend the primarily economistic goal of collaboration and that integrate social and ethical factors in research and development. Nevertheless, these transformations are also subject to underlying tensions and concurrent objectives. The article elucidates these opening-and-closing dynamics and demonstrates that some relationships and demands are more resistant to change.

€ Ver financiación

Información de financiación

Commission?of?the?European?Communities? (2003).?Communication from the Com- mission to the Council and the European micas?tipo?top-down que?se?diseñan?y? ejecutan?en?planes?comunitarios-?como? una?serie?de?iniciativas?que?se?generan? en?la?sociedad?civil?y?se?robustecen?con? los?programas?institucionales.?Véase? a?este?propósito?la?iniciativa?Nanojury (Singh,?2008).

Financiadores

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Adam, B. y Groves, G. (2011). Futures tended: Care and future-oriented responsibility. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 31 (1), pp. 17–27.
  • Barinaga, M. (2000). Asilomar Revisited: Lessons for Today? Science, 287 (5458), pp. 1584-1585.
  • Berman, E. P. (2012). Creating the Market University: How Academic Science Became an Economic Engine. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  • Braun, K., Herrmann, S. L., Konninger, S. and Moore, A. (2010). Ethical Reflection Must Always Be Measured. Science, Technology & Human Values, 35 (6), pp. 839-864.
  • Commission of the European Communities (2001). European Governance: A White Paper. [En línea]. Disponible en https:// ec.europa.eu/europeaid/sites/devco/files/communication-white-paper-governance-com2001428-20010725_en.pdf
  • Commission of the European Communities (2003). Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament. Some Key Issues in Europe’s Competitiveness - Towards an Integrated Approach. [En línea]. Disponible en https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/ regdoc/rep/1/2003/EN/1-2003-704- EN-F1-1.Pdf
  • Douglas, H. E. (2003). The Moral Responsibilities of Scientists (Tensions Between Autonomy and Responsibility). American Philosophical Quarterly, 40 (1), pp. 59-68.
  • Eizagirre, A., Rodríguez, H. e Ibarra, A. (2017). Politicizing Responsible Innovation: Responsibility as Inclusive Governance. International Journal of Innova tion Studies, 1 (1), pp. 20-36.
  • Elzinga, A. (2012). Features of the Current Science Policy Regime: Viewed in Historical Perspective. Science and Public Policy, 39 (4), pp. 416-428.
  • European Commission (2002). Science and Society. Action Plan. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. [En línea]. Disponible en https://ec.europa.eu/research/swafs/ pdf/pub_gender_equality/ss_ap_en.pdf
  • European Commission (2007). Taking European Knowledge Society Seriously. Report of the Expert Group on Science and Governance to the Science, Economy and Society Directorate. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
  • European Commission (2008). Challenging Europe’s Research: Rationales for the European Research Area (ERA). Report of the ERA Expert Group. Luxemburg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
  • European Commission (2010). Communication from the Commission. Europe 2020. A Strategy for Smart, Sustainable and Inclusive Growth. [En línea]. Disponible en https://ec.europa.eu/eu2020/pdf/ COMPLET%20EN%20BARROSO%20%20 %20007%20-%20Europe%202020%20 -%20EN%20version.pdf
  • European Commission (2011). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Horizon 2020 - The Framework Programme for Research and Innovation. [En línea]. Disponible en https:// ec.europa.eu/research/horizon2020/ pdf/proposals/communication_from_ the_commission_-_horizon_2020_-_ the_framework_programme_for_research_and_innovation.pdf
  • European Commission (2012). Ethical and Regulatory Challenges to Science and Research Policy at the Global Level. Luxemburg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. [En línea]. Disponible en http://ec.europa. eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/ethical-and-regulatory-challenges-042012_en.pdf
  • European Commission (2013). Options for Strengthening. Responsible Research and Innovation Report of the Expert Group on the State of Art in Europe on Responsible Research and Innovation. Luxemburg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. [En línea]. Disponible en https://ec.europa. eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/options-for-strengthening_en.pdf
  • European Commission (2014). Responsible Research and Innovation: Europe’s Ability to Respond to Societal Challenges. Publications Office of the European Union. [En línea]. Disponible en https:// ec.europa.eu/research/swafs/pdf/pub_ rri/KI0214595ENC.pdf
  • European Commission (2018). Monitoring the Evolution and Benefits of Responsible Research and Innovation in Europe. Luxemburg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. [En línea]. Disponible en https://publications. europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/ publication/2c5a0fb6-c070-11e8- 9893-01aa75ed71a1/language-en
  • Flink, T. y Kaldewey, D. (2018). The New Production of Legitimacy: STI Policy Discourses Beyond the Contract Metaphor. Research Policy, 47 (1), pp. 14-22.
  • Guston, D. H. (2014). Understanding ‘Anticipatory Governance’. Social Studies of Science, 44 (2), pp. 218-242.
  • Hilgartner, S., Prainsack, B. y Hurlbut, J-B. (2016). Ethics as Governance in Genomics and Beyond. En: Felt, U., Fouché, R., Miller, C. A. y Smith-Doerr, L. (eds). The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 823-851.
  • Hoppe, R. (1999). Policy Analysis, Science and Politics: From ‘speaking truth to power’ to ‘making sense together’. Science and Public Policy, 26 (3), pp. 201-210.
  • Hullmann, A. (2008). European Activities in the Field of Ethical, Legal and Social Aspects (ELSA) and Governance of Nanotechnology. European Commission, DG Research, Unit “Nano and Converging Sciences and Technologies”. [En línea]. Disponible en https://www.nanowerk.com/nanotechnology/reports/ reportpdf/report122.pdf
  • Irwin, A. y Wynne, B. (eds.) (1995). Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Jamison, A. (2012). Science and Technology in Postwar Europe. En: Stone, D. (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Postwar European History. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 630- 648.
  • Jasanoff, S. (2012). Science and Public Reason. London: Routledge.
  • Jasanoff, S. (2016). The Ethics of Invention: Technology and the Human Future. New York: Norton.
  • Kaldewey, D. y Schauz, D. (eds.). (2018). Basic and Applied Research: The Language of Science Policy in the Twentieth Century. New York. Berghahn Books.
  • Kleinman, D-L. (1995). Politics on the Endless Frontier: Postwar Research Policy in the United States. Durham: Duke University Press.
  • Krismky, S. (2005). From Asilomar to Industrial Biotechnology: Risks, Reductionism and Regulation. Science as Culture, 14 (4), pp. 309-323.
  • Lash, S., Szerszynski, B. y Wynne, B. (1996). Risk, Environment and Modernity: Towards a New Ecology. London: Sage.
  • Leach, M., Scoones, I. y Wynne, B. (eds.) (2005). Science and Citizens. Globalization and the Challenge of Engagement. London: Zed Books.
  • Levidow, L. (2009). Democratizing agri-biotechnology? European public participation in agbiotech assessment. Comparative Sociology, 8 (4), pp. 541-564.
  • Levidow, L. y Neubauer, C. (2014). EU Research Agendas: Embedding What Future? Science as Culture, 23 (3), pp. 397- 412.
  • López Cerezo, J. A. y Luján, J. L. (2000). Ciencia y política del riesgo. Madrid: Alianza.
  • Marklund, G., Vonortas, N. y Wessner, Ch. (eds.). (2009). The Innovation Imperative: National Innovation Strategies in the Global Economy. Cheltenham. UK: Edward Elgar.
  • Merton, R. (1942). A Note on Science and Democracy. Journal of Legal and Political Sociology, 1, pp. 115-126.
  • Nelson, R. R. y Wright, G. (1992). The Rise and Fall of American Technological Leadership: The Postwar Era in Historical Perspective. Journal of Economic Literature, 30 (4), pp. 1931-1964.
  • Oudheusden, M. van (2014). Where are the politics in responsible innovation? European governance, technology assessments, and beyond. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 1 (1), pp. 67-86.
  • 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), pp. 751-760.
  • Owen, R., Stilgoe, J., Macnaghtell, P., Gorman, M., Fisher, E. y Guston, D. (2013). A Framework for Responsible Innovation. En: Owen, R., Bessant, J. y Heintz, M. (eds.). Responsible Innovation. Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society. Chichester: Wiley, pp. 27-50.
  • Polanyi, M. (1951). The Logic of Liberty: Reflections and Rejoinders. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Reijers, W., Wright, D., Brey, P., Weber, K., Rodrigues, R., O’Sullivan, D. y Gordijn, B. (2017). Methods for Practising Ethics in Research and Innovation: A Literature Review, Critical Analysis and Recommendations. Science and Engineering Ethics, 24 (5), pp. 1437-1481.
  • Rhodes, R. (2012). The Making of the Atomic Bomb. New York: Simon & Schuster.
  • Ribeiro, B. E., Smith, R. D. J. y Millar, K. (2017). A mobilising concept? Unpacking academic representations of responsible research and innovation. Science and Engineering Ethics, 23 (1), pp. 81-103.
  • Rip, A. (2014). The Past and Future of RRI. Life Sciences, Society and Policy, 1 (10), pp. 1-15.
  • Rip, A. (2016). The Clothes of the Emperor: An Essay on RRI in and around Brussels. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 3 (3), pp. 290-304.
  • Saille, S. de (2015). Innovating Innovation Policy: The Emergence of ‘Responsible Research and Innovation’. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 2 (2), pp. 152- 168.
  • Sarewitz, D. (1996). Frontiers of Illusion: Science, Technology and the Politics of Progress. Philadelphia: Temple of University Press.
  • Sarewitz, D. (2016). Saving Science. The New Atlantis, 49, pp. 4-40.
  • Schomberg, R. von (2007). From the Ethics of Technology Towards an Ethics of Knowledge Policy & Knowledge Assessment. A working document from the European Commission Services. [En línea]. Disponible en https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/aa44eb61-5be2- 43d6-b528-07688fb5bd5a
  • Schomberg, R. von (2013). A Vision on Responsible Research and Innovation. En: Owen, R., Bessant, J. y Heintz, M. (eds.). Responsible Innovation. Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society. Chichester: Wiley, pp. 51-74.
  • Shapin, S. (2008). The Scientific Life: A Moral History of a Late Modern Vocation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  • Singh, J. (2008). The UK Nanojury as ‘upstream’ public engagement. Participatory Learning and Action, 58 (1), pp. 27-32.
  • Steelman, J. R. (1948). Science and Public Policy: A Report by the President’s Scientific Research Board. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 4 (1), pp. 23-31.
  • Stilgoe, J. y Guston, D. (2017). Responsible Research and Innovation. En: Felt, U., Fouché, R., Miller, C. A. y Smith-Doerr, L. (eds). The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 853-880.
  • Stilgoe, J., Owen, R. y Macnaghten, P. (2013). Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy, 42 (9), pp. 1568-1580.
  • Timmermans, J. (2017). Mapping the RRI Landscape: An Overview of Organisations, Projects, Persons, Areas and Topics. En: Asveld, L., Dam-Mieras, R. van, Swierstra, T., Lavrijssen, S., Linse, K. y Hoven, J. van den (eds.). Responsible Innovation 3: A European Agenda? Cham: Springer, pp. 21-47.
  • Wynne, B. (1982). Institutional Mythologies and Dual Societies in the Management of Risk. En: Kunreuther, H. C. y Ley, E. V. (eds.). The Risk Analysis Controversy: An Institutional Perspective. Berlin: Springer Verlag, pp. 127-143.
  • Zwart, H., Landeweerd, L. y Rooij, A. van (2014). Adapt or perish? Assessing the recent shift in the European research funding arena from ‘ELSA’ to ‘RRI’. Life Sciences, Society and Policy, 10 (11), pp. 1-19.
  • Zwart, H. y Nelis, A. (2009). What is ELSA genomics? EMBO Reports, 10 (6), pp. 540-544.
  • Otros recursos
  • A Report on Responsible Research & Innovation. [En línea]. Disponible en https://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/rri-report-hilary-sutcliffe_en.pdf
  • Creating an Innovative Europe. Report of the Independent Expert Group on R&D and Innovation appointed following the Hampton Court Summit and chaired by Mr Esko Aho. Luxemburg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2006.
  • Lisbon European Council 23 and 24 march 2000. Presidency Conclusions. [En línea]. Disponible en https://www.europarl.europa.eu/summits/lis1_en.htm
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet