Innovar la gobernanza de la investigación y la innovaciónla experimentación de prácticas deliberativas en Europa

  1. Oier Imaz 1
  2. Andoni Eizagirre 1
  1. 1 Universidad de Mondragón/Mondragon Unibertsitatea
    info
    Universidad de Mondragón/Mondragon Unibertsitatea

    Mondragón, España

    ROR https://ror.org/00wvqgd19

    Geographic location of the organization Universidad de Mondragón/Mondragon Unibertsitatea
Journal:
Caleidoscopio: revista semestral de ciencias sociales y humanidades

ISSN: 1405-7107,  2395-9576

Year of publication: 2020

Issue: 43

Type: Article

DOI: 10.33064/43CRSCSH1987 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: Caleidoscopio: revista semestral de ciencias sociales y humanidades

Sustainable development goals

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.

Bibliographic 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.
Data source: Dialnet