Responsible Research and Innovation

Highlights
• An overview of the state of the art in community energy storage (CES) is provided.
• CES is conceptualized and analyzed as complex socio-technical system.
• Responsibility in CES design and implementation is operationalized. • CES is not only technical but also social innovation.
• The added-value of CES goes beyond economic benefits to wider societal benefits.

A B S T R A C T
The decreasing cost of energy storage and increasing demand for local flexibility are opening up new possibilities for energy storage deployment at the local level. Community energy storage (CES) is expected to contribute positively towards energy transition while accommodating the needs and expectations of citizens and local communities. Yet, the technological and societal challenges of integrating CES in the largely centralized present energy system demand for socio-technical innovation. In this article, we develop and discuss several configurations of CES. Applying system innovation and socio-technical transition frameworks and conceptualizing CES as a complex socio-technical system, different dynamics of CES in the energy systems such as coordination and interaction among actors and components of CES and the larger energy system is explored. The responsible research and innovation (RRI) framework can provide a new discourse in design and implementation of CES, facilitating the transition to a sustainable, reliable, inclusive and affordable future energy system.

The interdisciplinary field of neurorobotics looks to neuroscience to overcome the limitations of modern robotics technology, to robotics to advance our understanding of the neural system's inner workings, and to information technology to develop tools that support those complementary endeavours. The development of these technologies is still at an early stage, which makes them an ideal candidate for proac-tive and anticipatory ethical reflection. This article explains the current state of neu-rorobotics development within the Human Brain Project, originating from a close collaboration between the scientific and technical experts who drive neurorobotics innovation, and the humanities and social sciences scholars who provide contextu-alising and reflective capabilities. This article discusses some of the ethical issues which can reasonably be expected. On this basis, the article explores possible gaps identified within this collaborative, ethical reflection that calls for attenti...

Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) is a science policy concept that gained traction from 2000 onwards in the EU and US, in which alignment on purposes and values between different stakeholders is a key aspect. This thought experiment problematizes this particular notion: ethically acceptable and societally desirable outcomes are not necessarily achieved when alignment is a consequence of early closure. To argue this point, we took the example of the potential development of scanning technology for the detection of paedophilia among job applicants, for which indicators of broad societal support were found in an RRI project on neuroimaging. We analysed this case by looking through several lenses, obtained by structured and non-structured literature searches. We explored how facts and values are masked when a taboo topic is considered. This results in the black boxing of the problem definition, potential solutions and development trajectories. Complex unstructured problems can t...

Little is known about how citizens perceive the transition towards a bio-based economy (BBE), despite the fact that they are one of the most important actors in this transition. Citizens’ perceptions of bio-based innovations can support policy-makers to improve the quality of decision-making and the bio-based industry to develop innovations. This study explores Dutch citizens’ arguments for and against three selected bio-based innovations: bioplastics, bio-jetfuels and small-scale bio-refineries. Randomly selected Dutch citizens were consulted in seven focus groups discussions (n = 57). Results show that participants generally favor the contribution of bio-based technologies to economic growth and sustainability, but also mentioned several negative effects, such as high costs, food shortages or deforestation. In forming their opinion, citizens carefully weigh pros and cons of bio-based technologies from the perspective of their own interests and context, and this varies per bio-based technology. Their acceptance and support towards bio-based technologies increases when they feel more engaged with these technologies, and becomes even stronger when they identify opportunities for direct personal benefits, as in the case of the small-scale bio-refinery. This acceptance and support reduces if another important value is threatened (e.g. accessible mobility in the case of bio-jetfuels). Reliable information on both the advantages and disadvantages of bio-based technologies, coming from a neutral and independent body, is necessary in order for citizens to make their own judgments.

La Investigación e Innovación Responsables (RRI por sus siglas en inglés) suponen desde la perspectiva de la Unión Europea alinear mejor los procesos y resultados de la investigación y la innovación con los valores, las necesidades y las expectativas de la sociedad. Para poder llegar a esta alineación resultan claves la comunicación y el diálogo entre ciencia y sociedad, ya que solo a través de la ellos se puede informar sobre ciencia y conocer los intereses legítimos de las personas afectadas para poder darles respuesta. La presente publicación recoge los resultados del «Estudio sobre el diálogo entre ciencia y sociedad en España: propuestas para avanzar hacia la RRI desde la comunicación» desarrollado gracias a la colaboración de la Fundación la Fundación Española para la Ciencia y la Tecnología (FECYT) y da continuidad al estudio previo realizado en 2016 en el que se profundizaba en el concepto de RRI desde la perspectiva de la ética y la comunicación (Fernández Beltrán et al, 2017a).

The Handbook constitutes a global resource for the fast growing interdisciplinary research and policy communities addressing the challenge of driving innovation towards socially desirable outcomes. This book brings together well-known authors from the US, Europe and Asia who develop conceptual and regional perspectives on responsible innovation as well as exploring the prospects for further implementation of responsible innovation in emerging technological practices ranging from agriculture and medicine, to nanotechnology and robotics. The emphasis is on the socio-economic and normative dimensions of innovation including issues of social risk and sustainability.

As the smartphone infiltrates into all aspects of society in an atomized way， the age of being mobile arrives and gives rise to some changes of our lifestyle which enhance people’s“individuation”and make the relationship between“human-smartphone-world”more and more hermeneutic， exacerbating the feeling of drift and insecurity of human mind.

In this paper, we analyse patients’ perspectives on the introduction of artificial intelli- gence (AI) and robotic systems in healthcare. Based on citizens’ experiences when hospitalised for COVID-19, we explore how the opinions and concerns regarding healthcare automation could not be disassociated from a context of high pressure on the health system and lack of resources, and a politi- cal discourse on AI and robotics; a situation intensified by the pandemic. Thus, through the analysis of a set of interviews, a series of issues are identified that revolve around the following: the empirical effects of imagined robots, the vivid experience of citizens with the care crisis, the discomfort of the ineffective, the virtualised care assemblages, the human-based face-to-face relationships, and the automatisation of healthcare tasks. In light of these results, we show the variability in patients’ perspectives on AI and robotic systems and explain it by distinguishing two interpretive repertoires that account for different views and opinions: a well-being repertoire and a responsibility repertoire. Both interpretative repertoires are relevant in order to grasp the complexity of citizens’ approaches to automatisation of healthcare. Attending to both allows us to move beyond the dominant (political) discourse of technology markets as the only way to respond to healthcare challenges. Thus, we can analyse and integrate patients’ perspectives to develop AI and robotic systems in healthcare to serve citizens’ needs and collective well-being.

Despite the potential advantages, technology adoption often brings unexpected outcomes and even leads to failures on multiple fronts. The accountability of outcomes and failure of technology is missed out from technology development and adoption process. This issue has increasingly gained attention of researchers and practitioners. Responsible innovation (RI) has emerged as a concept that aims to address such issues through deploying the five dimensions (anticipation, reflexivity, deliberation, responsiveness, participation) in different stages of innovation process. However, the five dimensions lack of well identified and developed methodology. Therefore, the system dynamics (SD) modelling is explored as a method for extending the effectiveness of RI approach in practice. SD models on energy technology adoption dynamics developed here enable the demonstration of its applicability in anticipation and reflexivity. The paper concludes that the use of SD modelling seems useful for improving the capacity of reflexive and anticipatory dimensions of RI approach in practice.

Governments and companies are increasingly promoting and organizing Responsible Innovation. It is, however, unclear how the seemingly incompatible demands for responsibility, which is associated with care and caution, can be harmonized with demands for innovation, which is associated with risk-taking and speed. We turn to the tradition of virtue ethics and argue that it can be a strong accomplice to Responsible Innovation by focussing on the agential side of innovation. Virtue ethics offers an adequate response to the epistemic and moral complexity in innovation and encourages moral behaviour. We enumerate a number of virtues that people involved in Responsible Innovation would need to cultivate both related to responsibility, such as justice, anticipation, civility and inclusion, and virtues related to innovation, such as courage, dedication, curiosity and creativity. We put forward practical wisdom (phronesis) as a key virtue to regulate relevant virtues and to deal with the tension between responsibility and innovation. Practical wisdom helps an agent to find an appropriate mean in exercising and expressing the other virtues—where the mean is relative to the specific context of action and the role and abilities of the agent.

Contrary to the tendency to harmony, consensus and alignment among stakeholders in most of the literature on participation and partnership in Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and Responsible Innovation (RI) practices, in this chapter we ask which concept of participation and partnership is able to account for stakeholder engagement while acknowledging and appreciating their fundamentally different judgments, value frames and viewpoints. To this end, we reflect on a non-reductive and ethical approach to stakeholder engagement, collaboration and partnership in this article. We contrast a cognitive with an ethical approach to stakeholder engagement, collaboration and partnership, and explore four characteristics of this ethical approach. Based on the ethical approach to stakeholder engagement, collaboration and partnership, we also provide a three stage framework for partnership formation in CSR and RI practices.

The impact evaluation of research and innovation on national competitiveness continues to grapple with scholar-practitioners' exercises that could best fill the need of the triangulation relationship between sustainability, innovation, competitiveness on national levels. Undoubtedly, nations have benefited from the outcomes of research and innovation carried out by researchers in universities, which are ongoing to provide further assistance aimed at aiding national competitiveness. There is an enormous flow of literature on entrepreneurship, innovation, technology and rebranding, research, and competitive advantages at the firm's level. It appears however that less is in the know about the role of universities in this field of intellectual contributions, particularly in Nigeria. Organizations' use of outside wellsprings of information has developed amazingly since the late 1980s. The increment continues expanding the enthusiasm of academics and policy-makers though there remains gap to fill on the exercises of the Nigerian universities. There is a gap, at that point, in understanding the likely outcomes of actualizing different found knowledge regarding the impact of research and innovation on national competitiveness with accentuation on the roles of Nigerian universities. The researchers investigated if there is a correlation between sustainability, innovation, and competitiveness at the country level instead of the prior focused at organizational and business level. The authors suggested that sustainability and innovation policies, strategies and practices are pertinent for national competitiveness and ought to be

Introduction:
Value-sensitive design (VSD) refers to a field of research addressing the inscription of values in technologies in general and information and communication technologies (ICT) in particular. In this contribution, value-sensitive design, a term originally proposed by (Friedman et al. 2006) is used as an umbrella term encompassing also similar approaches developed by other proponents, such as values in design (Knobel & Bowker 2011), values at play (Nissenbaum 2005; Flanagan et al. 2008), and disclosive computer ethics (Brey 2000, 2010).
Value-sensitive design departs from the observation that in the process of designing technologies, societal values are often unintentionally inscribed into these technologies and that resulting technologies in return may promote or demote certain values, e.g. justice, fairness or privacy. The crucial idea behind value-sensitive design as a research approach and a methodology is then to turn this insight into a research question: if values are often unconsciously imparted in the process of designing and developing technologies, can we steer this inscription more reflexively, i.e. can we intentionally embed desired values into technologies? In line with this goal of embedding desired values into technologies, proponents of value-sensitive design have developed concrete methodologies to guide the design and development of technological artefacts that promote the values desired by the various stakeholders who are or can be affected by these technologies.
Value-sensitive design, therefore, a) aims at steering technology design and development to attune to shared societal values and b) promotes the early inclusion of various direct and indirect stakeholders into the process of technology design and development. As such VSD appears to be particularly suited to support and feed into initiatives promoting more “Responsible Research and Innovation”.
Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) as a term refers to both strategic efforts of national and international funding bodies, most notably the European Commission to better align the process and the outcomes of research and innovation with the values, needs and expectations of society as well as to the academic discourse which has formed around these strategic initiatives (e.g. Grunwald 2011, Koops et al. 2015, Oftedal 2014, Owen et al. 2013a, von Schomberg 2013, Simon 2015, Stilgoe et al. 2013, Timmermans and Stahl 2013, or van den Hoven et al. 2014).
Linking RRI and value-sensitive design therefore appears only consequential: value- sensitive design can support RRI by providing a concrete methodology to both assess societal values, needs and expectations and to implement desired values into technologies. Moreover, RRI can benefit from the lessons learned in value-sensitive design as a research field, in particular with regards to the pitfalls of stakeholder inclusion and the performativity of value inscription. Accordingly, RRI as a strategy should learn from value-sensitive design as a research field and methodology (van den Hoven 2013; Simon 2016). In return, RRI can provide ample opportunity for value-sensitive design to be further applied, developed and refined in highly diverse research settings stretching beyond ICT design.

Technology Assessment (TA) is an approach, a collective of systematic methods to investigate technological developments and evaluate its potential impacts within society. Anticipating impacts of emerging technologies is a challenging undertaking, once a great deal of uncertainties and emerging development paths not always lead to a significant future. The dynamics of technological trajectories arise from actions and interactions amongst various actors and stakeholders involved; when understanding these dynamics they can act more reflexively and better shape future development directions. The participatory approach of Constructive Technology Assessment (CTA) offers a comprehensive and active process in evaluating potential social impacts and perspectives for emerging technologies. Through the engaging of different actors and a mutual sharing of information, a broadening of perspectives is achieved, widening their view of the innovation process and the possible consequences of new and existing applications. Adjustments and corrections of paths could then take place, offering feedback into ongoing choices and strategies. A Brain-computer interface (BCI) is a system which measures central nervous system (CNS) activity and converts it into artificial output without using the normal pathways of peripheral nerves and muscles, thereby changing the ongoing interactions between the CNS and its external or internal environment. Although BCI is still in its early stages of development, current research and applications show increasing possibilities for even further improvements. BCIs are present in many areas, but specifically its medical applications allow for the replacement, restoration, enhancement, improvement and supplementation of human functions. This clearly raises many questions about ethics, morals and responsibility. This article aims to reflect upon how the BCI community has been assessing the ethical, moral and philosophical issues as well as to investigate if a CTA approach is being put in place, even if not in a conscious way. Moreover, an explicit integration of the ethical dimension into the TA approach and in Science, Technology and Society (STS) studies is expected from the Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) perspective. Thus this article also seeks to highlight the importance of assessing and prioritizing possible ethical, moral and philosophical impacts as well as related risks and opportunities for the present and future.

Novel neurotechnology offers significant potential for the promotion of health and economic growth. Spearheaded by large national and international flagship initiatives in brain science and fuelled by a clear medical need, research both in the public and private sector has made considerable strides towards novel neurotechnology, services and markets. At the same time, neurotechnology raises a range of unique ethical, legal, and policy questions that potential business models will have to address.

This document is the result of analytical work on the opportunities and challenges of implementing responsibility frameworks into neurotechnology translation at major brain research initiatives and in the private sector. The report draws on: (1) the discussion at the BNCT workshop “Minding Neurotechnology: delivering responsible innovation for health and well-being”, 2018, Shanghai, People’s Republic of China; and (2) commentaries by workshop participants. The Workshop provided a forum for innovators to discuss strategies for delivering responsible innovation in neurotechnology.

(EN) The Future of Water - Highlighting scientific and technologic innovations allowing sustainable access to safe drinking water within the UN's Sustainable Development Goals (soon translated in English !)

Report and researches led for SoScience, a social enterprise specialized into responsible research & innovation.

___________________

(FR) Le Futur de l'Eau - Enjeux et innovations scientifiques, technologiques, permettant un accès durable à l'eau potable ; dans le cadre des Objectifs de Développement Durable de l'ONU.

Rapport réalisé pour SoScience, entreprise sociale spécialisée dans la recherche et l'innovation à impacts sociaux et environnementaux.

Las políticas de ciencia, tecnología e innovación (CTI) suelen poner a la competitividad como uno de sus objetivos centrales, en tanto se proponen potenciar el desarrollo de científico y tecnológico para mejorar el rendimiento económico del país o región abarcado por las mismas. En esta presentación, planteo que en los últimos años ha surgido un cambio en el discurso de las políticas de CTI que corre el centro de la discusión de metas económicas a otras de carácter social, más fáciles de representar para el público en general. Me enfoco en el discurso emergente sobre ciencia y tecnología para abordar los “grandes desafíos” y a continuación en el enfoque sobre “investigación e innovación responsable”, ambos de amplia difusión en Europa y Norteamérica. Planteo que existe un desplazamiento de la competitividad como objetivo central de las políticas de CTI, pero la importancia de generar oportunidades de negocio sigue presente en segundo plano.

The 19th International Conference of Society  for Philosophy and Technology was hold in Shenyang，Liaoning Provence，China  on July 2-6，2015. The theme of this conference is Technology and Innovation and Responsible Innovation（RI）is the Track 5，the most popular track of the conference. I downloaded the whole abstracts from the website of the SPT2015 and collected those on RI. Hope it's useful for your relevant research.

Smart farming (also referred to as digital farming, digital agriculture and precision agriculture) has largely been driven by productivity and efficiency aims, but there is an increasing awareness of potential socio-ethical challenges. The responsible research and innovation (RRI) approach aims to address such challenges but has had limited application in smart farming contexts. Using smart dairying research and development (R&D) in New Zealand (NZ) as a case study, we examine the extent to which principles of RRI have been applied in NZ smart dairying development and assess the broader lessons for RRI application in smart farming. We draw on insights from: a review of research on dairy technology use in NZ; interviews with smart dairying stakeholders; and the application of an analytical framework based on RRI dimensions. We conclude that smart dairying R&D and innovation activities have focused on technology development and on-farm use without considering socio-ethical implications and have excluded certain actors such as citizens and consumers. This indicates that readiness to enact RRI in this context is not yet optimal, and future RRI efforts require leadership by government or dairy sector organisations to fully embed RRI principles in the guidelines for large R&D project design (what has also been referred to as 'RRI maturity'). More broadly, enacting RRI in smart farming requires initial identification of RRI readiness in a given sector or country and devising a roadmap and coherent project portfolio to support capacity building for enacting RRI. Additionally, methods (such

This collection of papers builds on the idea that the bioeconomy provides a framework for potentially effective solutions addressing the grand global challenges by a turn towards an increased use of biological resources, towards renewability and circularity. Consequently, it cannot be perceived as an end in itself. Thus, innovative endeavors within this bioeconomy framework require a serious examination of their normative premises and implications. From different perspectives, the five contributions to the collection demonstrate that for a bioeconomy that is to contribute to the transformation towards sustainability, inquiries into norms, values, and paradigms of innovators and other stakeholders are indispensable. Originating in the spirit of an interdisciplinary workshop on the "The Normative Dimension of Transformations towards a Sustainable Bioeconomy", the collection at hand provides an attempt to facilitate an increased commitment of social sciences into bioeconomy discourses. We learn: the bioeconomy is on the rise as it is, but whether it will guide us the way towards an equitable, environmentally sound, and future-proof economy, heavily depends on the normative guardrails imposed by science, society, and business.

This book details our findings from the RRI-Practice project on which factors act as barriers and drivers for the uptake of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) principles in research conducting and funding organisations. We also examine how national legislation and cultures affect work on implementing RRI for all twelve countries that have participated in the project. As such, it is relevant to anyone interested in bringing about organisational change towards RRI or similar ideals in their organisation. An executive summary can be found inside the book, which is Open Access available under the link below.

The world is changing quickly. More and more products are introduced to the market that bears the possibility to entail negative consequences/impacts. According to the European Commission (2013) better anticipation can prevent this from happening. Therefore they introduced the concept ‘responsible research and innovation’ (RRI), which focuses on better anticipation, as a main aim in the Horizon 2020 framework. The issue regarding RRI is that there is no coherent vision, nor an approach exists how this should be used/implemented/get shape in society.
To give an overview of how RRI can be integrated in businesses this thesis reviews the concepts of business models, business models for sustainability and responsible research and innovation.
The contribution of this thesis to science is the introduction of a new perspective of how RRI can be used in practice, with the use of a stage-gate process. This thesis provides ways how businesses can integrate the concept of responsibility in business models for sustainability. One way is by integrating the concept of responsibility in the different business model building blocks of Osterwalder (2004), as such that the concept of RRI can be used as an enhancement of business models of sustainability. The other way this thesis explores, is by integrating the journey to become sustainable with the journey of becoming responsible.

An alien visitor to planet Earth reading the contemporary textbooks on diagnostics might think precision medicine requires only two biomolecules omnipresent in the literature: nucleic acids (e.g., DNA) and proteins, known as the first and second alphabet of biology, respectively. However, the precision/personalized medicine community has so far underappreciated the third alphabet of life, the “sugar code” (i.e., the information stored in glycans, glycoproteins, and glycolipids).

This article examines the ways in which contemporary debates and values around the third alphabet of life are shaped by history and politics of the sugar code, and the socio-materiality of the cell.

One of the main contentions of the framework for Responsible
Innovation (RI) is that social and ethical aspects have to be
addressed by deliberative engagement with stakeholders and the
wider public throughout the innovation process. The aim of this
article is to reflect on the question to what extent is deliberative
engagement suitable for conducting RI in business. We discuss
several tensions that arise when this framework is applied in the
business context. Further, we analyse the place of deliberative
engagement in several theories of business ethics. We conclude
that there remains a tension between the ideal of RI and the way
in which the competitive market operates. Hence, RI scholars
should reflect more critically on changes that are required in the
market in order to make RI possible, modify the ideal of
deliberative engagement for RI in business, or attempt to strike a
balance between these two responses.

This study deals with responsibility as part of innovation. By nature, innovation gives birth to development for the organization and can only be at the core of any strategy within an ever- increasingly global economic context. However it also raises new questions stemming mostly from the impossibility to forecast the success of the innovations. More precisely, the questions raised by innovation also concern its consequences on society as a whole. Today, the innovator should understand his responsibility, the consequence of each innovation. Moreover, common acceptance of the word ‘responsibility’ raises some questions about its use and how it should be understood. What does ‘responsibility’ mean? Who is responsible and for what? Through the notion of ‘care’, we aim at providing an evolution of responsible-innovation. The concept of ‘innovation-care’ is centered on people and more precisely focuses on taking care of them. The purpose of innovation-care is indeed to innovate and keep up with the level of productivity necessary to any organization while taking into account the essential interdependence between the status of the innovator and that of the citizen.

The emergence of CRISPR-Cas9 has recently, for the first time, rendered the large-scale genetic modification of livestock animals such as cows, pigs, and chickens possible. Novel editing targets range from genes that curb disease vulnerabilities, increase muscle mass, or convey hornlessness, to the development of transgenic pigs for medical use. In this article, we discuss the efforts of a transdisciplinary research consortium in Bavaria, Germany, to test the technical and social feasibility of using CRISPR-Cas9-based gene editing as a novel technology in Bavarian small-to medium-scale livestock agriculture. The consortium comprised life scientists, local breeding associations, legal scholars, and social scientists from Science & Technology Studies (STS) and aimed to promote Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) for gene editing technologies. Research focused on gene editing applications that improved animal health and all editing targets were co-developed with local breeding associations to meet the situated needs of small-to medium-scale livestock farmers in Bavaria. In this article, we discuss why the agricultural stakeholders in the project, that is, the representatives of local breeding associations, considered that, despite the project's success in generating positive research outcomes, it would be unlikely that results will be implemented in Bavarian livestock agriculture. We describe this situation in terms of a tension between agendas in the science and technology policy field and in the agricultural policy field in Bavaria that impacts local farmers' ability to adopt gene editing technologies. We further discuss what it might mean for RRI practices if public stakeholders are unlikely to benefit from the outcomes of RRI practices due to policy field conflicts or other contextual constraints and how STS scholars and other social scientists involved in RRI projects could adjust their practices to possibly redistribute benefits.

This paper aims to contribute to the ongoing conceptual debate on responsible innovation, and provides innovation practices and processes that can help to implement responsible innovation in the business context. Based on a systematic literature review of 72 empirical scholarly articles, it was possible to identify, analyse and synthesise empirical findings reported in studies on social, sustainable and responsible innovation practices in the business context. The synthesis of the included articles resulted in a refined framework for responsible innovation in the business context. This framework includes an overview of innovation practices and processes that can enhance the dimensions of responsible innovation: anticipation, reflexivity, inclusion, deliberation, responsiveness and knowledge management. Additionally, knowledge gaps are identified and a research agenda for responsible innovation is proposed. This review can therefore serve as a next step in the theoretical and practical development of responsible innovation in general, and in the business context in particular.

Agricultural mechanization in developing countries has taken at least two contested innovation pathways—the “incumbent trajectory” that promotes industrial agriculture, and an “alternative pathway” that supports small-scale mechanization for sustainable development of hillside farming systems. Although both pathways can potentially reduce human and animal drudgery, the body of literature that assesses the sustainability impacts of these mechanization pathways in the local ecological, socio-economic, cultural, and historical contexts of hillside farms is either nonexistent or under-theorized. This paper addresses this missing literature by examining the case of Nepal’s first Agricultural Mechanization Promotion Policy 2014 (AMPP) using a conceptual framework of what will be defined as “responsible innovation”. The historical context of this assessment involves the incumbent trajectory of mechanization in the country since the late 1960s that neglected smallholder farms located in the...

Science has become indispensable, having long since left behind the stage of pure observation and knowledge acquisition. In the 20th century, science became a power through its association with technology. None of that century's most ambitious challenges (e.g., atomic energy, genetic engineering, and digitalization) would have been conceivable without the participation of science. From this power comes responsibility: How far does the responsibility of science extend? How far does it go beyond the obligation to meet certain internal standards of scientific rigor and competence? Our book covers the many and nuanced issues surrounding scientific responsibility. The volume comprises three types of contributions: firstly, analyses of the responsibility of science; secondly, analyses of the structural conditions for science and its responsibility; and thirdly normative versions of scientific responsibility. The book results from a conference held in April 2019 at Humboldt University in Berlin, organized by the Gesellschaft für Wissenschaftsforschung (Society for the Study of Science, Berlin). The conference demonstrated the incredible breadth of the topic of scientific responsibility, from innovation, anti-Semitism, and the digital world to fake news.

Digitalization, a dominant megatrend in today's global world, offers numerous intriguing technological possibilities. Out of these novelties, self-driving cars have rapidly come to be a primary focus; the literature categorizes them as a radical innovation due to the possibility that the mass adoption of self-driving cars would not only radically change everyday life for members of industrialized societies, but calls into question the infrastructural, legal, and social ordering of towns and numerous aspects of transportation in the societies that adopt them. Meanwhile, the results of several international surveys with large samples show that public opinion of self-driving cars is ambivalent, indicating parallel signals of enthusiasm and concern. The aim of this paper is to develop key components of a general strategy for addressing the societal challenges associated with self-driving cars as identified in international surveys and relevant literature and using the framework of responsible innovation.

The purpose of this paper is to attempt to investigate how Information and
Communications Technology (ICT) researchers in UK computing departments address ethics in their
research. Whilst research and innovation in ICT has blossomed in the last two decades, the ethical,
social and legal challenges they present have also increased. However, the increasing attention the
technical development receives has not been replicated in the area of developing effective guidelines
that can address the moral issues inherent in ICT research.
Design/methodology/approach
– Thisresearchisqualitativeandmadeuseofinterviews.Thedata
analysis was done with dialectical hermeneutics. Through a dialectical hermeneutic process, this
research unpacks different understandings of relevance attached to ethics reviews of ICT research in
UK computing departments.
Findings
– The findings include that ethics reviews are relevant because; it is a moral duty, it
improves trust for researchers, it is part of risk assessment, it is in compliance with the law and it is a
sustainable act.
Practical implications
– These various understandings illustrate an important dialectic process on
the current state of the art in ICT research.
Social implications
– It asks to what degree the currently dominant model of ethics review based on
biomedical ethics is optimal to ICT.
Originality/value
– Itproposesaframeworkthatcaneffectivelyhelpresearchersandadministrators
to ensure responsible research and innovation in ICT. Finally, it identifies that ICT researchers would
benefit from the developing repertoire of responsible research innovation

Responsible innovation (RI) is a newly developed idea raised in EU and USA in recent years. In 2011, it was written into EU’s ‘Horizon 2020’, and afterwards it became a cutting-edge research in the fields as STS, philosophy of technology, innovation management and so forth. Last year, responsible research and innovation was explicitly proposed in China’s 13th Five-Year Plan for Innovation of Science and Technology (2016-2020). The rise of responsible innovation could be seen as an inevitable phenomenon since other ideas or/and theories can’t effectively respond to the risks in high-tech era. The current research of RI focus on the following three aspects: (1)What is RI? (2)How to implement RI? (3)What are the shortcomings of RI？So far although there are lots of achievements about the above aspects, but because the lack of philosophical analysis on responsibility and innovation as well as the lack of concept comparison among RI, CSR, TA, VSD, DfV, eco-innovation, sustainable innovation, open innovation, frugal innovation, social entrepreneurs, eco-technology, materializing morality, ethics self-assessment, anticipatory governance and so forth, the concept of RI is not clearly enough yet. Meanwhile, there is responsibility excess problem such as ethics-centrism and innovation obsession. In the future，the research of RI on the one hand, should integrate with other related theories, and become divided according to the types of innovation; on the other hand, it should philosophically reflect itself and go down to micro level according to the specific contexts. Only then can responsible innovation be realized into its actualization.

Innovation processes are extremely complex and opaque, which makes it tough or even impossible to govern them. Innovators lack control of large parts of these developments and lack of foreknowledge about the possible consequences of emerging techno logies. Because of these features some scholars have argued that innovation processes should be structurally reformed and the agent-centered model of responsibility for innovation should be dismissed altogether. In the present article it will be argued that such a structural idea of responsible research and innovation presumes rational agents who can be motivated by reasons. Instead of dismissing the agent-centered approach to responsibility for innovation processes a virtue ethical approach will be developed. Virtues should be considered as the intellectual and moral dispositions presumed for good decision making. It will be shown that creativity and eagerness are creditable character traits that have a distinct positive value for managing the opaqueness of innovation processes. Such traits are mandatory for change and betterment. Furthermore, it will be argued that the notion of esponsibility of innovators should not be understood merely as means for constraining them but also as a tool to perpetuate their integrity and happiness. Through discussing the captivating examples of Steve Jobs and the protagonist of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein it will be shown how to apply this virtue ethical framework for innovators in practice.