Abstract
Over the last decade the discourse of responsible innovation (RI) has become a significant feature of debates concerning the relationships between science, innovation and society in the fields of biosciences and biotechnologies. We document how this discourse has evolved over the period 2014-2019 at a Synthetic Biology Research Centre hosted within a University in the UK (BrisSynBio). We describe how an approach to RI has evolved to include but go beyond public engagement, by encouraging practices aimed at anticipation, reflexivity and deliberation in sometimes creative and innovative ways. We describe how the Centre has struggled to capture the impacts of RI interventions on the everyday practices and behaviours of scientists and the outcomes of their work. The study reveals the importance of leadership, creativity, innovation, institutional support, openness to change and mechanisms of capturing impact for successful RI institutionalisation.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 384-409 |
| Number of pages | 26 |
| Journal | Journal of Responsible Innovation |
| Volume | 7 |
| Issue number | 3 |
| Early online date | 4 Jul 2020 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 1 Sept 2020 |
Keywords
- FRAMEWORK
- POLITICS
- Responsible research and innovation
- public engagement
- research governance
- synthetic biology
Access to Document
Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver
}
In: Journal of Responsible Innovation, Vol. 7, No. 3, 01.09.2020, p. 384-409.
Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Academic › peer-review
TY - JOUR
T1 - Embedding responsible innovation within synthetic biology research and innovation
T2 - insights from a UK multi-disciplinary research centre
AU - Pansera, Mario
AU - Owen, Richard
AU - Meacham, Darian
AU - Kuh, Vivienne
N1 - Funding Information: The Dialogue was also an important input into the evolving concept of RI at EPSRC, informing discussions on RI within the Council and its advisory group on societal and ethical issues (see Owen for a fuller description). As a result of this growing, wider commitment to RI, and specific commitment to it within the 2012 Roadmap, RI featured within the requirements for funding of the newly funded synthetic biology research centres, of which BrisSynBio was one. BrisSynBio, as with the other centres, was then placed in an interesting, potentially conflicting position. On one hand, its funding reflected a strong political mandate for synthetic biology to unreflexively and instrumentally drive economic growth within a triple-helix model of innovation, aimed at co-producing impact and economic growth with new knowledge. On the other hand, the centres were being asked to commit to RI as a process that asks for reflexivity, including on the assumptions and motivations associated with its funding. Notwithstanding this tension, RI became subsequently built directly into the assessments of proposals for funding, and then into the funding arrangements and activities of the UK SBRCs, to varying degrees and with varying levels of appetite for meaningful translation into practice from grantees. In the remainder of the article we ask what happened next, focusing on the evolution of RI and constituent practices such as public engagement in BrisSynBio. We conclude with some reflections about the potential for ‘institutionalisation’ of RI practices from observations made in the case study. Funding Information: Within Horizon 2020 for example, RRI has been translated into actions relating to a narrow set of isolated ‘keys’ accompanied by indicators: public engagement, ethics, science education, gender equality and open access. In contrast, the EPSRC has adopted a more loosely defined ‘AREA’ framework: the integration and embedding of capacities for Anticipation, Reflection, Engagement and, in response to these, Action – based on dimensions described by (Stilgoe, Owen, and Macnaghten ). This framework is similar to the Dutch NWO-MVI approach, which entails being ‘pro-active’ and interdisciplinary, with the inclusion of valorisation panels in research projects aimed at representing stakeholder views (Swierstra ). A similar approach has been adopted by the RCN in Norway that frames RRI in terms of ‘Look forward, Think through, Invite in and Work together’ (Egeland et al. ). These approaches are not constrained by a set of indicators or keys (which together may result in a RRI narrative that is incoherent and apolitical e.g. (de Hoop, Pols, and Romijn ; Hartley et al, ; Owen and Pansera, ), allowing for (potentially) a broader and more flexible set of coherent practices. To add another layer of complexity for the practitioner, these various framings of RI/RRI are not exclusive and overlap in a number of areas (e.g. public engagement). Due to high levels of European collaboration, facilitated in large part by substantial funding from the European Union’s Framework Programmes, many projects seek to combine the focus on the specific RRI keys designated by the European Commission with broader, more reflective practices proposed within such framings as the AREA framework (e.g. the EU funded projects FoTRRIS and NewHoRRIzon). Funding Information: This work was in part undertaken within the RRI-Practice project, funded by the European Union?s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme; H2020 European Institute of Innovation and Technology [709637]. This work was in part undertaken within the RRI-Practice project, funded by the European Union?s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme, grant no. 709637 Funding Information: This work was in part undertaken within the RRI-Practice project, funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme, grant no. 709637 Publisher Copyright: © 2020, © 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
PY - 2020/9/1
Y1 - 2020/9/1
N2 - Over the last decade the discourse of responsible innovation (RI) has become a significant feature of debates concerning the relationships between science, innovation and society in the fields of biosciences and biotechnologies. We document how this discourse has evolved over the period 2014-2019 at a Synthetic Biology Research Centre hosted within a University in the UK (BrisSynBio). We describe how an approach to RI has evolved to include but go beyond public engagement, by encouraging practices aimed at anticipation, reflexivity and deliberation in sometimes creative and innovative ways. We describe how the Centre has struggled to capture the impacts of RI interventions on the everyday practices and behaviours of scientists and the outcomes of their work. The study reveals the importance of leadership, creativity, innovation, institutional support, openness to change and mechanisms of capturing impact for successful RI institutionalisation.
AB - Over the last decade the discourse of responsible innovation (RI) has become a significant feature of debates concerning the relationships between science, innovation and society in the fields of biosciences and biotechnologies. We document how this discourse has evolved over the period 2014-2019 at a Synthetic Biology Research Centre hosted within a University in the UK (BrisSynBio). We describe how an approach to RI has evolved to include but go beyond public engagement, by encouraging practices aimed at anticipation, reflexivity and deliberation in sometimes creative and innovative ways. We describe how the Centre has struggled to capture the impacts of RI interventions on the everyday practices and behaviours of scientists and the outcomes of their work. The study reveals the importance of leadership, creativity, innovation, institutional support, openness to change and mechanisms of capturing impact for successful RI institutionalisation.
KW - FRAMEWORK
KW - POLITICS
KW - Responsible research and innovation
KW - public engagement
KW - research governance
KW - synthetic biology
U2 - 10.1080/23299460.2020.1785678
DO - 10.1080/23299460.2020.1785678
M3 - Article
SN - 2329-9460
VL - 7
SP - 384
EP - 409
JO - Journal of Responsible Innovation
JF - Journal of Responsible Innovation
IS - 3
ER -