Human Brain Project: Ethics Management statt Prozeduralisierung von Reflexivität?

ABSTRACTThe relation between technology assessment (TA) and responsible research and innovation (RRI) is a very topical (and controversial) issue, as TA is clearly enveloped in broader science, technology and innovation (STI) processes, such as the EU-wide shift towards RRI. In this short response to van Lente et al.’s [Van Lente, Harro, Tsjalling Swierstra, and Pierre-Benoît Joly. 2017. “Responsible Innovation as a Critique of Technology Assessment.” Journal of Responsible Innovation] essay, I first stress that this contribution has several merits; for example, it points to pervasive challenges for TA communities, such as the issue of including normative concerns when assessing innovations, it opens these challenges to debate, without shying away from engaging TA communities. However, I disagree with the authors’ claim that RRI would be ‘a next step of TA’ or even a ‘form of TA’. In my essay, I explain why I believe RRI is different from TA and why, rather than a critique of TA, RRI could instead lead to a travesty of TA, threatening the vitality and the uniqueness of TA institutions in the long-term. Under the spell of RRI, TA risks being reduced to a role of mere provider of ex-ante impact assessments. I conclude that following the money attached to RRI has a price that TA institutions should carefully, critically and reflexively consider before they pay.

The idea that ethical, social, legal and economic aspects are important considerations in the development of emerging technologies is nothing new. In the 1990s, science policies in the United States began combining public funding for science with research on ethical, legal and social implications (ELSI). This inspired the ongoing development of related funding schemes in Europe such as ELSA (Ethical, Legal and Social Aspects) and RRI (Responsible Research and Innovation), the latter of which also addresses economic considerations. In addition, the academic disciplines representing these aspects – ethics, law, the social sciences and economics – have their own histories of relating to and influencing technological innovation.

The emergence and rapid development of ICT-centred research methodologies, and data-driven research and innovation in particular, fundamentally challenge ethical values, human rights and security in the EU and beyond. This is especially—though not exclusively—the result of fragmented legal, ethical and terminological frameworks; a mismatch between rules and how they are applied or disregarded in practice; the privatisation of research data and methods; the fact that these challenges are spread over multiple actors and disciplines and issues raised by data opportunism. These challenges keep Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) largely hypothetical in many contexts and may lead to social rejection and distorted legislation of emerging research methodologies as well as the huge socio-economic potential they hold. This contribution advances the first blueprint for an innovative approach aimed at overcoming the challenges obstructing the full realisation of RRI. The Designing-by-Debate (DbD) approach provides a systematic model and method for inclusive dialogue through smart stewardship, enabling researchers and the broader stakeholder community to develop, fine-tune and operationalise the framework for RRI to their situation. It is an iterative process based on different forms of participatory debate, aimed at formulating RRI protocols and policies with maximal participation from all stakeholders. The method relies on sharing protocols and guidelines so that they can be used and improved simultaneously through new RRI applications. The DbD approach has different well-defined layers and components, that are aimed at making RRI work in the field. Notwithstanding its greater ambitions, the scope of this contribution is confined to DbD in the context of data-driven research and innovation (and how to align it with ethical, normative, and societal values that are central to the EU identity). DbD, we argue, provides the prerequisites for a holistic yet concrete approach to key legal, ethical and social challenges emerging from ubiquitous use of technology and ‘data’ to do research and innovation.

Abstract: Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) is a term used by policy-makers and academics to refer to research and innovation that is ethically acceptable and socially desirable. Despite the fact that the vast majority of research and innovation (R&I) is funded and produced by industry, companies tend to have no awareness or recognition of this concept. This is unfortunate, as the RRI paradigm could be mutually beneficial for both business and society: it could help businesses realise competitive opportunities while also leading to positive economic, societal and environmental impacts. This paper investigates how industry can be incentivised to engage in research and innovation following the approach of RRI. We propose a matrix of incentives for stimulating the adoption of RRI. We categorise incentives according to three dichotomies: external and internal, instrumental and non-instrumental, direct and indirect. The incentives are formalised in a causal loop diagram, which can be used to demonstrate the sound character of investing in RRI from a business perspective. We discuss examples of incentives, including corporate reputation and critical consumerism, certification, employee engagement, and governance. Lastly, to ensure effective implementation of RRI, we outline factors for the realisation of successful incentives for RRI in industry.

To stimulate research and innovation (R&I), to contribute to the solution of societal challenges and to align R&I with societal values, the European Commission has launched the governance framework of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI). RRI figures in many high-level EU policies as a means to promote smart growth, and a growing community of R&I practitioners from both the public and private sectors appears committed to it. Although debates on what RRI precisely entails have not reached closure yet, RRI provides an interesting avenue to explore ways of making R&I more societally germane. While recognizing the usefulness of keeping critical reflection on RRI’s meaning alive, we suggest that to make the step from theorizing to implementation, RRI could benefit from a clearer conceptualization. This chapter presents the iterative trajectory in conceptualizing RRI followed as part of RRI Tools, one of a number of EC-funded research projects and support acts aimed at fleshing out what RRI can and should be, and the conceptualization of RRI that this led to. It suggests that RRI is best captured if in R&I governance attention is paid to the five p’s of Purpose, Products, Processes, Preconditions and People, and that further elaborations on the meaning of RRI should happen in dialogue with attempts at practicing RRI.

The transdisciplinary Assisted Living project conducts research within (ICT), health science, social science and ethics. The overall aim of the project is to advance responsible research and innovation (RRI) in the field of welfare technology. By adapting an RRI framework, the project aims to: (a) map how stakeholders and experts perceive the state-of-the-art of responsible welfare technologies, focusing on assisted living technologies (ALT), in Norway and internationally; (b) develop ALT solutions for users with mild cognitive impairment and dementia (MCI/D), through an RRI approach; (c) judge by an integrated HTA approach whether technologies introduced through an RRI process score better than currently implemented technologies; and d) create a wider dialogue on responsible welfare technologies for the future, reflecting on alternatives and options. In the project RRI is operationalized as involving four dimensions: (i) A specific focus on addressing significant societal needs and challenges, (ii) A research and development process that actively engages and responds to a range of stakeholders, (iii) A concerted effort to anticipate potential problems, identify alternatives, and reflect on underlying values, and (iv) A willingness from relevant actors to act and adapt according to 1–3. These dimensions are built into the project's design in different ways. The project, funded by the Research Council of Norway, started December 2015 and we have by now had substantial experience with working with these dimensions in practice. This paper will describe the experiences with including needs assessment, engagement, anticipation, reflection and responsiveness in the project, after 1.5 years operation. The paper will highlight several challenges that have appeared in the project when doing RRI in practice, related to transdisciplinarity, communication, project planning and control, and quality. We believe that the challenges experienced in our project are typical of RRI projects, so it is important to create open discussions about the pros and cons of RRI projects in the community of RRI practitioners.

Responsible research and innovation (RRI) has recently emerged as a policy framework to align technological innovation with broader social values. It helps regions focus on their strengths and boost their innovation, growth, and prosperity through partnerships between business, public entities, and knowledge institutions. However, the study of RRI dynamics including whether and how attitudes, drivers, and behaviours at the individual, organizational, and network levels affect the impact of RRI, is in its infancy. Based on a survey of societal actors from three regional innovation ecosystems in Norway, Austria, and Spain, we examine the role of RRI in responsible regional planning. Our study advances our knowledge about regional innovation policies by providing evidence of how different stakeholders and policymakers engage in RRI when designing responsible regional planning. We identify the extent to which they incorporate RRI activities into their work practices, the extent to which their organizations and network support their practices and outcomes, and the effects they have observed. Our study also considers the factors that promote or impede RRI activities. The results are particularly relevant for policy makers interested in strengthening regional innovation policies and boosting regional growth via RRI.

Biotech developers are concerned about the future of gene editing having experienced the contentious history of first-generation GM foods. They have also expressed desires to do better with public engagement in gene-editing innovation. The framework of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) may provide a way forward to act on their desires for greater public legitimacy. However, in the United States, -there has also been reluctance to incorporate RRI into biotechnology innovation systems like gene editing in food and agriculture. In this article, we investigate individual- and group-level factors, including demographic, sociographic, and cultural factors, that influence attitudes towards RRI among biotechnology United States stakeholders. Using the Advocacy Coalition Framework’s (ACF) hierarchy of beliefs as a theoretical guide, biotechnology stakeholders (n = 110) were surveyed about their cultural (deep-core) beliefs and then about their attitudes towards principles (policy-core beliefs) and practices (secondary beliefs) of RRI applied to biotechnology innovation. Through statistical analysis of the results, we found significant relationships between stronger egalitarian cultural-beliefs and positive attitudes towards both the principles and practices of RRI. We also found that participants with higher levels of experience held more positive attitudes towards principles of RRI. In contrast, we found a significant inverse relationship between professional affiliation with industry or trade organizations and attitudes towards RRI practices. With these results, we present a model of factors that influence RRI attitudes for future testing. In closing, we interpret the results in the context of ACF to examine the potential for building cross-sector coalitions for practicing RRI within United States gene-editing innovation systems.

The article deals with the influences of perceived competence and relatedness on school students‘ intrinsic motivation for learning science (IMLS) in responsible research and innovation (RRI) activity. RRI activity in the science classroom discloses the positive and negative impact of research and innovation discoveries for the society. The evaluation of the negative and positive sides of the research and innovation involves school students in discussion and gives a possibility to feel competent and related with others. 5E model is used in this research. It encompasses formal and informal science education. The purpose of the study is to explore the influence of perceived competence and relatedness on school students‘ intrinsic motivation for learning science in RRI activity. The data presented in the current study are a part of the 7BP ENGAGE project, implemented in Lithuania (2014-2017). The participants chosen for this study were 8th-10th grade school students from different schools of Lithuania. Multiple regression analysis was used to test if the two basic psychological needs (perceived competence and relatedness) significantly predicted students' intrinsic motivation for learning science. Our research revealed that school students‘ motivation for learning science was simultaneously influenced by perceived competence and relatedness in RRI activity. We established a statistically significant relation between the students‘ motivation for learning science and their perceived competence and relatedness. Perceived competence influenced the school students‘ motivation for learning science more than perceived relatedness in RRI.

Chapter 1The institutionalization of social responsibility in Norwegian business and research: moral progress, moral decay, or both?In this chapter, I argue that Norwegian organizations face challenges towards their social legitimacy due to an increasing complexity of the 'social contract' between the state, civil society, and organizations.Further, I argue that Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) may be viewed as organizations' attempts to manage these challenges by explicitly addressing issues concerning their social and environmental impact.In this context, both CSR and RRI may be understood as 'legitimizing practices', i.e., practices aiming to gain, sustain, or regain the social legitimacy of business and/or research organizations (Carson, 2019).These practices often take the form of engaging a broader set of stakeholders in order to secure attention to public needs and interests.In the last part of this chapter, I discuss whether the institutionalization of social responsibility should be viewed as a form of moral progress towards more mature organizations or ifconverselyit may be viewed as an insufficient response to a looming accountability crisis of these organizations.The overarching theoretical framework of the chapter is (neo-)institutional theory, but with a normative core of integrative social contracts theory (Donaldson and Dunfee, 1999). Social responsibility and the social contract theoryThe starting point of this chapter is the following question: What drives the institutionalization of social responsibility in, respectively, the business and research and innovation (R&I) context in Norway?A further question to be explored is whether there are significant similarities, differences, and overlaps between the context of business and the context of R&I.The final question of this chapter is whether this institutionalization process constitutes a strengthening or weakening of the organizations' actual abilities to be socially responsible.The two key terms of the chapter are corporate social responsibility (CSR) and responsible research and innovation (RRI).These are both essentially contested concepts, in the sense that they are evaluative, complex, and open-ended or vague (Gallie, 1956;Okoye, 2009).While it will lead too far to discuss the different definitions and frameworks that have been proposed for these two concepts, the following chapters

Nowadays the mankind is facing more and more difficult problems concerning the environment and life quality that ask for more and more people involved to solve them. In this context, education has a special role to bring in attention the importance of Science knowledge in each individual’s development. Thus, there is very important to increase the students’ interest and motivation to learn more about the Science and Technology and how to this in their daily life. One of the new concepts introduced in Science education was Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) with the hope that involving teachers and students in understanding the role of RRI dimensions we’ll obtain sustainable interactions between schools, research institutions, industry, governance and civil society organisations. It was proved that implementation of RRI principles in Science lessons enhance students’ engagement in solving different scientific problems, increase the critical thinking and develop their collaborative skills. Introducing the ethics and governance as RRI dimensions in students’ attention will develop their responsibility for solving the complex problems of our world. Due to these benefits, European Union decided to finance different projects to implement RRI in Science Education. One of those projects was the ENGAGE Project (“Equipping the Next Generation for Active Engagement in Science Equipping the Next Generation”, www.engagingscience.eu), developed in the frame of Seventh Framework Programme. This paper presents the students’ opinion obtained at the end of the ENGAGE project in Romania, during the ENGAGE RRI Festival held in Targoviste, on March 3rd, 2017.

BackgroundResponsible Research and Innovation (RRI) promotes inclusive, anticipatory, and reflexive research practices that respond to societal needs. While widely applied in technological fields, its application in youth mental health remains limited. This study aimed to explore how RRI principles are understood and enacted within a large interdisciplinary programme on digital youth mental health in the United Kingdom, focusing on the perspectives of both researchers and young people.MethodsAn online survey was conducted with 21 researchers and 5 young people (mean age = 21 years, standard deviation = 2.74) involved in the programme. The survey included open-ended questions exploring knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to RRI and youth mental health. Responses were analysed using Reflexive Thematic Analysis to identify patterns of meaning across the dataset and to generate themes.ResultsSix themes were developed, reflecting participants’ knowledge, attitudes, and practices. Both researchers and young people conceptualised youth mental health as multifaceted, shaped by personal, social, and cultural factors, and existing along a continuum from flourishing to struggling. Young people highlighted digital harms and economic precarity, while researchers emphasised biopsychosocial determinants, offering complementary perspectives. Involving young people was seen as essential for challenging adult assumptions, improving clarity and relevance of tools, and strengthening ethical integrity. Barriers included communication gaps, entrenched hierarchies, inconsistent involvement, and the resource-intensive nature of participation. Key facilitators included mutual respect, care, flexibility, and procedural structures such as youth co-chairs (i.e., a young person co-leading the project/grant with the principal investigator/s) and regular collaborative meetings. Together, these elements demonstrated how RRI values can be embedded to foster meaningful and equitable youth–researcher partnerships.ConclusionsThis study shows that applying RRI in youth mental health research enhances co-production by integrating diverse perspectives, addressing ethical concerns, and strengthening the quality and social relevance of research. To fully realise this potential, RRI must be embedded as an ongoing practice supported by intentional infrastructures, such as youth leadership roles, communication training, and opportunities for intergenerational dialogue. Crucially, funders must recognise and resource the relational, iterative, and time-intensive nature of responsible youth involvement. Embedding RRI in this field provides a valuable framework for moving beyond tokenistic consultation towards inclusive, future-oriented, and ethically grounded research.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40900-026-00848-x.

Two scientific domains that are crucial in “Biomedical Big Data”, computing and statistics, do not typically require “training in the responsible conduct of research” or research ethics. While “responsible conduct of research” (RCR) comprises interactions with subjects (human and non-human), it also involves interactions with other scientists, the scientific community, the public, and in some contexts, research funders. Historically, the development or emergence of disciplines and professions tend to involve a semi-simultaneous emergence of professional norms and/or codes of conduct. However, Biomedical Big Data is not emerging as a single discipline or profession, and engages practitioners from many diverse backgrounds. Moreover, the place of the data analyst or the computer scientist developing analytic algorithms seems to be too granular to be considered specifically within the activities that comprise “responsible research and innovation” (RRI). Current legal and policy-level considerations of Biomedical Big Data and RRI are implicitly assuming that scientists carrying out the research and achieving the innovations are exercising their scientific freedom – i.e., conducting research – responsibly. The assumption is that all scientists are trained to conduct research responsibly. In the United States, federal agencies funding research require that training in RCR be included – some of the time. Because the vast majority of research that was federally funded has not included Biomedical Big Data, RCR training paradigms have emerged over the past 20 years in US institutions that are not particularly relevant for Big Data. While it would be efficient to utilize such established, well-known, easily-documented RCR training programs, this chapter discusses how and why this is less likely to support the development of professional norms that are relevant for Biomedical Big Data. This chapter will describe an alternative approach that can support ongoing reflection on professional obligations, which can be used in a wide range of ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI), including those that have not yet been identified. This may be the greatest strength of this alternative approach for preparing practitioners for Biomedical Big Data, because the ability to apply prior learning in ethics to previously unseen problems is especially critical in the current era of dynamic and massive data accumulation. To support the development of normative ethical practices among practitioners in Biomedical Big Data, this chapter reviews the guidelines for professional practice from three statistical associations (American Statistical Association; Royal Statistics Society; International Statistics Institute) and from the Association of Computing Machinery. These can be leveraged to ensure that, in their work with Biomedical Big Data, participants know and understand the ethical, legal, and social implications of that work. Formal integration of these (or other relevant) guidelines into the preparation for practice with data (big and small) can help in dealing with ethical challenges currently arising with Big Data in biomedical research; moreover, this integration can also help deal with challenges that have not yet arisen. These outcomes, which are consistent with recent calls for the institutionalization of reflection and reasoning around ELSI across scientific disciplines, in Europe, are only possible as long as the integration effort does not follow a currently-dominant paradigm for training in RCR. Preparing scientists to engage competently in conversations around ethical issues in Biomedical Big Data requires purposeful, discipline-relevant, and developmental training that can come from, and support, a culture of ethical biomedical research and practice with Big Data.

Responsible research and innovation and social licence to operate: aligning concepts for advancing marine innovation and development governance

The growing number of papers on Responsible Innovation (RI) and Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) have shaped the popularity and usefulness of RI and RRI as a technology governance concept. This study reviews and assesses the development of RRI research through a bibliometric analysis of 702 RRI-focused papers and 26,471 secondary references published in the Web of Science Core Collection database between 2006 and 2020. Firstly, the paper provides a broad outline of the field based on annual growth trends, journal distribution, and disciplinary distribution for RRI publications. Secondly, this study reveals the current state of RRI research by identifying influential literature, journals, authors, countries, and institutions. Thirdly, a phased keyword analysis is conducted to determine the stage characteristics of the RRI field. Finally, based on the bibliometric analyses, this study summarises the evolutionary trajectory of RRI and makes recommendations for future research directions. As a complement to the previous qualitative literature review, the paper provides a systematic and dynamic understanding of RRI research.