Wellness testing in blood donation: A framework for responsible innovation.

Ethics by design: Responsible research & innovation for AI in the food sector

The fast track acceptance of artificial intelligence (AI) in combat introduces ethical dilemmas that call for a cohesive approach ensuring compliance with humanitarian laws and moral standards. In this paper, we develop a framework for responsible innovation in military AI, driven by teachable moments learned from the Athena AI Case Study. We examine some of the ethical concerns surrounding autonomy in warfare, such as accountability, transparency, bias, and human control, and propose guidance aimed at mitigating these possible risks. Findings indicate therefore that adherence to the principles of Responsible Research and Innovation can make it possible for AI to ethically spread in defense.

It is crucial for engineers to anticipate the socio-ethical impacts of emerging technologies. Such acts of anticipation are thoroughly normative and should be cultivated in engineering ethics education. In this paper we ask: ‘how do we anticipate the socio-ethical implications of emerging technologies responsibly?’ And ‘how can such responsible anticipation be taught?’ We offer a conceptual answer, building upon the framework of Responsible Innovation and its four core practices: anticipation, reflexivity, inclusion, and responsiveness. We forge a more explicit link between the practices of anticipation, reflexivity, and inclusion, while also enriching them with insights from disability studies, STS, design theory, and philosophy. On this basis we present responsible anticipation as an activity of reflective problem framing grounded in epistemic humility. Via the RI-practice of responsiveness we present responsible anticipation as a creative approach to engineering ethics, offering engineering students a critical yet productive perspective on how ethics may inform innovation.

A Framework for Responsible Innovation

This study proposes a new approach to the responsible development of innovative products, processes and services by companies and organisations operating in the bioeconomy and related industry sectors. It departs from much of the recent and currently available research on responsible research and innovation in that it recognises the very different challenges faced by innovating organisations, compared to conventional approaches with a strong emphasis on upstream engagement. It attempts to move away from the politicised perspectives that have dominated many engagement initiatives on disruptive innovations like synthetic/engineering biology, and to focus on practical downstream outcomes, the extent to which they will fulfil the aspirations of ordinary citizens, and will comply with prevailing industry norms of responsible behaviour. The proposed consolidated responsible innovation framework builds on the framework developed in 2012 by the then Technology Strategy Board, implemented using the anticipate, reflect, engage and act approach devised by UK research councils. It distinguishes between routine, company‐specific aspects of responsibility, expected to be addressed within an organisation's standard operating procedures, and project‐specific aspects requiring regular appraisal throughout the development of an innovation. It is designed to be simple and feasible for a company to implement within a commercial environment.

Standardisation is increasingly seen as a means to insert ethics in innovation processes. We examine the institutionalisation of responsible innovation in de jure standardisation as this is an important but unexplored research area. In de jure standardisation, stakeholders collaborate in committees to develop standards. We adopt the anticipation, inclusion, reflexivity, and responsiveness responsible innovation framework as our theoretical lens. Our study suggests that responsible standardisation processes should embody forms of these four dimensions. We investigate the institutionalisation of these dimensions and identify 96 factors that can motivate, hinder, or facilitate responsible standardisation. Factors were found through in-depth interviews with managers of a standard developing organisation. These are subsequently validated/rejected using surveys completed by committee representatives. The results suggest that the social desirability of standards is not self-evident. This study could pave the way for future research on responsible standardisation processes, complementing research on legitimacy, responsible innovation, and standardisation.

In this article we provide a short review of the debate on responsible innovation and its intersection with synthetic biology, focusing on initiatives we have witnessed and been involved with in the UK. First, we describe the ways in which responsibility in science has been reconfigured institutionally, from an internal focus on the provision of objective and reliable knowledge, to a more external view that embraces the ways in which it has an impact on society. Secondly, we introduce a framework for responsible innovation as a (partial) response to this shift, highlighting its constituent dimensions and the capacities and competencies that are needed to put it into practice. Thirdly, we chart the development of social science research on synthetic biology, addressing its evolution from an 'ethical, legal and social implications' (ELSI) frame to a responsible innovation frame. Fourthly, we review findings from UK social science research with the synthetic biology community setting out challenges for productive collaboration. And finally, we conclude with suggestions on the need for changes in institutional governance.

Looking through a responsible innovation lens at uneven engagements with digital farming

Nanotechnology and Governance: Regulatory Framework for Responsible Innovation

The role of digital technology in protecting intangible cultural heritage in Shanxi Province is significant. It facilitates the inheritance and dissemination of intangible cultural heritage through digital collection, intelligent inheritance, and interactive digital content experience, thus moderniz

The scaling of agricultural robotics could help us to achieve sustainable agricultural transitions around the world, solving production, environmental, and socio-political challenges. Yet, for all the promises, there are social and ethical aspects to consider before pursuing pathways towards development and implementation. This chapter uses a responsible innovation framework to anticipate the possible challenges involved in the scaling of agricultural robotics, as well as how to include a wide range of stakeholder views. We discuss which stakeholders should be included in setting trajectories for agri-robotics, as well as how to engage harder to reach voices in a meaningful way. We then turn to how these stakeholder views can be reflexively incorporated into responsive practices, such as standards and codes of practice, to mitigate against some of the potential negative impacts of robotics.