317 Anais do XXI Seminário Internacional Nanotecnologias, Sociedade e Meio Ambiente desafios jurídicos éticos e sociais para a “grande transição sustentável” (XXI SEMINANOSOMA) the consolidation of a field of studies that has ultimately had a significant impact on public science, technology and innovation (STI) poli- cies, especially in the European Union (EU) and USA, and is based on successive Framework Programmes for R&D (FP) within the European Union (EU). These changes in science-society dynamics affect the en- tire cycle of scientific activity, production, distribution, adoption, eval- uation, validation/accreditation, and legitimation of knowledge, and are fundamentally based on a process defined as crucial: the growing permeation of the boundary between the two traditional contexts de- fined for understanding science, namely the contexts of discovery and justification (Solomon 2009). Hence, science-society integration dynamics not only grow in an extensive way, i.e. by diversifying the domains and degrees of interaction, but also according to a relational and interweaving process that gains in depth and complexity. A major development, at theoret- ical-conceptual level, oriented towards the study of science-society intersections and relational dynamics has progressively accompanied this process, which has led to an increasingly complex and indivisi- ble understanding of science-society (Urueña 2022) Meanwhile, STI policies exhibit an evolution that denotes them as devices seeking to accompany and stabilise the “integration processes” to be identified in the following as “socio-technical” (Rodríguez et al. 2013). This understanding runs through the evolution of the positions and program- matic axes of policies both in the EU FPs and in European national and regional STI programmes, which increasingly promote science-society integration dynamics in multiple fields and at multiple levels. If we focus on the past two decades of theoretical-conceptual analysis and policy narrative in “research and innovation culture”, a normative change in understanding research activity patterns can be seen. To put it briefly, and following FP terminology, the understanding of science in society (FP6, 2002-2006) transforms into an understanding of science with and for society, Swafs (FP8, 2014-2020)4. The RRI (Responsible Research and Innovation) approach develops this latter conception and builds a robust framework of understanding for the intervention of theoretical contributions in STI policies. (von Schomberg 2013, Owen et al. 2013, Stilgoe et al. 2013). In a process of change in the understanding of the science-society complex, the valorisation of scientific activity cannot be under- 4 In turn, Science in Society replaced the former understanding of Science and Society, associated with the Public Understanding of Science paradigm, which emerged in the 1970s (Knight 2006).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjEzNzYz