333 Anais do XXI Seminário Internacional Nanotecnologias, Sociedade e Meio Ambiente desafios jurídicos éticos e sociais para a “grande transição sustentável” (XXI SEMINANOSOMA) to limiting the range of possible socio-technical alternatives (Pfotenhauer et al. 2019), substantially reduces the range of debatable issues, generally limiting its influence to the social and environmental impacts of scientific-technological initiatives whose processes and policies are not subject to open discussion (Williams et al. 2022). European Commission (EC) policies have increasingly taken up the line of approaches analysed in the previous section and have made them into guiding challenges for the development of the Eu- ropean Research Area (ERA)17. The itinerary of these policies since the founding (2004) of Renanosoma and its work programme aimed at promoting the “science of impacts”, is of particular interest in the present context. We focus on the semantic transition between the con- cepts defining three lines of action in the European Framework Programmes for Research and Innovation: the Science and Society strand in FP6, 2002-200618, redefined as Science in Society in FP7, 2007-2013, and finally the Science with and for Society (SwafS) line in the Horizon 2020 Framework Programme (FP8), 2014-2020 (EU 2013), articulat- ed around RRI, one of the FP’s19 three pillars. In particular, emphasis is 17 That implementation of guiding challenges is not without tensions. While the RRI initiative of the FP8 “Horizon 2020” (2014-2020), on the one hand, is oriented towards a governance of science and technology based on collective negotiation dynamics aimed at enabling a more robust alignment with societal preferences, on the other hand, it is presented as serv- ing the objectives of “mak[ing] science more attractive (...), raise the appetite of society for innovation, (...) open up further research and innovation activities” (EC 2013, 4). The tensions mentioned above are echoed in the current FP9, articulated around the Open Science initiative conceived as an instrument to bring science closer to citizens (EC 2018). That “closer to” is not always understood as a means to facilitate a reflexive social adoption of scientific and technological advances by citizens, but rather an uncritical interpretation of participation is called for: “[n]ew R&I solutions need to be co-designed and co-implement- ed together with citizens to ensure that there is societal uptake of these new solutions and approaches” (EC 2021, p. 17). These tensions between a more socio-political orientation of research and innovation and one more oriented to the aims of macroeconomics and indus- trial policy have accompanied all public R&D policies in the EU (Rodriguez et al. 2019). 18 The Science and Society programme’s objective takes the implementation of the Lisbon Strategy for the European Research Area as its framework and aims to develop the means for more constructive and effective communication and dialogue between research and citizens in general, so as to enable society t large to have a better‐informed and more constructive influence on the future development and governance of science, technology and innovation. (CD 2002/835/EC: Council Decision) 19 The RRI framework started to be discussed in multi-agency forums in the European Commission in 2011 with the aim of developing a common Strategic Framework for the Euro- pean Research Area (ERA) by 2014 (Owen et al. 2012). It has now established itself as an autonomous field of analysis for, among others, Science and Technology Studies, innovation economics and policy, and even for philosophy (Synthese 2021, Issue 19 supplement). It has established journals (Journal of Responsible Innovation, Journal of Responsible Technology, …), a handbook edited by von Schomberg and Hankins, International Handbook on Responsible Innovation, 2019 and a considerable critical mass of core academic papers, in addition to a great variety of undergraduate and graduate curricula.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjEzNzYz