Anais do XXI Seminário Internacional Nanotecnologias, Sociedade e Meio Ambiente desafios jurídicos éticos e sociais para a “grande transição sustentável” (XXI SEMINANOSOMA) 336 In parallel to this discourse in European science and technol- ogy policies focusing on the analysis of the FP6 and FP7 results, and clearly nourishing their content, the academic approach to a conceptualisation of responsible research and innovation, RRI, as a perspec- tive for integrating problems and results into the study of STI, gained relevanc A e c . cording to Owen and his colleagues (2012), the RRI approach builds on complementary outcomes in many different ref- erence areas. These include: technology assessment (Rip et al. 1995, Schott and Rip 1997), anticipatory governance (Karinen and Guston 2010), socio-technical integration and midstream modulation (Fisher et al. 2006, Schuurbiers and Fisher 2009) and the area of public and stakeholder engagement (Stirling 2008, Wilsdon and Willis 2005). (Owen et al. 2012: 752) To define RRI, Owen and associates refer to an initial proposal put forward by René von Schomberg (2011), which already contains the central elements structuring his approach such as: science-society mutual responsibility and, in particular, orienting science and inno- vation dynamics towards forward-looking “social desirability”. Hence, RRI is defined as a transparent, interactive process by which societal actors and innovators become mutually responsive to each other with a view on the (ethical) acceptability, sustainability and societal desirability of the innovation process and its marketable products (in order to allow a proper embedding of scientific and technological advances in our society). (von Schomberg 2011: 74) On the basis of this initial conceptualisation, significant contributions have been made that have refined the meaning of RRI. Here the focus is on the first results in order to better understand the scope of RRI as opposed to the images of science and science-society relationship prevalent in the Science and Society and Science in Society frameworks produced at almost the same historical time. Building on von Schomberg’s conceptualisation, Owen and associates highlight three features which they define as distinctive and genuine elements in the image of science and science-society relationship in the RRI ap- proach. They state that, although individually considered, they are not new elements, the particularity of the specific combination of these three features is what determines RRI’s profound novelty. This inte- gration of the three features is at the core of the RRI approach and consists in offering a re-evaluation of the “social contract for science and innovation”, underpinned by a “collective commitment of care for
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjEzNzYz