337 Anais do XXI Seminário Internacional Nanotecnologias, Sociedade e Meio Ambiente desafios jurídicos éticos e sociais para a “grande transição sustentável” (XXI SEMINANOSOMA) the future through responsive stewardship of science and innovation in the present”. (Owen et al. 2013: 30) The three features giving rise to this new, distinctive integra- tion refer to the following three objectives: [t]he first is an emphasis on the democratic governance of the purposes of research and innovation and their orientation towards the “right impact”. The second is responsiveness, emphasising the integration and institutionalisation of established approaches of anticipation, reflection and deliberation in and around research and innovation, influencing the direction of these and associated policy. The third concerns the framing of responsibility itself in the context of research and innovation as collective activities with uncertain and unpredictable consequences. (Owen et al. 2012: 751) The first two objectives, the authors point out, contain the elements with the greatest power to reconfigure the science-society relationship. The first objective, focusing on purposes, puts social chal- lenges first and therefore seeks to define expected impacts or “right impacts” in order to meet or respond to such challenges. It therefore more directly reflects the Science for Society approach, which is more concerned with “desirability”.22 The second objective is linked to the first but places emphasis on responsibility and thus, derived from the authors’ understanding of responsibility, 23 introduces a nuance that requires delving deeper into collective engagement, in a model of Science with Society defined as mutual science-society responsibility (Owen et al. 2013: 44). Stilgoe et al. (2013) insist that the most outstanding element of RRI resides in the fact that it puts forward a new approach to govern22 Owen et al. (2012) discuss the instrumental character that can be derived from the notion of Science for Society. In this regard, they insist on the need to reflect on the distinction between instrumental, normative and substantive motivations present in the RRI approach (Owen et al. 2012: 757). 23 The studies belonging to this field analysed here stress the fact that RRI has succeeded in framing a novel notion of “responsibility” (Owen et al. 2012: 756, Stilgoe et al. 2013: 1569). From their point of view, different socio-technical actors individually take on or at least are aware of different types of responsibilities. However, reframing r sponsibility means that a different key has been posited based on inclusive and deliberative processes orient- ed towards techno-scientific motivations and desirability which, in this case, is projective and anticipatory (forward-looking). In turn, it mobilises reflexive capital to build mutual or shared responsibility in collective terms. Understood in this way, responsibility seeks to be a substantively superior or “second order” concept with respect to accountability approaches, as Stilgoe and associates state: [d]issatisfaction with both this approach and risk-based regulation has moved attention away from accountability, liability and evidence towards those future-oriented dimensions of responsibility – care and responsiveness – that offer greater potential to accommodate uncertainty and allow reflection on purposes and values. (Stilgoe et al. 2013: 1569)
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjEzNzYz