Anais do XXI Seminário Internacional Nanotecnologias, Sociedade e Meio Ambiente desafios jurídicos éticos e sociais para a “grande transição sustentável” (XXI SEMINANOSOMA) 338 ance,24. It seeks to overcome the discussion of (participatory) govern- ance centred on the control and regulation of scientific developments, which has been the main key to approaches to risk and uncertainty in order to propose a new form of democratic governance based on (in- clusive) reflection25 in relation to the “purposes” also associated with values, which guide science, technology and innovation. This concept of governance anchored in RRI, they argue, involves a different start- ing point, which opens up new and unprecedented opportunities in the science-society integration. They understand that any framework for responsible innovation needs to accommodate not only what we do not want science and innovation to do – the identification, assessment, and where necessary control of their wider impacts and associated risks – but what we do want them to do. “What are the risks?” – important question though this is to consider within any framework – is not the departure point for responsible innovation. As we go on to describe, this frames responsible innovation as, at least in the first instance, a discussion concerning what sorts of futures we want science and innovation to bring into the World. This opens up new opportunities for creating value in society through science and technology. But such a conversation requires a new vocabulary. (Owen et al. 2013: 28) The RRI approach lays the foundations for the possibility of promoting a new understanding of the science-society complex in terms of “positivity” oriented towards motivations, “right impacts” 24 Stilgoe and associates (2013) refer to the work of authors such as Hoffmann-Riem and Wynne (2002) or Stirling (2010) to discuss the conventional concept of governance that focuses on product questions such as: “[h]ow will the risks and benefits be distributed? What other impacts can we anticipate? How might these change in the future? What don’t we know about? What might we never know about?” (Stilgoe et al. 2013: 1570). These ques- tions are mainly linked to technological risks where areas of hidden uncertainty and ignorance are the main problem. RRI approaches should extend the discussion on governance to encompass not only questions about uncertainty and risk, but also about the ”purposes, m - tivations, social and political constitutions, trajectories and dir ctions of i novation“ (Stilgoe et al. 2013: 1570). Risk-oriented regulation based the governance of science and technology on a pyramidal risk scheme – from the most serious risk level to the minimum – thus estab- lishing a set of proportional control measures based on the level of risk attributed to each situation. This implies a reification of the meaning and relevance of the universe of prob- lems to be considered, and, consequently, limits the socio-technical alternatives to differ- ent forms of socio-ethical management of systems whose relevance, meaning and broader impacts (social, cultural, cognitive, labour, environmental, etc.) are not debatable – or even susceptible to being questioned. 25 Stilgoe and associates also discuss and propose moving beyond the idea of “normative commitment” in “public engagement”. They argue that, prior to FP8, public engagement was still centred on the “trust” approach, that is, on perspectives that call for inclusion as a legitimis- ing mechanism. On the contrary, they argue, the RRI approach seeks to create conditions for “productive engagement” where social intelligence and reflexivity can be mobilised (Stilgoe et al. 2014:7).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjEzNzYz