339 Anais do XXI Seminário Internacional Nanotecnologias, Sociedade e Meio Ambiente desafios jurídicos éticos e sociais para a “grande transição sustentável” (XXI SEMINANOSOMA) and “value-based objectives” reflected in questions such as “how can science and technology help tackle our different societal challeng- es?” (Owen et al. 2012: 753) or, “what futures do we collectively want science and innovation to bring about, and on what values are these based?” (Owen et al. 2013: 37; see von Schomberg 2014 as well). Three types of motivations are therefore distinguished for RRI processes: a) normative, “the right thing to do for reasons of democracy, equity and justice”, b) substantive, “policy choices can be copro- duced with publics in ways that authentically embody diverse social knowledge”, or c) instrumental, “provide social intelligence to deliver pre-committed policy objectives” (Owen et al. 2012: 757). In turn, in order for these three types of motivations to be inscribed in a responsible research and innovation framework, RRI specifies four dimensions that seek to combine considerations such as political plurality and ethics from a democratic and equitable point of view. The aim is to achieve legitimised solutions, even where the projection of social motivations in the socio-technical field involves a high degree of tensions and dilemmas (Owen et al. 2013: 37). The approach consists of integrating these four dimensions in order to support the development of an indispensable element for the notion of a new sci- ence-society link proposed by the RRI approach: the science-society “continuous and collective engagement” (Owen et al. 2013: 29). The four dimensions that should guide continuous and collec- tive engagement according to RRI are26: a) Anticipation. Refers to describing and analysing the expect- ed and potentially unexpected impacts (the right impacts) and is an entry point into reflection on purposes27. b) Reflexivity. Refers to reflecting on both the underlying pur- poses, motivations and possible impacts (known and un- known), and is associated with uncertainties, risks, areas of ignorance, assumptions, questions and dilemmas. c) Inclusivity. Calls for the inclusion of a wide range of visions, purposes, questions and dilemmas in collective dialogue 26 Stilgoe and associates also place great emphasis on the heuristic nature of these dimen- sions. From this point of view, they argue, it is a major contribution to mutually responsible governance (Stilgoe et al. 2013: 1570). 27 This dimension of anticipation provides the capacity to identify the right impacts associat- ed with scientific-technical processes. It is a dimension shared by the inclusive regulatory frameworks developed in the last decade and which include, for example, “Anticipatory Governance” (Nelson et al., 2022), “Responsible Innovation” (Owen et al., 2013), “Anticipatory Ethics” (Umbrello et al., 2023) or “Hermeneutic Technology Assessment” (Mehnert & Grun- wald, 2024).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjEzNzYz