Anais do XXI Seminário Internacional Nanotecnologias, Sociedade e Meio Ambiente desafios jurídicos éticos e sociais para a “grande transição sustentável” (XXI SEMINANOSOMA) 340 processes. In RRI-responsible science and technology, the inclusive deliberation dimension combines the “norma- tive” aspect – dialogue must be included for democratic reasons, equity and justice – while taking into account a “substantive” aspect – choices and decisions based on co-production include and mobilise diverse sources of knowledge, values and meanings. d) Responsiveness. Using the collective reflexivity process to both establish and influence research and innovation trajectories by means of effective participatory and anticipa- tory governance mechanisms. (Owen et al. 2013: 38) The novel combination of these four dimensions is oriented towards two objectives that are worth highlighting because they pro- pose a notion of “learning”, which is central to the singularisation of research and innovation processes as RRI-responsible processes: first, they collectively serve to build what we might rather grandiosely term “reflexive capital” concerning the purposes, processes, and products of science and innovation in an iterative, inclusive, and deliberative way. Secondly, they couple this reflexive capital to decisions about the specific goals for innovation, and how the trajectory of innovation can be modulated as it progresses in uncertain and unpredictable ways: that is, how we can collectively respond. (Owen et al. 2013: 38-39) Indeed, the mobilisation of “reflexive social capital” 28 in iter- ative, inclusive and deliberative processes entails, for the authors, continuous and flexible “adaptive learning” processes (Owen et al. 2012: 755), understood in terms of “socio-technical integration” (Rod- riguez et al. 2013). RRI’s adaptive learning integrates two previously introduced components in a single movement: science for society and science with society. On the one hand, inclusion contributes to broad- ening the spectrum of desirability and, on the other, allows the explo- ration of “what if” narratives and expectations that, while not direct- ly translating into better predictions, broaden the scope of collective co-responsibility29. It is therefore understood that adaptive learning translates into a notion of collective choices of better relational quality which, in this context, could be defined as higher levels of “continuous 28 Owen and his colleagues define reflexive capital, “concerning the purposes, processes, and products of science and innovation in an iterative, inclusive, and deliberative way” (Owen et al. 2013: 38). 29 Adaptive learning is associated with the dimension of responsiveness, hence its close link to commitments, co-responsibility and “what if” type expectations (Owen et al. 2013: 57).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjEzNzYz