TY - JOUR
T1 - Higher-level responsiveness? Socio-technical integration within US and UK nanotechnology research priority setting
AU - Fisher, Erik
AU - Maricle, G.
N1 - Funding Information:
At the same time, there are clear and prominent examples of NNI-funded societal research and engagement projects, notably the two Centers for Nanotechnology in Society funded by the NSF. While work at one of these centers explicitly takes the form of societal research, public engagement, and lab-scale socio-technical integration (Barben et al. 2008), such work is not expected to influence research prioritization processes. For instance, while one of the centers conducted a national public engagement exercise whose findings were brought ‘directly to Congress’ and which may have in turn influenced a Senate bill, the exercise nevertheless was:
Funding Information:
We wish to thank an anonymous reviewer and anonymous reviewing editor for their helpful feedback. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Society for Social Study of Science Annual Meeting, held October 11–13 2007, in Montreal, Canada. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation (grant 0849101).
Publisher Copyright:
© The Author 2014.
PY - 2015/2/1
Y1 - 2015/2/1
N2 - Enhancing the responsiveness of science and innovation programs to societal values is a critical element of responsible innovation. Distinct from laboratory-level research into socio-technical integration, this paper focuses on integration and responsiveness at the level of research priority setting. Taking the case of nanotechnology, it evaluates decision-making in the USA and the UK in the wake of novel policy initiatives for societal research and engagement. It asks to what extent decision-makers explicitly reflected upon societal considerations during priority setting and allocation. Interviews with key decision-makers and staff reveal limited integration of societal actors and considerations during research prioritization. In response to a pervasive history of institutional practices that preclude socio-technical integration, and in contrast to concerns that such considerations may slow down R&D, we propose that building responsiveness into research prioritization can support productivity, contribute to more socially robust outcomes, and possibly even enhance national competitiveness.
AB - Enhancing the responsiveness of science and innovation programs to societal values is a critical element of responsible innovation. Distinct from laboratory-level research into socio-technical integration, this paper focuses on integration and responsiveness at the level of research priority setting. Taking the case of nanotechnology, it evaluates decision-making in the USA and the UK in the wake of novel policy initiatives for societal research and engagement. It asks to what extent decision-makers explicitly reflected upon societal considerations during priority setting and allocation. Interviews with key decision-makers and staff reveal limited integration of societal actors and considerations during research prioritization. In response to a pervasive history of institutional practices that preclude socio-technical integration, and in contrast to concerns that such considerations may slow down R&D, we propose that building responsiveness into research prioritization can support productivity, contribute to more socially robust outcomes, and possibly even enhance national competitiveness.
KW - Nanotechnology
KW - Research priority setting
KW - Responsible innovation
KW - Socio-technical integration
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84928951368&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84928951368&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1093/scipol/scu017
DO - 10.1093/scipol/scu017
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:84928951368
SN - 0302-3427
VL - 42
SP - 72
EP - 85
JO - Science and Public Policy
JF - Science and Public Policy
IS - 1
ER -