Responsible innovation: motivations for a new journal

TY - JOUR

T1 - Responsible innovation

T2 - motivations for a new journal

AU - Guston, David

AU - Fisher, Erik

AU - Grunwald, Armin

AU - Owen, Richard

AU - Swierstra, Tsjalling

AU - van der Burg, Simone

N1 - Funding Information: Over the last few years, a host of high-level meetings and research groups, projects and networks around the world have begun to address the conceptualization and institutionalization of RI (Fisher and Rip 2013). In Europe, attention to RRI has become manifest in the funding of four large-scale, multi-institutional projects under the 7th Framework Program: Governance for Responsible Innovation (GREAT), based at the University of Namur, Belgium; the Global Model and Observatory for International Responsible Research and Innovation Coordination (Project Responsibility), based at the Fraunhofer Institute, Germany; ProGReSS, based at the University of Central Lancashire, UK; and the Governance Framework for Responsible Research and Innovation (Res-AGorA) project, also at the Frauenhofer Institute. Europe’s Horizon 2020 Programme includes a “Science with and for Society” work program that features RRI. In the USA, the National Science Foundation has funded a Virtual Institute for Responsible Innovation, linking American efforts in RI at the Center for Nanotechnology in Society at Arizona State University to those in Europe as well as to smaller groups in Canada and Brazil. A patchwork international network for RI is thus forming. Funding Information: JRI also includes an intentionally ecumenical section of “Perspectives and Reviews” to provide the opportunity for scholars and practitioners to publish still shorter pieces (around 2000 words) that, while potentially derived from research, are somewhat more descriptively or polemically oriented. Perspectives, which are submitted for external blind review, may, for example, articulate the vision of a particular research organization, ad hoc committee, expert report or individual. In the current issue, Owen (2014) describes the adoption by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council of the UK of a framework for RI, closely derived from scholarship that motivates consideration of anticipation, reflection, engagement and action in responses to funding calls. Taebi et al. (2014) offer a second perspective that discusses the role of public values – defined intersubjectively from public debate – in RI, and the consequent importance of a comprehensive and interdisciplinary approach that attends to values in design and the role of institutions and stakeholder engagement in achieving those values. A third perspective comes from Hankins (2014), who provides an insightful précis of the various and numerous presentations related to RI at the 2013 annual meeting of the Society for the Study of Nanoscience and Emerging Technologies, held in Boston, MA, USA, at Northeastern University and chaired by Christopher Bosso. Funding Information: This work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation cooperative agreement #0937591 and grants #0849101 and #1257246. The findings and observations contained in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

PY - 2014/1/2

Y1 - 2014/1/2

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84943788173&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84943788173&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/23299460.2014.885175

DO - 10.1080/23299460.2014.885175

M3 - Editorial

AN - SCOPUS:84943788173

SN - 2329-9460

VL - 1

SP - 1

EP - 8

JO - Journal of Responsible Innovation

JF - Journal of Responsible Innovation

IS - 1

ER -