1
|
Wexler A, Sullivan LS. Translational Neuroethics: A Vision for a More Integrated, Inclusive, and Impactful Field. AJOB Neurosci 2023; 14:388-399. [PMID: 34851808 PMCID: PMC9187971 DOI: 10.1080/21507740.2021.2001078] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/19/2022]
Abstract
As early-career neuroethicists, we come to the field of neuroethics at a unique moment: we are well-situated to consider nearly two decades of neuroethics scholarship and identify challenges that have persisted across time. But we are also looking squarely ahead, embarking on the next generation of exciting and productive neuroethics scholarship. In this article, we both reflect backwards and turn our gaze forward. First, we highlight criticisms of neuroethics, both from scholars within the field and outside it, that have focused on speculation and lack of skepticism; the dearth of consideration of broader social issues such as justice and equality, both with regard to who speaks for neuroethics as a field and who benefits from its recommendations and findings; and the insufficient focus on the practical impact of our ethical work. Second, we embrace the concept of "translational neuroethics" to outline a vision for neuroethics that is integrated, inclusive, and impactful. Integration can help us identify more pertinent, real-world issues, and move away from speculation; inclusivity can help ensure that the questions we attend to are not merely relevant to a single subgroup but aim toward just distribution of benefits; and impact can help us think beyond guidelines and recommendations to focus on implementation. Our goal is for this call to action to help shape neuroethics into a discipline that develops rigorous research agendas through relationships with interdisciplinary partners, that is broadly inclusive and attends to issues beyond novel neurotechnologies, and that is devoted to the translation of scholarship into practice.
Collapse
|
2
|
Schuijff M, Dijkstra AM. Practices of Responsible Research and Innovation: A Review. SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING ETHICS 2020; 26:533-574. [PMID: 31845176 DOI: 10.1007/s11948-019-00167-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/23/2018] [Accepted: 12/05/2019] [Indexed: 06/10/2023]
Abstract
This paper presents results of a systematic literature review of RRI practices which aimed to gather insights to further both the theoretical and practical development of RRI. Analysing practices of RRI and mapping out main approaches as well as the values, dimensions or characteristics pursued with those practices, can add to understanding of the more conceptual discussions of RRI and enhance the academic debate. The results, based on a corpus of 52 articles, show that practices already reflect the rich variety of values, dimensions and characteristics provided in the main definitions in use, although not all are addressed yet. In fact, articles dealing with uptake of RRI practices may be improved by including more methodological information. RRI practices may further the conceptual debate by including more reflection, and these may foster mutual responsiveness between theory and practice by early anticipating impacts.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mirjam Schuijff
- University of Twente, P.O. Box 217, 7500 AE, Enschede, The Netherlands
| | - Anne M Dijkstra
- University of Twente, P.O. Box 217, 7500 AE, Enschede, The Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Matthews NE, Stamford L, Shapira P. Aligning sustainability assessment with responsible research and innovation: Towards a framework for Constructive Sustainability Assessment. SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION 2019; 20:58-73. [PMID: 32051840 PMCID: PMC6999670 DOI: 10.1016/j.spc.2019.05.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/04/2019] [Revised: 04/29/2019] [Accepted: 05/04/2019] [Indexed: 05/04/2023]
Abstract
Emerging technologies are increasingly promoted on the promise of tackling the grand challenge of sustainability. A range of assessment and governance approaches seek to evaluate these claims, but these tend to be applied disparately and lack widespread operationalisation. They also face specific challenges, such as high levels of uncertainty, when it comes to emerging technologies. Building and reflecting on both theory and practice, this article develops a framework for Constructive Sustainability Assessment (CSA) that enables the application of sustainability assessments to emerging technologies as part of a broader deliberative approach. In order to achieve this, we discuss and critique current approaches to analytical sustainability assessment and review deliberative social science governance frameworks. We then develop the conceptual basis of CSA - blending life-cycle thinking with principles of responsible research and innovation. This results in four design principles - transdisciplinarity, opening-up, exploring uncertainty and anticipation - that can be followed when applying sustainability assessments to emerging technologies. Finally, we discuss the practical implementation of the framework through a three-step process to (a) formulate the sustainability assessment in collaboration with stakeholders, (b) evaluate potential sustainability implications using methods such as anticipatory life-cycle assessment and (c) interpret and explore the results as part of a deliberative process. Through this, CSA facilitates a much-needed transdisciplinary response to enable the governance of emerging technologies towards sustainability. The framework will be of interest to scientists, engineers, and policy-makers working with emerging technologies that have sustainability as an explicit or implicit motivator.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nicholas E. Matthews
- Manchester Institute of Innovation Research, Alliance Manchester Business School, The University of Manchester, Booth Street West, Manchester, M15 6PB, UK
- Manchester Synthetic Biology Research Centre for Fine and Speciality Chemicals, Manchester Institute of Biotechnology, The University of Manchester, 131 Princess Street, Manchester, M1 7DN, UK
- School of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science, The University of Manchester, The Mill, Sackville Street, Manchester, M1 3AL, UK
- Corresponding author at: Manchester Institute of Innovation Research, Alliance Manchester Business School, The University of Manchester, Booth Street West, Manchester, M15 6PB, UK.
| | - Laurence Stamford
- School of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science, The University of Manchester, The Mill, Sackville Street, Manchester, M1 3AL, UK
| | - Philip Shapira
- Manchester Institute of Innovation Research, Alliance Manchester Business School, The University of Manchester, Booth Street West, Manchester, M15 6PB, UK
- Manchester Synthetic Biology Research Centre for Fine and Speciality Chemicals, Manchester Institute of Biotechnology, The University of Manchester, 131 Princess Street, Manchester, M1 7DN, UK
- School of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332-0345, USA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Pei L, Schmidt M. Synthetic Biology: From Genetic Engineering 2.0 to Responsible Research and Innovation. Synth Biol (Oxf) 2018. [DOI: 10.1002/9783527688104.ch18] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/09/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Lei Pei
- Biofaction KG, Technology Assessment; Kundmanngasse 39/12 Wien 1030 Austria
| | - Markus Schmidt
- Biofaction KG, Technology Assessment; Kundmanngasse 39/12 Wien 1030 Austria
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Ribeiro BE, Smith RDJ, Millar K. A Mobilising Concept? Unpacking Academic Representations of Responsible Research and Innovation. SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING ETHICS 2017; 23:81-103. [PMID: 26956121 DOI: 10.1007/s11948-016-9761-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/10/2015] [Accepted: 01/21/2016] [Indexed: 06/05/2023]
Abstract
This paper makes a plea for more reflexive attempts to develop and anchor the emerging concept of responsible research and innovation (RRI). RRI has recently emerged as a buzzword in science policy, becoming a focus of concerted experimentation in many academic circles. Its performative capacity means that it is able to mobilise resources and spaces despite no common understanding of what it is or should be 'made of'. In order to support reflection and practice amongst those who are interested in and using the concept, this paper unpacks understandings of RRI across a multi-disciplinary body of peer-reviewed literature. Our analysis focuses on three key dimensions of RRI (motivations, theoretical conceptualisations and translations into practice) that remain particularly opaque. A total of 48 publications were selected through a systematic literature search and their content was qualitatively analysed. Across the literature, RRI is portrayed as a concept that embeds numerous features of existing approaches to govern and assess emerging technologies. Our analysis suggests that its greatest potential may be in its ability to unify and provide political momentum to a wide range of long-articulated ethical and policy issues. At the same time, RRI's dynamism and resulting complexity may represent its greatest challenge. Further clarification on what RRI has to offer in practice-beyond what has been offered to date-is still needed, as well as more explicit engagement with research and institutional cultures of responsibility. Such work may help to realise the high political expectations that are attached to nascent RRI.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Barbara E Ribeiro
- Centre for Applied Bioethics, University of Nottingham, Sutton Bonington Campus, Leicestershire, LE12 5RD, UK.
| | - Robert D J Smith
- Centre for Applied Bioethics, University of Nottingham, Sutton Bonington Campus, Leicestershire, LE12 5RD, UK
- Department of Social Science, Health and Medicine, King's College London, London, WC2R 2LS, UK
| | - Kate Millar
- Centre for Applied Bioethics, University of Nottingham, Sutton Bonington Campus, Leicestershire, LE12 5RD, UK
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Flipse SM, De Winde JH, Osseweijer P, van der Sanden MCA. The wicked problem of socially responsible innovation. EMBO Rep 2014; 15:464. [PMID: 24795461 PMCID: PMC4210102 DOI: 10.1002/embr.201438757] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Steven M Flipse
- Delft University of Technology, Science Education & CommunicationDelft, The Netherlands
| | | | - Patricia Osseweijer
- Delft University of Technology, Science Education & CommunicationDelft, The Netherlands
- BE-BasicDelft, The Netherlands
| | | |
Collapse
|
7
|
Flipse SM, van der Sanden MCA, Radstake M, De Winde JH, Osseweijer P. The DNA of socially responsible innovation: Social and natural scientists need to establish mutual understanding and a common language to efficiently work together. EMBO Rep 2014; 15:134-7. [PMID: 24442726 DOI: 10.1002/embr.201337949] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
|