A Framework for Ethical Research and Innovation.
Ethical research and innovation
Research and innovation strategy
Responsible innovation
Responsible research and innovation
Journal
Science and engineering ethics
ISSN: 1471-5546
Titre abrégé: Sci Eng Ethics
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9516228
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 02 2021
10 02 2021
Historique:
received:
14
11
2018
accepted:
02
01
2021
entrez:
10
2
2021
pubmed:
11
2
2021
medline:
19
8
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
In this contribution, we set out a framework for ethical research and innovation. Our framework draws upon recent scholarly work recommending the introduction of new models at the intersection of ethics, strategy, and science and technology studies to inform and explicate how the decisions of researchers can be considered ethical. Ethical research and innovation is construed in our framework as a dynamic process emerging from decisions of multiple stakeholders in innovation ecosystems prior to, during and after the execution of a research and innovation project. The framework can be used by different types of research organizations to implement governance models of ethical research and innovation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33566200
doi: 10.1007/s11948-021-00287-9
pii: 10.1007/s11948-021-00287-9
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
11Références
Adam, B., & Groves, G. (2011). Futures tended: Care and future-oriented responsibility. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 31, 17–27.
Adner, R. (2006). Match your innovation strategy to your innovation ecosystem. Harvard Business Review, 84, 98–107.
Adner, R., & Kapoor, R. (2016). Innovation ecosystems and the pace of substitution: Reexamining technology S-curves. Strategic Management Journal, 37, 625–648.
Ahrweiler, P., Gilbert, N., Schrempf, B., Grimpe, B., & Jirotka, M. (2019). The role of civil society organisations in European responsible research and innovation. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 6, 25–49.
Ahrweiler, P., Pyka, A., & Gilbert, N. (2011). Agency and structure: A social simulation of knowledge-intensive industries. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 17, 59–76.
Alexy, O., Criscuolo, P., & Salter, A. (2009). Does IP strategy have to cripple open innovation? MIT Sloan Management Review, 51, 71–77.
Allhoff, F. (2014). The coming era of nanomedicine. In R. Sandler (Ed.), Ethics and emerging technologies (pp. 155–166). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Anastasiadis, S., Moon, J., & Humphreys, M. (2018). Lobbying and the responsible firm: Agenda-setting for a freshly conceptualized field. Business Ethics: A European Review, 27, 207–221.
Armstrong, M., Cornut, G., Delacôte, S., Lenglet, M., Millo, Y., Muniesa, F., et al. (2012). Towards a practical approach to responsible innovation in finance: New product committees revisited. Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance, 20, 147–168.
Barben, D., Fisher, E., Selin, C., & Guston, D. (2008). Anticipatory governance of nanotechnology: Foresight, engagement, and integration. In E. Hackett, M. Lynch, & J. Wajcman (Eds.), The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (3rd ed., pp. 979–1000). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Baron, R., & Kenny, D. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
Basl, J. (2014). What to do about artificial consciousness. In R. Sandler (Ed.), Ethics, law, and governance in the development of robots (pp. 380–392). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bedau, M., & Triant, M. (2014). Social and ethical implications of creating artificial cells. In R. Sandler (Ed.), Ethics, law, and governance in the development of robots (pp. 562–574). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Benington, J., & Moore, M. (2010). From public choice to public value. In J. Benington & M. Moore (Eds.), Public value: Theory and practice (pp. 31–51). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bergek, A., Jacobsson, S., Carlsson, B., Lindmark, S., & Rickne, A. (2008). Analyzing the functional dynamics of technological innovation systems: A scheme of analysis. Research Policy, 37, 407–429.
Berlin, I. (1969). Two concepts of liberty. In I. Berlin (Ed.), Four essays on liberty. London: Oxford University Press.
Bessen, J. (2004). Holdup and licensing of cumulative innovations with private information. Economic Letters, 82, 321–326.
Bombard, Y., Abelson, J., Simeonov, D., & Gauvin, F. (2011). Eliciting ethical and social values in health technology assessment: A participatory approach. Social Science and Medicine, 73, 135–144.
Borda, J. (1784). Mémoire sur les élections au scrutin. Paris: Académie Royale des Sciences.
Borning, A. & Muller, M. (2012). Next steps for value sensitive design. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM annual conference on human factors in computing systems–CHI 2012 (pp. 1125–1234). New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
Bostrom, N. (2014). Why I want to be a posthuman when I grow up. In R. Sandler (Ed.), Ethics and emerging technologies (pp. 218–234). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Brans, J., & Mareschal, B. (1990). The PROMÉTHÉE methods for MCDM, the PROMCALC, GAIA and BANDADVISER software. In C. Bana e Costa (Ed.), Readings in multiple criteria decision aid (pp. 216–252). Berlin: Springer.
Brey, P. (2014). Virtual reality and computer simulation. In R. Sandler (Ed.), Ethics and emerging technologies (pp. 315–332). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Cafaro, P. (2014). Avoiding catastrophic climate change: Why technological innovation is necessary but not sufficient. In R. Sandler (Ed.), Ethics, law, and governance in the development of robots (pp. 424–438). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Callon, M., Lascoumes, P., & Barthe, Y. (2009). Acting in an uncertain world: An essay on technical democracy. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Carlson, C., & Wilmot, W. (2006). The five disciplines for creating what customers want. New York: Crown Publishing Group.
Carlsson, B., & Stankiewicz, R. (1991). On the nature, function and composition of technological systems. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 1, 93–118.
Carroll, A. (1999). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy of Management Review, 4, 497–505.
Comstock, G. (2014). Ethics and genetically modified foods. In R. Sandler (Ed.), Ethics, law, and governance in the development of robots (pp. 473–485). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Condorcet, M. (1785). Essai sur l’application del’analyse à la probabilité des décisions rendues à la pluralité des voix. Paris: Académie Royale des Sciences.
Cotton, M. (2009). Evaluating the ethical matrix as a radioactive waste management deliberative decision-support tool. Environmental Values, 18, 153–176.
Crow, M. & Dabars, W. (2015). A new model for the American research university. Issues in Science and Technology, 31. Accesible at https://issues.org/a-new-model-for-the-american-research-university .
Douglas, T. (2014). Moral enhancement. In R. Sandler (Ed.), Ethics and emerging technologies (pp. 235–251). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Felt, U., Fochler, M., Müller, A., & Strassnig, M. (2008). Unruly ethics: On the difficulties of a bottom-up approach to ethics in the field of genomics. Public Understanding of Science, 18, 354–371.
Figueira, J., Greco, S., & Ehrgott, M. (2005). Multiple criteria decision analysis: State of the art surveys. Berlin: Springer.
Fishburn, P. C. (1973). The theory of social choice. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Flipse, S. M., van der Sanden, M., & Osseweijer, P. (2013). The why and how of enabling the integration of social and ethical aspects in research and development. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19, 703–725.
Freeman, R., Martin, K., & Parmar, B. (2007). Stakeholder capitalism. Journal of Business Ethics, 74, 303–314.
Fritzsche, D. (1991). A model of decision-making incorporating ethical values. Journal of Business Ethics, 10, 841–852.
Garfinkle, M., & Knowles, L. (2014). Synthetic biology, biosecurity, and biosafety. In R. Sandler (Ed.), Ethics, law, and governance in the development of robots (pp. 533–547). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Genus, A. (2006). Rethinking constructive technology assessment as democratic, reflective, discourse. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 73, 13–26.
Gianni, R., & Goujon, P. (2014). Analytical GRID Report: Deliverabe 2.3. GREAT Project. Accesible at https://www.great-project.eu/ .
Godin, B., & Lane, J. (2008). Pushes and pulls: The Hi(S)tory of the demand pull model of innovation. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 38, 621–654.
Goldin, C., & Katz, L. (2008). The race between education and technology. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Gomes, L., & Lima, M. (1991). TODIM: Basics and application to multicriteria ranking of projects with environmental impacts. Foundations of Computing and Decision Sciences, 16, 113–127.
Granstrand, O., & Holgersson, M. (2013). Managing the intellectual property disassembly problem. California Management Review, 55, 148–210.
Granstrand, O., & Sjölander, M. (1990). Managing innovation in multi-technology corporations. Research Policy, 19, 35–60.
Grinbaum, A., & Groves, C. (2013). What is “responsible” about responsible innovation? Understanding the ethical issues. In R. Owen, J. Bessant, & M. Heintz (Eds.), Responsible innovation: Managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society (pp. 119–142). London: Wiley.
Groves, C. (2006). Technological futures and non-reciprocal responsibility. International of the Humanities, 4, 57–61.
Guston, D. (2006). Responsible innovation in the commercialized university. In D. G. Stein (Ed.), Buying in or selling out: The commercialization of the American research university (pp. 161–174). New Brunswick: Rutgers Uiversity Press.
Guston, D., & Sarewitz, D. (2002). Real-time technology assessment. Technology in Society, 24, 93–109.
Hajer, M. (2003). Policy without polity? Policy analysis and the institutional void. Policy Sciences, 36, 175–195.
Hamilton, C. (2014). Ethical anxieties about geoengineering. In R. Sandler (Ed.), Ethics, law, and governance in the development of robots (pp. 439–455). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hanusch, H., & Pyka, A. (2006). Comprehensive neo-schumpeterian economics and the Lisbon-Agenda: Detecting patterns of varying future-orientation in Europe. Galileu Revista de Economia e Direito, 9, 17–40.
Hanusch, H., & Pyka, A. (2007). Joseph alois schumpeter (1883–1950). In H. Hanusch & A. Pyka (Eds.), The Elgar companion on neo-schumpeterian economics (Vol. 31, pp. 19–26). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Heath, J., Moriarty, J., & Norman, W. (2010). Business ethics and (or as) political philosophy. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20, 427–452.
Heidegger, M. (1977). The question concerning technology. In D.-F. Krell (Ed.), Martin Heidegger: Basic writings (pp. 287–317). New York: Harper & Row.
Hellstrom, T. (2003). Systemic innovation and risk: Technology assessment and the challenge of responsible innovation. Technology in Society, 25, 369–384.
Himma, K., & Bottis, M. (2014). The digital divide: Information technologies and the obligation to alleviate poverty. In R. Sandler (Ed.), Ethics and emerging technologies (pp. 333–346). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Holgersson, M., Granstrand, O., & Bogers, M. (2018). The evolution of intellectual property strategy in innovation ecosystems: Uncovering complementary and substitute appropriability regimes. Long Range Planning, 51, 303–319.
Hosseini, J., & Brenner, S. (1992). The stakeholder theory of the firm: A methodology to generate value matrix weights. Business Ethics Quarterly, 2, 99–119.
Hwang, C., & Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple attribute decision making: Methods and applications. New York: Springer.
Jonas, H. (2014). Technology and responsibility: Reflections on the new tasks of ethics. In R. Sandler (Ed.), Ethics and emerging technologies (pp. 37–47). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Keeney, R., & Raiffa, H. (1976). Decisions with multiple objectives: Preferences and value trade-offs. New York: Wiley.
Kilgour, D.-M., & Eden, C. (2010). Handbook of group decision and negotiation, advances in group decision and negotiation. Dordrecht: Springer.
Lave, R., Mirowski, P., & Randalls, S. (2010). Introduction: STS and neoliberal science. Social Studies of Science, 40, 659–675.
Lee, R. (2012). Look at mother nature on the run in the 21st century: Responsibility, research and innovation. Transnational Environmental Law, 1, 105–117.
Lenoble, J., & Maesschalk, M. (2003). Towards a theory of governance: The action of norms. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.
Lenoble, J., & Maesschalk, M. (2010). Democracy, law and governance. Farnham: Ashgate.
Lezaun, J., & Soneryd, L. (2007). Consulting citizens: Technologies of elicitation and the mobility of publics. Public Understanding of Science, 16, 279–297.
Lin, P., Abney, K., & Bekey, G. (2014). Ethics, war, and robots. In R. Sandler (Ed.), Ethics and emerging technologies (pp. 349–362). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Maitland, I. (1997). The great non-debate over international sweatshops. In British academy of management annual conference proceedings (pp. 240–265). British Academy of Management: London.
Martin, K., & Freeman, R. (2004). The separation of technology and ethics in business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 53, 353–364.
McLean, I., & Urken, A. (1995). Classics of Social Choice. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Miller, K. (2015). Agent-based modeling and organization studies: A critical realist perspective. Organisational Studies, 36, 175–196.
Minteer, B., & Collins, J. (2014). Ecosystems unbound: Ethical questions for an interventionist ecology. In R. Sandler (Ed.), Ethics, law, and governance in the development of robots (pp. 456–469). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Mitcham, C. (2003). Co-responsibility for research integrity. Science and Engineering Ethics, 9, 273–290.
Mitchell, R., Agle, B., & Wood, D. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22, 853–886.
Moore, A. (2010). Beyond participation: Opening up political theory in STS. Social Studies of Science, 40, 793–799.
Munda, G. (2004). Social multi-criteria evaluation: Methodological foundations and operational consequences. European Journal of Operational Research, 158, 662–677.
Owen, R., Baxter, D., Maynard, T., & Depledge, M. (2009). Beyond regulation: Risk pricing and responsible innovation. Environmental Science and Technology, 43, 5171–5175.
Owen, R., Macnaghten, P., & Stilgoe, J. (2012). Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society. Science and Public Policy, 39, 751–760.
Owen, R., & Pansera, M. (2019). Responsible innovation and responsible research and innovation. In D. Simon, S. Kuhlmann, J. Stamm, & W. Canzler (Eds.), Handbook on science and public policy (pp. 26–48). London: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Paredes-Frigolett, H., Gomes, L., & Pereira, J. (2015). Governance of responsible research and innovation: An agent-based model approach. Procedia Computer Science, 55, 912–921.
Polanyi, M. (1962). The republic of science: Its political and economic theory. Minerva, 1, 54–73.
Pyka, A., Gilbert, N., & Ahrweiler, P. (2007). Simulating knowledge generation and distribution processes in innovation collaborations and networks. Cybernetics and Systems, 38, 667–693.
Radanliev, P., De Roure, D., Page, K., Nurse, J., Mantilla Montalvo, R., Santos, O., et al. (2020). Cyber risk at the edge: Current and future trends on cyber risk analytics and artificial intelligence in the industrial internet of things and industry 4.0 supply chains. Cybersecurity, 3, 1–21.
Ramírez, R., & Wilkinson, A. (2016). Strategic reframing: The Oxford scenario planning approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Reich, R. (2010). Aftershock: The next economy and Americas future. New York: Knopf.
Reijers, W., Wright, D., Brey, P., Weber, K., Rodríguez, R., O’Sullivan, D., & Gordijn, B. (2018). Methods for practising ethics in research and innovation: A literature review, critical analysis and recommendations. Science and Engineering Ethics, 24, 1437–1481.
Rip, A., Misa, T., & Schot, J. (1995). Managing technology in society: The approach of constructive technology assessment. London: Thomson.
Robert, J., & Baylis, F. (2014). Crossing species boundaries. In R. Sandler (Ed.), Ethics and emerging technologies (pp. 139–154). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Saaty, T. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Salo, A., & Hämäläinen, R. (2010). Multicriteria decision analysis in group decision processes. In D. Kilgour & C. Eden (Eds.), Handbook of group decision and negotiation, advances in group decision and negotiation (pp. 269–283). Dordrecht: Springer.
Singer, A. (2013). Corporate political activity, social responsibility, and competitive strategy: An integrative model. Business Ethics: A European Review, 22, 308–324.
Singer, A., & Singer, M. (1997). Management science and business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 16, 385–395.
Smith, A., Stirling, A., & Berkhout, F. (2005). The governance of sustainable socio-technical transitions. Research Policy, 34, 1491–1510.
Stanley, J., & Stanhardt, B. (2014). Bigger monster, weaker chains: The growth of an American surveillance society. In R. Sandler (Ed.), Ethics and Emerging Technologies (pp. 269–284). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., & Macnaghten, P. (2013). Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy, 42, 1568–1580.
Stirling, A. (2008). “Opening up’’ and “closing down’’: Power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Science and Engineering Ethics, 33, 262–294.
Streiffer, R., & Basl, J. (2014). The Ethics of agricultural animal biotechnology. In R. Sandler (Ed.), Ethics, law, and governance in the development of robots (pp. 501–515). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Teece, D. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28, 1319–1350.
Triulzy, G., Pyka, A., & Scholz, R. (2014). R&D and knowledge dynamics in university-industry relationships in biotech and pharmaceuticals: An agent-based model. International Journal of Biotechnology, 13, 137–179.
Tushman, M. (1977). A political approach to organizations: A review and rationale. The Academy of Management Review, 2, 206–216.
van de Poel, I. (2009). Values in engineering design. Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences. In Handbook of the philosophy of science (pp. 973–1006). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
van den Hoven, M., Lokhorst, G., & van de Poel, I. (2012). Engineering and the problem of moral overload. Science and Engineering Ethics, 18, 1–13.
von Schomberg, R. (2011). Towards responsible research and innovation in the information and communication technologies fields. Brussels: European Commission.
von Schomberg, R. (2013). A vision of responsible innovation. In R. Owen, J. Bessant, & M. Heintz (Eds.), Responsible innovation: Managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society (pp. 51–74). London: Wiley.
von Schomberg, R. (2014). The “quest” for the right impacts of science and technology: A framework for responsible research and innovation. In J. van den Hoven, N. Doorn, T. Swierstra, B.-J. Koops, & H. Romijn (Eds.), Responsible innovation 1: Innovative solutions for global issues (pp. 33–50). Dordrecht: Springer.
Wallach, W. (2014). Ethics, war, and robots. In R. Sandler (Ed.), Ethics, law, and governance in the development of robots (pp. 363–379). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Wartick, S., & Cochran, P. (1985). The evolution of the corporate social performance model. Academy of Management Review, 10, 758–769.
Winner, L. (1986). The whale and the reactor: A search for limits in an age of high technology. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Winner, L. (2014). Technologies as forms of life. In R. Sandler (Ed.), Ethics and emerging technologies (pp. 48–60). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Wynne, B. (2006). Risk as globalizing discourse? Framing subjects and citizens. In M. Leach, I. Scoones, & B. Wynne (Eds.), Science and citizens: Globalization and the challenge of engagement (pp. 66–82). London: Zed Books.
Wynne, B. (2011). Lab work goes social, and vice-versa: Strategising public engagement processes. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17, 791–800.