Search

Purpose: This paper aims to explore the integration of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) into Sabadell's territorial policies, focusing on the development of an inclusive innovative ecosystem. Through various methodologies, the study seeks to enhance territorial specialization in design applied to industry within a sustainable framework. By embedding RRI principles, the objective is to foster a balanced approach that promotes social inclusion, sustainability, and economic growth in Sabadell's innovation landscape. Approach: The study involves defining the policy and scientific objectives tailored to Sabadell's territorial needs and reviewing relevant literature on strategies and measures that support policy advancement. A qualitative system analysis was conducted to identify key system elements serving as leverage points for embedding RRI and AIRR (Anticipation, Inclusiveness, Reflexivity, and Responsiveness) dimensions into Sabadell's innovation ecosystem. This included assessing how each system element influences others, leading to the development of a system grid that highlights the most active and ambivalent elements crucial for advancing the city's policy objectives. Additionally, stakeholder engagement was emphasized to ensure diverse perspectives were considered, promoting collaboration across sectors. The combination of literature review, system analysis, and impact assessment aims to create a robust, evidence-based framework for embedding RRI principles into Sabadell's policies, fostering a more inclusive and sustainable innovation environment. Findings: The qualitative system analysis identified 20 leverage points crucial for advancing Sabadell's policy focus and embedding RRI/AIRR dimensions in the territory. These elements involve diverse stakeholders, including policymakers, industry leaders, academia, and civil society, ensuring a holistic approach. From these, 14 elements were selected based on their impact potential, forming the core drivers of policy advancement in Sabadell. These drivers will serve as a foundation for future actions aimed at strengthening Sabadell's policy initiatives and embedding sustainable innovation practices across the territory. Originality: This paper contributes to the ongoing discourse on embedding Responsible Research and Innovation into regional policies within a European context. By presenting Sabadell as a case study, it offers a practical model for integrating RRI into territorial strategies to build an inclusive, sustainable innovation ecosystem that enhances industrial specialization while addressing social and environmental challenges. The methodology provides a replicable framework for other regions aiming to align innovation policies with RRI principles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The paper aims to discover how the stakeholders of research processes carried out within universities perceive the possibility of generating the impact of scientific projects on the economy, society and the environment. Design/methodology/approach: For the purpose of the paper, several steps were executed. First, the desk method was implied. On the basis of the literature operating of the university in a wider context was presented, as well as economic theories on the relationship between human activity and the environment, also the concept of public value and Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) concept were discussed. The empirical part was the study in the form of focus group organized to obtain information on the perception of the potential impact generated by scientific projects. Findings: The study proved that such an impact is exerted and that appropriate activities disseminating the results of research work have a chance to achieve sustainable positive economic, social or environmental changes. It was possible to identify the factors which affect the efficiency of such processes. Research limitations/implications: The focus group was carried on a relatively small sample and the participants were already involved in socially/economically/environmentally accountable activity. Nevertheless, it was possible to acquire the main ideas on how the scientific and innovation processes developed within the university can generate public value by positively influencing economic, social and environmental surroundings. Practical implications: The paper provides insight into possible changes in the processes of universities' generating impact on their environment. Social implications: Society is a part of the environment of universities, therefore society would benefit if this impact were optimized. The paper brings findings in this area. Originality/value: The paper combines the theory of the economy with Responsible Research and Innovation and the public value concept in the field of generating impact on the environment by higher education institutions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study aims to provide a preliminary estimate of the degree of implementation of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) in agri-food cooperatives; to that end, it proposes an instrument for measuring RRI as a reflective construct. A secondary aim is to demonstrate the direct and positive relationship between RRI and international market orientation. Data were sourced from 60 managers from the top 100 reputable agri-food cooperatives in Spain. By conducting a descriptive statistical analysis, exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory tetrad analysis, and consistent PLS path modelling, it has been demonstrated that the RRI construct is reflective and unidimensional and has a direct relationship with the international orientation of cooperatives. While future research is required to refine the empirical application of RRI indicators to agri-food cooperatives, they can play a significant role in bridging the divide between theoretical RRI concepts and the development of pragmatic indicators for use in business environments.

Governing dual-use research of concern (DURC) in the life sciences has become difficult owing to the diversification of scientific domains, digitalization of potential threats, and the proliferation of actors. This paper proposes three approaches to realize bottom-up governance of DURC from laboratory operation to institutional decision-making levels. First, a technological approach can predict and monitor the dual-use nature of the research target pathogens and their information. Second, an interactive approach is proposed in which diverse stakeholders proactively discuss and examine dual-use issues through research practice. Third, a personnel approach can identify the right persons involved in DURC. These approaches suggest that, going beyond self-governance by researchers, collaborative and networked governance involving diverse actors should become essential. This mode of governance can also be seen in light of the management of research use. Therefore, program design by funding agencies and publication screening by journal publishers continuously contribute to governance at the meso-level. Bottom-up governance may be realized by using an appropriately integrated design of these three approaches at the micro-level, such as dual-use prediction and monitoring, stakeholder dialogue, and background checks. Given that the term 'open science' has been promoted to the research community as part of top-down governance, paying due attention on site to research subjects, research practices, and persons involved in research will provide an opportunity to develop a more socially conscious open science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Societal Impact Statement: The societal debate on the use of genome‐edited crops has been polarised from the start. While policymakers struggle to democratically resolve this dilemma, plant scientists have been criticised for taking up advocative roles and thereby risking further polarisation. This study demonstrates how plant scientists themselves perceive their roles and responsibilities. Indeed, those scientists active in the debate were found to fulfil advocative roles, and there seems to be an underlying, persistent—and very traditional—view on roles and responsibilities of scientists within the community. Critical reflection on this view is required for better democratic dialogue and decision‐making. More interdisciplinary interaction could facilitate this reflection. Summary: In this paper, we examine how plant scientists from Wageningen University and Research (WUR) demarcate their roles and responsibilities in relation to the societal impact of their research, in response to calls for public legitimacy of their research, and within the societal debate on the governance of genome‐edited crops (GE crops) in Europe.We analysed 16 semi‐structured interviews, 5‐day journals, and (social) media contributions of plant scientists at WUR.Our study demonstrates that the perceived roles and responsibilities of the interviewees were aligned with the ideal of the scientist as value‐free, as separate from society, and as producing knowledge that leads to unproblematic societal benefits through industry. When confronted with the polarised debate on the governance of genome editing (GE) technology, the reflexivity that our respondents had demonstrated in general, tended to be dispersed. Respondents rarely considered the GE crop debate, or their own position, to be value‐based. Those respondents active in the debate were found to fulfil advocative roles, and they struggled to recognise the validity of viewpoints other than their own.We hypothesise that this decreased reflexive capacity is a product of the long‐term polarisation of the GM/GE debate, mediated by both their conceptual alignment with the linear model of innovation and their limited interactions outside of their field. In order to better align the perspectives of social and natural scientists on the topic of science‐responsibility, and to constructively contribute to the debate on GE crops, we argue for more interaction between the these two communities. The societal debate on the use of genome‐edited crops has been polarised from the start. While policymakers struggle to democratically resolve this dilemma, plant scientists have been criticised for taking up advocative roles and thereby risking further polarisation. This study demonstrates how plant scientists themselves perceive their roles and responsibilities. Indeed, those scientists active in the debate were found to fulfil advocative roles, and there seems to be an underlying, persistent—and very traditional—view on roles and responsibilities of scientists within the community. Critical reflection on this view is required for better democratic dialogue and decision‐making. More interdisciplinary interaction could facilitate this reflection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The world demands suitable design solutions to transition toward a sustainable production system. The concept of sustainability evolves with technology's ability to understand and replicate nature's logic. There is a growing need to move beyond punctual solutions towards more intricate and multi-stakeholder considerations, including preemptive assessments of impacts. This article discusses the outcomes of cross-disciplinary material experimentation at Saperi&Co Center, Sapienza University of Rome. This research focuses on enhancing ceramic surfaces through circular economy practices, making them receptive to microorganism colonization—known as bioreceptivity. Through an iterative and repetitive approach, inspired by Research Through Design and material experimentation, several experiments were carried out to study how the innovative use of organic waste in clay-based mixtures can promote bioreceptivity and the design of green surfaces for urban regeneration. The results advance our knowledge on the multiple parameters the designer must consider to transform inert surfaces such as ceramics into "ecological augmentation" devices. The article also aims to raise awareness of bioreceptivity as a practice to educate communities about a symbiotic relationship with nature, promote local economic development and circular production, and prompt reflection on cultural aspects arising from contemporary scientific and technological advancements in line with Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) principles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Specific groups of Catalan citizens, in spite of them being socially and professionally integrated, suffer the risk of exclusion or segregation on grounds of identity, one example being those who identify with Islam. This study arises from a prospective research project centred on a case study with the Catalan Muslim Women's Association. The main objective was to formulate public policy proposals on education, religion, and gender to be included in the Citizenship and Immigration Plan, through a process based on the women's participation and testimony. The study was divided into two phases: the participatory research followed by evaluation of the applicability of the resulting proposals. It was conducted through semi-structured interviews (n = 37), a discussion group (n = 21), and a round table (n = 31). Oral and textual qualitative data were gathered and analysed using the Ivàlua logical framework. Results for education policy urge the creation of a new professional specialist mediating between all actors. Those for religion call for public spaces for religious practice. In relation to gender, participants continued to demand policies that do not discriminate against Muslim women. In summary, religion is a resource that supports identities, beliefs, and practices, with both empowering and disempowering effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The paper aims to discover the challenges of implementing the Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) concept in higher education institutions. Design/methodology/approach: The approach included several steps. First, the necessary literature review was conducted to present RRI concept. Then, the information was gathered to present the lodzkie region in the area of R&D and economy. The last (empirical) part was the study in the form of workshops being organized to obtain information on factors influencing the implementation of RRI concept. Findings: Implementing RRI approach encounters barriers, in particular, the idea needs wider popularization, especially in terms of the benefits of its application. There is also insufficient social trust in science. This emphasizes a need to promote reliable scientific knowledge and to strengthen social awareness of its role in the development of the world. The role of internal and external stakeholders is important here. Communication between participants in innovation processes can improve the efficiency of activity in the sphere of RRI, including mechanisms of inclusive decision-making. The channels and models of communication have to take into consideration the heterogeneity of the recipients. This requires human resources with relevant competencies to execute efficient communication patterns. Research limitations/implications: The workshop was conducted on a relatively small sample and the attendants were already involved in socially/economically/environmentally responsible activity. Although it was possible to capture the main ideas on how to foster RRI concept, it is important to execute wider research on a sample representative for a whole quadruple helix population, including scientists not yet interested in

The article is devoted to highlighting of the evolution of theoretical approaches and identification of ways to ensure the responsibility of university research activities in the context of the implementation of the Open Science concept. The author analyses the EU policy documents in the field of Responsible Research and Innovation and Open Science, and justifies the need to strengthen the responsibility of university research activities in the context of implementation of Open Science standards in the national research space to fulfil the tasks set out in the National Open Science Plan. The author considers the results of case studies of domestic and foreign, primarily European, scholars and shows that a characteristic feature of the current evolutionary stage of theoretical interpretations of the problem of responsibility of research activity is its development within the framework of the RRI concept, which is considered in the EU as a transformational, critical and radical concept. The author substantiates the expediency of applying the systemic RRI concept for the formation and implementation of policies to strengthen the responsibility of research activities of Ukrainian universities. The author highlights the advantages of this concept, which are that it combines academic procedural and political approaches to RRI, covers the key components of RRI (public engagement, open access, science education, gender, ethics and governance), and provides for the assessment of RRI conditions and processes (expectations, reflexivity, inclusion and sensitivity). The author focuses special attention on highlighting the “Societal Readiness Thinking Tool” regarding the use of its potential to promote the RRI concept, formulate and actively implement RRI policies in Ukrainian HEIs to ensure their integration into the ERA of responsible research and open science. This article is based on the results of the author’s previous research, which were obtained within the framework of the academic research of the Universities’ Research Activities Unit at the Institute of Higher Education of the National Academy of Educational Sciences of Ukraine on the topic “Increasing the Research Capacity of Ukrainian Universities in the Conditions of War and Post-war Recovery in the Context of Implementing the Open Science Concept” (State Registration No. 0122U200775).

This study is a pilot literature review that compares the interest of neuroethicists and neuroscientists. It aims to determine whether there is a significant gap between the neuroethical issues addressed in philosophical neuroethics journals and neuroscience journals. We retrieved 614 articles from two specialist neuroethics journals (Neuroethics and AJOB Neuroscience) and 82 neuroethicsfocused articles from three specialist neuroscience journals (Neuron, Nature Neuroscience, and Nature Reviews Neuroscience). We classified these articles in light of the neuroethical issue in question before we compared the neuroethical issues addressed in philosophical neuroethics with those addressed by neuroscientists. A notable result is a parallelism between them as a general tendency. Neuroscientific articles cover most neuroethical issues discussed by philosophical ethicists and vice versa. Subsequently, there are notable discrepancies between the two bodies of neuroethics literature. For instance, theoretical questions, such as the ethics of moral enhancement and the philosophical implications of neuroscientific findings on our conception of personhood, are more intensely discussed in philosophical-neuroethical articles. Conversely, neuroscientific articles tend to emphasize practical questions, such as how to successfully integrate ethical perspectives into scientific research projects and justifiable practices of animal-involving neuroscientific research. These observations will help us settle the common starting point of the attempt at "ethics integration" in emerging neuroscience, contributing to better governance design and neuroethical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Quantum computing is a form of computing based on the principles of quantum mechanics. Quantum computing promises to revolutionise society through technological solutions to previously unsolvable problems or by enhancing the capacities of current computational technologies. Additionally, quantum computing has the potential to revolutionise the humanities and social sciences. We denote the study of these changes as "quantum humanities", whose study focuses on the potential of quantum computing. This paper proposes a research programme for quantum humanities, which includes the application of quantum algorithms to humanities research, reflection on the methods and techniques of quantum computing and evaluation of its potential societal implications. Moreover, we argue that, foundationally, quantum mechanics has serious implications for the ways in which data and information are used to produce seemingly objective technologies. Thus, quantum computing is a nexus for the study of knowledge itself. This research programme aims to define the field of quantum humanities and to establish it as a meaningful part of the humanities and social sciences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the new generation of entrepreneurial and community-based universities, their role in solving social issues and socializing has become much more essential. If universities and scientific institutions want to take action in this direction more than before, it is necessary to gain an accurate understanding of the insights and dimensions of social responsibility in research and innovation. In this study, we seek the main concepts in the field of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI). We have opened the black box of it through systematic literature review(SLR) and Scientometrics Analysis(SA). This study shows that the Responsible Research and Innovation concept has been evolving in recent years with the development of scientific concepts such as social innovation, corporate social responsibility, and university social responsibility. In this study, the selected articles identified by the SLR method from different textual dimensions and the emergence of new concepts are analyzed. In this study, 33 concepts in 8 different themes in the black box of RRI were identified based on the SLR method. Also, based on the Scientometric analysis and word occurrences analysis, the 10 most used words were identified. Finally, through a collaborative review, 5 key concepts for this area have been identified. These concepts are public engagement, sustainability, ethics, governance, and RRI. Breaking the black box of this concept in this article can shed some light on the literature in this field and reduce its complexity.

Since the 1990s, changing ways of producing and circulating knowledge have been accompanied by debates that diagnose and call for change in the relationship between science, society, politics, and innovation. Most recently in Europe, some of these debates emphasize the concept of responsible research and innovation (RRI). In this paper, we present a comparative analysis of different territorial RRI-pilots within the Horizon 2020-funded project TRANSFORM. In these pilots, different translations of RRI become visible. RRI (1) gets translated as participatory and deliberative modes of innovation governance aimed at transformative change, (2) takes the shape of citizen science projects; and (3) is enacted as participatory agenda setting and (plans for a) citizen assembly. We argue that it is the often-invisible work of establishing, nurturing, and caring for relationships within the territorial R&I ecosystems – what can the thought of as ongoing “maintenance work” – that creates the conditions for more responsive modes of innovation governance, and thus a shift towards transformative change in innovation policy. Through describing these translations and the related practices we will direct attention to the potential, challenges, and systemic barriers of this kind of work.

Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) concept has become an important topic in the academic community and in policy circles (van de Poel et al., 2017) and encompasses six main policy agendas (or dimensions): ethics; gender equality; governance; open access; public engagement; science education (RRI Tools, 2023). RRI concept, including gender (equality) as one of the dimensions, still lacks empirical explorations-based understanding. This paper aims to explore the peculiarities of interrelations between gender (equality) as one dimension of the Responsible Research and Innovation and societal progression in gender equality and innovativeness on macro level. Starting with generating original data-base of [n - 214] indicators quantitative secondary data analysis of descriptive characteristics of the selected variables and (Spearman) correlation (RS) analysis between the variables was accomplished. Descriptive and correlation analysis of interrelations between women's involvement in four R&I (i.e. Business, Higher education, Governmental and Private Non-profit) sectors and Gender Equality Index and Global Innovation Index in 2013-2020 shows rather small changes of the indicators and fragmental interrelations between them during the period. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This document is an editorial titled "Citizen engagement and innovative approaches in sustainable urban transitions" published in Frontiers in Sustainable Cities. The editorial emphasizes the importance of citizen involvement in achieving sustainable urban development and addresses the challenges and opportunities faced by cities in their journey towards sustainability. It highlights the need for collaborative approaches, coordination across sectors, and the integration of nature-based solutions. The editorial also discusses five impactful articles that provide insights into citizen engagement and innovative methodologies in sustainable urban transitions. Overall, the document encourages policymakers, researchers, and practitioners to adopt adaptive and integrated strategies tailored to the unique challenges and opportunities of their respective regions. [Extracted from the article]

Efforts to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions have had limited success. For many, the hopes rest on new energy innovations to advance the energy transition process. In this paper, we develop a Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) base indicator system to steer the design of innovations in the field of energy transition innovations and, thus, improve social acceptance of these innovations. We propose a guideline for its application to assist R&D performing organizations and funding organizations in the design, selection, and communication of research proposals. The indicator system is intended to promote early integration of environmental and social aspects, support the formation of teams aware of the different responsibility aspects of innovation, and monitor progress in regard to relevant RRI dimensions.

The 'smart city' vision is popular, but it lacks citizen perspectives. The aim of this study was to gain insight into whether and how art-based citizen engagement can create more room for citizen perspectives in smart cities by developing and testing an art-based citizen engagement project in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. To that end, a combination of interactive theatre, interaction design and social research methods was used to bring together diverse publics and innovation professionals for joint exploration of increased dataveillance in cities. The events were studied through observations, and through interviews with participants and organisers. Data analysis was guided by the outcomes, processes and challenges of the responsible innovation dimensions: inclusion, reflexivity, anticipation and responsiveness (Stilgoe et al., 2013). The most important achievements of art-based citizen engagement were: engaging people who would not have engaged with the topic otherwise, encouraging participants to question common phrases and assumptions, exploring future social implications of technologies, and staging meaningful interactions between citizens and professionals. The most significant challenge was to involve citizens in a way that could influence innovation trajectories. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Research proactively and deliberately aims to bring about specific changes to how societies function and individual lives fare. However, in the ever-expanding field of ethical regulations and guidance for researchers, one ethical consideration seems to have passed under the radar: How should researchers act when pursuing actual, societal changes based on their academic work? Main text When researchers engage in the process of bringing about societal impact to tackle local or global challenges important concerns arise: cultural, social and political values and institutions can be put at risk, transformed or even hampered if researchers lack awareness of how their ‘acting to impact’ influences the social world. With today’s strong focus on research impacts, addressing such ethical challenges has become urgent within in all fields of research involved in finding solutions to the challenges societies are facing. Due to the overall goal of doing something good that is often inherent in ethical approaches, boundaries to researchers’ impact of something good is neither obvious, nor easy to detect. We suggest that it is time for the field of bioethics to explore normative boundaries for researchers’ pursuit of impact and to consider, in detail, the ethical obligations that ought to shape this process, and we provide a four-step framework of fair conditions for such an approach. Our suggested approach within this field can be useful for other fields of research as well. Conclusion With this paper, we draw attention to how the transition from pursuing impact within the Academy to trying to initiate and achieve impact beyond the Academy ought to be configured, and the ethical challenges inherent in this transition. We suggest a stepwise strategy to identify, discuss and constitute consensus-based boundaries to this academic activity. This strategy calls for efforts from a multi-disciplinary team of researchers, advisors from the humanities and social sciences, as well as discussants from funding institutions, ethical committees, politics and the society in general. Such efforts should be able to offer new and useful assistance to researchers, as well as research funding agencies, in choosing ethically acceptable, impact-pursuing projects.

This article explores whether and in what way it is possible to employ toolkits for responsible research and innovation (RRI toolkits) as mechanisms for ensuring the legacy of RRI in research projects. Based on a review of the concept of responsible research and innovation as well as existing toolkits in the area, the article offers an account of the development of an RRI toolkit in the context of the EU- funded Human Brain Project. This toolkit is designed to integrate insights and practices of responsible research and innovation developed over a 10 year period into the project legacy, the EBRAINS research infrastructure. The article suggests that toolkits have the potential to contribute to ensuring a long- lasting legacy of work undertaken in responsible research and innovation, but that this potential requires further support from institutions and the broader research environment to become realized.

Background: There has been a strong focus on environmental sustainability in the aquaculture industry, but we do not know how firms in this industry emphasize the issue compared to firms in other industries. Methods: Responding to this research gap, we compared survey data of Norwegian firms in the (1) aquaculture industry with those in the (2) manufacturing industry, (3) the consulting, finance and insurance industry, and (4) the hospitality, tourism and culture industry. Results: We found that firms in the aquaculture industry emphasize environmental sustainability more than those in the other industries do. Likewise, firms in the aquaculture industry emphasize social sustainability more than those in the other industries do, but the difference is less marked. Across industries, knowledge-intensive firms emphasize environmental sustainability and social sustainability to a lesser extent. Additionally, firms with local or regional major ownership emphasize social sustainability more than those with international major ownership do. Conclusion: Firms in the aquaculture industry have a relatively strong emphasis on environmental and social sustainability, which may be due to the industry's environmental challenges. Similarly, aquaculture firms have a relatively strong emphasis on social sustainability, which may be due to the industry's geographic and sociocultural proximity to numerous small local communities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the new generation of entrepreneurial and community-based universities, their role in solving social issues and socializing has become much more essential. If universities and scientific institutions want to take action in this direction more than before, it is necessary to gain an accurate understanding of the insights and dimensions of social responsibility in research and innovation. In this study, we seek the main concepts in the field of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI). We have opened the black box of it through systematic literature review(SLR) and Scientometrics Analysis(SA). This study shows that the Responsible Research and Innovation concept has been evolving in recent years with the development of scientific concepts such as social innovation, corporate social responsibility, and university social responsibility. In this study, the selected articles identified by the SLR method from different textual dimensions and the emergence of new concepts are analyzed. In this study, 33 concepts in 8 different themes in the black box of RRI were identified based on the SLR method. Also, based on the Scientometric analysis and word occurrences analysis, the 10 most used words were identified. Finally, through a collaborative review, 5 key concepts for this area have been identified. These concepts are public engagement, sustainability, ethics, governance, and RRI. Breaking the black box of this concept in this article can shed some light on the literature in this field and reduce its complexity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Digital Education Review is the property of University of Barcelona, Virtual Teaching & Learning Research Group and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

ABSTRACTThe ‘knowledge-based bio-economy’ (KBBE) constitutes a prominent research and innovation policy narrative underlining the centrality of knowledge and innovation as important products and resources driving contemporary economies and societies. However, a narrow understanding of the KBBE prevails, resulting in the exclusion of a wider diversity of stakeholders and knowledges that could lead to the production of more responsible research and innovation (RRI). This paper aims to contribute to configuring more responsible knowledge-based bio-economies, by exploring the potential of other economic developments, such as this of alternative agro-food networks (AAFNs) to constitute knowledge-based bio-economies. Drawing on research conducted in the Northwest England, this paper unpacks the diversity of knowledges and knowledge production processes within AAFNs, arguing for their potential to constitute an alternative, more responsible KBBE. In doing so, it encourages consideration of the centrality of knowledge inclusion and reflexivity in configuring more responsible research and innovation processes for agriculture and food.

There is an increasing call for science to contribute more to real-world solutions for a sustainability transformation. At the same time, the scientific landscape encompasses different concepts, which are characterized as practice-oriented, addressing social challenges and wicked problems, which thus offer potential to contribute to a transformation, notably: technology assessment (TA), responsible research and innovation (RRI), and real-world labs (RwLs). This article deals with the question of how these different concepts can be better integrated to contribute to a transformation. With this goal in mind, we analyze the three concepts, show their core characteristics, and identify their common key similarities. TA and RRI have rarely been connected to transformative sustainability research in general or RwLs in particular. Based on the key similarities and respective strengths of the three concepts, we suggest four ways to integrate the approaches, including the novel endeavor of a Reflexive Sustainable Technology Lab as the highest level of the concepts' synthesis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The paper aims at conceptualizing the measurement of the impact of academic spin6 offs on the region. Design/methodology/approach: For the purpose of the paper, the desk method was implied. Necessary literature review was presented in the field of public value, Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) and necessary economic theories on the relationship between human activity and the environment. A set of indicators was presented as an effect of the desk research. Findings: Public value concept as well as RRI are useful approaches to assess the impact of academic spin-offs through a set of metrics which should be implemented by HEIs in innovation strategies. For the proper assessment of the impact, two scopes of the impact were adopted: direct and indirect. The sets of proposed indicators are presented in three dimensions: social, economic and environmental. Research limitations/implications: Further conceptualization is needed to elaborate more adequate and complete system of planning and monitoring R&D and commercialization activity of higher education institutions (HEIs). Practical implications: Presented indicators can and should be incorporated in HEI’s innovation strategies to properly plan and control undertaken activities in research and innovation processes. On the planning stage, metrics should be helpful in shaping the research process to achieve publicly valuable results as broadly as possible. Observing the state of a region can also help HEIs to answer most important public issues. In monitoring and control, HEIs can assess their impact on society, economy and environment while fulfilling third mission of contemporary university. Social implications: Understanding the impact of HEIs activities resulting in enterprises creation and possibility to shape such creation with accordance to public value concept and RRI it is possible to focus on research and innovation valuable for the society in long term. Originality/value: Paper adopts already known concept of public value for the purpose of university research and innovation processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The use of molecular methods in plant systematics and taxonomy has increased during the last decades; however, the accessibility of curated genetic samples and their metadata is a bottleneck for DNA-based genetic studies in botany. Plant biodiversity DNA banks and DNA-friendly collections could be critical suppliers of curated genetic material for researchers in the current context of plant biodiversity loss. Here, we aimed to understand the potential of plant DNA banks and DNA-friendly collections to enhance the growth and openness of scientific knowledge. The preservation of genetic material should become part of a natural collection's process for the generation of extended specimens enabling the preservation of both the phenotype and genotype and contributing to the generation of data networks which cross-fertilize other fields. These curated collections are advantageous in endangered species research, detecting processes related to extinction, giving a genetic dimension to IUCN assessments or completing the Leipzig Catalogue of Vascular Plants. Therefore, DNA collections are fundamental in producing FAIR data, responsible research and innovation (RRI) and meeting the goals of international conservation programmes. The completion of natural collections is important for current research efforts and furthermore vital to support future research in an era of ongoing plant biodiversity loss. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Analyzing the impact of a sustainability agenda in research and innovation on system transition is a critical research topic. This literature stream aims to examine how research and innovation can deal with wicked-problems at a dynamic system level to create more sustainable future systems. However, this study addresses two main issues in the current sustainability transition literature. First, the literature to date offers little insight into concrete implications for the management of innovation processes at the organizational level. Second, sustainability is often addressed as per se desirable. While the concept of Sustainable Innovation (SI) can valuably contribute in addressing the first issue by providing essential features to analyze business management procedures and their broader implications on socio-technical systems, it falls short in addressing the second issue. Essential aspects of sustainability, such as the responsibility for potential future trade-offs through innovation, are not strategically integrated into the current framework. This study argues that without strategic integration of responsibility, there is a risk of contributing to a partially-sustainable—”irresponsible”—socio-technical system change as a result of business innovation activities. Therefore, an extended innovation process model for sustainability to embed responsibility at the core of innovation activities is required. For this purpose, the framework of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) is utilized. This paper reports on findings from a systematic literature review of a representative sample of empirical studies from the SI and RRI literature. Thereby, the goal was to extend the understanding of management opportunities within innovation processes for sustainability through the implementation of RRI principles, in order to create sustainable socio-technical systems.

The growing number of papers on Responsible Innovation (RI) and Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) have shaped the popularity and usefulness of RI and RRI as a technology governance concept. This study reviews and assesses the development of RRI research through a bibliometric analysis of 702 RRI-focused papers and 26,471 secondary references published in the Web of Science Core Collection database between 2006 and 2020. Firstly, the paper provides a broad outline of the field based on annual growth trends, journal distribution, and disciplinary distribution for RRI publications. Secondly, this study reveals the current state of RRI research by identifying influential literature, journals, authors, countries, and institutions. Thirdly, a phased keyword analysis is conducted to determine the stage characteristics of the RRI field. Finally, based on the bibliometric analyses, this study summarises the evolutionary trajectory of RRI and makes recommendations for future research directions. As a complement to the previous qualitative literature review, the paper provides a systematic and dynamic understanding of RRI research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We contribute to the Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) literature in two ways: (i) we consider how societal aspects are taken into account in research and innovation (R&I) activities in four fundamentally different scenarios, as opposed to analysing current practices; and (ii) put the emphasis on the political conditions of the interactions among the actors, as opposed to focussing on RRI principles and instruments. In the Kingdom of RRI citizens participate directly in decision-making processes; Fortress Europe depicts a libertarian system; Failed Democracy is a populist regime; while Benevolent Green Eurocrats describes a technocratically coordinated strong state. The scenarios offer novel insights into the nature and repercussions of possible policy problems, that is, efficacy; efficiency; legitimacy of R&I activities; societal involvement; equity; and freedom of research. Meaningful interactions between lay people and professional actors in an innovation system can be safeguarded even in the harshest ideological and political framework.

The concept of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) has been developed in the Global North with little reference to what RRI or RRI-like practices mean in the context of the Global South. We discuss the contextual factors driving the emergence of responsible innovation practice and ways in which they can inform efforts to develop an inclusive and global conceptualization of RRI. Findings show that some activities in the Global South are comparable to those of the Global North, although important differences exist in motivations and structures. We go beyond prior framings to propose a reconfigured, inclusive theoretical framework that accounts for trans-regional differences by looking at three cases to illustrate international differences and to demonstrate an RRI continuum. Netherlands represents a more Global North concept of RRI; Malawi a Global South RRI concept and Brazil sits between these two extremes and assimilates RRI concepts from both ends of the continuum.

As the quest for marine-derived compounds with pharmacological and biotechnological potential upsurges, the importance of following regulations and applying Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) also increases. This article aims at: (1) presenting an overview of regulations and policies at the international and EU level, while demonstrating a variability in their implementation; (2) highlighting the importance of RRI in biodiscovery; and (3) identifying gaps and providing recommendations on how to improve the market acceptability and compliance of novel Blue Biotechnology compounds. This article is the result of the work of the Working Group 4 "Legal aspects, IPR and Ethics" of the COST Action CA18238 Ocean4Biotech, a network of more than 130 Marine Biotechnology scientists and practitioners from 37 countries. Three qualitative surveys ("Understanding of the Responsible Research and Innovation concept", "Application of the Nagoya Protocol in Your Research", and "Brief Survey about the experiences regarding the Nagoya Protocol") indicate awareness and application gaps of RRI, the Nagoya Protocol, and the current status of EU policies relating to Blue Biotechnology. The article categorises the identified gaps into five main categories (awareness, understanding, education, implementation, and enforcement of the Nagoya Protocol) and provides recommendations for mitigating them at the European, national, and organisational level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Research proactively and deliberately aims to bring about specific changes to how societies function and individual lives fare. However, in the ever-expanding field of ethical regulations and guidance for researchers, one ethical consideration seems to have passed under the radar: How should researchers act when pursuing actual, societal changes based on their academic work?Main Text: When researchers engage in the process of bringing about societal impact to tackle local or global challenges important concerns arise: cultural, social and political values and institutions can be put at risk, transformed or even hampered if researchers lack awareness of how their 'acting to impact' influences the social world. With today's strong focus on research impacts, addressing such ethical challenges has become urgent within in all fields of research involved in finding solutions to the challenges societies are facing. Due to the overall goal of doing something good that is often inherent in ethical approaches, boundaries to researchers' impact of something good is neither obvious, nor easy to detect. We suggest that it is time for the field of bioethics to explore normative boundaries for researchers' pursuit of impact and to consider, in detail, the ethical obligations that ought to shape this process, and we provide a four-step framework of fair conditions for such an approach. Our suggested approach within this field can be useful for other fields of research as well.Conclusion: With this paper, we draw attention to how the transition from pursuing impact within the Academy to trying to initiate and achieve impact beyond the Academy ought to be configured, and the ethical challenges inherent in this transition. We suggest a stepwise strategy to identify, discuss and constitute consensus-based boundaries to this academic activity. This strategy calls for efforts from a multi-disciplinary team of researchers, advisors from the humanities and social sciences, as well as discussants from funding institutions, ethical committees, politics and the society in general. Such efforts should be able to offer new and useful assistance to researchers, as well as research funding agencies, in choosing ethically acceptable, impact-pursuing projects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract This empirical paper presents a case of a participatory agenda-setting exercise for green care services in Hungary. Science Cafés were utilised as a participatory agenda-setting tool within the framework of the InSPIRES H2020 project. The objectives were to collect perceptions of research needs from key actors in the green care field in Hungary, to generate collaborative research projects on green care services and to initiate social dialogue around green care in Hungary. The main research question was as follows: how can we co-create a research agenda on green care by eliciting responses from concerned citizens and experts in a very open and democratic setting? While a growing body of evidence supports the need for, and benefits of, green care services, there is not much research in Hungary addressing diverse knowledge needs of the multiple social actors in the green care field. Science Café as developed for institutionalising an informal and lively dialogue between science and society proved to be a useful tool to co-generate a research agenda for such a relatively neglected but socially highly beneficial theme as green care.

The new book edited by Rodríguez and colleagues focuses on the topic of forecasting and responsible innovation. The original title is “Anticipación e Innovación Responsible: La construcción de futuros alternativos para la ciencia y la tecnologia” (Forecasting and Responsible Innovation: The construction of alternative futures for science and technology), and was published by Biblioteca Nueva, Madrid. Throughout this text, the reviewer is using the term forecasting instead of anticipation to convey the Spanish concept of “anticipación.” Both concepts are usually applied to “the act of looking forward” (Merriam-Webster dictionary1) or “the act of expecting or foreseeing something; expectation or presentiment” (Farlex free dictionary2) The concept of forecasting is usually used in scientific debate to mean “to estimate or predict in advance” (American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 2016) or “the process of making predictions based on past and present data and most commonly by analysis of trends” (Wikipedia3) (Glenn, 1994, p. 4) expressed this definition well by saying that “studying the future is not simply economic projections or sociological analysis or technological forecasting, but a multi-disciplinary examination of change in all major areas of life to find the interacting dynamics that are creating the next age.” The concept has been developed mainly by Armstrong (2001) and followed by Farrukh and Holgado (2020), Schnaars (2009), and Marinakis (2012), among others. The editors are professors and researchers from the University of Basque Country (EHU) and from the University of Mondragon (MU). The book involves a whole set of experts on the topic, including the editors themselves (Hannot Rodríguez, Sergio Urueña, Andoni Eizagirre, and Oier Imaz), and Armin Grunwald, René von Schomberg, Javier Garcia Fronti, Domingo García Marzá, Andoni Ibarra, and others. Although still published just in Spanish, it is an important contribution to the social sciences and philosophy of sciences regarding the analysis of alternative sociotechnical futures with strong ethical principles, which delineates an innovative approach in an era when the formation of public opinion largely suffers from systematic distortions based on vested interests.

Our existential sustainability challenges involve human–environment–technology systems that are complex, dynamic and tightly coupled. But at Universities, knowledge, in teaching and research, is mostly organized into discrete parcels, the disciplines. These are further divided into the categories of natural sciences, social science and the humanities. This paper addresses the question of how in their training of researchers, universities can equip them to better understand their roles and also to act as change agents. It describes a doctoral school course in transferable skills that is offered across faculties. The unique aim of the course is to provide a space for reflection on different research paradigms and the way they differ in their framing the role of a scientific researcher in pluralist societies that face existential challenges. The pedagogical framework and approach of the course encourages questioning one's own ontological and epistemological assumptions about the constitution of our world and how we might better understand it in dialogues with participants who come from diverse disciplinary backgrounds. The course includes discussions of: what is a discipline, and how disciplines differ in their understandings of the world and of the role of science within it; how tools and representations can shape or breach disciplinary paradigms; how instrumental science and interdisciplinarity can raise the dilemma of rigor or relevance; how complexity, contradictions and values are embraced in responsible research design, and last but not least we discuss the relation of science, progress and open futures. The course introduces diverse more recent approaches to scientific inquiry that harness the potential of democratizing science in our networked knowledge society, including critical interdisciplinarity, post-normal science, citizen science and transformative sustainability science, that complement normal disciplinary research practices.

This article studies ways of dealing with the tension between a commitment to sustainable and responsible research and anticipated market requirements in the midstream of a research process in architecture and construction. Using a slightly modified version of Socio-Technical Integration Research (STIR), we explored the chances of questioning the primacy of the techno-economic innovation paradigm by deliberately provoking reflections through STIR interactions. Our research underlines the difficulties and limitations of challenging an orientation towards values of efficiency and productivity in favour of social and environmental values in the midstream of the research process and examines how the techno-economic innovation paradigm is able to insulate itself against critical questioning. It sheds light at the critical role of the underlying assumption that marketability of prospective outcomes is not one objective amongst others but the precondition for all others and at two argumentative patterns we termed the "lack-of-agency" and the "reconciliation-after-all" pattern.

This paper highlights three aspirations, which are shared by the diverse concepts and practices of responsible research and innovation (RRI): co-creation, reflexivity, and transformation. The authors analyse a service-learning (SL) initiative at the University of Szeged, Hungary, based on the model by Chupp and Joseph (2010). This provides a typology of SL practices and identifies four main approaches to the social impact of SL: traditional, critical, social justice oriented, and an institutional change-focused approach. The authors also use this model to analyse the effects of their initiative with regard to the RRI principles of co-creation, reflexivity, and transformation. They provide evidence that their SL course may reach beyond its traditional (student-learning-based) effects in the Hungarian context, and embrace social justice and critical approaches. While the authors also found certain instances of institutionalisation, embedding critical SL into a Hungarian university and inducing significant institutional transformation seems to be a long way away. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]