Consolidating RRI and Open Science: understanding the potential for transformative change.

IF 3.1 Q1 Arts and Humanities Life Sciences, Society and Policy Pub Date : 2020-09-01 DOI:10.1186/s40504-020-00103-5
Clare Shelley-Egan, Mads Dahl Gjefsen, Rune Nydal
{"title":"Consolidating RRI and Open Science: understanding the potential for transformative change.","authors":"Clare Shelley-Egan,&nbsp;Mads Dahl Gjefsen,&nbsp;Rune Nydal","doi":"10.1186/s40504-020-00103-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In European research and innovation policy, Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) and Open Science (OS) encompass two co-existing sets of ambitions concerning systemic change in the practice of research and innovation. This paper is an exploratory attempt to uncover synergies and differences between RRI and OS, by interrogating what motivates their respective transformative agendas. We offer two storylines that account for the specific contexts and dynamics from which RRI and OS have emerged, which in turn offer entrance points to further unpacking what 'opening up' to society means with respect to the transformative change agendas that are implicit in the two agendas. We compare differences regarding the 'how' of opening up in light of the 'why' to explore common areas of emphasis in both OS and RRI. We argue that while both agendas align with mission-oriented narratives around grand societal challenges, OS tends to emphasize efficiency and technical optimisation over RRI's emphasis on normative concerns and democracy deficits, and that the two agendas thus contrast in their relative legitimate emphasis on doable outcomes versus desirable outcomes. In our conclusion, we reflect on the future outlook for RRI and OS' co-existence and uptake, and on what their respective ambitions for transformation might mean for science-society scholars and scholarship.</p>","PeriodicalId":37861,"journal":{"name":"Life Sciences, Society and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s40504-020-00103-5","citationCount":"18","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Life Sciences, Society and Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40504-020-00103-5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 18

Abstract

In European research and innovation policy, Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) and Open Science (OS) encompass two co-existing sets of ambitions concerning systemic change in the practice of research and innovation. This paper is an exploratory attempt to uncover synergies and differences between RRI and OS, by interrogating what motivates their respective transformative agendas. We offer two storylines that account for the specific contexts and dynamics from which RRI and OS have emerged, which in turn offer entrance points to further unpacking what 'opening up' to society means with respect to the transformative change agendas that are implicit in the two agendas. We compare differences regarding the 'how' of opening up in light of the 'why' to explore common areas of emphasis in both OS and RRI. We argue that while both agendas align with mission-oriented narratives around grand societal challenges, OS tends to emphasize efficiency and technical optimisation over RRI's emphasis on normative concerns and democracy deficits, and that the two agendas thus contrast in their relative legitimate emphasis on doable outcomes versus desirable outcomes. In our conclusion, we reflect on the future outlook for RRI and OS' co-existence and uptake, and on what their respective ambitions for transformation might mean for science-society scholars and scholarship.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
巩固RRI和开放科学:理解变革的潜力。
在欧洲的研究和创新政策中,负责任的研究和创新(RRI)和开放科学(OS)包含了两套共存的关于研究和创新实践系统变革的雄心。本文是一项探索性的尝试,通过探究是什么激发了RRI和OS各自的变革议程,来揭示它们之间的协同作用和差异。我们提供了两个故事情节,说明了RRI和OS产生的具体背景和动态,这反过来又为进一步揭示“开放”对社会意味着什么提供了切入点,这两个议程中隐含着变革议程。我们根据“为什么”来比较“如何”开放的差异,以探索OS和RRI中共同强调的领域。我们认为,虽然这两个议程都与围绕重大社会挑战的任务导向叙事保持一致,但OS倾向于强调效率和技术优化,而RRI则强调规范问题和民主缺陷,因此,这两个议程在相对合理地强调可行结果与理想结果方面形成了对比。在我们的结论中,我们反思了RRI和OS共存和吸收的未来前景,以及它们各自的转型雄心对科学社会学者和学术意味着什么。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Life Sciences, Society and Policy
Life Sciences, Society and Policy Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊介绍: The purpose of Life Sciences, Society and Policy (LSSP) is to analyse social, ethical and legal dimensions of the most dynamic branches of life sciences and technologies, and to discuss ways to foster responsible innovation, sustainable development and user-driven social policies. LSSP provides an academic forum for engaged scholarship at the intersection of life sciences, philosophy, bioethics, science studies and policy research, and covers a broad area of inquiry both in emerging research areas such as genomics, bioinformatics, biophysics, molecular engineering, nanotechnology and synthetic biology, and in more applied fields such as translational medicine, food science, environmental science, climate studies, research on animals, sustainability, science education and others. The goal is to produce insights, tools and recommendations that are relevant not only for academic researchers and teachers, but also for civil society, policy makers and industry, as well as for professionals in education, health care and the media, thus contributing to better research practices, better policies, and a more sustainable global society.
期刊最新文献
Biobanking and risk assessment: a comprehensive typology of risks for an adaptive risk governance. "Data is the new oil": citizen science and informed consent in an era of researchers handling of an economically valuable resource. Investigating the effectiveness of nanotechnologies in environmental health with an emphasis on environmental health journals. Limits of data anonymity: lack of public awareness risks trust in health system activities. The use of digital twins in healthcare: socio-ethical benefits and socio-ethical risks.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1