{"title":"来自内部的批评。这是一个温和的建议,旨在收回对负责任创新的批评","authors":"Anna Mann, Luca Chiapperino","doi":"10.1080/23299460.2023.2249751","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"How can critique in responsible innovation (RI) become generative? The anything-but-neutral relations between science, technology and society, at the core of science and technology studies, have led to the development of different repertoires of critique. None of them fitted the configurations in the biomedical practices we came to study. There, biomedical experts presented us with an analysis of the power relations perpetuated through the mainstream practices in their fields and had built socio-material alternatives to the common forms of practicing biomedicine. The paper suggests conceptualising critical observations voiced by experts embedded into socio-material alternatives as ‘critique from within’ yielding collateral goods and bads. Rather than asking how to foster responsibility conditions in RI, the paper suggests modestly reclaiming critique by articulating already existing forms of responsibility practices developed by experts themselves and analysing the ambivalent effects they engender.","PeriodicalId":46727,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Responsible Innovation","volume":"45 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Critiques from within. A modest proposal for reclaiming critique for responsible innovation\",\"authors\":\"Anna Mann, Luca Chiapperino\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/23299460.2023.2249751\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"How can critique in responsible innovation (RI) become generative? The anything-but-neutral relations between science, technology and society, at the core of science and technology studies, have led to the development of different repertoires of critique. None of them fitted the configurations in the biomedical practices we came to study. There, biomedical experts presented us with an analysis of the power relations perpetuated through the mainstream practices in their fields and had built socio-material alternatives to the common forms of practicing biomedicine. The paper suggests conceptualising critical observations voiced by experts embedded into socio-material alternatives as ‘critique from within’ yielding collateral goods and bads. Rather than asking how to foster responsibility conditions in RI, the paper suggests modestly reclaiming critique by articulating already existing forms of responsibility practices developed by experts themselves and analysing the ambivalent effects they engender.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46727,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Responsible Innovation\",\"volume\":\"45 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Responsible Innovation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2023.2249751\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Responsible Innovation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2023.2249751","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Critiques from within. A modest proposal for reclaiming critique for responsible innovation
How can critique in responsible innovation (RI) become generative? The anything-but-neutral relations between science, technology and society, at the core of science and technology studies, have led to the development of different repertoires of critique. None of them fitted the configurations in the biomedical practices we came to study. There, biomedical experts presented us with an analysis of the power relations perpetuated through the mainstream practices in their fields and had built socio-material alternatives to the common forms of practicing biomedicine. The paper suggests conceptualising critical observations voiced by experts embedded into socio-material alternatives as ‘critique from within’ yielding collateral goods and bads. Rather than asking how to foster responsibility conditions in RI, the paper suggests modestly reclaiming critique by articulating already existing forms of responsibility practices developed by experts themselves and analysing the ambivalent effects they engender.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Responsible Innovation (JRI) provides a forum for discussions of the normative assessment and governance of knowledge-based innovation. JRI offers humanists, social scientists, policy analysts and legal scholars, and natural scientists and engineers an opportunity to articulate, strengthen, and critique the relations among approaches to responsible innovation, thus giving further shape to a newly emerging community of research and practice. These approaches include ethics, technology assessment, governance, sustainability, socio-technical integration, and others. JRI intends responsible innovation to be inclusive of such terms as responsible development and sustainable development, and the journal invites comparisons and contrasts among such concepts. While issues of risk and environmental health and safety are relevant, JRI especially encourages attention to the assessment of the broader and more subtle human and social dimensions of innovation—including moral, cultural, political, and religious dimensions, social risk, and sustainability addressed in a systemic fashion.