ArticleScience and engineering ethics2014
"Broader impacts" or "responsible research and innovation"? A comparison of two criteria for funding research in science and engineering.
Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Beyond diversity initiatives: Building a community of care in scientific societies.Bioscience · 2025Article
- Fostering Responsible Innovation in Health: An Evidence-Informed Assessment Tool for Innovation Stakeholders.International journal of health policy and management · 2021Article
- Why Do Firms Implement Responsible Innovation? The Case of Emerging Technologies in South Korea.Science and engineering ethics · 2020Article
- Introducing responsible innovation in health: a policy-oriented framework.Health research policy and systems · 2018Article
- Definitions and Conceptual Dimensions of Responsible Research and Innovation: A Literature Review.Science and engineering ethics · 2017Review
- "Broader impacts" or "responsible research and innovation"?Science and engineering ethics · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Our subject is how the experience of Americans with a certain funding criterion, "broader impacts" (and some similar criteria) may help in efforts to turn the European concept of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) into a useful guide to funding Europe's scientific and technical research. We believe this comparison may also be as enlightening for Americans concerned with revising research policy. We have organized our report around René Von Schomberg's definition of RRI, since it seems both to cover what the European research group to which we belong is interested in and to be the only widely accepted definition of RRI. According to Von Schomberg, RRI: "… is a transparent, interactive process by which societal actors and innovators become mutually responsive to each other with a view to the (ethical) acceptability, sustainability and societal desirability of the innovation process and its marketable products (in order to allow a proper embedding of scientific and technological advances in our society)." While RRI seeks fundamental changes in the way research is conducted, Broader Impacts is more concerned with more peripheral aspects of research: widening participation of disadvantaged groups, recruiting the next generation of scientists, increasing the speed with which results are used, and so on. Nevertheless, an examination of the broadening of funding criteria over the last four decades suggests that National Science Foundation has been moving in the direction of RRI.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24155159What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.