ArticleScience and engineering ethics2017
A Mobilising Concept? Unpacking Academic Representations of Responsible Research and Innovation.
Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reflections on bio-based PET and plastic waste management: a responsible research and innovation approach.Nature communications · 2026Review
- Governing beyond the project: Refocusing innovation governance in emerging science and technology funding.Social studies of science · 2024Article
- Knowledge, Information, and Data Readiness Levels (KaRLs) for Risk Assessment, Communication, and Governance of Nano-, New, and Other Advanced Materials.Global challenges (Hoboken, NJ) · 2023Article
- Contextualizing Security Innovation: Responsible Research and Innovation at the Smart Border?Science and engineering ethics · 2021Article
- Conceptualising technology, its development and future: The six genres of technology.Technological forecasting and social change · 2020Article
- Transforming Scientists' Understanding of Science-Society Relations. Stimulating Double-Loop Learning when Teaching RRI.Science and engineering ethics · 2020Article
- AMICAI: A Method Based on Risk Analysis to Integrate Responsible Research and Innovation into the Work of Research and Innovation Practitioners.Science and engineering ethics · 2020Article
- Private and public values of innovation: A patent analysis of synthetic biology.Research policy · 2020Article
- Aligning sustainability assessment with responsible research and innovation: Towards a framework for Constructive Sustainability Assessment.Sustainable production and consumption · 2019Article
- Teaching Responsible Research and Innovation: A Phronetic Perspective.Science and engineering ethics · 2019Article
- Structural Transformation to Attain Responsible BIOSciences (STARBIOS2): Protocol for a Horizon 2020 Funded European Multicenter Project to Promote Responsible Research and Innovation.JMIR research protocols · 2019Article
- Anticipating governance challenges in synthetic biology: Insights from biosynthetic menthol.Technological forecasting and social change · 2019Article
- Experiments in interdisciplinarity: Responsible research and innovation and the public good.PLoS biology · 2018Article
- Synthetic biology, metaphors and responsibility.Life sciences, society and policy · 2017Article
- Working with bacteria and putting bacteria to work: The biopolitics of synthetic biology for energy in the United Kingdom.Energy research & social science · 2017Article
- Integrated assessment of emerging science and technologies as creating learning processes among assessment communities.Life sciences, society and policy · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper makes a plea for more reflexive attempts to develop and anchor the emerging concept of responsible research and innovation (RRI). RRI has recently emerged as a buzzword in science policy, becoming a focus of concerted experimentation in many academic circles. Its performative capacity means that it is able to mobilise resources and spaces despite no common understanding of what it is or should be 'made of'. In order to support reflection and practice amongst those who are interested in and using the concept, this paper unpacks understandings of RRI across a multi-disciplinary body of peer-reviewed literature. Our analysis focuses on three key dimensions of RRI (motivations, theoretical conceptualisations and translations into practice) that remain particularly opaque. A total of 48 publications were selected through a systematic literature search and their content was qualitatively analysed. Across the literature, RRI is portrayed as a concept that embeds numerous features of existing approaches to govern and assess emerging technologies. Our analysis suggests that its greatest potential may be in its ability to unify and provide political momentum to a wide range of long-articulated ethical and policy issues. At the same time, RRI's dynamism and resulting complexity may represent its greatest challenge. Further clarification on what RRI has to offer in practice-beyond what has been offered to date-is still needed, as well as more explicit engagement with research and institutional cultures of responsibility. Such work may help to realise the high political expectations that are attached to nascent RRI.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26956121What 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.