Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29019058›Full record

ArticleScience and engineering ethics2018

Devices of Responsibility: Over a Decade of Responsible Research and Innovation Initiatives for Nanotechnologies.

Clare Shelley-Egan, Diana M Bowman, Douglas K R Robinson

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Clare Shelley-EganWork Research Institute, Research Group on Responsible Innovation, Oslo, Norway. clare.shelley-egan@afi.hioa.no.
Diana M BowmanSandra Day O'Connor College of Law, School for the Future of Innovation in Society, Arizona State University, 111. E Taylor Street, Phoenix, AZ, 85004, USA.
Douglas K R RobinsonLaboratory of Interdisciplinary Studies of Science, Innovation and Society (LISIS), CNRS UMR 9003, Université Paris-Est Marne-la-Vallée, Paris, 77454, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Responsible research and innovation (RRI) has come to represent a change in the relationship between science, technology and society. With origins in the democratisation of science, and the inclusion of ethical and societal aspects in research and development activities, RRI offers a means of integrating society and the research and innovation communities. In this article, we frame RRI activities through the lens of layers of science and technology governance as a means of characterising the context in which the RRI activity is positioned and the goal of those actors promoting the RRI activities in shaping overall governance patterns. RRI began to emerge during a time of considerable deliberation about the societal and governance challenges around nanotechnology, in which stakeholders were looking for new ways of integrating notions of responsibility in nanotechnology research and development. For this reason, this article focuses on nanotechnology as the site for exploring the evolution and growth of RRI.

Indexed as

PolicyResearchSocial Control, FormalSocial ResponsibilityEthics, ResearchHumansNanotechnologyGovernanceNanoscience and nanotechnologyResponsibilityResponsible research and innovation (RRI)

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.