ArticlePLoS biology2018
Experiments in interdisciplinarity: Responsible research and innovation and the public good.
Article in PLoS biology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Process Evaluation of Interdisciplinary Experiences During the Development of a Serious Game About Radiotherapy for Children: Qualitative Interview Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Starting from hopelessness - grand challenges, sustainable development goals, and responsible research and innovation under urgency and uncertainty.Journal of responsible innovation · 2025Article
- Governing beyond the project: Refocusing innovation governance in emerging science and technology funding.Social studies of science · 2024Article
- The imagined scientist of science governance.Social studies of science · 2021Article
- Contextualizing Security Innovation: Responsible Research and Innovation at the Smart Border?Science and engineering ethics · 2021Article
- Quantifying simultaneous innovations in evolutionary medicine.Theory in biosciences = Theorie in den Biowissenschaften · 2020Article
- Consolidating RRI and Open Science: understanding the potential for transformative change.Life sciences, society and policy · 2020Article
- "I am Primarily Paid for Publishing…": The Narrative Framing of Societal Responsibilities in Academic Life Science Research.Science and engineering ethics · 2020Article
- Discussion structures as tools for public deliberation.Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) · 2020Article
- Ethics as ritual: smoothing over moments of dislocation in biomedicine.Sociology of health & illness · 2019Article
- Creating life and the media: translations and echoes.Life sciences, society and policy · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In Europe, responsible research and innovation (RRI) has emerged as a science policy measure that demands the early integration of a broad range of social actors and perspectives into research and development (R&D). More collaboration of the social sciences and humanities (SSH) with science and engineering appears within this policy framework as a crucial element that will enable better technological development. However, RRI is new to both natural scientists and SSH scholars, and interdisciplinary collaborations are challenging for many reasons. In this paper, we discuss these challenges while suggesting that what RRI can be in a particular project is not a given but remains an empirical question. Natural scientists and SSH scholars need to coresearch RRI in an experimental mode.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.