Developing a framework for responsible innovation

(1)

ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirect

Research

Policy

jou rn a l h o m e pa g e :w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / r e s p o l

Developing

a

framework

for

responsible

innovation

Jack

Stilgoe

a,∗

_,

_Richard

_Owen

b,1

_,

_Phil

_Macnaghten

c,d

a_University_of_Exeter_Business_{School/Department}_of_Science_and_Technology_Studies,_University_College_London,_Gower_Street,_London_WC1E_6BT,_UK b_University_of_Exeter_Business_School,_Rennes_Drive,_Exeter_EX4_4PU,_UK

c_Department_of_Geography,_Science_{Laboratories,}_Durham_University,_South_Road,_Durham_DH1_3LE,_UK

d_Department_of_Science_and_Technology_Policy,_Institute_of_Geosciences,_P.O._Box_6152,_State_University_of_Campinas_–_UNICAMP,_13083-970_Campinas,_SP,_Brazil

a

r

t

i

c

l

e

i

n

f

o

Articlehistory: Received16July2012

Receivedinrevisedform7May2013 Accepted17May2013

Available online 13 June 2013 Keywords: Responsibleinnovation Governance Emergingtechnologies Ethics Geoengineering

a

b

s

t

r

a

c

t

Thegovernanceofemergingscienceandinnovationisamajorchallengeforcontemporarydemocracies. Inthispaperwepresentaframeworkforunderstandingandsupportingeffortsaimedat‘responsible innovation’.Theframeworkwasdevelopedinpartthroughworkwithoneofthefirstmajorresearch projectsinthecontroversialareaofgeoengineering,fundedbytheUKResearchCouncils.Wedescribe thiscasestudy,andhowthisbecamealocationtoarticulateandexplorefourintegrateddimensions ofresponsibleinnovation:anticipation,reflexivity,inclusionandresponsiveness.Althoughthe frame-workforresponsibleinnovationwasdesignedforusebytheUKResearchCouncilsandthescientific communitiestheysupport,wearguethatithasmoregeneralapplicationandrelevance.

1. Introduction

1.1. Responsibility,scienceandinnovation

Responsibleinnovationis an ideathat is both old and new. Responsibilityhasalwaysbeenanimportantthemeofresearchand innovationpractice,althoughhowithasbeenframedhasvaried withtimeand place.FrancisBacon’simperative tosupport sci-ence‘forthe reliefofman’s estate’,theinstitutionalisation and professionalisationofsciencefromthe17thcenturyonwards, Van-nevarBush’s(1945)‘EndlessFrontier’,JDBernal’s(1939)arguments forscienceintheserviceofsocietyandMichaelPolanyi’s(1962) ‘RepublicofScience’counter-argumenthaveallcontained partic-ularnotionsofresponsibility.

Sciencehasbeenconventionallyinvokedbypolicyas eman-cipatory.Thishasallowedscientistsandinnovatorsconsiderable freedomfrompoliticalaccountability.Fromthisperspective,the roleresponsibilitiesofscientists–toproducereliableknowledge –andtheirwidermoralresponsibilitiestosocietyareimagined tobeconﬂicted.Theperceivedhighvalueofknowledgetosociety

∗ Correspondingauthor.Tel.:+4402076797197.

E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (J. Stilgoe), [email protected](R.Owen),[email protected](P.Macnaghten).

1 _Tel.:₊₄₄₀₁₃₉₂_723458.

meansthatsuchroleresponsibilities typicallytrumpanywider social or moral obligations (Douglas, 2003). Although frequent objectionsfromuniversityscientistssuggestapermanentassault ontheirautonomy,muchoftheconstitutionofPolanyi’s(1962) self-governing‘RepublicofScience’survivestothisday.

Inthesecondhalfofthe20thcentury,asscienceand innova-tionhavebecomeincreasinglyintertwinedandformalisedwithin researchpolicy(KearnesandWienroth,2011),andasthepowerof technologytoproducebothbenefitandharmhasbecomeclearer, debates concerningresponsibilityhave broadened(Jonas,1984; Collingridge,1980;Beck,1992;Groves,2006).Wehaveseen recog-nitionandnegotiationoftheresponsibilitiesofscientistsbeyond thoseassociatedwiththeirprofessionalroles(e.g.Douglas,2003; Mitcham,2003).Wehaveseenscientists’ownideasof‘research integrity’changeinresponsetosocietalconcerns(Mitcham,2003; Steneck, 2006). In the 1970s, biologists in the nascent field of recombinantDNAresearchsoughtto‘takeresponsibility’forthe possiblehazardstheirresearchmightunleash,withameetingat Asilomarin1975andasubsequentmoratorium.2_Concerns_about the ‘dual use’ of emerging technologies and the limits of self-regulation, visible inphysicists’ agonisingabout nuclearfission priortotheManhattanproject(Weart,1976),resurfacedin2012 with the recent controversy over the publishing of potentially

2_We_should_point_out_that_this_meeting_was_criticised,_both_at_the_time₍_Rogers,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.05.008

Open access under CC BY license.

(2)

dangerous research on ﬂu viruses (Kaiser and Moreno, 2012). The negotiation of responsibility between practicing scientists, innovators and the outside world remains an important and contestedareaofdebatetothisday.

ResearchinScienceandTechnologyStudies(STS)suggeststhat conceptions of responsibility should build on the understand-ingthatscienceandtechnologyarenotonlytechnicallybutalso socially and politically constituted (e.g. Winner, 1977). Latour (2008)suggeststhatsciencedoesnotstraightforwardlyreveal real-itythrough techniques ofsimpliﬁcation and puriﬁcationaimed atfurthermastery.AsCallonetal.(2009)pointout,scienceand technologycan,paradoxically,addtooursenseofuncertaintyand ignorance.Theytendtoproducea“continuousmovementtoward agreaterandgreaterlevelofattachmentsofthingsandpeopleat aneverexpandingscaleandataneverincreasingdegreeof inti-macy”(Latour,2008,p.4,italicsinoriginal).Theseobservations suggestthatunforeseenimpacts–potentiallyharmful,potentially transformative–willbenotjustpossiblebutprobable(Hacking, 1986).

Responsibilityin governancehashistoricallybeenconcerned withthe‘products’ofscienceandinnovation,particularlyimpacts thatarelaterfoundtobeunacceptableorharmfultosocietyor theenvironment.Recognitionofthelimitationsofgovernanceby marketchoicehasledtotheprogressiveintroductionofposthoc, andoftenrisk-basedregulation.Thishascreatedawell-established divisionoflabourthatreﬂectsaconsequentialistframingof respon-sibility,asaccountabilityorliability(Pellizzoni,2004;Grinbaum andGroves,2013).Withinnovation,thepastandpresenthowever donotprovideareasonableguidetothefuture(AdamandGroves, 2011),sosuchretrospectiveaccountsofresponsibilityare inher-entlylimited.Wefaceadilemmaofcontrol(Collingridge,1980),in thatwelacktheevidenceonwhichtogoverntechnologiesbefore pathologiesofpathdependency(David,2001),technological lock-in(Arthur,1989),‘entrenchment’(Collingridge,1980)andclosure (Stirling,2007)setin.

Wehave(pre-)cautionarytalesofriskswhoseeffectsdidnot materialiseformanyyears,wherepotentialthreatswereforeseen butignoredorwhereonlycertainriskswereconsideredrelevant (Hoffmann-RiemandWynne,2002;EEA,2001,2013).Governance processes,oftenpremisedonformalriskassessment,havedone littletoidentifyinadvancemanyofthemostprofoundimpacts thatwehaveexperiencedthroughinnovation,withthe2008 ﬁnan-cialcrisisbeingthemostdisruptiverecentexample(Muniesaand Lenglet,2013).Bioethics,anothermajorgovernanceresponse,has drawncriticismforprivilegingindividualethicalvaluessuchas autonomyoverthosesuchassolidaritythatmightleadtoagenuine ‘publicethics’(NufﬁeldCouncilonBioethics,2012;alsoPrainsack andBuyx,2012)and,initsconsequentialistversion,servingto bol-sterthenarrowinstrumentalexpectationsofinnovatorsinsome areas(Hedgecoe,2010).

Callonetal.(2009)usethemetaphorofscienceand technol-ogy‘overﬂowing’theboundariesofexistingscientiﬁcregulatory institutionalframeworks.Theypointtotheneedfornew‘hybrid forums’thatwillhelpourdemocraciestobe“enriched,expanded, extended and... more able to absorb the debates and con-troversies surrounding science and technology” (Callon et al., 2009, p. 9). Such controversies have demonstrated that pub-lic concerns cannotbe reduced toquestions of risk, but rather encompass a range of concerns relating to the purposes and motivationsofresearch(Grove-Whiteetal.,2000;Wynne,2002; Grove-White et al., 1997; Macnaghten and Szerszynski, 2013; Stilgoe,2011),joiningastreamofpolicydebateaboutthe direc-tionsofinnovation(Smithetal.,2005;Stirling,2008;Morlacchi and Martin, 2009; Fisher et al., 2006; Flanagan et al., 2011). Yet,despiteefforts atenlargingparticipation (see,for example, RCEP, 1998; House of Lords, 2000; Wilsdon and Willis, 2004)

current forms of regulatory governance offer little scope for broad ethical reﬂection on the purposes of science or innova-tion.

1.2. Anewscientiﬁcgovernance?

Onealternativetoaconsequentialistmodelofresponsibilityhas beentosuccumbtomoralluck(Williams,1981),tohopethatan appealtounpredictabilityandaninabilityto‘reasonablyforesee’ willallowustoescapemoralaccountabilityforouractions. Dis-satisfactionwithboththisapproachandrisk-basedregulationhas movedattentionawayfromaccountability,liabilityandevidence towardsthosefuture-orienteddimensionsofresponsibility–care andresponsiveness–thatoffergreaterpotentialtoaccommodate uncertaintyand allowreﬂectiononpurposesand values(Jonas, 1984;Richardson,1999;Pellizzoni,2004;Groves,2006;Adamand Groves,2011).

EmergingtechnologiestypicallyfallintowhatHajer(2003)calls an‘institutionalvoid’.Therearefewagreedstructuresorrulesthat governthem.Theyarethereforeemblematicofthemovefromold modelsofgoverningtomoredecentralisedandopen-ended gov-ernance,whichtakesplaceinnewplaces–markets,networksand partnershipsaswellasconventionalpolicyandpolitics(Hajerand Wagenaar,2003).

Anumberofmulti-level,non-regulatoryformsofscienceand innovationgovernancehave takenthisforward-lookingviewof responsibility, buildingon insights from STSthat highlightthe social and political choices that stabilise particular innovations (WilliamsandEdge,1996;PinchandBijker,1984;Winner,1986). New models of anticipatory governance (Barben et al., 2008; KarinenandGuston,2010)Constructive,Real-Timeandotherforms oftechnologyassessment(Ripetal.,1995;GustonandSarewitz, 2002;GrinandGrunwald,2000),upstreamengagement(Wynne, 2002;WilsdonandWillis,2004),value-sensitivedesign(Friedman, 1996; vanden Hoven et al.,2012)and socio-technical integra-tion(Fisheretal.,2006;Schuurbiers,2011)haveemerged.These havebeencomplementedbypolicyinstrumentssuchasnormative codesofconduct(see,forexample,EuropeanCommission,2008), standards, certifications and accreditations, running alongside expertreports, technologyassessmentsand strategicroadmaps. Suchinitiativeshave,tovaryingdegrees,attemptedtointroduce broaderethicalreflectionintothescientific andinnovation pro-cess,breakingtheexistingmoraldivisionoflabourdescribedabove. Theyhaveattemptedtoopenupscienceandinnovation(Stirling, 2008)toawiderrangeofinputs,notablythroughthecreationof newspacesof‘publicdialogue’(Irwin,2006).

Theotherimportantaspectofaforward-lookingviewof respon-sibilityinscienceandinnovationisthatitisshared(Richardson, 1999;Mitcham,2003;VonSchomberg,2007).Theunpredictability ofinnovationisinherentlylinkedtoitscollectivenature. Follow-ingCallon’saccountofinnovationas‘societyinthemaking’(Callon, 1987),wecanseethatimplicationsare‘systemic’,comingfromthe interplayofthetechnicalandthesocial(Hellström,2003).This sug-geststhatscientists,researchfunders,innovatorsandothershave acollectivepoliticalresponsibility(GrinbaumandGroves,2013)or co-responsibility(Mitcham,2003).Thisreﬂectsunderstandingthat whileactorsmaynotindividuallybeirresponsiblepeople,itisthe oftencomplexandcoupledsystemsofscienceandinnovationthat createwhatUlrichBeck(2000)calls‘organisedirresponsibility’.3 Wecanpointto‘second-order’(IlliesandMeijers,2009)or ‘meta-task’responsibilities(vandenHoven,1998;vandenHovenetal.,

3_von_Schomberg₍₂₀₁₃₎_suggests_four_categories_of_{irresponsible}_innovation_that

typicallymanifest:Technologypush,Neglectofethicalprinciples,PolicyPulland Lackofprecautionandforesight.

(3)

2012)of ensuringthat responsible choicescan bemade inthe future, throughanticipating and gaining knowledge ofpossible consequencesandbuildingcapacitytorespondtothem.

Thisreframingofresponsibilityandtheapproachesaimedat openingupscientiﬁcgovernancedescribedaboveprovide impor-tantfoundationsforresponsibleinnovation.Thephrase,sometimes lengthenedto‘responsibleresearchandinnovation’,isstartingto appearinacademicandpolicyliterature(Guston,2006;Hellström, 2003;vonSchomberg,2011a,2011b;Lee,2012;Sutcliffe,2011; OwenandGoldberg,2010;Owenetal.,2012;Randlesetal.,2012), butitisstilllackingconceptualweight.Aroundnanotechnology andotheremergingareasofscienceandtechnology, Rip(2011) identiﬁesamovefromadiscourseofresponsiblesciencetooneof ‘responsiblegovernance’.USnanotechnologydebateshavetended tousethephrase‘responsibledevelopment’(Kjølberg,2010).But themeaningofsuchtermsremainscontested.Ratherthan rep-resentingaclearnovelgovernanceparadigm,wemightinstead seeresponsibleinnovationasalocationformakingsenseofthe movefromthegovernanceofrisktothegovernanceof innova-tionitself(Feltetal.,2007).Inthefollowingsectionswedevelop theseconceptsandassociatedliteraturestoarticulateaframework forresponsibleinnovation.Thishasbeeninformedbya geoengi-neeringresearchprojectinwhichwewereinvolved.Finally,we offersomeconclusionsonhowthisframeworkmightbetaken for-ward,basedinpartonourexperienceswithinthiscasestudyof technoscience-in-the-making.

2. Fourdimensionsofresponsibleinnovation

von Schomberg (2011a) offers the following deﬁnition of ResponsibleResearchandInnovation:

“Atransparent,interactiveprocessbywhichsocietalactorsand innovatorsbecomemutuallyresponsivetoeachotherwitha viewtothe(ethical)acceptability,sustainabilityand societal desirabilityoftheinnovationprocessanditsmarketable prod-ucts(inordertoallowa properembeddingofscientiﬁc and technologicaladvancesinoursociety).”

ThisdefinitionisanchoredtoEuropeanpolicyprocessesand values.Aswewilldiscussinthefinalsectionofthis paper,our frameworkhassimilarelementsbutemergesfromadifferent con-text.Weofferabroaderdefinition,basedontheprospectivenotion ofresponsibilitydescribedabove:

“Responsible innovation means taking care of the future throughcollectivestewardshipofscienceandinnovationinthe present.”

Thedimensionsthatmake upourframework originatefrom asetof questionsthat haveemerged asimportantwithin pub-lic debates about new areas of science and technology. These are questions that public groups typically ask of scientists, or wouldliketoseescientistsaskofthemselves.Table1drawson MacnaghtenandChilvers’(forthcoming)analysisofcross-cutting public concerns across 17 UK public dialogues on science and technologyand categorisesthese questions asto whetherthey

relatetotheproducts,processesorpurposesofinnovation. Con-ventionalgovernancefocuses onproduct questions,particularly thoseoftechnologicalrisk,whichcanobscureareasofuncertainty andignoranceaboutbothrisksandbeneﬁts(Hoffmann-Riemand Wynne, 2002; Stirling, 2010). Tools of ethical governance and researchintegritymoveintoquestionsofprocess,especiallywhen humanvolunteersandanimalsareinvolvedinexperimentation. Approaches to responsible innovation extend the governance discussiontoencompassquestionsofuncertainty(initsmultiple forms),purposes, motivations,social and politicalconstitutions, trajectoriesanddirectionsofinnovation.

If we take these questions to represent aspects of societal concernandinterestinresearchandinnovation,responsible inno-vationcanbeseenasawayofembeddingdeliberationonthese withintheinnovationprocess.Thefourdimensionsof responsi-bleinnovationwepropose(anticipation,reﬂexivity,inclusionand responsiveness)provideaframework forraising,discussingand respondingtosuchquestions.Thedimensionsareimportant char-acteristicsofamoreresponsiblevisionofinnovation,whichcan,in ourexperience,beheuristicallyhelpfulforgovernance.Wewillgo ontodescribeoneapplicationofourframeworkataprojectlevel, wherethemainactorsweretheprojectscientists,research fun-ders,stakeholdersandourselves.However,theframeworkmaybe applicableatotherlevels,suchaswiththedevelopmentofpolicy orthematicprogrammes(seeFisherandRip,2013).Each dimen-siondemandsparticularexplanation,butthelinesbetweenthem areblurred.Wethereforeendthissectionbydiscussingthe impor-tanceofintegration.Foreachdimension,weexplaintheconceptual andpolicybackground,givemeaningtotheterm,describesome mechanismsandapproachesthatmightarticulatethedimension inpracticeandoffercriteriaandconditionsforeffectiveinnovation governance.

2.1. Anticipation

Thecallforimprovedanticipationingovernancecomesfroma varietyofsources,frompoliticalandenvironmentalconcernswith thepaceofsocialandtechnicalchange(e.g.Tofﬂer,1970),to schol-arly(andlatterly,policy)critiquesofthelimitationsoftop-down risk-basedmodelsofgovernancetoencapsulatethesocial, ethi-calandpoliticalstakesassociatedwithtechnoscientiﬁcadvances (amongst others,seeWynne, 1992,2002;RCEP, 1998;Jasanoff, 2003;HenwoodandPidgeon,2013).Thedetrimentalimplications ofnewtechnologiesareoftenunforeseen,andrisk-basedestimates ofharmhavecommonlyfailedtoprovideearlywarningsoffuture effects (EuropeanEnvironmentAgency, 2001,2013; Hoffmann-Riem and Wynne, 2002).Anticipationpromptsresearchers and organisationstoask‘whatif...?’questions(Ravetz,1997),to con-sidercontingency,whatisknown,whatislikely,whatisplausible and what is possible.Anticipation involvessystematic thinking aimedatincreasingresilience,whilerevealingnewopportunities forinnovationandtheshapingofagendasforsocially-robustrisk research.

Theattempttoimproveforesightinissuesofscienceand inno-vationisafamiliarthemeinscienceandinnovationpolicy(Martin,

Table1

Linesofquestioningonresponsibleinnovation.

Productquestions Processquestions Purposequestions

Howwilltherisksandbeneﬁtsbedistributed? Howshouldstandardsbedrawnupandapplied? Whyareresearchersdoingit?

Whatotherimpactscanweanticipate? Howshouldrisksandbeneﬁtsbedeﬁnedandmeasured? Arethesemotivationstransparentandin thepublicinterest?

Howmightthesechangeinthefuture? Whoisincontrol? Whowillbeneﬁt? Whatdon’tweknowabout? Whoistakingpart? Whataretheygoingtogain? Whatmightweneverknowabout? Whowilltakeresponsibilityifthingsgowrong? Whatarethealternatives?

(4)

2010).Thisisnottosaythereisashortageoffuture-gazing.Indeed, thereisagrowingliteratureinSTSconcernedwithscientists’and innovators’‘imaginaries’ of thefuture (van Lente,1993; Brown etal.,2000;Fortun,2001;BrownandMichael,2003;Hedgecoeand Martin,2003;Fujimura,2003;Borupetal.,2006;Selin,2007).These expectationsworknotjusttopredictbutalsotoshapedesirable futuresandorganiseresourcestowardsthem(teKulveandRip, 2011).Researchingenomicsandnanotechnologyhas,forexample, beenshowntocarryhighlyoptimisticpromisesofmajorsocialand industrialtransformation,suggestinganeedforwhatFortun(2005) calls‘anethicsofpromising’toinstilsomeformofresponsibility indisentanglingpresenthypefromfuturereality(Brown,2003). Anyprocessofanticipationthereforefacesatensionbetween pre-diction,whichtendstoreifyparticularfutures,andparticipation, whichseekstoopenthemup.

Upstreampublicengagement(WilsdonandWillis,2004)and Constructive Technology Assessment (Rip et al., 1995) are two techniquesthat involveanticipatorydiscussions ofpossibleand desirablefutures.GustonandSarewitz’s(2002)‘Real-Time Tech-nologyAssessment’isanothermodelofwhattheycall‘anticipatory governance’(see also Barben et al.,2008; Karinen and Guston, 2010). Anticipationis heredistinguished fromprediction in its explicitrecognitionofthecomplexitiesanduncertaintiesof sci-enceandsociety’sco-evolution(Barbenetal.,2008).Methodsof foresight, technologyassessment, horizon scanning or scenario planningcanbe importanttechniques,although used narrowly theyriskexacerbatingtechnologicaldeterminism.Scenarios(Selin, 2011;Robinson,2009)andvisionassessment(GrinandGrunwald, 2000) have been used in various settings. Some scholars (e.g. MillerandBennett,2008)havealsosuggestedthatsocio-literary techniquesdrawingonscienceﬁctionmaybepowerfulwaysto democratisethinkingaboutthefuture.

Muchoftheacademicliteratureheremakesthepointthat suc-cessfulanticipationalsorequiresunderstandingofthedynamics ofpromisingthatshapetechnologicalfutures(Borupetal.,2006; Selin,2011;vanLenteandRip,1998).Anticipatoryprocessesneed tobewell-timedsothattheyareearlyenoughtobeconstructivebut lateenoughtobemeaningful(Rogers-HaydenandPidgeon,2007). Theplausibilityofscenariosisanimportantfactorintheirsuccess (Selin,2011;vonSchomberg,2011c)andweshouldnot underes-timatetheworkinvolvedinbuildingrobusttoolsforanticipation (Robinson,2009).Wemustalsorecogniseinstitutionaland cul-turalresistancetoanticipation.AsGuston(2012)pointsout,alack ofanticipationmaynotjustbeaproductofreductionismand dis-ciplinarysiloes.Itmay,atleastinpart,beintentionalasscientists seektodefendtheirautonomy(Guston,2012).

2.2. Reﬂexivity

Responsibilitydemands reflexivity onthepartofactors and institutions,butthisisnotstraightforwardlydefined.Lynch(2000) unpacks the word ‘reflexivity’ to reveal its multiple meanings and modes of engagement with social worlds. Social theorists (Beck,1992; Becketal., 1994)have arguedthatreflexivity is a condition of contemporary modernity. Scientists’ own version of reflexivity often echoes Popper’s (1963) argument that self-referentialcritique is anorganising principleof science(Lynch, 2000).We would argue,following Wynne (1993), that there is a demonstrated need for institutional reflexivity in governance. Reflexivity,atthelevelofinstitutionalpractice,meansholdinga mirroruptoone’sownactivities,commitmentsandassumptions, beingawareofthelimitsofknowledge andbeingmindfulthat a particular framing of an issue may not be universally held. Thisissecond-orderreflexivity(Schuurbiers,2011)inwhichthe valuesystems and theoriesthat shape science, innovation and theirgovernancearethemselvesscrutinised.Unlike theprivate,

professionalself-critiquethatscientistsareusedto,responsibility makesreﬂexivityapublicmatter(Wynne,2011).

Mechanismssuchascodesof conduct,moratoriumsandthe adoptionofstandardsmaybuildthissecond-orderreflexivityby drawingconnectionsbetweenexternalvaluesystemsand scien-tificpractice(Busch,2011;vonSchomberg,2013).Recentattempts tobuildreflexivityhavetendedtofocusatthelaboratorylevel, oftenwiththeparticipationofsocial scientists orphilosophers. Theargumentisthatin thebottom-up,self-governingworldof science,laboratoryreflexivitybecomesavitalleverforopeningup alternativesthroughenhancingthe“reflectionsofnatural scien-tistsonthesocio-ethicalcontextoftheirwork”(Schuurbiers,2011, p.769;alsoseeSchuurbiersandFisher,2009).Approachessuchas ‘midstreammodulation’(Fisheretal.,2006;Fisher,2007)and ‘eth-icaltechnologyassessment’(Swierstraetal.,2009)givefamiliar ethnographicSTSlaboratorystudiesaninterventionistturn(see Doubleday,2007forasimilarapproach).RosalynBerne’s(2006) accountofherinterviewswithnanoscientistssuggestsasimilar intention.Theconversationbecomesatoolforbuildingreflexivity. Wynne(2011)concludesthat,whilethisworkhasbeen demon-strablysuccessfulinbeginningtobuildreflexivityatthelaboratory level,suchconceptsandpracticesneedtobeextendedtoinclude researchfunders,regulatorsandtheotherinstitutionsthat com-prisethepatchworkofsciencegovernance(aconclusionthathas alsosurfacedfrompublicdialoguesinareasofsyntheticbiologyand beyond(e.g.TNS-BRMB,2010)).Theseinstitutionshavea respon-sibilitynotonlytoreflectontheirownvaluesystems,butalsoto helpbuildthereflexivecapacitywithinthepracticeofscienceand innovation.

Building actors’ and institutions’ reflexivity means rethink-ing prevailing conceptions about the moral division of labour withinscienceandinnovation(SwierstraandRip,2007).Reflexivity directlychallengesassumptionsofscientificamoralityand agnos-ticism.Reflexivityasksscientists,inpublic,toblurtheboundary betweentheirroleresponsibilitiesandwider,moral responsibili-ties.Itthereforedemandsopennessandleadershipwithincultures ofscienceandinnovation.

2.3. Inclusion

Thewaningoftheauthorityofexpert,top-downpolicy-making hasbeenassociatedwithariseintheinclusionofnewvoicesinthe governanceofscienceandinnovationaspartofasearchfor legiti-macy(Irwin,2006;Feltetal.,2007;Hajer,2009).Overthelasttwo decades,particularlyinNorthernEurope,newdeliberativeforums onissuesinvolvingscienceandinnovationhavebeenestablished, movingbeyondengagementwithstakeholderstoinclude mem-bersofthewiderpublic(e.g.RCEP,1998;Grove-Whiteetal.,1997; WilsdonandWillis,2004;Stirling,2006;MacnaghtenandChilvers, forthcoming).

These small-group processes of public dialogue, usefully describedas‘mini-publics’byGoodinandDryzek(2006),include consensus conferences, citizens’ juries, deliberative mapping, deliberativepollingandfocusgroups (seeChilvers,2010).Often under the aegis of quasi-governmental institutions such as Sciencewise-ERCintheUKortheDanishBoardofTechnology,these can,accordingtotheUKgovernment,“enable[public]debateto takeplace‘upstream’inthescientiﬁcandtechnologicalprocess” (HMTreasury/DTI/DfES,2004,p.105;seealsoRoyalSociety/Royal AcademyofEngineering,2004).Additionally,wecanpointtothe useof multi-stakeholderpartnerships, forums, the inclusion of laymembersonscientiﬁcadvisorycommittees,andotherhybrid mechanismsthatattempttodiversifytheinputstoanddeliveryof governance(Callonetal.,2009;Bäckstrand,2006;Brown,2002).

The practice of these exercises in inclusive governance and theirimpactonpolicymakinghasbeenuneven,andhasattracted

(5)

substantialcritique(amongothers,seeHorlick-Jonesetal.,2007; Kerretal.,2007;Rothstein,2007).Publicengagement practition-erscanbeaccusedoffollowinganemergingorthodoxy,withan assumed reasoning that “the technical is political, the political shouldbedemocraticandthedemocraticshouldbeparticipatory” (Moore, 2010, p. 793). In response, STS scholarship has begun to problematise public dialogue as a public good in itself (see Chilvers, 2009). The proliferation of participatory approaches activitieshasledtoargumentsforgreaterclarityaboutthe meth-odsof participation,thepurposes for which theyareused and the criteria against which they might beevaluated (Rowe and Frewer,2000,2005).Inaddition,agrowingbodyofcritiquehas developed, drawing attention to, among other things: framing effects within dialogue processes which can reinforce existing relations of professional power and deﬁcit understandings of thepublic(Wynne,2006;Kerretal.,2007),thusconstituting,at times, a new “tyranny” withquestionable beneﬁts (Cooke and Kothari,2001);thewaysinwhichengagementprocessesconstruct particular kinds of publics that respondto contingent political imaginaries(LezaunandSoneryd,2007;MacnaghtenandGuivant, 2011; MichaelandBrown, 2005);and thediverse, occasionally competingmotivationsthatunderpindialogue(seeFiorino,1989; Stirling,2008;MacnaghtenandChilvers,forthcoming).

Irwinandcolleaguessuggest,however,that“the(oftenimplicit) evocationofthehighestprinciplesthatengagementmightideally fulﬁlcanmakeitdifﬁculttoacknowledgeandpayseriousattention tothevarietiesofengagementthatareverymuchlessthanperfect butstillsomehow‘good”’(Irwinetal.,2013,p.120).Theimportance ofpublicdialoguein“openingup”(Stirling,2008)framingsofissues thatchallengeentrenchedassumptionsandcommitmentshasbeen emphasised(Lövbrandetal.,2011).Andwhiletherehasbeena resistancetoattemptstoproceduralisepublicdialogueforfearthat itbecomesanothermeansofclosure(Wynne,2005;Stirling,2008) ortechnocracy(Rose,1999;LezaunandSoneryd,2007),therehave beeneffortstodevelopcriteriaaimedatassessingthequalityof dialogueasalearningexercise.Onthelatter,Callonetal.(2009, p.160)offerthreecriteria:intensity–howearlymembersofthe publicareconsultedandhowmuchcareisgiventothe compo-sitionofthediscussiongroup;openness–howdiversethegroup isandwhoisrepresented;andquality–thegravityand continu-ityofthediscussion.Inrelationtowhatactuallyisatstakeinthe advanceofnewscienceandtechnology,Grove-Whiteetal.(2000) arguethatpublicdialogueneedstoopenupdiscussionoffuture socialworlds(buildingonthedimensionofanticipation)inways thatcriticallyinterrogatethe‘socialconstitutions’inherentin tech-nologicaloptions–thatis,thedistinctivesetofsocial,politicaland ethicalimplicationsthattheirdevelopmentwouldlikelybringinto being(seeMacnaghten,2010foranarticulationofthisapproach withrespecttonanotechnologyandMacnaghtenandSzerszynski, 2013ongeoengineering).

Processesofinclusion inevitablyforceconsiderationof ques-tionsofpower.Agenciescommissioningsuchexercises,facilitators and public participants may all have different expectations of theinstrumental, substantiveor normativebeneﬁtsof dialogue (Stirling, 2008).There shouldberoomtherefore for publicand stakeholdervoicestoquestiontheframingassumptionsnotjustof particularpolicyissues(Grove-Whiteetal.,1997;Jasanoff,2003), butalsoofparticipationprocessesthemselves(vanOudheusden, 2011).Observedbottom-upchangeswithininnovationprocesses mayengendergreaterinclusion.User-driven(vonHippel,1976, 2005),open(Chesbrough,2003),opensource(Raymond, 1999), participatory(BuurandMatthews,2008)andnetworked innova-tion(Powelletal.,1996)allsuggestthepossibilityofincludingnew voicesindiscussionsoftheendsaswellasthemeansof innova-tion,althoughitremainstobeseenwhether,ﬁrst,thesetrendsare aswidespreadanddisruptiveastheirproponentsclaimandsecond,

whethertheyinrealityresembleoutsourcingratherthangenuine formsof‘collectiveexperimentation’(Callonetal.,2009,p.18).

Itis farfromclearwhethercurrentorpastattemptsat pub-licengagement,takentogether,canbesaidtoconstitutea new governanceparadigm.Rather,theymightberegardedasa pro-cessof‘ongoingexperimentation’(Lövbrandetal.,2011,p.487), asymptomofchangesingovernancerather thanacentrepiece, mixingoldandnewgovernanceassumptions(Irwin,2006).Such processesmightthereforebeconsideredlegitimateiftheir ambi-tionsaremodestandiftheSTSscholarswhoadvocatedialogue arewilling“toputtheirownnormativecommitmentsthroughthe testofdeliberation”(Lövbrandetal.,2011,p.489).Attentionhas alsobeendrawntothe“institutionalpreconditionsfor delibera-tion” (Lövbrandet al.,2011,p. 491).Dryzek (2011)arguesthat deliberativeprocessesareonlypartofthe‘deliberativesystems’ thatarerequiredtoconferlegitimacy(seealsoGoodinandDryzek, 2006).

2.4. Responsiveness

Thereexista rangeof processesthroughwhich questionsof responsibleinnovationcanbeasked(seeTable2).Someofthese processesfocusquestioningonthethreedimensionsof respon-sibleinnovation above.Afew approaches, suchasConstructive TechnologyAssessment(Ripetal.,1995), Real-TimeTechnology Assessment (Guston and Sarewitz, 2002), midstream modula-tion (Fisher et al., 2006) and anticipatory governance (Barben etal.,2008),seektointerrogatemultipledimensions.However, forresponsibleinnovationtohavepurchase,itmustalsoseekto respondtosuchquestions.

Responsibleinnovationrequiresacapacitytochangeshapeor directioninresponsetostakeholderandpublicvaluesand chang-ing circumstances. The limited capacity for empowering social agency in technological choice and the modulation of innova-tiontrajectorieshasbeenasigniﬁcantcriticismoftheimpactof publicengagement(e.g.Stirling,2008;MacnaghtenandChilvers, forthcoming).Wemustthereforeconsiderhowsystemsof inno-vationcanbeshapedsothattheyareasresponsiveaspossible. Pellizzonidescribesresponsivenessas“anencompassingyet sub-stantiallyneglecteddimensionofresponsibility”(Pellizzoni,2004, p. 557). Drawing an explicitlink toinclusion, he suggeststhat responsivenessisaboutadjustingcoursesofactionwhile recog-nisingtheinsufﬁciencyofknowledgeandcontrol(withechoesof Collingridge’saspirationof‘corrigibility’(Collingridge,1980)).Its twoaspectsrelatetothetwomeaningsofthewordrespond–to reactand toanswer(Pellizzoni,2004).Responsivenessinvolves respondingtonewknowledgeasthis emergesandtoemerging perspectives,viewsandnorms.

Forresponsibleinnovationtoberesponsive,itmustbe situ-atedinapoliticaleconomyofsciencegovernancethatconsiders bothproductsandpurposes.IntheUK,Europeandperhapsmore broadly,wecanpoint togrowingpolicyinterestin ‘grand chal-lenges’(LundDeclaration,2009).vonSchomberg(2013)contends thatthecentralchallengeofresponsibleinnovationistobecome moreresponsivetosocietalchallenges.Butsuchchallengesarenot preordained,noraretheyuncontested.

Therearevariousmechanismsthatmightallowinnovationto respondtoimprovedanticipation,reﬂexivityandinclusion.Insome cases, application ofthe precautionary principle, a moratorium oracodeofconductmaybeappropriate.Existingapproachesto technologyassessmentandforesightmaybewidenedtoengender improvedresponsiveness(vonSchomberg,2013).Value-sensitive design(Friedman,1996)suggeststhepossibilityofdesigning par-ticularethicalvaluesintotechnology.Aswedescribeinthenext section’scasestudy,techniquessuchasstage-gatingcanalsocreate new,responsivegovernancechoices.

(6)

Table2

Fourdimensionsofresponsibleinnovation.

Dimension Indicativetechniquesandapproaches Factorsaffectingimplementation

Anticipation

Foresight Engagingwithexistingimaginaries

Technologyassessment Participationratherthanprediction

Horizonscanning Plausibility

Scenarios Investmentinscenario-building

Visionassessment Scientiﬁcautonomyandreluctancetoanticipate Socio-literarytechniques

Reﬂexivity

Multidisciplinarycollaborationandtraining Rethinkingmoraldivisionoflabour Embeddedsocialscientistsandethicistsinlaboratories Enlargingorredeﬁningroleresponsibilities

Ethicaltechnologyassessment Reﬂexivecapacityamongscientistsandwithininstitutions Codesofconduct Connectionsmadebetweenresearchpracticeandgovernance Moratoriums

Inclusion

Consensusconferences Questionablelegitimacyofdeliberativeexercises

Citizens’juriesandpanels Needforclarityabout,purposesofandmotivationfordialogue Focusgroups Deliberationonframingassumptions

Scienceshops Abilitytoconsiderpowerimbalances

Deliberativemapping Abilitytointerrogatethesocialandethicalstakesassociatedwith newscienceandtechnology

Deliberativepolling Qualityofdialogueasalearningexercise Laymembershipofexpertbodies

User-centreddesign Openinnovation

Responsiveness

Constitutionofgrandchallengesandthematicresearchprogrammes Strategicpoliciesandtechnology‘roadmaps’

Regulation Science-policyculture

Standards Institutionalstructure

Openaccessandothermechanismsoftransparency Prevailingpolicydiscourses Nichemanagementa _{Institutional}_cultures

Value-sensitivedesign Institutionalleadership

Moratoriums Opennessandtransparency

Stage-gatesb _Intellectual_property_regimes

Alternativeintellectualpropertyregimes Technologicalstandards

a_Schot_and_Geels₍₂₀₀₈₎_.

b _See_below_and_Macnaghten_and_Owen₍₂₀₁₁₎_for_an_example_of_this.

Diversityisanimportantfeatureofproductive,resilient, adapt-ableandthereforeresponsiveinnovationsystems(Stirling,2007). Responsible innovation should not just welcome diversity; it shouldnurtureit.Thismayrequireactivepoliciesof,for exam-ple, niche management (Schot and Geels, 2008). It certainly demandsexplicitscrutinyofthetensionsandgovernance mech-anismswithinprocessesofresearchfunding,intellectualproperty regimesandtechnologicalstandards,whichoftenacttoclosedown innovation in particular ways, and other norms, pressures and expectationsthatreinforceparticularpathdependenciesand lock-ins.Thesewilldifferacrosscountries,disciplinesandcontexts,but this‘defactogovernance’(KearnesandRip,2009)islikelytofollow whatPellizzoni(2004)calls‘alogicofunresponsiveness’(p.558) inwhich,ifresponsibilityisconsideredinanydepth,retrospective accountabilitytakesprecedence.

Empiricalresearch with governance actors in the UK, scru-tinising their receptivity to substantive public concerns about sciencegovernance,suggestssomeimportant mediatingfactors that are likely to improve institutional responsiveness. These include:adeliberativesciencepolicyculture,emphasising reﬂex-ivelearningandresponsiveness;anopenorganisationalculture, emphasisinginnovation,creativity,interdisciplinarity, experimen-tationandrisk taking;top-level leadershipandcommitmentto publicengagementand totakingaccountofthepublicinterest; and commitments to openness and transparency (Macnaghten andChilvers,forthcoming).Responsivenessisthereforelinkedto reﬂexivecapacity.

Wecanseethesocietalembeddingoftechnologiesas requir-ing a process of alignment (te Kulve and Rip, 2011; Fujimura, 1987)(or‘enrollment’,followingLatour(1987)).Actorsand inter-estsarearrangedsuchthattheyaredependentononeanother,so stabilisingaparticularsociotechnicalsystem.Theprojectof respon-sible governance requires understanding this ‘alignment work’

(te Kulve and Rip,2011).The midstream modulation approach describedinFisheretal.(2006)differentiatesbetweenthreelevels ofdecision-making:defacto,reﬂexiveanddeliberate,withtheaim ofiteratinggovernancethroughtheselevelstomakeassumptions moreexplicitanddecisionsmoredeliberate.4

Makinginnovationmoreresponsivealsorequiresattentionto metagovernance – thevalues, normsand principles that shape or underpin policy action (Kooiman and Jentoft, 2009). STS approacheshavehighlightedhowpolicydiscoursesshapethe gov-ernanceofemergingtechnologies(Hilgartner,2009;Laveetal., 2010).Thesegovernanceprinciplesmaybeexplicit,asinthecase oftheBayh–DoleactintheUS;implicit,aswiththegrowing pol-icyfocusontherelevanceand‘impact’ofresearch(Hesselsetal., 2009);ornascent,aswiththe‘grandchallenges’approach(Kearnes andWienroth,2011;LundDeclaration,2009).Atanoverarching level,theinsistence,particularlyinEuropeanpolicy,thatResearch andDevelopmentshouldbeincreasedinordertospureconomic growth,withnoquestionofwhichresearchorwhatdevelopments, provides,ithasbeenargued,apowerfulpolicydiscoursethatlimits responsiveness(vonSchomberg,2013;Feltetal.,2007).

2.5. Integratingthedimensionsofresponsibleinnovation

Moving beyondtherangeof processes described abovethat seektoadvancesingleormultipledimensions,responsible inno-vationdemandstheirintegrationandembeddingingovernance. Thedimensionsthereforedonotﬂoatfreelybutmustconnectasan integratedwhole.Itisnecessarytodrawconnectionsbothbetween thedimensions and withthe contextsof governance in which

4_Wynne₍₂₀₀₃₎_has_an_analogous_critique_of_{‘decisionism’}_–_the_discursive

(7)

theysit.Thedimensionsmayinpracticebemutuallyreinforcing. Forexample,increasedreﬂexivitymayleadtogreaterinclusion orvice versa. But,asillustrated inthe casestudy in Section3, thesedimensionsmayalsobeintensionwithoneanotherand maygeneratenewconﬂicts.5 _Anticipation_can_encourage _wider participation,but,asGuston(2012)argues,itmayberesistedby scientists seeking to protect their autonomy, or prior commit-mentstoparticulartrajectories(seealsoteKulveandRip,2011). Thesurfacingandsubsequentnegotiationofsuchtensionsis cen-traltomakingresponsibleinnovationresponsive.Forthisreason, institutionalcommitmenttoaframeworkthatintegratesallfour dimensions(withnoaprioriinstrumentalconditioning)becomes vital,ratherthanrelyingonpiecemealprocessesthathighlight par-ticulardimensionsandnotothers.

Publicdialogue,bioethics,researchintegrity,codesofconduct, riskmanagementandothermechanismsmaytargetpartsofthe governanceofscience,buttheydonotofferanoverarching, coher-entandlegitimategovernanceapproachunlessweconsiderhow theyarealignedwithoneanother.Approachesthatbuildon Con-structiveTechnologyAssessment(Ripetal.,1995)haverecognised thisneedforintegrationatmultiplelevelsofgovernance.For exam-ple,theUSprojectofSocio-TechnicalIntegrationResearch(STIR) takingplacearoundnanotechnologyseekstoexplore:“whatcounts asresponsibleinnovationatthemacro-levelofpublicpolicy,the micro-leveloflaboratoryresearch,andthemeso-levelof institu-tionalstructuresandpracticesthatconnectthem”(FisherandRip, 2013).

Theintegrationofthedimensionsdescribedaboveprovidesa generalframework,butattentiontotheresponsivenessdimension inparticulardemandsthatsuchaframeworkbeembeddedin par-ticularinstitutionalcontextsandadjustedtotakeaccountoftheir idiosyncrasies.Inthefollowingsection,wedescribetheapplication andfurtherdevelopmentofourframeworkwithinaUKResearch Councilandaparticularresearchprojectasacasestudyofthis.

3. Responsibleinnovationinaction:acasestudyof ‘technoscienceinthemaking’

WhilewewereworkingwiththeResearchCouncilstodevelop theframeworkdescribedabove,wewerepresentedwithan oppor-tunity to work alongside a particular science and engineering project. This case study allowed us to embed and deepen our thinking.In this sectionwe ﬁrstdescribe theparticularsofthe project,itsbroadersocio-politicalcontext,andthedefacto gover-nancearrangementsinplace.Wethendescribehowouremerging responsibleinnovationframeworkwasappliedwithinthiscontext. Finallywecriticallyreﬂectonthiscasestudy:ontheframework’s dimensions,itsimplementation,impactandlegitimacy,including, importantly,whetherit offeredameanstogenuinelyempower socialagencyintechnologicaldecision-making(Stirling,2008).

Thecase wastheStratosphericParticle InjectionforClimate Engineering(SPICE)project,funded bythreeUKresearch coun-cils(theEngineeringandPhysicalSciencesResearchCouncil,the NaturalEnvironmentalResearchCouncilandtheScienceand Tech-nologyFacilitiesCouncil).Theaimofthisprojectwastoinvestigate whetherthepurposefulinjectionoflargequantitiesofparticles intothestratospherecouldmimicthecoolingeffectsofvolcanic eruptionsandprovideapossiblemeanstomitigateglobal warm-ing(SPICE,2010).TheSPICEprojectwasfundedtoanswerthree broadquestions:First, what quantityof which type(s)of parti-clewouldneedtobeinjectedintotheatmosphere(andwhere), toeffectivelymanagetheclimatesystem?Second,howmightwe

5_We_are_indebted_to_an_anonymous_reviewer_for_inviting_us_to_explore_in_more

detailthetensionswithinandbetweenthedimensionswedescribe.

deliveritthere?Third,whatarethelikelyimpactsassociatedwith deployment?Inresponsetothesecondquestion,atestwas pro-posedofascaleddowndeliverysystem,a1-kmhighhoseattached toatetheredballoon.Althoughthetestbedwouldnotbea geoengi-neeringtestperse–thetrialwouldsprayonlyasmallamountof water–thetestbedneverthelessconstitutedtheUK’sﬁrstﬁeldtrial ofatechnologywithgeoengineeringpotential(Macnaghtenand Owen,2011),andwasassuchdeeplysymbolic,eventhoughthis symbolismwasnotinitiallyapparenttomanyofthoseinvolved. 3.1. Socio-politicalcontextforthecasestudy

Geoengineeringhasbeendeﬁnedasthe“deliberatelarge-scale manipulationoftheplanetaryenvironmenttocounteract anthro-pogenicclimatechange” (RoyalSociety, 2009, p.1).Within the spaceofafewyears,geoengineeringhasbecomeapowerful pol-icydiscourse,offeringanewclassofresponsetoanthropogenic climatechange, alongsidemitigationand adaptation (American MeteorologicalSociety,2009;RoyalSociety,2009;BipartisanPolicy CentreTaskForce,2011).Thosegeoengineeringapproachesclassed assolarradiationmanagement,whichareintendedtoreducethe amount of sunlight reachingthe Earth’s surface, have received particular attention because initialestimates suggest that they couldbebotheffectiveandrelativelycheapcomparedtothecost ofimplementinggreenhousegasmitigationpolicies(Boyd,2008; CaldeiraandKeith,2010;SRMGI,2011).

Although unformed and uncertain, solar radiation manage-mentintroducesarangeofsigniﬁcantsocial,politicalandethical questions. Theseinclude: whetherinternationalagreementand buy-inforsuchaplanetary-widetechnologyisplausible;whether researchintoordeploymentofsolarradiationmanagement geo-engineeringwillcreateamoralhazard,divertingpoliticalattention awayfromclimatemitigationefforts;whethertheimpactsofsolar radiation management can be fully understood before deploy-ment;whethersolarradiationmanagementcanbeaccommodated withindemocraticinstitutions;andwhetherthetechnologywould be used for other purposes, openingup the potential for new geopoliticalconﬂicts(forvariousaccountsofthesocialandethical dimensionsofsocialradiationmanagement,seeCorneretal.,2011; Hamilton,2013;Ipsos-MORI,2010;Owen,2011;Macnaghtenand Szerszynski,2013).Suchquestionshaveinformedgovernance ini-tiativesaimedattheresponsibleconductofgeoengineering(seethe ‘OxfordPrinciples’,Rayneretal.,2013)andsolarradiation manage-mentresearch(seethe‘SolarRadiationManagementGovernance Initiative’,SRMGI,2011).

3.2. TheSPICEproject:history

FollowingthepublicationoftheRoyalSociety’sgeoengineering reportin July2009and in responseto aspeciﬁc recommenda-tionthatUKResearchCouncilsco-fund“a10yeargeoengineering researchprogrammeattheleveloftheorderof

£

10Mperannum” (RoyalSociety,2009,p.xii),theResearchCouncilsconveneda scop-ingworkshopinOctober2009aimedatinformingaprogramme ofgeoengineeringresearch.Theaimwasto“fundresearchwhich willallowtheUKtomakeinformedandintelligentassessments aboutthedevelopmentofclimategeoengineeringtechnologies” (EPSRC/NERC/LWEC,2009,p.1).Anumberofthemesrelatingto governance, ethics, publicacceptability and public engagement werediscussedatthescopingworkshopbutthesewerenot con-sideredatoppriority.

ThesubsequentMarch2010‘sandpit’,conducted15–19March 2010, was set up by the Research Councils with the aim of “bringingtogetherresearchersfromnumerousbackgroundsand toencourageanddriveinnovativethinkingandradicalapproaches toaddressingresearchchallengesinthisarea”(EPSRC/NERC/LWEC,

(8)

Table3

OverviewofStage-gatecriteriaandpanelrecommendations.

Criterion RelevantRIdimensions Panelrecommendation CommentfromtheResearchCouncils(abridged) 1.Risksidentiﬁed,managedanddeemed

acceptable

Reﬂexivity Pass Nofurtherinformationrequired 2.Compliantwithrelevantregulations Reﬂexivity Pass Nofurtherinformationrequired 3.Clearcommunicationofthenatureand

purposeoftheproject

Reﬂexivity,inclusion Passpending Additionalworkisrequired:(1)acommunications strategyinformedbystakeholderengagement;(2)a commitmenttotwo-waycommunication;and(3)a‘sticky questions’brieﬁng

4.Applicationsandimpactsdescribedand mechanismsputinplacetoreviewthese

Anticipation,reﬂexivity Passpending Additionalworkisrequired:(1)moreinformationonthe envisagedmilestonesandassociatedquestions,thatwill needtobeaddressedbeforedeploymentofthetestbed;(2) aliteraturereviewofrisks,uncertaintiesandopportunities ofsolarradiationmanagementincludingsocialandethical dimensions

5.Mechanismsidentiﬁedtounderstand publicandstakeholderviews

Inclusion,reﬂexivity Passpending Additionalworkisrequired:(1)stakeholdermapping exercise;(2)engagementwithstakeholdersand(3) ensuringthatkeystakeholdersareawareofthetestbed

2010,p.2),althoughinvolvementofsocialscientistswaslimited. TheSPICEprojectwasoneoftwoprojectsfundedfromthissandpit anddidnotincludeethicsorsocialsciencecompetency.Awareof atleastsomeofthewiderethicalandsocio-politicaldimensionsof solarradiationmanagement(apointstressedbyapresenteratthe beginningofthesandpitfromanenvironmentalNon Governmen-talOrganisation(NGO)),theUKResearchCouncilsweresensitive tothepotentialfortheSPICEprojecttobethesubjectofexternal scrutiny,particularlygiventhatitsproposedtestbedmovedbeyond laboratorytestsorsimulationsandthuscouldbedeﬁnedasa“small ﬁeldtrial”(seeSRMGI,2011,p.26).

Perhapsunsurprisingly,theSPICEprojectpassedthroughthe ethics procedures at the Universities concerned with little or nocomment:theresearchdidnotinvolvehumanvolunteersor animals and the research was unlikely to have a direct effect ontheenvironment.Nevertheless,giventheevidentsensitivities involved,theResearchCouncilsdecidedupona‘stage-gate’review process,whichweusedtoincorporateourownemergingideasof responsibleinnovation.

3.3. Embeddingthedimensionsofresponsibleinnovationwithin SPICE

Stage-gatingisa well-establishedmechanismfor developing newproducts(Cooper,1990)bysplittingR&Dintodiscretestages. Decision gates use certain criteria for progression through the stages.Conventionallytheinputstothedecisiongatehavebeen basedontechnicalconsiderationsandmarketpotential.Inthecase oftheSPICEproject,thestage-gatewasconstructedtoincludeaset ofresponsibleinnovationcriteria(seeTable3),basedonthe dimen-sionswehavedescribedinSection2.Thedecisiongateinvolved anindependentpanelevaluatingtheSPICEteam’sresponsetothe criteriaandrecommendingtotheResearchCouncilswhetherthe testbedshouldproceed and, if so,under whatconditions. Two authorsofthispaperwereinvolvedinthedevelopmentand imple-mentationofthisgovernanceapproach:Owenwasthearchitect; Macnaghtenwaschairoftheindependentstage-gatepanel.Other membersofthestage-gatepanelincludedasocialscientist,a rep-resentativeofacivilsocietyorganisation,anatmosphericscientist andanaerospaceengineer.

Fivecriteriaweredevelopedforthestagegate.Criteria1and2 wererelatedtotheissuesandpotentialimpactsdirectlyassociated withthetestbeditself:thattheresearchwasconductedinways thatwereassessedtobesafeandcompliantwithexisting legisla-tion.Thesewerenotparticularlyrelatedtotheprospectivenotion ofresponsibilityasdevelopedinthispaperandwererespondedto comprehensively.Criteria3–5werehoweverconcernedwithwider

issuesandpotentialimpacts,associatedwithhowtheresearchwas framedandissuesrelatingtofuturedeployment.

Criterion3concernedframing,communicationanddialogue.It askedSPICEresearcherstodevelopacommunicationsapproach informedbydialoguewithdiversestakeholders,acknowledging areasofuncertaintyandignorance.Itbuiltondimensionsof inclu-sion(acommitmenttobasecommunicationsongenuinedialogue with stakeholders)and reflexivity (a commitment for commu-nications to demonstrate reflection on SPICE’s own embedded assumptions, commitments and framings). Criterion 4 required SPICEresearcherstoassessfutureapplicationsandimpacts, broad-ening their visions of application and impact, drawing on the dimensionsofanticipationandreflection.Itrequestedareviewof therisksanduncertaintiesofsolar-radiationmanagementaswell asreflectiononthequestions(social,ethicalandtechnical)that wouldhavetobeconsideredbetweenthetestbedand eventual deploymentofaworkingfull-sizesystem.Criterion5incorporated thedimensionsofinclusionandreflexivity,askingresearchersto engagedirectlywithstakeholdersandwiderpublicsandtoreflect upontheirowntacitunderstandings,assumptions,uncertainties, framingsandcommitments.

ThesecriteriaaredescribedinTable3,withreferencetothe dimensionsofresponsibleinnovation,alongwiththepanel rec-ommendationsandResearchCouncilresponses.

Thestage-gatepanelreviewedresponsesbytheSPICEteamto theﬁvecriteriainJune2011.Criteria1and2werepassed,butmore workwasrequestedtomeetCriteria3–5.

Thestage-gateitselfwasaprocessofresponsiveness.Whilethe panelassessmentwasindependent,thecriteriawerediscussedin advanceofthestagegatebetweenEPSRCofficialsandtheSPICE teamandsomesupportprovidedtoenablethemtoidentifywhat inputstheyshouldconsiderinordertorespond(forexample,on publicengagement,seePidgeonetal.,2013).EPSRCcreatedthe institutionalconditionsforthisnewgovernancemechanismand werewilling,withleadershipfromseniorstaff,tointerrogatetheir owninstitutionalresponsibilities.Therewasavisibledegreeofthe institutionalreflexivitydemandedbyWynne(1993).Nevertheless, thestage-gatereviewhadtofitwithinawidergovernance land-scape,partlydejure,partlydefacto.Thestate-gatereview was introducedaftertheprojecthadbeenfunded,withlittlescopefor deliberationonthemotivationsfortheresearchorwhetherthe researchshouldhavebeenfundedatall.Therewereconventional appealstoscientificautonomyandtotheauthorityofthe princi-palinvestigator.Therewereover-ridingassumptionsthatResearch Councildecision-makingshouldbescience-led,intheserviceof nationalcompetitiveness. Outsidethe Research Councils,policy bodiessuchastheEuropeanParliamentandtheUnitedNations ConventiononBiologicalDiversitywereurgingcautiononfield

(9)

testsofgeoengineering.Inaddition,the‘OxfordPrinciples’(Rayner etal., 2013)ongeoengineeringresearch,includingspeciﬁc rec-ommendationsforearlypublicparticipationindecision-making, hadrecentlybeenendorsedbytheUKHouseofCommonsScience andTechnologyCommittee.Thestage-gatebecameaforumforthe ResearchCouncils’negotiationofinternalandexternaldemands, blendingasubstantivemotivationtowardsgreaterresponsibility withaninstrumentalimperativetoprotectreputationsand rela-tionships.

InSeptember2011,followingtheadviceofthestage-gatepanel, EPSRCpostponedthetestbedtoallowtheteamtoundertakethe additionalworkrequested.Atthesametimeavocaldebatewas tak-ingplaceinthemedia.Followinganearlierannouncementbythe SPICEteamthatthetestbedwouldgoaheadimminently(SPICEhad decidedtocontinuetoprepareforthetestbedexperiment along-sidethe extraworkrequestedbythe stage-gatereview panel), EPSRCreceiveda letter in September2011, copiedto thethen UKSecretaryofStateforEnergyandClimateChangeandsigned bymorethan50NGOs,demandingthattheprojectbecancelled. TheNGOssawthetestbedassymbolic,sendingthewrongsignal totheinternationalcommunity,deﬂectingpoliticalandscientiﬁc attentionfromtheneedtocurbgreenhousegasemissions(HOME, 2011).

Thereisa risk withanynewgovernance mechanismthat it givestheillusionofcontrol.Thestage-gate’sambitionswere mod-est.Theprocesswasauseful‘hybridforum’(Callonetal.,2009) withinwhichtoopenupacomplexgovernancediscussion, sur-facingtensions,framings,tacitassumptions,areasofcontestation and,importantly,commitments.Assuch,itpromptedadiscussion ofsomeparticularissuesthatwouldturnouttobevital,evenif theywerenotmadeexplicitinthecriteria,andwerenotpredicted atthestartoftheprocess.

WhilerespondingtoCriterion3,bydrawingupa‘sticky ques-tions’briefing, theSPICEprojectleaderwasmadeawareofthe existenceofapriorpatentapplication(Davidsonetal.,2011)on theconceptofa tetheredballoonstratosphericparticledelivery mechanism.Thishadbeensubmittedbyoneofthementorsatthe ‘sandpit’priortothismeeting.Thepatentapplicationincludedone oftheSPICEprojectinvestigatorsasaco-author.Althoughthere wasnoevidencethatResearchCouncilrulessuchasthoseonvested interestshad beenbroken,given thesensitivitiesoftheproject, anindependentexternalreviewwascommissionedbyEPSRCto investigatethesandpitandfundingprocess.Later,inMay2012, afterdiscussionsbetweentheResearchCouncils,theSPICEproject leaderand one of this paper’s authors(Owen),the SPICEteam decidedtocancelthetestbed,citing thelackofrulesgoverning geoengineeringresearchandthefactthatthepatentapplication represented“apotentiallysignificantconflictofinterest”(Cressey, 2012,p.429).

3.4. ReﬂectionsontheSPICEproject

In the case of the SPICEproject, theresponsible innovation approach introduced reflection,anticipation, inclusive delibera-tionand responsiveness,materially influencing thedirectionof a contentious, charged and highly uncertain area of emerging technoscience. Specifically, the framework helped theresearch scientists,thestage-gatepanelandResearchCouncilofficialsto anticipatepreviouslyunexploredimpacts,applicationsandissues. ThoseinvolvedwereaskedtoreflectonSPICE’sembedded com-mitments,assumptions,promissorystatements,uncertaintiesand areasofignorance.Astheprojectdeveloped,therewasevidence ofamorereflexiveanddeliberativeresearchculturewithinSPICE andtheResearch Councils, notleastthroughon-going dialogue ontheprojectfromtheEPSRC’sadvisorySocietalIssuesPanel(of whichOwenandMacnaghtenweremembers),setuptohelpEPSRC

Counciltotakeaccountofpublicopinion.TheSPICEprinciple inves-tigator’sblog–‘Thereluctantgeoengineer’(Watson,2011)–reveals anemergingappreciationofthesocialandethicaldilemmas asso-ciatedwiththeprojectandagrowingreflexivityinrelationtohis own responsibilities.In terms of inclusion,theSPICE stagegate wasinformed,first,byapublicdialogueexercise,withresultsthat suggestedatbestahighlyqualifiedpublicsupportfortheproject (ParkhillandPidgeon,2011;Pidgeonetal.,2013)and,second,by aprogrammeofstakeholderengagement(Stilgoeetal.,submitted forpublication).Furtherreflectionanddeliberationbetweenthe SPICEteam,ResearchCouncilsandotherswereimportantinthe SPICEteam’sdecisionnot toproceedwiththetestbed,but itis importanttonotethatthisdecisionwasonemadebytheSPICE teamitself.

TheproposedSPICEtestbedoriginallyattractedtheattentionof NGOsbecauseofitspotentialtosetaprecedentforgovernance. Thesubsequentdebateandchangeofdirection–whatsomehave called‘theSPICEexperience’(Nature,2012;Olson,2012)–havehad adiscernibleimpactongeoengineeringresearchandgovernance discussionsforthesamereason.Althoughitisunclearhowthese discussionswillcontinue,theprecedentsetbytheSPICEproject anditsfundersinatleastacknowledgingwidercomplexitiesand responsibilitieslookssettoremainatalkingpoint.

Thiscase studyof responsible innovationin action has also highlightedsomeimportantlimitationsandconstraints.Itbecame apparentthattheframeworkshouldhavebeeninplaceearlier, beforetheproject’sconception,andarticulatedmoreclearly.The responsibleinnovationframeworkhadbeenseparatelyfundedand thenembeddedintotheSPICEprojectoncethelatterwas under-way.Theframeworkhadnoinfluenceontheconstitutionofthe projectwithinthesandpit,theframingofthesandpititselforthe scoping workshop that informedthis. It was thereforeopen to instrumentalconditioning.Nevertheless,itopeneduptheSPICE projectanditswidersocio-politicalcontexttobroaderreflection anddeliberation,providingahybridforumtosupportdecisionsby thefundersandscientists.Italsoservedanimportantfunctionas alocationforawiderethicaldiscussionconcerningsolarradiation managementresearchthroughatangibleexample.Thecase high-lightsthepotentialforaframeworktoinformdecision-makingin afieldwithlimitedgovernance,evenifthiswasrestrictedbythe natureandtimingofitsintervention.

4. Discussion

The framework for responsible innovation that we have describedstartswithaprospectivemodelofresponsibility,works throughfourdimensions,couplesanticipation,reﬂectionand delib-erationtoagencyandactionandmakesexplicittheneedtoconnect withcultures and practices of governance.For this reason, the case studythatwesetoutabovewasanimportantsitefor the framework’s development. In using the framework, actors and institutionswerechallengedtogobeyondcompliancewith estab-lishedregulation,inwaysthatchallengedconventionalroleand institutionalresponsibilities.

Theeventualoutcomeofthecasestudy–inwhichthetestbed waspostponedandsubsequentlycancelled–wasunexpected,but thiswasanimportantfeatureoftheframework.Theoutcomewas a productof thereﬂexiveprocess itself.The frameworksought nottoinstrumentallylegitimiseanyparticularframingor commit-ment.Insteaditservedtoguide,promptandopenupspacefor essentialgovernancediscussionsaimedatsupporting,butnot dic-tating,decisionsabouttheframing,direction,paceandtrajectoryof contentiousandinnovativeresearch.Althoughthecasestudywas limitedinscope,theadoptionofaresponsibleinnovationapproach promptedunconventionaland,asitturnedout,important gover-nancediscussions. Weshould notmake assumptions aboutthe

(10)

applicabilityorvalidityofourframeworkacrossallissues orat alllevelsofdecision-making,butwebelievethatourframework mayatleastprovideabasisfordiscussionsaspolicyandresearch enthusiasmforideasofresponsibleinnovationgrows.

Theframeworkwehavesuggesteddoesnotpretendtobean off-the-shelfquickﬁxforresponsiblegovernance.Itjoinsandseeksto constructivelyinformanemergingdebateonresponsibleresearch andinnovation.Ourframeworkdrawsoninsightsandexperiences fromtherecent governance developments (Real-Time Technol-ogyAssessment,ConstructiveTechnologyAssessment,upstream engagement,midstream modulationetc.)we describe above.It seekstoshapeaconstructiveengagementbetweenquestionsof responsibility and innovation that interrogatesthe purposes of innovationalongsidethemoreconventionalpreoccupationwith theproductsofinnovation.Theframeworkallowsscientistsand decisionmakerstobuildonpastlessonsratherthanreinventing responsibilitiesforeachparticularemergingtechnology.

Recentinstitutionalinclinations towardsresponsible innova-tion,thoughunder-conceptualisedatpresent,canbeseenaspartof amovetowardsanewgovernanceofscience.Responsible innova-tionisseenbysomeasaresponsetoaparticularauthoritygap.Itis thereforeimportanttointerrogatethelegitimacyofourframework (seealsoRandlesetal.,2012).

Lövbrandetal.(2011)pointtoalegitimacygapindeliberative engagementonscienceandtechnologyissues.Thereareproblems ofbothinputlegitimacy–howprocessesaresetupandrun–and outputlegitimacy–theefﬁcacyofgovernance.Theyclaimthat: “Thescienceandtechnologystudiesliteraturestillofferslittle guid-anceoninstitutionaldesign...[andis]oftenwearyofinstitutional realities.”(Lövbrandetal.,2011,p.480).Wewouldhopethatour frameworkprovidesacounterexampletothisassertion.In addi-tion,weheedLövbrandetal.’s(2011;seealsoChilvers,2012)call forself-reﬂectiononthegroundsonwhichlegitimacyisbased.6

Wecould,asvonSchomberg(2011a)hasdoneintheEuropean context,anchorresponsibleinnovationtothepursuitofparticular values:inhiscasethevaluesthatdriveEuropeanUnionpolicy.But indifferentareasofinnovation,andindifferentculturalcontexts, differentvalueswillbemoreorlesspertinent,andtheymaybe con-flicted.Inouranalysis,wehavethereforebeenreticenttoexplicitly definethenormativeends ofresponsibleinnovation(what von Schombergcallsthe‘rightimpacts’).Ourapproach,in linewith theconceptsofmetagovernancedescribedabove,hasconcentrated onthemeansofgovernancesuchthatanimproved–more demo-craticormorelegitimate–considerationofendsbecomespossible, andinwaysthatareattentivetothedistinctivesocialandethical stakesthatareassociatedwithparticularscientificand technolog-icaldevelopments.Inthissense,wehavesecond-ordernormative commitmentstodemocratisation,whichwe seeas vitalforthe goodgovernanceofscienceandinnovation.Wesupportthe feasi-bilityanddesirabilityofshapingorsteeringscienceandinnovation, asopposedtolettingthefuturetakecareofitself.Itisnotthe pur-poseofthispapertoexplorethefirstordernormativequestionof desirableends,althoughwewouldarguethatsuchadiscussionis important.

Ouraimsaremodestandincremental.Weareprovidingneither atoolkitnoramanifesto,butratheroneinputintoabroader dis-cussionthatishighlylikelytoshaperesearchpolicy(particularly intheEuropeanUnion)inthecomingyears.Responsible innova-tionwillinevitablybeadynamicconceptenactedatmultiplelevels (seeFisherandRip,2013).Wehaveconsidereditata‘meso-level’, emphasisingtheleadershiproleofResearchCouncilsindeveloping andimplementingtheframeworkthatwedescribe.Thelegitimacy

6 _We_are_grateful_to_an_anonymous_reviewer_for_asking_us_to_explore_our

norma-tivityinthisregard.

ofourframeworkisperhapsthereforebestimaginedinthespirit ofexperimentationsuggestedbyLövbrandetal.(2011;seealso Stilgoe,2012).Weseethesuggestedframeworkasawaytoguide governancedevelopmentsinordertoenablesociallearningand empowersocial agency.We would suggestthat theframework goesbeyondpreviousdeliberativeexperimentssothatgovernance institutionsandstructuresbecomepartoftheexperimental appa-ratus.

Ongoingexperiments(includingourown)shouldnotbetaken asevidenceofimplementation,andtheeasewithwhich ‘respon-sible (research and) innovation’ can be inserted into policy documentsshouldremindusoftherisksofinstrumentalisingthe phrase(seeOwenetal.,2012formorediscussion).Chilvers(2012) hasarguedthat,whiletheremaybesubstantiveenthusiasmforan openingupofdebatesaroundscienceandemergingtechnologies amongindividualgovernanceactors,institutionalandgovernance pressurestypicallyclosedownsuchprocessessuchthattheyare usedinaninstrumentalway(followingFiorino’s(1989)definition). We havediscussed elsewheresomefeatures and underlying policymotivationsoftheevolvingnationalandEuropean discuss-ions of responsible innovation in research policy (Owen et al., 2012).Reflectionsonthe‘responsible’inresponsibleinnovation arepromptingnewdiscussionsaboutremit,role,divisionoflabour andhowtrans-disciplinaryprogrammesofscienceandinnovation within,forexample,theEuropeanResearchAreashouldbe config-uredandresourced.Thesediscussionsnotonlyre-igniteanolder debateaboutscientificautonomybutalsooffernewopportunities forcreatingvalue.Thewaysinwhichtheconceptofresponsible innovationisbeingconstitutedshouldthemselvesbeopenedupto broadanticipation,reflectionandinclusivedeliberation,withthe aimofmakingpolicymoreresponsive.

Acknowledgements

Thispaperhasbeneﬁttedfrommanyaudiencesandexchanges. Inparticular,wewouldliketothankthefollowingindividualsfor theirhelpandsupportwiththedevelopmentoftheideasthatled tothispaper:JasonChilvers,NickCook,AttiEmecz,PeterFerris, ErikFisher,AndyGibbs,NicolaGoldberg,ChrisGroves,Dave Gus-ton,JeroenvandenHoven,HughHunt,RichardJones,Matthew Kearnes,KirstyKuo,ClaireMarris,JudithPetts,TomRodden,Dan Sarewitz,Rene VonSchomberg,AndyStirling,AlisonWall,Matt Watsonand Brian Wynne.Thepaper hasbeneﬁttedfrom com-mentsonanearlierdraftbythreeanonymousreviewersandby theeditorsofResearchPolicy.Thisresearchwassupportedbythe UKEngineeringandPhysicalSciencesResearchCounciland Eco-nomicandSocialResearchCouncil.GrantNo.:RES-077-26-0001. Anyerrorsofjudgementorshortcomingsremain,ofcourse,our own.

References

Adam,B.,Groves,G.,2011.Futurestended:careandfuture-orientedresponsibility. BulletinofScience,Technology&Society31,17–27.

American Meteorological Society, 2009. Geoengineering the Climate System: APolicy Statement of the American Meteorological Society. Washington, DC, Downloaded from: http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2009geoengineering climateamsstatement.html(01.02.13).

Arthur,W.,1989. Competingtechnologies,increasingreturns,andlock-inby his-toricalevents.EconomicJournal99,116–131.

Bäckstrand,K.,2006.Multi-stakeholderpartnershipsforsustainabledevelopment: rethinkinglegitimacy,accountabilityandeffectiveness.EuropeanEnvironment 16,290–306.

Barben,D.,Fisher,E.,Selin,C.,Guston,D.,2008. Anticipatorygovernanceof nano-technology:foresight,engagement,andintegration.In:Hackett,E.,Lynch,M., Wajcman,J.(Eds.),TheHandbookofScienceandTechnologyStudies.,thirded. MITPress,Cambridge,MA,pp.979–1000.